To be honest, I don't believe in a creator God, nor, as a consequence, do I believe that Jesus is the son of God/God in the flesh. Nevertheless, I do have a soft spot for Jesus as a spiritual teacher, and I think some of the things he's reported as saying in the New Testament are pretty cool—I especially like, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7), the Sermon on the Mount and his many teachings on forgiveness.
I've also found a growing appreciation for Christianity in general (although I do tend to lean more towards the heterodox), thanks in part to my dear friend, Simon (e.g., see my fairly recent blog post, "a new found appreciation").
That said, it's mainly because this day isn't just about the birth of Jesus that I find myself 'getting into the Christmas spirit.' Not only was this a time of celebration for a host of other ancient winter festivals (e.g., Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, Saturnalia, Yule, etc.), but it's the season that in modern times has been traditionally set aside for warm tidings and communion, regardless of who you are or what you believe, which is why I don't have any qualms about wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
need over greed: just say no to extending tax cuts for the wealthy
Today I was listening to parts of Senator Bernie Sanders' 8 1/2 hour filibuster (well, not technically since the vote isn't scheduled until Monday) of President Obama's tax cut deal with Republicans (calling it "Robin Hood in reverse") and found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of support for the deal among Democrats since it also includes an extension of unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months, and most conservatives (as well as many liberals) believe that raising taxes during a recession for anyone, especially the wealthy, is a terrible idea. I don't necessarily agree with that, though, and here's why:
A. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession is over, and has been since June 2009.
B. The tax cuts, which were unfunded and arguably removed a substantial amount of revenue from the federal budget, were meant to be temporary. Taxes wouldn't be 'raised' so much as they'd simply go back to 2003 rates once they naturally expire at the end of this year.
C. I think some good arguments can be made for allowing the tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 a year while extending the ones for those making less. For one thing, people making less than $250,000 generally spend a larger portion of their income instead of saving it (mostly out of necessity), which helps to stimulate the economy (for those of you who get excited about that kind of thing).
Conversely, according to an article in Bloomberg, tax cuts for people making considerably more don't really do much to help to stimulate the economy because, much like Plato's oligarch in the Republic, they tend to save (read 'hoard') it.
In addition, worker's average real wages (i.e., wages that are adjusted for inflation) rose every decade from 1820 to 1970, but have essentially stagnated for the last 30 years. Moreover, the majority of the increase in income there has been since 1980 (about 80%) has gone to the top 1%, and according to an article in Slate, "virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes."
D. As Warren Buffet famously pointed out, the top 1% pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than people who make considerably less. Using himself as an example, he paid 17.7% on the $46 million he made in 2007 while his secretary paid 30% on the $60,000 she made in the same year.
I think this is mainly due to the fact that the wealthiest Americans get the majority of their income from capital gains (e.g., Gerald Scorse points out that the top 1% owns nearly 40% of all privately held stock), which is taxed at a much lower rate than wages. Plus, there are a variety of deductions and loopholes that favour those at the top.
E. According to Donald Cohen, executive director for the Center on Policy Initiatives, this is the first time in our nation's history that we've "sent troops to battle without raising the revenues needed to fight that war."
Since 1812, the US government has either raised existing rates or instituted new taxes during wartime in order to fund its war efforts; however, Bush, in the midst of 2 separate conflicts, actually cut taxes. The more than $1 trillion dollars we've spent to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is essentially money that we've borrowed, particularly from countries like China and Japan.
What all of this means to me is that, at the very least, we shouldn't allow these tax cuts to become permanent. And if there is to be some sort of extension, I think it makes more sense to extend them for the people who'll actually spend the additional income (and who arguably need it more), thereby spurring demand and stimulating the economy, rather than the people who'll most likely tuck it away (and who arguable need it less).
That's why I completely agree with Sen. Sanders that instead of fighting to extend the unfunded Bush-era tax cuts — particularly for those making over $250,000 — Congress should be focusing on extending unemployment benefits for the over 2 million out of work Americans who desperately need it.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of support for the deal among Democrats since it also includes an extension of unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months, and most conservatives (as well as many liberals) believe that raising taxes during a recession for anyone, especially the wealthy, is a terrible idea. I don't necessarily agree with that, though, and here's why:
A. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession is over, and has been since June 2009.
B. The tax cuts, which were unfunded and arguably removed a substantial amount of revenue from the federal budget, were meant to be temporary. Taxes wouldn't be 'raised' so much as they'd simply go back to 2003 rates once they naturally expire at the end of this year.
C. I think some good arguments can be made for allowing the tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 a year while extending the ones for those making less. For one thing, people making less than $250,000 generally spend a larger portion of their income instead of saving it (mostly out of necessity), which helps to stimulate the economy (for those of you who get excited about that kind of thing).
Conversely, according to an article in Bloomberg, tax cuts for people making considerably more don't really do much to help to stimulate the economy because, much like Plato's oligarch in the Republic, they tend to save (read 'hoard') it.
In addition, worker's average real wages (i.e., wages that are adjusted for inflation) rose every decade from 1820 to 1970, but have essentially stagnated for the last 30 years. Moreover, the majority of the increase in income there has been since 1980 (about 80%) has gone to the top 1%, and according to an article in Slate, "virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes."
D. As Warren Buffet famously pointed out, the top 1% pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than people who make considerably less. Using himself as an example, he paid 17.7% on the $46 million he made in 2007 while his secretary paid 30% on the $60,000 she made in the same year.
I think this is mainly due to the fact that the wealthiest Americans get the majority of their income from capital gains (e.g., Gerald Scorse points out that the top 1% owns nearly 40% of all privately held stock), which is taxed at a much lower rate than wages. Plus, there are a variety of deductions and loopholes that favour those at the top.
E. According to Donald Cohen, executive director for the Center on Policy Initiatives, this is the first time in our nation's history that we've "sent troops to battle without raising the revenues needed to fight that war."
Since 1812, the US government has either raised existing rates or instituted new taxes during wartime in order to fund its war efforts; however, Bush, in the midst of 2 separate conflicts, actually cut taxes. The more than $1 trillion dollars we've spent to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is essentially money that we've borrowed, particularly from countries like China and Japan.
What all of this means to me is that, at the very least, we shouldn't allow these tax cuts to become permanent. And if there is to be some sort of extension, I think it makes more sense to extend them for the people who'll actually spend the additional income (and who arguably need it more), thereby spurring demand and stimulating the economy, rather than the people who'll most likely tuck it away (and who arguable need it less).
That's why I completely agree with Sen. Sanders that instead of fighting to extend the unfunded Bush-era tax cuts — particularly for those making over $250,000 — Congress should be focusing on extending unemployment benefits for the over 2 million out of work Americans who desperately need it.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
re: ethno-religious race baiting needs to stop
Today, I received this comment to my relatively recent post, ethno-religious race baiting needs to stop:
To be honest, I have mixed ideas about this. On the one hand, religion is, among other things, a creative expression of our search for happiness, meaning and truth in a seemingly infinite universe. Religion can be a beautiful thing that brings communities together, as well as bring individuals closer to a happiness that transcends much of the suffering and unsatisfactoriness seemingly inherent in this fragile thing we call life.
I've heard people express their desire to "kill religion" (e.g., Dawkins et al.), and I can understand some of their reasoning for making such statements, especially when you have people using religion to justify suicide bombing and discrimination against gays, women, etc., but I also can't help but think that doing so would come at a great cost to humanity in that we'd be losing an important part of what makes us human.
On the other hand, religion is, admittedly, being used to justify and even instigate violence and oppression, and that's a real problem. Nevertheless, I think that when we dig a little bit deeper, it becomes apparent that there's a lot more going on than meets the eye. For one thing, it's not just the religions themselves that need to be scrutinized, but also the cultures that are influenced by these religious traditions and in which these religions traditions initially took shape.
I think it's fair to say that certain people and cultures are more intolerant and prone to using religious teachings to justify violence, but I'm not sure it's fair to single out a specific religion, such as Islam, for example, because, they way I see it, it's not religion that makes people dangerous so much as it's people who make religion dangerous. And the same can be said about almost anything, especially political ideologies. (It was democracy that killed Socrates, after all.)
Regardless of what certain Muslims have done, I think my point still stands that what people term 'religious intolerance and violence' more often than not has to do with cultural attitudes and influences than the religions themselves. I'm originally from Michigan, which has the largest proportion of Arab Americans in the country, and I've never seen or even heard about anything remotely like this going on there, and I'd argue that this is mostly likely due to differences in this particular community's culture than in their religious beliefs (which, of course, is predominately Muslim).
That's not to say religious teachings don't contribute to these attitudes in general (Lev 20:13 and the discrimination against gays immediately comes to mind), and I'm not saying that people and groups who follow Islam don't ever resort to violence, but I do question the reason why people automatically single out the religious identity of Muslims who commit violent acts but rarely seem to do them same when it comes to non-Muslims. For example, there's been a fairly large number of what I'd call 'Christian' terrorists throughout the world using their political and religious beliefs as a justification for violence in the past four decades (e.g., the IRA, the Orange Volunteers, the Lord's Resistance Army, the Army of God, Timothy McVeigh, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the 2002 Soweto bombings, Scott Roeder, Hutaree, etc.), yet nobody in the US really seems to be calling out Christianity because of it.
And despite the fact the Jesus never killed anyone, as the link provided above points out, his 'heavenly father,' if we believe the accounts in the Old Testament, is arguably responsible for a great number of deaths. It seems to me that to be consistent in their theology, Christians need to do one of two things: (1) accept the validity of the Old Testament and all the things that God supposedly did/said, which includes accepting that God ordered the deaths of every man, woman and child in Canaan (Deut 20:16-18), or (2) reject the Old Testament completely and stop including it as a part of their Bible. The way I see it, either God mellowed out a whole lot after the birth of his son, Jesus, or the God of the Old Testament is an entirely different deity from the God of the New Testament.
But I'm getting slightly off-point here. I'm not trying to write a polemic against Christianity, I'm simply suggesting that people, atheist or otherwise, shouldn't be going around claiming that Islam is a more violent and less tolerant religion than Christianity when Christianity's own history is, quite frankly, full of violence and intolerance as well (e.g., the various Crusades, which we against fellow Christians, Jews and Muslims; medieval pogroms against the Jews, etc.; and then there are things like Uganda's anti-homosexual bill that was inspired in part by an American, evangelical conference, held a month before, whose theme was "the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda").
This brings me to another point. I think that even beyond the cultural and religious roots of violence, there are other factors which should be taken into consideration as well. One question I think needs to be asked is whether one considers ethnic/political/territorial violence the same as religious violence if the people involved also have different religious views.
Much of the violence in Gaza and the West banks, for example, has to do with land/border disputes that's also fueled by ethnic, political and religious antagonisms, yet many people only focus on the religious identity of one side. The same applies to Darfur, where I'd argue the violence is predominately ethnic in nature, i.e., the majority Arab/Muslim north is fighting with the majority the non-Arab ('African')/Muslim south.
Then there's Somalia, which is in the mess it's in due to a variety of factors, from the collapse of its government following a bloody civil war to foreign ships dumping nuclear waste and heavy metals off its coast and overfishing their coastal waters. The consequence of all these events has been Somalia fishermen turning to piracy to survive, and extremist militants who also happen to be Muslim exploiting Somalia's power vacuum.
As for Afghanistan, which has taken centre stage in the 'War on Terror,' it has elements of all the above. Not only is it composed of a combination of competing ethic, religious and political groups, the country itself hasn't had a relatively stable and viable government since the assassination of President Daoud by the PDPA. Prior to that, Afghanistan was in the process of developing its modern industries and education system, as well as reaching out to the outside world (e.g., joining the League of Nations, establishing ties with the USSR, UK, US, etc.).
And to make matters worse, besides seeing its fair share of violent coups and civil wars, Afghanistan has experienced a slew of foreign invasions by predominately white, non-Muslims, from the Brits, to the Russians, and now us. It's no wonder that many average Afghans, who are often young, poor and illiterate, deludedly join the Taliban in an effort to defend their country and their faith. It should also be kept in mind that the US via the CIA supported the Mujahideen's Islamic/nationalist resistance against the Soviets, going so far as to help arm and train Mujahideen resistance fighters.
Certainly we can say that much of above mentioned violence has religious roots and/or underpinnings, but I think that simply blaming Islam is not only misleading, it's a serious mistake since doing so ignores many of the equally important and often overlooked causes for the continuing violence (e.g., ethnic tension, political instability, territorial disputes, etc.).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that simply blaming everything on the Islamic religion, without acknowledging any of the other underlying factors contributing to the violence we're currently seeing, is a gross oversimplification of the problem, and the push by the right to single out Muslims is little more than a new form of red-baiting a la Joseph McCarthy. All one has to do is look at the recent comments from Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, singling out Rep. Keith Ellison's religious identity for that to be apparent:
Just replace the word 'Muslim' with 'communist,' and forget the fact that the claim by Phillips and Lynne Torgerson, Ellison's opponent, that CAIR is linked to Hamas and Hezbollah is completely unsubstantiated, and you've got the 1950s all over again.
In respect to your last paragraph, I found this webpage this morning:
http://www.markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html
The owner of this site is an atheist, btw.
To be honest, I have mixed ideas about this. On the one hand, religion is, among other things, a creative expression of our search for happiness, meaning and truth in a seemingly infinite universe. Religion can be a beautiful thing that brings communities together, as well as bring individuals closer to a happiness that transcends much of the suffering and unsatisfactoriness seemingly inherent in this fragile thing we call life.
I've heard people express their desire to "kill religion" (e.g., Dawkins et al.), and I can understand some of their reasoning for making such statements, especially when you have people using religion to justify suicide bombing and discrimination against gays, women, etc., but I also can't help but think that doing so would come at a great cost to humanity in that we'd be losing an important part of what makes us human.
On the other hand, religion is, admittedly, being used to justify and even instigate violence and oppression, and that's a real problem. Nevertheless, I think that when we dig a little bit deeper, it becomes apparent that there's a lot more going on than meets the eye. For one thing, it's not just the religions themselves that need to be scrutinized, but also the cultures that are influenced by these religious traditions and in which these religions traditions initially took shape.
I think it's fair to say that certain people and cultures are more intolerant and prone to using religious teachings to justify violence, but I'm not sure it's fair to single out a specific religion, such as Islam, for example, because, they way I see it, it's not religion that makes people dangerous so much as it's people who make religion dangerous. And the same can be said about almost anything, especially political ideologies. (It was democracy that killed Socrates, after all.)
Regardless of what certain Muslims have done, I think my point still stands that what people term 'religious intolerance and violence' more often than not has to do with cultural attitudes and influences than the religions themselves. I'm originally from Michigan, which has the largest proportion of Arab Americans in the country, and I've never seen or even heard about anything remotely like this going on there, and I'd argue that this is mostly likely due to differences in this particular community's culture than in their religious beliefs (which, of course, is predominately Muslim).
That's not to say religious teachings don't contribute to these attitudes in general (Lev 20:13 and the discrimination against gays immediately comes to mind), and I'm not saying that people and groups who follow Islam don't ever resort to violence, but I do question the reason why people automatically single out the religious identity of Muslims who commit violent acts but rarely seem to do them same when it comes to non-Muslims. For example, there's been a fairly large number of what I'd call 'Christian' terrorists throughout the world using their political and religious beliefs as a justification for violence in the past four decades (e.g., the IRA, the Orange Volunteers, the Lord's Resistance Army, the Army of God, Timothy McVeigh, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the 2002 Soweto bombings, Scott Roeder, Hutaree, etc.), yet nobody in the US really seems to be calling out Christianity because of it.
And despite the fact the Jesus never killed anyone, as the link provided above points out, his 'heavenly father,' if we believe the accounts in the Old Testament, is arguably responsible for a great number of deaths. It seems to me that to be consistent in their theology, Christians need to do one of two things: (1) accept the validity of the Old Testament and all the things that God supposedly did/said, which includes accepting that God ordered the deaths of every man, woman and child in Canaan (Deut 20:16-18), or (2) reject the Old Testament completely and stop including it as a part of their Bible. The way I see it, either God mellowed out a whole lot after the birth of his son, Jesus, or the God of the Old Testament is an entirely different deity from the God of the New Testament.
But I'm getting slightly off-point here. I'm not trying to write a polemic against Christianity, I'm simply suggesting that people, atheist or otherwise, shouldn't be going around claiming that Islam is a more violent and less tolerant religion than Christianity when Christianity's own history is, quite frankly, full of violence and intolerance as well (e.g., the various Crusades, which we against fellow Christians, Jews and Muslims; medieval pogroms against the Jews, etc.; and then there are things like Uganda's anti-homosexual bill that was inspired in part by an American, evangelical conference, held a month before, whose theme was "the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda").
This brings me to another point. I think that even beyond the cultural and religious roots of violence, there are other factors which should be taken into consideration as well. One question I think needs to be asked is whether one considers ethnic/political/territorial violence the same as religious violence if the people involved also have different religious views.
Much of the violence in Gaza and the West banks, for example, has to do with land/border disputes that's also fueled by ethnic, political and religious antagonisms, yet many people only focus on the religious identity of one side. The same applies to Darfur, where I'd argue the violence is predominately ethnic in nature, i.e., the majority Arab/Muslim north is fighting with the majority the non-Arab ('African')/Muslim south.
Then there's Somalia, which is in the mess it's in due to a variety of factors, from the collapse of its government following a bloody civil war to foreign ships dumping nuclear waste and heavy metals off its coast and overfishing their coastal waters. The consequence of all these events has been Somalia fishermen turning to piracy to survive, and extremist militants who also happen to be Muslim exploiting Somalia's power vacuum.
As for Afghanistan, which has taken centre stage in the 'War on Terror,' it has elements of all the above. Not only is it composed of a combination of competing ethic, religious and political groups, the country itself hasn't had a relatively stable and viable government since the assassination of President Daoud by the PDPA. Prior to that, Afghanistan was in the process of developing its modern industries and education system, as well as reaching out to the outside world (e.g., joining the League of Nations, establishing ties with the USSR, UK, US, etc.).
And to make matters worse, besides seeing its fair share of violent coups and civil wars, Afghanistan has experienced a slew of foreign invasions by predominately white, non-Muslims, from the Brits, to the Russians, and now us. It's no wonder that many average Afghans, who are often young, poor and illiterate, deludedly join the Taliban in an effort to defend their country and their faith. It should also be kept in mind that the US via the CIA supported the Mujahideen's Islamic/nationalist resistance against the Soviets, going so far as to help arm and train Mujahideen resistance fighters.
Certainly we can say that much of above mentioned violence has religious roots and/or underpinnings, but I think that simply blaming Islam is not only misleading, it's a serious mistake since doing so ignores many of the equally important and often overlooked causes for the continuing violence (e.g., ethnic tension, political instability, territorial disputes, etc.).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that simply blaming everything on the Islamic religion, without acknowledging any of the other underlying factors contributing to the violence we're currently seeing, is a gross oversimplification of the problem, and the push by the right to single out Muslims is little more than a new form of red-baiting a la Joseph McCarthy. All one has to do is look at the recent comments from Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, singling out Rep. Keith Ellison's religious identity for that to be apparent:
He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of Congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped Congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza.
Just replace the word 'Muslim' with 'communist,' and forget the fact that the claim by Phillips and Lynne Torgerson, Ellison's opponent, that CAIR is linked to Hamas and Hezbollah is completely unsubstantiated, and you've got the 1950s all over again.
Monday, October 11, 2010
happy indigenous peoples' day
Screw all this Columbus Day bullshit, I prefer to call today Indigenous Peoples' Day. Why? Because Columbus doesn't deserve a national fucking holiday, that's why.
I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.
What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide, and there's simply no justification for it. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK, and it's certainly not something to celebrate with a national holiday.
And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.
I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.
What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide, and there's simply no justification for it. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK, and it's certainly not something to celebrate with a national holiday.
And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
1994 all over again
Congressional midterm elections are just around the corner, and there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the Democrats right now. That's understandable considering what little of their 'progressive' agenda they've gotten accomplished so far, not to mention their incessant pandering on the platform of 'the least worst,' but that doesn't mean things will be any better with the Republicans back in power.
Of course, getting anything useful done in Congress is like pulling teeth regardless of the party in charge, but seriously, these people are more dangerous to personal freedom than they've ever been. They might say they want to reduce the size of our government because it's such a drain on national resources and inhibits economic growth, and are totally against government intrusion, but then they turn around and try to use the very same bloated government to force their conservative/religious values on the entire country.
If the Republicans get back into power again, they'll pull all the same old tricks like trying to prevent gay people from having equal rights; telling women what to do with their bodies; go back to pushing abstinence-only sex-ed; limiting or eliminating federally-funded stem-cell research; extending tax cuts that will only add to the growing deficit; increasing an already bloated military budget at the cost of everything else they can dismantle (e.g., public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc.); you get the idea. Heck, they'll probably even start another war just for the hell of it.
While the majority of Democrats in Congress are almost as bad, I think things will be far, far worse if the Republicans manage to sweet-talk their way back into power with their Pledge to America. It'll be 1994 all over again with Newt and his Contract with America, only worse because they'll have the Tea Party Express behind them, condemning masturbation, Muslims and the evil socialists on the left who want all Americans to actually have access to healthcare like they do in every other wealthy, industrialized nation on Earth.
In fact, conservatives are already bemoaning the threat of 'big government,' and promising to repeal the recent insurance reforms passed by Congress and signed by the president, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The question is, What would Republicans do to improve healthcare if they were in charge?
Well, at one end of the spectrum, there's Mike Huckabee. According to him, people with preexisting conditions are like houses that've already burned down, so I think his plan would be to essentially allow insurance companies to tell people with preexisting conditions to go fuck themselves since they'll just eat into their ridiculously large profit margins.
At the other end, there's Mitt Romney, who actually signed into law an insurance reform program when he was governor of Massachusetts that's similar to the reforms Obama signed into law this year, so he'd repeal 'Obamacare' and replace it with 'Romneycare,' which would basically be the same thing, but since he's a Republican, his individual mandate would somehow be more constitutional.
As for the rest, they'll probably fall somewhere in between these two positions, which means their ideas for improving healthcare in the U.S. will lie somewhere between cutting corporate taxes and letting insurance companies do whatever the hell they want, and instituting some half-assed reforms like Obama and the Democrats did, but just calling it something different like 'Common-sense Healthcare Reforms Our Nation Can Afford.' Then Fox News will hail them as the saviours of democracy and the free market. Oh, and abortion will be illegal.
Unfortunately, these things are cyclical, and each party's half-ass attempts to implement their agendas almost always seems to make things worse. It's sad and it makes me sick that the most we can do it pick the 'lesser of two evils' at any given election instead of having some real choices and the power to immediately recall our elected officials when they're not getting the job done. But I'd like it even more if I didn't have to worry about right-wing fundamentalists gaining popular support with their puritanical, anti-gay, anti-Muslim rhetoric. That stuff's poison, pure and simply.
I truly wish that the Republicans were what they purport to be—fiscal conservatives who want limited government involvement in public and private affairs. At least I can respect and tolerate that, even if I disagree with their positions ideologically. But since the GOP has allowed itself to be captured by the religious right, or at least panders to them to the point of adopting many of their stances on social issues, I'm honestly afraid of the damage they'll do if we, as a nation, allow ourselves to be duped into voting them back into power again.
Of course, getting anything useful done in Congress is like pulling teeth regardless of the party in charge, but seriously, these people are more dangerous to personal freedom than they've ever been. They might say they want to reduce the size of our government because it's such a drain on national resources and inhibits economic growth, and are totally against government intrusion, but then they turn around and try to use the very same bloated government to force their conservative/religious values on the entire country.
If the Republicans get back into power again, they'll pull all the same old tricks like trying to prevent gay people from having equal rights; telling women what to do with their bodies; go back to pushing abstinence-only sex-ed; limiting or eliminating federally-funded stem-cell research; extending tax cuts that will only add to the growing deficit; increasing an already bloated military budget at the cost of everything else they can dismantle (e.g., public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc.); you get the idea. Heck, they'll probably even start another war just for the hell of it.
While the majority of Democrats in Congress are almost as bad, I think things will be far, far worse if the Republicans manage to sweet-talk their way back into power with their Pledge to America. It'll be 1994 all over again with Newt and his Contract with America, only worse because they'll have the Tea Party Express behind them, condemning masturbation, Muslims and the evil socialists on the left who want all Americans to actually have access to healthcare like they do in every other wealthy, industrialized nation on Earth.
In fact, conservatives are already bemoaning the threat of 'big government,' and promising to repeal the recent insurance reforms passed by Congress and signed by the president, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The question is, What would Republicans do to improve healthcare if they were in charge?
Well, at one end of the spectrum, there's Mike Huckabee. According to him, people with preexisting conditions are like houses that've already burned down, so I think his plan would be to essentially allow insurance companies to tell people with preexisting conditions to go fuck themselves since they'll just eat into their ridiculously large profit margins.
At the other end, there's Mitt Romney, who actually signed into law an insurance reform program when he was governor of Massachusetts that's similar to the reforms Obama signed into law this year, so he'd repeal 'Obamacare' and replace it with 'Romneycare,' which would basically be the same thing, but since he's a Republican, his individual mandate would somehow be more constitutional.
As for the rest, they'll probably fall somewhere in between these two positions, which means their ideas for improving healthcare in the U.S. will lie somewhere between cutting corporate taxes and letting insurance companies do whatever the hell they want, and instituting some half-assed reforms like Obama and the Democrats did, but just calling it something different like 'Common-sense Healthcare Reforms Our Nation Can Afford.' Then Fox News will hail them as the saviours of democracy and the free market. Oh, and abortion will be illegal.
Unfortunately, these things are cyclical, and each party's half-ass attempts to implement their agendas almost always seems to make things worse. It's sad and it makes me sick that the most we can do it pick the 'lesser of two evils' at any given election instead of having some real choices and the power to immediately recall our elected officials when they're not getting the job done. But I'd like it even more if I didn't have to worry about right-wing fundamentalists gaining popular support with their puritanical, anti-gay, anti-Muslim rhetoric. That stuff's poison, pure and simply.
I truly wish that the Republicans were what they purport to be—fiscal conservatives who want limited government involvement in public and private affairs. At least I can respect and tolerate that, even if I disagree with their positions ideologically. But since the GOP has allowed itself to be captured by the religious right, or at least panders to them to the point of adopting many of their stances on social issues, I'm honestly afraid of the damage they'll do if we, as a nation, allow ourselves to be duped into voting them back into power again.
Friday, September 10, 2010
ethno-religious race baiting needs to stop
I'm sick to death of all this manufactured hullabaloo about Obama secretly being a Muslim and Islam being more violent and less tolerant than Christianity. The right in America has been searching for a new boogieman since the end of the Cold War to replace the evils of communism — which, in the words of the late Sen. Absalom Robertson, "seek simultaneously to destroy our democratic way of life and the faith in an Almighty God on which it is based" — and they've found one in Islam. But I say, "Enough already!"
A recent survey shows that a growing number of Americans think that Obama is a Muslim. To begin with, a person's religious affiliation shouldn't matter, it's their actions that count. Moreover, it's completely irrelevant to public office considering that the First Amendment creates, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, a "wall of separation between church and state."
What truly bothers me, however, is that not only do people care what religion Obama professes to practice, but they can't even get it right! Either the majority of these people are so easily misled by right-wing hack-jobs that they're willing to accept he's a closet Muslim who was born in Kenya (despite the fact that he has a Hawaiian birth certificate) or they're unwilling to say that they don't know and guess (making themselves look even dumber when they get the answer wrong).
If there are 'educated' people who think Obama is Muslim, I'd seriously question their so-called education, and I'd think it's more likely they're using the label pejoratively in order to attack Obama and sway public opinion away from him, which is a disgusting and ultimately racist political maneuver if you ask me. Has the right so quickly forgotten their last contrived controversy surrounding Rev. Wright and the charge that Obama was a racist Christian attending a 'radical black church'?
As if that weren't bad enough, we have washed-up Jim Jones wannabes like Terry Jones going around threatening to burn Korans and claiming that Islam is a more violent and less tolerant religion than Christianity. Never mind that, historically speaking, Christianity hasn't been very tolerant of other faiths, either, e.g., the various Crusades, which we against fellow Christians, Jews and Muslims; medieval pogroms against the Jews, etc.; and then there are things like Uganda's anti-homosexual bill that was inspired in part by an American, evangelical conference, held a month before, whose theme was "the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda."
And if you think that the holy books of Judaism and Christianity are any warmer and fuzzier than the Koran (which, by the way, forbids persecution of "people of the Book," i.e., Jews and Christians), just read things like Deut 20:16-18, Deut 22:13-21 and Deut 22:23-24. Then there's this heart-warming utterance of Jesus: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:27). As Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7).
If Jews and Christians took their holy books more seriously (i.e., literally), they'd be stoning people to death as well. The real difference, I think, isn't in the substance of the three Abrahamic religions themselves, but in the cultures that are influenced by these religious traditions. Islamic society was, during the Middle Ages, arguably more tolerant and prolific than their Christian contemporaries. It was mainly Muslims that helped to preserve the works of Aristotle, for example; and the Muslims were far more tolerant of Jews in places like Spain than their Christian counterparts (for more on this, see Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, 323 & 419-31).
I think it's fair to say that certain people and cultures are more intolerant and prone to use religious teachings to justify violence, but I don't think it's fair to single out Muslims or Islam as being less tolerant/more violent than Christians or Christianity. People should be judged by their actions, not by what they chose to call themselves. Yes, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but singling out a particular religion like this only shows the world how intolerant we, as a country, can be.
A recent survey shows that a growing number of Americans think that Obama is a Muslim. To begin with, a person's religious affiliation shouldn't matter, it's their actions that count. Moreover, it's completely irrelevant to public office considering that the First Amendment creates, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, a "wall of separation between church and state."
What truly bothers me, however, is that not only do people care what religion Obama professes to practice, but they can't even get it right! Either the majority of these people are so easily misled by right-wing hack-jobs that they're willing to accept he's a closet Muslim who was born in Kenya (despite the fact that he has a Hawaiian birth certificate) or they're unwilling to say that they don't know and guess (making themselves look even dumber when they get the answer wrong).
If there are 'educated' people who think Obama is Muslim, I'd seriously question their so-called education, and I'd think it's more likely they're using the label pejoratively in order to attack Obama and sway public opinion away from him, which is a disgusting and ultimately racist political maneuver if you ask me. Has the right so quickly forgotten their last contrived controversy surrounding Rev. Wright and the charge that Obama was a racist Christian attending a 'radical black church'?
As if that weren't bad enough, we have washed-up Jim Jones wannabes like Terry Jones going around threatening to burn Korans and claiming that Islam is a more violent and less tolerant religion than Christianity. Never mind that, historically speaking, Christianity hasn't been very tolerant of other faiths, either, e.g., the various Crusades, which we against fellow Christians, Jews and Muslims; medieval pogroms against the Jews, etc.; and then there are things like Uganda's anti-homosexual bill that was inspired in part by an American, evangelical conference, held a month before, whose theme was "the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda."
And if you think that the holy books of Judaism and Christianity are any warmer and fuzzier than the Koran (which, by the way, forbids persecution of "people of the Book," i.e., Jews and Christians), just read things like Deut 20:16-18, Deut 22:13-21 and Deut 22:23-24. Then there's this heart-warming utterance of Jesus: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:27). As Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7).
If Jews and Christians took their holy books more seriously (i.e., literally), they'd be stoning people to death as well. The real difference, I think, isn't in the substance of the three Abrahamic religions themselves, but in the cultures that are influenced by these religious traditions. Islamic society was, during the Middle Ages, arguably more tolerant and prolific than their Christian contemporaries. It was mainly Muslims that helped to preserve the works of Aristotle, for example; and the Muslims were far more tolerant of Jews in places like Spain than their Christian counterparts (for more on this, see Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, 323 & 419-31).
I think it's fair to say that certain people and cultures are more intolerant and prone to use religious teachings to justify violence, but I don't think it's fair to single out Muslims or Islam as being less tolerant/more violent than Christians or Christianity. People should be judged by their actions, not by what they chose to call themselves. Yes, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but singling out a particular religion like this only shows the world how intolerant we, as a country, can be.
Friday, July 16, 2010
being a bit of a luddite isn't so bad after all
I guess you could say that I've always been a bit of a Luddite, but I never really realized how dependent I am on the internet (via my girlfriend's computer, of course) until I recently moved and was forced to go a week without it. I literally use the internet for everything. (Ironically, I had to google 'Luddite' to find out what it meant after I received a letter from a good friend of mine saying, "Sorry for ruining you hippie, socialist, Luddite, Buddhist lifestyle with this newfangled phone.")
I don't even know how people lived before the internet. You know, the days when you found a job through a friend who knew someone who knew someone who was hiring or an ad in the classified section of the newspaper. (Do they even have those anymore?)
I mean, we found our new apartment on Craigslist, which is where I also found my job three years ago. Instead of wasting time waiting in line at the DMV to change our address, we spent five minutes doing it online. Same with USPS. I use Moviefone to see what's playing in my area, and IMDb to see if anything's actually worth watching. (My girlfriend won't bother seeing anything rated under 7.0.) Anytime I need some computer/tech-related advice (which, admittedly, isn't all that often), I head over to Icrontic. Hungry and looking for a good breakfast place in southeast PDX (that's Portland, OR for those of you not in the know)? Yelp is good for that. (It's also good for finding dentists.) And if I'm ever in need of a phone number, directions, to know if a word is spelled correctly or a quick education on the labour theory of value, there's the all-knowing Google.
Yep, the internet has made my life a lot more convenient. Thanks to Facebook, I spent Christmas eating an amazing dinner and sipping on some Oban at a friend's house instead of alone, gnawing on a veggie burger from BK (couldn't afford to visit my family back in MI), and I never even knew their phone number. But, as I've also come to realize, relying so much on the internet has had it drawbacks as well.
I've noticed, for example, that my spelling has really gone downhill since I began relying on Google and spell check. I seem to make far more mistakes than I used to. (My theory is that my brain is using the internet like an external hard drive, dumping my vocabulary for simple HTML codes and logical fallacies to throw at people who are wrong on the internet.) I've noticed that my attention span has suffered as well. I tend to skim newspaper articles (when I bother to read them) way more than before, and I have trouble reading a book for more than an hour. (I used to be able to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy in a few days.) I even find myself getting irritated when I can't hit 'control F' to find something I read a few pages back that I want to look up again.
But it hasn't just affected my memory and attention span, it's affected what passes for my social skills these days too. As shy as I was before, I have an even harder time interacting with people in real life social situations since discovering the world of social media, where I can take hours to perfect a witty comment from the anonymous safety of my own home (or local coffee shop); not to mention the fact that in real life, I don't have the luxury of deleting the dumb things I say before someone has the time to read them. Plus, it's way easier to just 'like' something than it is to have an actual conversation.
The good news (or the bad news depending on how you look at it) is that I'm not the only one who's noticed these things. (I thought I'd simply crossed into 'old geezer' territory). Just the other day I heard a story on NPR about a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly (subtly titled, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?") that reaches a similar conclusion. And you know what, it's got me thinking that being a bit of a Luddite isn't such a bad thing after all.
As convenient as technology can make our lives, I think there's a limit to how much we can depend on it until it becomes a psychological crutch—one that we know we don't need, but one that we've become so dependent on we can't seem to function without it. Convenience is a type of pleasure, mostly in the Epicurean sense of being the absence of displeasure, and the key, I think, is to find a happy medium between technological asceticism and becoming the human equivalent of the Borg. I guess the moral of the story is that you really can have too much of a good thing; although I'm sure most people have already figured this out by now.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on Icrontic Life.)
I don't even know how people lived before the internet. You know, the days when you found a job through a friend who knew someone who knew someone who was hiring or an ad in the classified section of the newspaper. (Do they even have those anymore?)
I mean, we found our new apartment on Craigslist, which is where I also found my job three years ago. Instead of wasting time waiting in line at the DMV to change our address, we spent five minutes doing it online. Same with USPS. I use Moviefone to see what's playing in my area, and IMDb to see if anything's actually worth watching. (My girlfriend won't bother seeing anything rated under 7.0.) Anytime I need some computer/tech-related advice (which, admittedly, isn't all that often), I head over to Icrontic. Hungry and looking for a good breakfast place in southeast PDX (that's Portland, OR for those of you not in the know)? Yelp is good for that. (It's also good for finding dentists.) And if I'm ever in need of a phone number, directions, to know if a word is spelled correctly or a quick education on the labour theory of value, there's the all-knowing Google.
Yep, the internet has made my life a lot more convenient. Thanks to Facebook, I spent Christmas eating an amazing dinner and sipping on some Oban at a friend's house instead of alone, gnawing on a veggie burger from BK (couldn't afford to visit my family back in MI), and I never even knew their phone number. But, as I've also come to realize, relying so much on the internet has had it drawbacks as well.
I've noticed, for example, that my spelling has really gone downhill since I began relying on Google and spell check. I seem to make far more mistakes than I used to. (My theory is that my brain is using the internet like an external hard drive, dumping my vocabulary for simple HTML codes and logical fallacies to throw at people who are wrong on the internet.) I've noticed that my attention span has suffered as well. I tend to skim newspaper articles (when I bother to read them) way more than before, and I have trouble reading a book for more than an hour. (I used to be able to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy in a few days.) I even find myself getting irritated when I can't hit 'control F' to find something I read a few pages back that I want to look up again.
But it hasn't just affected my memory and attention span, it's affected what passes for my social skills these days too. As shy as I was before, I have an even harder time interacting with people in real life social situations since discovering the world of social media, where I can take hours to perfect a witty comment from the anonymous safety of my own home (or local coffee shop); not to mention the fact that in real life, I don't have the luxury of deleting the dumb things I say before someone has the time to read them. Plus, it's way easier to just 'like' something than it is to have an actual conversation.
The good news (or the bad news depending on how you look at it) is that I'm not the only one who's noticed these things. (I thought I'd simply crossed into 'old geezer' territory). Just the other day I heard a story on NPR about a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly (subtly titled, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?") that reaches a similar conclusion. And you know what, it's got me thinking that being a bit of a Luddite isn't such a bad thing after all.
As convenient as technology can make our lives, I think there's a limit to how much we can depend on it until it becomes a psychological crutch—one that we know we don't need, but one that we've become so dependent on we can't seem to function without it. Convenience is a type of pleasure, mostly in the Epicurean sense of being the absence of displeasure, and the key, I think, is to find a happy medium between technological asceticism and becoming the human equivalent of the Borg. I guess the moral of the story is that you really can have too much of a good thing; although I'm sure most people have already figured this out by now.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on Icrontic Life.)
Friday, June 4, 2010
a froggy (faulty) comparison
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the value of life — not just human life, but life in general — and it all started with a casual status update that had to do with a pool full of frogs. Someone jokingly mentioned poison, and another agreed, saying something about there being "enough frogs in the world." I countered that it can be argued there are more than enough people in this world and asked if poison was a good solution for that too.
Of course, I realize they were just kidding, and I was being hyperbolic; but even so, I still think it's a valid point. From my point of view, a frog and a human are both living beings, and even in jest, I find the idea of euthanizing frogs simply because they're numerous troubling. Not only that, but I think the notion that our lives are inherently worth more should be challenged as well.
I imagine most people might see it differently, but I fail to see how a human life is objectively more valuable or important than the life of any other kind of living creature. Certainly we differ from other animals in a variety of ways — from our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence, to our levels of culture and communication — but that doesn't mean our lives are worth more in some universally objective sense.
In fact, I'd argue that the idea human beings are more important than other animals is an arbitrary and human-centric position, and in the grand scheme of things, the overpopulation of humans is more of a danger to the planet than the overpopulation of frogs. As far as I'm aware, there have been no recorded cases of frog-caused extinctions, but there have been a number of human-caused extinctions, many of them due to destruction of habitat and overhunting.
Subjectively speaking, I can see how the idea that the life of a human is equally as valuable as that of any other species simply because they're both living organisms may seem ridiculous. But the fact that most living creatures share a rudimentary desire to be free from pain (the highest pleasure in the Epicurean sense) makes it hard for me not to be empathetic towards all living creatures and respect them as much as possible. It's not that I think frogs or other animals are on the same 'playing field' with people, but I do think their lives are equally valuable simply for the sake of being alive (which is a bit of a tautology I suppose).
Don't get me wrong, I understand that all living things must consume/feed in order to survive, and some are dangerous and survival instincts almost always trump empathy. But the more I see that other animals are just as capable of feeling pain as we are, and considering our superior level of intellect and our ability to change and shape the environment, I've come to see our role on this planet differently. We've essentially become the caretakers of this planet and all the life on it, and our responsibility has transcended our position on the food chain.
In the past, we've failed to realize how much impact we actually have on the environment and it's been a costly mistake, not only in terms of environmental degradation but species extinction as well. Of course, I'm not talking about some frogs in a pool now, but the general attitude that we as a species have towards nature.
Sadly, it seems to be far easier for us to destroy what we consider to be a nuisance and 'lower' forms of life (i.e., everything else) than it is to respect them and treat them as if they also have a right to live alongside us. Many people think this is only natural, and in a sense they’re right, but it's my hope that we’ll eventually develop a less human-centric view—one that takes the lives of other creatures more into consideration.
Of course, I realize they were just kidding, and I was being hyperbolic; but even so, I still think it's a valid point. From my point of view, a frog and a human are both living beings, and even in jest, I find the idea of euthanizing frogs simply because they're numerous troubling. Not only that, but I think the notion that our lives are inherently worth more should be challenged as well.
I imagine most people might see it differently, but I fail to see how a human life is objectively more valuable or important than the life of any other kind of living creature. Certainly we differ from other animals in a variety of ways — from our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence, to our levels of culture and communication — but that doesn't mean our lives are worth more in some universally objective sense.
In fact, I'd argue that the idea human beings are more important than other animals is an arbitrary and human-centric position, and in the grand scheme of things, the overpopulation of humans is more of a danger to the planet than the overpopulation of frogs. As far as I'm aware, there have been no recorded cases of frog-caused extinctions, but there have been a number of human-caused extinctions, many of them due to destruction of habitat and overhunting.
Subjectively speaking, I can see how the idea that the life of a human is equally as valuable as that of any other species simply because they're both living organisms may seem ridiculous. But the fact that most living creatures share a rudimentary desire to be free from pain (the highest pleasure in the Epicurean sense) makes it hard for me not to be empathetic towards all living creatures and respect them as much as possible. It's not that I think frogs or other animals are on the same 'playing field' with people, but I do think their lives are equally valuable simply for the sake of being alive (which is a bit of a tautology I suppose).
Don't get me wrong, I understand that all living things must consume/feed in order to survive, and some are dangerous and survival instincts almost always trump empathy. But the more I see that other animals are just as capable of feeling pain as we are, and considering our superior level of intellect and our ability to change and shape the environment, I've come to see our role on this planet differently. We've essentially become the caretakers of this planet and all the life on it, and our responsibility has transcended our position on the food chain.
In the past, we've failed to realize how much impact we actually have on the environment and it's been a costly mistake, not only in terms of environmental degradation but species extinction as well. Of course, I'm not talking about some frogs in a pool now, but the general attitude that we as a species have towards nature.
Sadly, it seems to be far easier for us to destroy what we consider to be a nuisance and 'lower' forms of life (i.e., everything else) than it is to respect them and treat them as if they also have a right to live alongside us. Many people think this is only natural, and in a sense they’re right, but it's my hope that we’ll eventually develop a less human-centric view—one that takes the lives of other creatures more into consideration.
Friday, April 16, 2010
national day of prayer unconstitutional?
The recent decision by a federal judge in Wisconsin that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional was brought to my attention by friend of mine today, who happened to post a couple of status updates about it on Facebook. Apparently, many Christian groups are outraged and wrongly accusing Obama of cancelling the National Day of Prayer service, never mind the fact that Obama is actually the defendant in this case.
Nevertheless, I think this case does raise an important question about the place of religion in government, and I have to say that I agree with the judge on this one. On matters of church and state, I take a position similar to that of Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the U.S. — who held that the First Amendment builds a "wall of separation between church and state," and said that "civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
Of course, it can be argued that "recommending" a day of prayer doesn't technically violate the letter of First Amendment, and many presidents have done so in our nation's history, but I agree with the judge that the National Day of Prayer — a statute passed by Congress in 1952 and signed into law by President Truman — is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." In designating a day for the nation to "turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals," I believe that it violates the spirit and intent of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment and, as such, it exceeds the power given to both the legislative and executive branches of government.
Not only that, but the bill itself was a blatant attack on atheists and political free speech — which is also protected by the First Amendment by the way — as evidenced by Sen. Absalom Robertson's (Pat Robertson's father) comment when introducing the bill in the Senate in 1952 as a measure against "the corrosive forces of communism which seek simultaneously to destroy our democratic way of life and the faith in an Almighty God on which it is based."
The President can still issue a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer without it violating the Constitution. The judge herself made it clear that the plaintiffs had "standing to challenge section 119, but not to challenge presidential prayer proclamations generally." This is supported in part by the Supreme Court’s decision in 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers, where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer lead by a government funded chaplain was constitutional. But a federal statute (i.e., an act of Congress) mandating the president establish a national day of prayer almost certainly crosses the line.
While I strongly support religious freedom, I also support freedom from religion when it comes to the role of the state in public affairs. To be honest, I fail to see how the federal statute that establishes the National Day of Prayer has managed to remain standing for this long.
Sources: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Jefferson's letter to Rev. Samuel Miller (1808) and Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama.
Nevertheless, I think this case does raise an important question about the place of religion in government, and I have to say that I agree with the judge on this one. On matters of church and state, I take a position similar to that of Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the U.S. — who held that the First Amendment builds a "wall of separation between church and state," and said that "civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
Of course, it can be argued that "recommending" a day of prayer doesn't technically violate the letter of First Amendment, and many presidents have done so in our nation's history, but I agree with the judge that the National Day of Prayer — a statute passed by Congress in 1952 and signed into law by President Truman — is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." In designating a day for the nation to "turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals," I believe that it violates the spirit and intent of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment and, as such, it exceeds the power given to both the legislative and executive branches of government.
Not only that, but the bill itself was a blatant attack on atheists and political free speech — which is also protected by the First Amendment by the way — as evidenced by Sen. Absalom Robertson's (Pat Robertson's father) comment when introducing the bill in the Senate in 1952 as a measure against "the corrosive forces of communism which seek simultaneously to destroy our democratic way of life and the faith in an Almighty God on which it is based."
The President can still issue a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer without it violating the Constitution. The judge herself made it clear that the plaintiffs had "standing to challenge section 119, but not to challenge presidential prayer proclamations generally." This is supported in part by the Supreme Court’s decision in 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers, where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer lead by a government funded chaplain was constitutional. But a federal statute (i.e., an act of Congress) mandating the president establish a national day of prayer almost certainly crosses the line.
While I strongly support religious freedom, I also support freedom from religion when it comes to the role of the state in public affairs. To be honest, I fail to see how the federal statute that establishes the National Day of Prayer has managed to remain standing for this long.
Sources: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Jefferson's letter to Rev. Samuel Miller (1808) and Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
obama authorizes assassination of u.s. citizen
According to a recent article at Salon.com, the Obama administration has authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen "no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield." Due process, what's that?
I understand that Anwar al-Awlaki may be involved with Al-Qaeda and therefore a potentially serious threat, but they're not even trying to hide their disregard for the Constitution anymore, they're coming right out and saying, "We don't give a damn about the 14th Amendment" with this "presidential assassination program."
Of course, most of us already knew that, but you'd think they'd at least pretend to uphold the Constitution or something. I guess even that’s too much to ask. It's not all bad, though. As someone I know put it: "Well, at least [the U.S. government] can only legally assassinate you if you're overseas... so, this is really a step towards equality, in a way. We'll now have the same rights as the citizens of all the countries that the U.S. has occupied over the past century!"
Seriously though, I find it deeply troubling that Obama has chosen to continue this abhorrent policy, which was started by George W. Bush, although never actually implemented by him. If Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize then, he most certainly doesn't deserve it now.
I understand that Anwar al-Awlaki may be involved with Al-Qaeda and therefore a potentially serious threat, but they're not even trying to hide their disregard for the Constitution anymore, they're coming right out and saying, "We don't give a damn about the 14th Amendment" with this "presidential assassination program."
Of course, most of us already knew that, but you'd think they'd at least pretend to uphold the Constitution or something. I guess even that’s too much to ask. It's not all bad, though. As someone I know put it: "Well, at least [the U.S. government] can only legally assassinate you if you're overseas... so, this is really a step towards equality, in a way. We'll now have the same rights as the citizens of all the countries that the U.S. has occupied over the past century!"
Seriously though, I find it deeply troubling that Obama has chosen to continue this abhorrent policy, which was started by George W. Bush, although never actually implemented by him. If Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize then, he most certainly doesn't deserve it now.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
a sprawling mess of politics, history and healthcare
On the Oregonian's public blog, My Oregon, Paul G. Rollis wrote:
What a surprise. Someone using the word "socialism" pejoratively is equating healthcare reform with big government, and big government with the "loss of any meaningful power of the people in a democratic system." So, liking a good debate every now and then, I replied with:
Rollis responded:
To which I answered with this sprawling rebuttal:
"A Rose by Any Other Name..." (socialism, corporatism, progressivism, marxism, etc.)
You can also throw in communism, for good measure.
As people argue for and against each of the above, most seem either to ignore or are completely ignorant of the one thing that they ALL have in common. Each is based upon the basic idea that government should have constantly increasing, perhaps all, power to run a society. This, in turn, is based upon the idea that the government knows what is best for you, regardless of if you like it or want it or not. This is a proven form of creeping dictatorship with the concomitant decrease of individual rights and freedoms and the total loss of any meaningful power of the people in a democratic system. It gradually eviscerates and makes meaningless the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Some of the proponents of these systems knowingly work for imposing these systems of government upon a society, but they rarely are open and honest about their goals, because they know that most people do not want to lose their rights and freedoms. This often causes the supporters of these ideas to operate in secret and with deception in order to gain their goals.
Does this have any bearing on the 2700+ page health care reform bills currently proposed by the Democratic Party in congress? I think so, and if you actually know what the bills contain, you would probably think so, too.
What a surprise. Someone using the word "socialism" pejoratively is equating healthcare reform with big government, and big government with the "loss of any meaningful power of the people in a democratic system." So, liking a good debate every now and then, I replied with:
Technically speaking, socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. While governments can be more or less socialistic, socialism itself is a mass movement towards economic democracy — collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit — and the creation of an egalitarian, classless society.
While some types of socialism have taken the form of state socialism, whereby the state becomes the sole capitalist in the name of the people, this method has proven to be the best way to unsuccessfully implement socialism and lead to the installment of repressive totalitarian regimes that exploit their citizens more than capitalism ever could (e.g., the authoritarian and militaristic style of socialism that dominated China and Russia). Democratic socialists (e.g., Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, etc.), on the other hand, actually push for a more decentralized and directly democratic economy and political system.
What this has to do with the [current] healthcare debacle, however, I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, it misrepresents a host of socialists' politics by utilizing the same socialism = statism straw man argument that almost everyone propagates to death—as if every extreme form of government intervention in the economy in which production is dominated by an authoritarian political regime or state is equivalent to socialism. This is exactly the same kind of red-baiting Reagan used in his 1961 LP recording for the Operation Coffee Cup campaign against medicare, or as Reagan called it, "socialized medicine." As if medicare was some kind of danger to democracy and individual liberty. Pfft.
And even if the universal healthcare like they have in those horrible places like Britain, Canada, France, etc. can be considered "socialist," the kind of aggressive government intervention that has taken place in this country with the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street should really be called something like "corporatism," "state capitalism" or "state corporate capitalism" because it's pretty much doing the exact opposite of what socialism entails when it takes money from average workers via taxes and gives it to giant, multinational corporations.
What is truly leading the loss of democracy in this country is the lack of civic participation on the part of its citizens. For example, people can't just vote once a year and think that's the end of their obligation. But hell, they don't even do that. Here in Oregon, for example, we can vote by mail. We don't even have to leave our house to vote and we still can't reach 100% turnout!
But we need to do even more than that. We need to call and write our representatives. We need to go to their offices and talk to them face to face. We need to organize with other like-minded individuals and push for the policies we want. I vote, but I'm not under the illusion that my one vote can change as much as my activism can. Nevertheless, I'd be much happier about our electoral system if we had public financing of elections and the ability to immediately recall representatives if we felt that they weren't doing their jobs effectively. That would not only help to remove all of the big-monied interests from Washington, it would help put power back into the hands of the people.
Rollis responded:
Obviously you can not see the pervasive correlation between the increase of socialist "economic" goals and the loss of personal rights and freedoms, or the ever-increasing power of government. Where, if anywhere, do you see the tipping point when the people no longer are in control of the government, and, instead, the government has total control over the people?
Also, I see that you very conveniently left out of your description of socialism one of its most important characteristics, namely, the allocation of resources.
That is the source of concern of the American people regarding the health care reform bills, because this "allocation of resources" concept is the basis of inevitable rationing, or worse yet, the complete denial of medical care to those who need it. This is the current practice in all of those European countries that already have socialized medicine.
To which I answered with this sprawling rebuttal:
The allocation of resources is an inherent part of any type of economy. In free-market capitalism, for example, the allocation of resources is controlled primarily through the price mechanism. In mixed economies, resources are allocated through a combination of the price mechanism and allocation via various government agencies (e.g., think of a public resource like water that needs to be used for public consumption as well as things like irrigation, etc.).
As for resource allocation in our current healthcare system, insurance company bureaucrats routinely deny coverage and "ration" care. That is how insurance companies make their profit, after all. The real question is, who do we want to be in charge of approving medical care, an insurance company bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat? Each has its own pros and cons, but for the most part, more "socialized" healthcare systems that cover everyone have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
According to the World Health Organization, for example, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.
In 2005, France spent $3,926 per capita on healthcare, and of that, approximately 80% was government expenditure. The U.S., in comparison, spent $6,347, and of that, approximately 45% was government expenditure. Yet France has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Although, to be fair, I've heard it mentioned that the U.S. counts premature births whereas France doesn't, and these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone as there are undoubtedly other factors involved, e.g., eating habits, stress levels, etc.)
Or how about Spain's healthcare system? Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal healthcare and requires the state to provide it, it's ranked 7th best by the WHO, and according to one study published last year in the U.S. journal Health Affairs, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the U.S.
And then there is Canada's healthcare system, which was quite similar to ours before they adopted a single-payer system. It's not only ranked higher than the U.S. system by the WHO (30th v. 37th out of 191 nations), but like France, Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Again, these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone, but I think it at least goes to show that Canadians seem to be doing OK with the system they've got.)
In addition, a 2006 peer-reviewed study of healthcare access in Canada and the U.S. done by the American Journal of Public Health concluded that "U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines." Of course, every system has its problems, but I'd still say that Canada's system is pretty damn good considering it covers everyone and costs less per person than ours.
As for the for the idea that we're losing our democracy to the tyranny of "big government," you can't lose what you've never really had. What we're really losing is the fight for economic and political democracy in the U.S. The state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning. Although some of the Founders, namely Thomas Paine, did advocate for things like the abolition of slavery, free public education, progressive taxation, social safety nets (e.g., old-age pensions), etc., for the most part, the Founding Fathers, while arguably great men, weren't fighting for universal freedom and suffrage, they were fighting for the freedom of white, male property owners from the tyranny of the British monarchy.
Like most forms of government centered around property rights, the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society."
The Federalist Papers, as you might know, were a series of essays arguing for the ratification of our Constitution. Federalist No. 10, written by Madison, addresses the question of factions, which he defines as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Believing that an individual's "interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity," he saw a groups of individuals, or factions, as an even greater threat to individual liberty, even though paradoxically, he saw liberty as the cause by which factions arise. His solution, then, was to try to control the effects of factions within American society. This could be accomplished, he argued, by the establishment of a republic in favour of a direct democracy. And the representatives in this new republic were initially elected by a select few, namely white, male property owners.
While I agree with Madison, albeit somewhat reluctantly, about the dangers of having a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest who can take away the rights of the minority of other citizens, this can just as easily lead to the reverse, e.g., a minority of wealthy/propertied interests excluding the majority of poor/propertyless from voting, or in our case, from influencing the political process (e.g., the 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturned certain longstanding limits on political campaign spending by corporations, effectively giving them even more lobbying power).
One of the few things I think Andrew Jackson got right (as opposed to his support of slavery and the Indian Removal Act) was his support for expanded suffrage, which at that time meant extending the right to vote to include all white males instead of just white, male property owners. Without removing this form of class antagonism, civil unrest on the part of the poor and disenfranchised could have gotten to the point where revolt was a serious possibility. Removing this restriction, however, allowed more people to become directly involved in the political process, giving them (at least in theory) a more constructive way to address their grievances than violence. It was the first step in the ongoing fight for equality and universal suffrage.
But as a general principle, the ruling class seeks to do as little for the average citizen as it can. It wasn't until 1870, for example, that African American males were allowed to vote. And women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. 1920! So what changed? Was it the interests of the ruling class? Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of changes came after long, hard struggles by average men and women seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the abolition of slavery to the right of women to vote to the 40 hour work day, it was due to the bravery of ordinary, everyday men and women who were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in that we have these things today.
Regardless of where one stands on economic democracy and private ownership v. collective ownership of the means of production, I think it can be agreed upon that part of the reason we're losing the battle for political democracy in the U.S. is the lack of civic participation on the part of its citizens. [As I said before], people can't just vote once a year and think that's the end of their civic obligation. But hell, most of the time they don't even seem to do that much. Here in Oregon, for example, we can vote by mail. We don't even have to leave our house to vote and we still can't reach 100% turnout! Voter turnout [in the U.S.] for the 2008 presidential election was only 63%. And many statewide elections are decided by even less.
But we need to do even more than that to win and secure our political freedom. We need to call and write our representatives. We need to go to their offices and talk to them face to face. We need to run for office [ourselves]. We need to organize with other like-minded individuals and push for the policies we want. We need to take to the streets in rallies and protests if need be. I vote, but I'm not under the illusion that my one vote can have as much of an impact as my activism can.
That said, I'd be much happier about our electoral system if we at least had public financing of elections and the ability to immediately recall representatives if we felt that they weren't doing their jobs effectively. It would not only help to remove all of the big-monied interests from Washington, it would help to finally put real political power into the hands of the people. But that will only happen if people demand it, which is why I believe apathy and complacency are the real enemies of freedom in the U.S.
Friday, March 5, 2010
natural rights
On an internet discussion forum that I regularly frequent, there's an ongoing debate about natural rights. I think the issue of natural rights is an intriguing subject. And while I'm not well-versed in political philosophy enough to debate the finer points of whether certain rights are something inherent to humankind or the product of government, I tend to agree with Jeremy Bentham's assessment articulated in Anarchical Fallacies:
In addition, I think Bertrand Russell makes some interesting observations in A History of Western Philosophy regarding the philosophical ideals and scientific discoveries of ancient Greek philosophers that gave rise to the modern idea of natural rights. For example, he writes that:
And this ideal itself essentially grew out of a "refined type of error" in mathematical knowledge originating from ancient Greek thinkers, especially Pythagoras, who believed that mathematical knowledge was superior to that of empirical knowledge in that it was thought to "supply an ideal, from which every-day empirical knowledge fell short." Because of this, Pythagoras ascribed a primacy to thought over sense, and intuition over observation. Thus:
The problem, as Russell later points out, was the inherent one-sidedness in their thinking (emphasis mine):
Nevertheless, even though I tend to side with Bentham here, I also agree with Daniel Dennett, who writes in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that, "Perhaps talk of rights is nonsense upon stilts, but good nonsense." Why? Because when taken out of the context of government, the very notion of rights seems meaningless to me as government itself is the "stilts" upon which rights stand. What are rights but, as one person phrased it, "the product of social agreement and endeavour"?
That which has no existence cannot be destroyed—that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense: for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle.
In addition, I think Bertrand Russell makes some interesting observations in A History of Western Philosophy regarding the philosophical ideals and scientific discoveries of ancient Greek philosophers that gave rise to the modern idea of natural rights. For example, he writes that:
When the Declaration of Independence says "we hold these truths to be self-evident," it is modelling itself on Euclid. The eighteenth-century doctrine of natural rights is a search for Euclidean axioms in politics*. (*Here he includes a footnote that "self-evident" was substituted by Franklin for Jefferson's "sacred and undeniable.")
And this ideal itself essentially grew out of a "refined type of error" in mathematical knowledge originating from ancient Greek thinkers, especially Pythagoras, who believed that mathematical knowledge was superior to that of empirical knowledge in that it was thought to "supply an ideal, from which every-day empirical knowledge fell short." Because of this, Pythagoras ascribed a primacy to thought over sense, and intuition over observation. Thus:
If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. In various ways, methods of approaching nearer to the mathematician's ideal were sought, and the resulting suggestions were the source of much that was mistaken in metaphysics and theory of knowledge.
The problem, as Russell later points out, was the inherent one-sidedness in their thinking (emphasis mine):
The Greeks contributed, it is true, something else which proved of more permanent value to abstract thought: they discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible. But in connection with mathematics the one-sidedness of the Greek genius appears: it reasoned deductively from what appeared self-evident, not inductively from what had been observed. Its amazing success in the employment of this method misled not only the ancient world, but the greater part of the modern world also.
Nevertheless, even though I tend to side with Bentham here, I also agree with Daniel Dennett, who writes in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that, "Perhaps talk of rights is nonsense upon stilts, but good nonsense." Why? Because when taken out of the context of government, the very notion of rights seems meaningless to me as government itself is the "stilts" upon which rights stand. What are rights but, as one person phrased it, "the product of social agreement and endeavour"?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
assisted suicide
I heard about this on the radio yesterday:
The Suicide Tourist
What a heartbreaking story. It's about a man named Craig Ewert, a retired professor living in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, who was suffering from ALS and decided to end his own life via assisted suicide. The worst part was hearing an interview with Ewert's wife, who said that they could have had more time together if assisted suicide was legal in England. (In England, assisted suicide is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.) Since it wasn't, Ewert, who decided it was better to do it while he was still physically capable, travelled to Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal.
I've never really seen assisted suicide as a black or white issue, especially from the point of view of the physician or whomever is providing the assistance, but sometimes we're just not able to endure all of the difficult circumstances life has to throw at us. Incurable illnesses that cause great amounts of pain and/or cause one to become a prisoner in their own body can be unbearable for the average person, and it's absurd to expect that everyone should live up to some idealized standard of morality that's arbitrarily placed upon human existence or exhibit superhuman endurance.
I think individuals should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, and I support a person's right to end their own life with help if and when they are deemed to be sober and of sound mind. I applaud Montana, Oregon and Washington here in the U.S. for their allowance of physician-assisted suicide. In my mind, it's a personal choice that's the individual's alone to make, and denying a person that choice is equivalent to torture.
The Suicide Tourist
What a heartbreaking story. It's about a man named Craig Ewert, a retired professor living in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, who was suffering from ALS and decided to end his own life via assisted suicide. The worst part was hearing an interview with Ewert's wife, who said that they could have had more time together if assisted suicide was legal in England. (In England, assisted suicide is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.) Since it wasn't, Ewert, who decided it was better to do it while he was still physically capable, travelled to Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal.
I've never really seen assisted suicide as a black or white issue, especially from the point of view of the physician or whomever is providing the assistance, but sometimes we're just not able to endure all of the difficult circumstances life has to throw at us. Incurable illnesses that cause great amounts of pain and/or cause one to become a prisoner in their own body can be unbearable for the average person, and it's absurd to expect that everyone should live up to some idealized standard of morality that's arbitrarily placed upon human existence or exhibit superhuman endurance.
I think individuals should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, and I support a person's right to end their own life with help if and when they are deemed to be sober and of sound mind. I applaud Montana, Oregon and Washington here in the U.S. for their allowance of physician-assisted suicide. In my mind, it's a personal choice that's the individual's alone to make, and denying a person that choice is equivalent to torture.
Friday, February 26, 2010
lost at sea
As I sit here, listening to the rain fall lightly on the quiet streets, I find myself lost once again.
I lose myself more often than one might think, but it's something I've grown accustomed to over the years. It usually happens during periods of personal difficulty and stress, or when I get so absorbed in the tide of worldly affairs that I get swept out to sea. This time, I think it's a bit of both.
In seeking to define myself and my place in the world, I've been ripped from the shore of self-knowledge and swept out into the sea of existential dread. And in the midst of my ever present mortality, I struggle to find something to cling to.
But where is there a refuge to be found? My heart itself is a sea of contradictions that storms with the winds of emotional fury. Anger. Sadness. I want to rage against the world and cry out of compassion at the same time. Idealism. Hatred. I want to right all the world's wrongs and I want destroy everything. Terror. Desperately gasping for air as I find myself being pulled under by currents stronger than I can endure.
What is it that I'm so afraid of? What more is there to lose than one's self? Why do I bother screaming at the world to save me when I know that it wouldn't even if it could? What is it that I'm looking for?
Maybe I'm not really looking for anything. Maybe there's nothing to find. Maybe it's in the search itself that I simply find some semblance of comfort.
I lose myself more often than one might think, but it's something I've grown accustomed to over the years. It usually happens during periods of personal difficulty and stress, or when I get so absorbed in the tide of worldly affairs that I get swept out to sea. This time, I think it's a bit of both.
In seeking to define myself and my place in the world, I've been ripped from the shore of self-knowledge and swept out into the sea of existential dread. And in the midst of my ever present mortality, I struggle to find something to cling to.
But where is there a refuge to be found? My heart itself is a sea of contradictions that storms with the winds of emotional fury. Anger. Sadness. I want to rage against the world and cry out of compassion at the same time. Idealism. Hatred. I want to right all the world's wrongs and I want destroy everything. Terror. Desperately gasping for air as I find myself being pulled under by currents stronger than I can endure.
What is it that I'm so afraid of? What more is there to lose than one's self? Why do I bother screaming at the world to save me when I know that it wouldn't even if it could? What is it that I'm looking for?
Maybe I'm not really looking for anything. Maybe there's nothing to find. Maybe it's in the search itself that I simply find some semblance of comfort.
Friday, February 12, 2010
mind-blowing films
Over at Icrontic, they kicked off their "theme of the week" series by asking people to highlight the movies that blew their mind. As usual, I was late to the party. But it got me thinking, What are the films that have made a lasting impression on me?
Honestly, there are so many great films out that have blown me away I could never name them all, but right off the top of my head I can think of at least two films by Ingmar Bergman that have had a major impact on me: Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal) and Nattvardsgästerna (Winter Lights).
They're probably too slow for most people, but there's something deeply contemplative and existential about them that really draws me in. That, and I think they're both examples of great filmmaking. For me, atmosphere and story are everything, and Bergman was a master storyteller.
Other honourable mentions include Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring), Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man), Kontroll and Pi.
I'd also have to say that most of the animated films I've seen in the past ten years have been mind-blowing in various ways.
Anything by Studio Ghibli, for example, is simply great. Whether it's a cute and lighthearted retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Little Mermaid" (Gake no Ue no Ponyo) or a powerful and heartbreaking portrayal of 1945 wartime Japan (Hotaru no Haka), I've yet to see one of their films that hasn't impressed me.
And, of course, there are companies like Laika, Pixar, etc., who are also putting out some great material. It's a seriously underrated genre, in my opinion.
Honestly, there are so many great films out that have blown me away I could never name them all, but right off the top of my head I can think of at least two films by Ingmar Bergman that have had a major impact on me: Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal) and Nattvardsgästerna (Winter Lights).
They're probably too slow for most people, but there's something deeply contemplative and existential about them that really draws me in. That, and I think they're both examples of great filmmaking. For me, atmosphere and story are everything, and Bergman was a master storyteller.
Other honourable mentions include Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring), Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man), Kontroll and Pi.
I'd also have to say that most of the animated films I've seen in the past ten years have been mind-blowing in various ways.
Anything by Studio Ghibli, for example, is simply great. Whether it's a cute and lighthearted retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Little Mermaid" (Gake no Ue no Ponyo) or a powerful and heartbreaking portrayal of 1945 wartime Japan (Hotaru no Haka), I've yet to see one of their films that hasn't impressed me.
And, of course, there are companies like Laika, Pixar, etc., who are also putting out some great material. It's a seriously underrated genre, in my opinion.
Monday, February 1, 2010
marble hornets: innovative storytelling in the digital age
I'm a bit of a latecomer to the whole Marble Hornets phenomenon, but better late than never. I got sucked in by a friend of mine last Saturday when I stopped by to hang out and have a couple of beers. We were waiting for a couple of more people to show up when he asked if I'd seen it. I said no, and since we had some time to kill, he started playing entries beginning with the introduction.
For anyone not familiar with Marble Hornets, it's a YouTube video series that seems to be inspired by the Slender Man urban legend started on The SomethingAwful Forums. The videos are uploaded by a man named Jay, who, at the beginning, takes them from tapes that were originally shot three years ago — mostly by his friend, Alex — during the filming of a student film Alex was making called "Marble Hornets." The tapes are in random order, and Jay sets out to systematically watch them all in order document some of the strange events and anomalies that occur after he realizes there's more going on than just the making of a student film. Later on, Jay begins to upload some of his own videos as well.
To be honest, I wasn't all that impressed at first. The entries were short (most of them less than a couple of minutes long), and I didn't quite get what was going on until a few entries in, but I quickly became immersed in the story once I started to piece together what was happening.
The series is fairly unique. I can only describe is an interactive, low-budget paranormal mystery that's supported by a large online community dedicated to solving it. People piece together the time line, uncover hidden messages and decode various puzzles that are found in the videos themselves, as well as in the strange and unnerving video responses left by a mysterious figure known only by their YouTube username, "totheark." What really intrigues me about the series, however, is the way the story evolves — especially with the introduction of totheark — and how the viewer is able to interact with the story and other viewers via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
I didn't really find it all that scary while I was watching it, but it definitely creeped me out as I soon discovered on my way home. I left my friend's house at around 1:30am. It was dark and drizzling. As I was walking home, I kept thinking that I heard someone behind me, although nobody was there whenever I turned to look. If that wasn't bad enough, the lights surrounding a nearby school started to buzz and flicker eerily as I was walking by. I kept glancing around half expecting to see the Slender Man standing in the distance. I'll admit it, I started walking a lot faster.
So if you're into horror and you've got some time to kill one night, I suggest checking Marble Hornets out.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on Icrontic Life.)
For anyone not familiar with Marble Hornets, it's a YouTube video series that seems to be inspired by the Slender Man urban legend started on The SomethingAwful Forums. The videos are uploaded by a man named Jay, who, at the beginning, takes them from tapes that were originally shot three years ago — mostly by his friend, Alex — during the filming of a student film Alex was making called "Marble Hornets." The tapes are in random order, and Jay sets out to systematically watch them all in order document some of the strange events and anomalies that occur after he realizes there's more going on than just the making of a student film. Later on, Jay begins to upload some of his own videos as well.
To be honest, I wasn't all that impressed at first. The entries were short (most of them less than a couple of minutes long), and I didn't quite get what was going on until a few entries in, but I quickly became immersed in the story once I started to piece together what was happening.
The series is fairly unique. I can only describe is an interactive, low-budget paranormal mystery that's supported by a large online community dedicated to solving it. People piece together the time line, uncover hidden messages and decode various puzzles that are found in the videos themselves, as well as in the strange and unnerving video responses left by a mysterious figure known only by their YouTube username, "totheark." What really intrigues me about the series, however, is the way the story evolves — especially with the introduction of totheark — and how the viewer is able to interact with the story and other viewers via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
I didn't really find it all that scary while I was watching it, but it definitely creeped me out as I soon discovered on my way home. I left my friend's house at around 1:30am. It was dark and drizzling. As I was walking home, I kept thinking that I heard someone behind me, although nobody was there whenever I turned to look. If that wasn't bad enough, the lights surrounding a nearby school started to buzz and flicker eerily as I was walking by. I kept glancing around half expecting to see the Slender Man standing in the distance. I'll admit it, I started walking a lot faster.
So if you're into horror and you've got some time to kill one night, I suggest checking Marble Hornets out.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on Icrontic Life.)
Saturday, January 30, 2010
long live the people's historian!
I was saddened to learn that Howard Zinn died Wednesday at the age of 87. I never really knew anything about him until I bought one of his short plays, Marx in Soho, at the local bookstore about a year ago.
I had locked myself out of my apartment, and Annie wasn't going to be home from work for a few more hours, so I went to look around the local bookstore for something to read until she got home. I happened to notice the small, reddish book sitting in the philosophy section—it was short and cheap, so I grabbed it. I spent the rest of my time reading it at a nearby coffee shop.
Not long after that, I rented a documentary about Zinn called Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train from the local video store. It was an excellent documentary, and from that moment on, Zinn became one of my heroes. But more importantly, it got me interested in American history, especially the history of the American labour movement. I ended up buying a copy of A People's History of the United States, and that book knocked me on my ass!
Zinn not only taught me a lot about the American labour movement, but he helped me to find my political bearings as well. At the time I discovered Zinn, I was in the process of figuring out where I stood and how far I wanted to go with my political activism. Zinn inspired me to get politically active for progressive causes at a time when I could easily have been lulled into being just another passive voter.
So, in memory of his passing, my favourite Howard Zinn quote: "The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." RIP, comrade.
I had locked myself out of my apartment, and Annie wasn't going to be home from work for a few more hours, so I went to look around the local bookstore for something to read until she got home. I happened to notice the small, reddish book sitting in the philosophy section—it was short and cheap, so I grabbed it. I spent the rest of my time reading it at a nearby coffee shop.
Not long after that, I rented a documentary about Zinn called Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train from the local video store. It was an excellent documentary, and from that moment on, Zinn became one of my heroes. But more importantly, it got me interested in American history, especially the history of the American labour movement. I ended up buying a copy of A People's History of the United States, and that book knocked me on my ass!
Zinn not only taught me a lot about the American labour movement, but he helped me to find my political bearings as well. At the time I discovered Zinn, I was in the process of figuring out where I stood and how far I wanted to go with my political activism. Zinn inspired me to get politically active for progressive causes at a time when I could easily have been lulled into being just another passive voter.
So, in memory of his passing, my favourite Howard Zinn quote: "The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." RIP, comrade.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
conservative-leaning scotus strikes again
Not surprisingly, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has struck again with a 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturns certain longstanding limits on political campaign spending by corporations. The decision not only overturns section 441b of the McCain-Feingold Act, it effectively overturns Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission as well.
The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."
Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As Ralph Nader puts it:
Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens, especially this glaringly obvious point:
As for the issue of the First Amendment, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' statements regarding large corporations and the fact that the states strictly limited the power of corporations — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.
Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends certain constitutional protections to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.
And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.
The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."
Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As Ralph Nader puts it:
Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.
Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens, especially this glaringly obvious point:
The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets...that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return of their shareholders' investments." 494 U.S., at 658-659. Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been "effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society's economic welfare"; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. "'[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,'" furthermore, "'are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.'" Id., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 258). "'They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas,'" 494 U.s., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 258).
It might also be added that corporations have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
As for the issue of the First Amendment, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' statements regarding large corporations and the fact that the states strictly limited the power of corporations — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.
Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends certain constitutional protections to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.
And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.
Monday, January 18, 2010
happy mlk jr. day
Today celebrates the life of one of America's most influential figures, Martin Luther King Jr. King is most known for his "I Have A Dream" speech, and for being a prominent civil rights leader, but he was much more than that. He was also a radical activist, pacifist and revolutionary.
The day he was assassinated, King was in Memphis, Tennessee, supporting a strike of African-American sanitation workers who were fighting against unequal wages and poor working conditions, as well as for union recognition. King wasn't just a champion for civil rights, he was also a champion for economic justice, freedom and peace, using his style of nonviolent direct action to fight against racism and the Vietnam War as much as for major economic reforms.
For me, King's revolutionary spirit is characterized by these words, which were given in a speech at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination:I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
I'd always known that King was a revolutionary figure in American history, but hearing these words today for the first time, I finally realize just how revolutionary he was. In a world where people often assume that violence is the only effective means of change, King showed us just how powerful nonviolence can be in combating racial inequality and social injustice.
Before his untimely death, King was helping to organize the Poor People's Campaign, a national campaign designed to address the issues of economic justice and housing for the poor in the U.S. He was in the middle of crisscrossing the country, trying to mobilize what he called a "multiracial army of the poor" to march on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights, when he took that fateful detour to help support the Memphis sanitation workers.King was a brave man. He received numerous death threats, but he was willing to give his life for what he believed in—perhaps in part because he knew that his death wouldn't be in vain. As King said in a speech he gave the night before he was assassinated:
The day he was assassinated, King was in Memphis, Tennessee, supporting a strike of African-American sanitation workers who were fighting against unequal wages and poor working conditions, as well as for union recognition. King wasn't just a champion for civil rights, he was also a champion for economic justice, freedom and peace, using his style of nonviolent direct action to fight against racism and the Vietnam War as much as for major economic reforms.
For me, King's revolutionary spirit is characterized by these words, which were given in a speech at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination:I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
I'd always known that King was a revolutionary figure in American history, but hearing these words today for the first time, I finally realize just how revolutionary he was. In a world where people often assume that violence is the only effective means of change, King showed us just how powerful nonviolence can be in combating racial inequality and social injustice.
Before his untimely death, King was helping to organize the Poor People's Campaign, a national campaign designed to address the issues of economic justice and housing for the poor in the U.S. He was in the middle of crisscrossing the country, trying to mobilize what he called a "multiracial army of the poor" to march on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights, when he took that fateful detour to help support the Memphis sanitation workers.King was a brave man. He received numerous death threats, but he was willing to give his life for what he believed in—perhaps in part because he knew that his death wouldn't be in vain. As King said in a speech he gave the night before he was assassinated:
And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
Friday, January 15, 2010
opportunism rears its ugly head in quake's aftermath
Nothing disgusts me more than exploiting natural disasters to push your own political agenda. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Heritage Foundation.)
On Thursday, less than 24 hours after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck approximately 15 miles from Port-au-Prince, the capital city of Haiti, the Heritage Foundation released this statement:
Things to Remember While Helping Haiti
Besides the original title ("Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the U.S.") and the part about using this as an opportunity "to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region" (which has since been taken out), the parts that bother me the most are the lines about using our military presence there to aid in relief efforts AND fight suspected drug trafficking while also preventing Haitians from trying to flee to the U.S.
These are the same people who, back in 2005, tried to push though their own pro-corporate, free-market policies just 13 days after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, LA.
The island nation of Haiti and its inhabitants have suffered greatly over the last 200 years (if not longer), from gaining its independence through a successful slave rebellion to enduring endemic political instability, violence and crushing poverty, and I completely agree with Naomi Klein that:
To use this catastrophe as a way of advancing free-market policies while encouraging the U.S. military to enforce immigration policies and fight suspected drug trafficking — when they should really be helping the 10s of 1000s of victims — is simply unconscionable.
On Thursday, less than 24 hours after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck approximately 15 miles from Port-au-Prince, the capital city of Haiti, the Heritage Foundation released this statement:
Things to Remember While Helping Haiti
Besides the original title ("Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the U.S.") and the part about using this as an opportunity "to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region" (which has since been taken out), the parts that bother me the most are the lines about using our military presence there to aid in relief efforts AND fight suspected drug trafficking while also preventing Haitians from trying to flee to the U.S.
These are the same people who, back in 2005, tried to push though their own pro-corporate, free-market policies just 13 days after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, LA.
The island nation of Haiti and its inhabitants have suffered greatly over the last 200 years (if not longer), from gaining its independence through a successful slave rebellion to enduring endemic political instability, violence and crushing poverty, and I completely agree with Naomi Klein that:
"We have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations."
To use this catastrophe as a way of advancing free-market policies while encouraging the U.S. military to enforce immigration policies and fight suspected drug trafficking — when they should really be helping the 10s of 1000s of victims — is simply unconscionable.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
between a rock and a hard place, the final chapter
While the discussions I had about Measures 66 and 67 on MyOregon didn't really go anywhere (besides a couple more worthwhile contributions by VastRightWing), I had a much more enjoyable discussion on Facebook with my libertarian-leaning friend, James. He started off with the comment:
While eating my Cheerios before work, I replied:
Later on, James countered my three points with:
And despite the fact that I'm getting pretty burned-out talking about taxes, I managed one last reply.
So after careful study and debate, I've decided to grudgingly support both measures, but it was definitely not an easy decision for me to make.
To me, it isn't about whether or not I think these measures are fair, it's about whether more people will be hurt if they pass or fail. In the end, I came to the conclusion that the percentage of people who'll be negatively impacted by these measures if they fail is far greater than if they pass, and I gave the government the benefit of the doubt that they'll spend the money wisely. I just hope I made the right decision.
I gave you my personal take on this - I do genuinely believe that the State of Oregon has a budget deficit and like all of us, they must take a pay cut. That means cutting government programs.
However, I firmly believe that they target the high profile things first with paycuts because they can get the biggest sympathy vote. They can "cut the fat" like the rest of us without cutting off the arm. They're telling us all they can do is cut off the arm.
It's typical government propaganda.
The Oregon tax system is messed up. Oregon badly needs a sales tax but will never have one; we cling fervently to our status and I don't see that will ever change. Drop the income tax like Washington, go sales tax - I'd vote for that (and have).
To me the sales tax is the ultimate in fair tax. It's a consumption tax - the more you buy, the more you pay. Who buys the most? The rich. Who will pay more? The rich. But not because they make more; because they BUY more.
I realize the argument that sales taxes hurt the poor but there are ways around this, the most obvious being that you don't tax the things that the poor buy the most of (groceries).
While eating my Cheerios before work, I replied:
A.) You make some good objections, but cutting programs will hurt the people that depend on them. If you cut social programs for elderly care, for example, who's going to take care of them? If you cut school programs and social workers, then [you're] hurting kids and their education. If you cut the DEQ, as one person suggested, that will negatively impact the the environment and workplace safety ,
There are not easy answers because many of these programs are important, even essential. We could do those things, but the question is, should we?
B.) It's not the government's fault that Oregonians have voted down a sales tax 9 times.
C.) According to a study done by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which focused on Washington's tax structure, data suggests that sales taxes are regressive because "they fall more heavily on poor people, who typically spend nearly all their money on everyday necessities."
Exempting things like food and medicine can ease the burden, but it doesn't fix the problem. Poorer people still tend to spend all of their income, living paycheck to paycheck, and are unable to save very much.
Plus, fairness is a pretty subjective thing.
Later on, James countered my three points with:
A) It just goes to prove my point. Those are high profile things that people care about because no one wants to hurt the kids, the environment (in Oregon) or the elderly. Just because you have to reduce spending does not mean that you have to cut the programs. You can cut unnecessary administrative overhead, reduce the layers of the bureaucracy, etc. The first response is always to cut teachers because they don't want to reduce their jobs/expenses. Knowing several teachers, there is a lot of waste in the system that could be eliminated without having to cut teacher jobs.
B) I never said it was. In fact, I believe the opposite. Oregonians themselves are at fault. They constantly vote it down and will forever I think. It's a point of pride at this point.
C) If may not fix the problem but it does virtually eliminate it. Necessities are food and medicine. Sales tax isn't paid on rent, electricity use, etc. Sales taxes to me are consumption taxes; you pay more if you use more. With removal of taxes on food and medicine, you eliminate a lot of unnecessary tax burden on the poor. Taxes are, by their nature, a burden on everyone. With a sales tax structured similar to Washington (I've been poor in Washington), it ensures a more stable tax base. It also simplifies the tax system itself, which is a huge bonus for everyone.
I do agree with you, however, that fairness is subjective. I do not believe it is fair to fleece the rich - they already pay their fair share (if not more) of taxes. There's no need to tax them more. I'm not willing to pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes, why should they have to simply because they're successful? I find it appalling. I will be voting no on 66. But I'm not sure yet on 67. I do think a $10 minimum corporate tax is pathetic and everyone can afford to pay a minimum of $150. I will have to research the other point regarding C-corps though to see how burdensome that is.
And despite the fact that I'm getting pretty burned-out talking about taxes, I managed one last reply.
In response to A, all I can say is that education, human services and public safety take up the majority of the state's General Fund, and most of that is spent on salaries and benefits for public employees.
The way I see it, reduced spending means something's got to be reduced in terms of services. Since most of the money goes to public employees who provide these services in the form of their wages and benefits, that's what usually gets put on the chopping block since the state can't run a deficit. Plus, the state is always growing, and more people means a greater need for services, regardless of how well the economy is doing.
I imagine that the state could reduce some of its overhead without hurting essential services, but I sincerely doubt that administrative overhead is the main problem. I'll even concede that some public funds are used to shield public employees from normal economic cycles, but I think that's a good thing in certain cases, e.g., kids don't need less education just because the economy is bad, or less protection from abuse (as in the case of social workers); our need for police protection doesn't just go away when state revenues fall, etc.
But if you honestly think the government's just using kids and the elderly get its way, what more can be said? We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.
In regard to B, I wasn't implying you said that. I was simply making the point because Measures 66 and 67 are what we're talking about here. You'd mentioned "government propaganda" and the fact that Oregon's tax system is a mess, and I was just trying to make the point that it's not entirely the government's fault.
It was the citizens who passed Measure 5, which reduced property tax rates and shifted much of the responsibility for funding public schools to the state’s General Fund. It was also the citizens who rejected a sales tax 9 times. In my mind, the government's just trying to do the best it can with what it has.
Finally, in response to C, the study I mentioned earlier suggests that exempting food and medicine doesn't "virtually eliminate" the problem of sales taxes falling more heavily on poor people. In fact, it concluded that even though Washington exempts food and medicine from sales taxes, it still has the most regressive tax system in the country, mainly because of its heavy reliance on sales taxes.
The study found that people earning less than $20,000 a year In Washington paid 13.1% of their income toward sales and excise taxes, and 17.3% including property taxes. People making between $99,000 and $198,000, on the other hand, paid just 5.1% of their income toward sales and excise taxes, and only 7.6% including property taxes. And the top 1% (those making $537, 000 or more) paid an unbelievably low 1.8% in sales and excise taxes, and just 2.9% including property taxes.
You might think that sales taxes are the "ultimate in fair tax," but I think the numbers speak for themselves.
So after careful study and debate, I've decided to grudgingly support both measures, but it was definitely not an easy decision for me to make.
To me, it isn't about whether or not I think these measures are fair, it's about whether more people will be hurt if they pass or fail. In the end, I came to the conclusion that the percentage of people who'll be negatively impacted by these measures if they fail is far greater than if they pass, and I gave the government the benefit of the doubt that they'll spend the money wisely. I just hope I made the right decision.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
between a rock and a hard place, part deux
I posted an earlier version of my blog about Measures 66 and 67 on My Oregon yesterday, and as expected, I've gotten a lot of responses from opponents of 66 and 67. Unfortunately, most of them don't seem to know what they're talking about. For example, someone calling themselves myearth wrote:
To which I responded:
A person going by the name of wurzburg offered this little gem:
To which I replied:
After thinking long and hard (or maybe not at all), wurzburg came back with:
But you know what they say about assuming:
VastRightWing, on the other hand, actually attempted to make a decent point:
But the point was fairly irrelevant:
What I don't understand is, there are a lot of legitimate arguments against these measures, as well as taxes in general, but opponents of 66 and 67 don't seem to be using any of them. Instead, they act as if teachers and social workers are blood sucking fiscal vampires trying to bleed taxpayers to death. And I thought I hated talking about taxes before...
My husband and I have an LLC and run a small business. Our income dropped 25% in 2008 and we estimate a 35 to 40% drop in 2009. That is a LOT more than the percentage public employees are losing. So why do you think it is fair to take my money to pay them? I made $39K in 2008 and worked 55 to 60 hours a week to get it. I have no dental or vision insurance and my health insurance costs $6K a year and is far worst than they get. Explain why it's fair for this to come out of my hide! Since you care so much, hy don't you volunteer some of your hide? This is a tax on gross business income NOT on profit.
To which I responded:
A.) The main reason I'm leaning towards a yes vote on both measures is that it's not just public employees who'll be hurt by the $4 billion hole, but also kids, the elderly, and everyone else who depends on these social services. The percentage [of] people who may be negatively impacted be these measures if they fail is far greater than the [percentage of] people who'll be negatively impacted if these measures pass.
B.) I think you should reread both measures. Unless your personal income is over $125,000, I don't think you'll be affected by Measure 66. And unless you own a C-corporation with over $500,000 in sales, I don't think you'll be affected by the tax on gross sales either. From what I understand, LLCs (along with LLPs, partnerships and S-corporations) will simply have to pay the corporate minimum of $150.
C.) I never said it was fair, and I expressly state that I'm not happy about either choice, but I do think the money has to come from somewhere, and the Oregon Legislature has decided that the needed revenue should come from the people who they think can most likely afford it while so many other Oregonians are out of work or underemployed. If you disagree, vote no. But if I made more than $125,000 a year or owned my own business, I'd gladly pay a little more.
A person going by the name of wurzburg offered this little gem:
NO ROCK! NO HARD PLACE!
They did the crime now they can do the time(As they say)!!!!
The only reason the school year or our children would be shorted in any way would be due to the public sector wanting to hurt those that insisted on fair and equitable spending. It's there way of getting even if they don't get their way. Nothing would be worse than attacking our children. That is why they are threatning us with #66 & #67.
WE NEED TO LET THE EXTORTIONISTS KNOW THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!! Just look around and think for example, "Do we really need what DEQ provides or could the money better be used for schools? If you look at the matter with an open mind I'm sure you can think of at least a dozen other depts that could use a haircut other than schools.... DON"T FEEL THREATENED!
To which I replied:
Actually, wurzburg, I think the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is important. Not only do they help protect the quality of Oregon's environment, but as part of my company's safety committee, I can tell you that my workplace is a lot safer due to their inspections and recommendations.
After thinking long and hard (or maybe not at all), wurzburg came back with:
OK,jmerritt I quess you are the typical public employee(You got yours, the heck with education). I just don't know what got into me thinking the DEQ was less vital than education.
P.S. After reading some of your earlier post, I believe your Co. is the State of Oregon... Imagine That!
But you know what they say about assuming:
Actually, wurzburg, I work in the private sector for a local manufacturer. And for the record, I've never been a public employee.
As for the DEQ, I never said it was more important than education, I simply said that I think it's important. I'm very concerned about working-class issues, and working in factories most of my life, environmental quality and workplace safety are important issue to me. I think the DEQ provides a valuable service to the community, as well as working-class people who deal with hazardous materials.
VastRightWing, on the other hand, actually attempted to make a decent point:
Before you accept Jeff Mape's math, you might want to remember that he wasn't a math major. Nor apparently a journalism major but that is a story for another day.
The public employees that he tells us are taking a PAY cut, are also going to get a WORK cut.
As in they won't be paid ten days wages for the ten days they won't be working. And this, in the minds of the mathematically challenged, is a pay cut.
If they make $50k per year for 50 weeks of work, they make $1K per week. If they work two weeks less, they will make $48K for 48 weeks of work, or $1K per week.
There are many private sector workers who have taken actual 10% or more $$$/Hr pay cuts, and are still working the same number of hours or possibly more to take up the slack for the other workers who have lost their jobs completely.
That is a pay cut. To claim the public employees are taking a pay cut, one must completely discount the two weeks or more that they are not working. Of course, dealing with facts and reality isn't a popular activity among the left.
But the point was fairly irrelevant:
VastRightWing, I think I agree with you about the pay cut thing (I think it was kind of silly for him to say that), but whether not receiving any cost-of-living increase and having to take 10-14 unpaid furlough days constitutes a "pay cut" is beside the point I was trying to make. The point was that public employees aren't getting a pay raise as the Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes ad claims.
My hours have been cut from 40 to 24-32 a week, and my company has instituted a pay freeze. I haven't had a raise in a year, and I'm not eligible for another one until December of 2010. On top of that, they've had two rounds of layoffs and I'm forced to do the same thing I used to do with less people. Is that a pay cut? I don't know, but I'm definitely not getting a salary increase. And as far as I know, the same applies to public employees, i.e., they're not getting raises either.
What I don't understand is, there are a lot of legitimate arguments against these measures, as well as taxes in general, but opponents of 66 and 67 don't seem to be using any of them. Instead, they act as if teachers and social workers are blood sucking fiscal vampires trying to bleed taxpayers to death. And I thought I hated talking about taxes before...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)