Did you read Joel Stein's column in the November 5, 2012 Time? His work, which he calls "The Awesome Column", is now the first thing I read. If it doesn't make me laugh, his supposed intention, it 's sure to tick me off . For example, the time he told us all he was smarter than us because he went to a better college.
This issue he was making a proposal that nobody should be allowed to vote unless they were at least as smart as he. In laying his groundwork, he mentioned low-information voters, a term coined by an author, Samuel Popkin. Stein consulted Popkin and some other impressive sounding people who eventually convinced him he was not a low-information voter. By the end of the column, I decided I had laughed more than I had been rankled. I also was evaluating whether I was a low-information voter concerning my most difficult choice this year.
What were the bits of information I had about the people running for Congress from our district in the state of Kansas?
___________, Libertarian
Kevin Yoder, Republican
About the Libertarian whose name I don't remember, I know not a word. There were no ads. There were no handshakes. There were no pictures on fliers. There weren't even any phone calls. But, I may have finally figured out a way not to receive any of the latter.
About Kevin Yoder, I have this sketchy information.
. He's a rather handsome man who wears expensive looking clothing which fits him beautifully. Oh, yeah, that's probably not a good reason for choosing a public leader.
. He's not Dennis Moore. Now, Dennis Moore, by the end of one term in Congress, had sent out a number of newsletters and invitations to talk sessions. He even got out of Johnson County for some of them. He spoke of ideas that agreed with some of mine and seemed a good, intelligent man.
. He's not even Dennis Moore's wife who ran for the seat after Dennis resigned, but sadly lost the election.
. Yoder did send me one communication. There was a multi-paged questionnaire asking my opinion about the issues he wanted to accomplish in his next term. It was accompanied by a b. s. letter telling me that because of my standing in the community he needed to know my wishes.
Let's examine my standing for truth.
1. Retired
2. Poor
3. Female
4. Democrat
5. Single -- no spouse to influence
6. Smart aleck
7. Opinionated
8. Or is that opinionated smart aleck?
The letter informed me if I would include my e-mail address he would send me results of the survey in about a month. I did, he didn't. (And to think I gave him my blog address as well.)
I did hear about him one more time in the interim. He got his sorry behind in the news - almost literally -- for going skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee.
1. In coed company
2. There were other members of Congress there
3. Some, including Yoder, had their spouses with them
4. The others wore their clothes
Now, for the above story I want to thank him for the laugh it gives me every time I think of it. But I guess it does show poor judgment for a Congressman who wants to be reelected to behave in such a way. Even though I'm sure Jesus, himself, may have skinny-dipped there a time or two, it wasn't considered a sacred body of water at the time. But, then Yoder may have been trying to save the crease in those lovely clothes.
Not to worry, Mr. Yoder. I'm sure you'll win the election. There were no Democrats running against you. Your party didn't think they needed to run any ads against your opponent. And the national politicians consider this state a lock-in for the Republican Party.
I was just h e double hocky sticks (remember me now?) bent on showing my ire with Republican dirty political tactics this year by voting for anyone else, especially Democrats.
Don't let my blog worry you either. I can't get most of my friends and family to read it and none of them live in Kansas. I'm sure you rushed to read the blog as soon as you received knowledge of it. If you did, you'll note it says I have two followers, but that can't be right, can it? It increased from one follower to two one time when I signed in to do an edit. My granddaughter swears she read it at least once. So did my brother, the Republican . . . and my nephew by marriage told me I was some kind of writer. I'm sure he doesn't know I realize that may not be a compliment. My friend from high school, who lives in California, said she would read one and I remember her as a person of her word. My other brother, the Democrat, after many excuses why he hadn't, reluctantly said he would, and he's a minister. They always tell the truth, don't they? I know my best friend's sister read it at least once, because her nephew filed a comment and said she had recommended he read it. And then there is my niece whom I fired up so badly she wrote two rebuttal comments.
But, I'll leave it to you all my non-reading followers. Was I a low-information voter or not?
There was one thing of note. Mr. Yoder said on the survey form that he was working to get term limits for Congress. Fat chance his colleagues will go for that, but it is an idea I can get into myself.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Pre-Election Overview of Trickle Down Politics
A friend asked a person for information I needed for this blog. That person said he would like to meet and shake the hand of the individual -- me -- that cares enough to write a blog that nobody reads. It does seem that way sometimes, but I certainly have ticked off a lot of conservative Republicans with it. Some have filed formal comments on the blog. Joel Osteen said in his sermon today that sometimes we have to go through a thousand or so closed doors before we walk through the one that God answers with a yes, but we need to stay in the faith and keep trying.
This campaign has left a lot of citizens confused and frustrated. The died-in-the-wool Democrats and Republicans remain almost blindly and unthinkingly faithful to party lines. The rest of us have to keep listening, reading and evaluating. We also need to be prayerful that we hear and understand the issues well enough to make the best choices for most Americans. Believe me I have prayed my way through these blog articles.
Throughout the process, the blame games have grown very tiring and have not been constructive. Yes, our debt grew considerably because of two wars, tax cuts and an unsubstantiated belief that cutting taxes for the wealthy and businesses would cause trickle down affluence to Main Street. Yes, the current congress and administration colluded with the previous ones and continued those same questionable practices. What part of "they are not working" do both parties not understand? The best that can be said is they are leading us through a sluggish recovery.
Granted this recovery was destined to be sluggish anyway. There is a reason this period was called The Great Recession. It was named such because it is the worst recession since the Great Depression. We won't recover overnight.
In "The View From Mainstreet", the first article in the blog, I said that the average head of household knows how to fix a financial crisis -- at least as long as jobs are available. One, stop fighting about the problem and creating more stress. Two, cut out all frivolous and unnecessary spending. Three, increase revenue. In a family, that means people take on extra jobs. In government that means increasing taxes. If it means Congress needs to tax my $797 monthly Social Security Transfer, so-be-it. Tax it! As a neighbor says when we get no or niggardly Social Security increases, "we can learn to do with less". Whatever it takes, get that national debt paid down. It is sheer insanity to be in debt to a country that has clearly not been our friend for decades. The Chinese are no dummies. Are we?
Focusing on whether or not we like the personalities involved should not be the issue. After the Republican primary, I e-mailed my Republican brother that I'm glad Romney had won. I rather like the man. I simply disagree with his waffling on issues in order to improve his poll figures as well as his newly acquired conservative politics.
I understand why that brother is a Republican. He is a small business owner and Republicans, by orientation, tend to favor businesses, both large and small. But most of my friends and family, as well as myself, have worked for schools, local governments, serving or helping professions, and in other people's businesses. Democrats are the ones more likely to protect the interests of the little people like us. From them you don't get the feeling that they are saying if they can live on their $10,000,000 annual income and save for their futures, why can't we live on the minimum wage $15,080 and save for our retirements as well. Even wealthy Democrats have a better understanding of what it means to be poor or Middle Class. The Republicans seem not to care anymore.
In this economy of less than one job per working-aged employee, there are some conservatives who actually think that Social Security should be entirely eliminated or at least reduced to a state that it supplements our retirement jobs. There is a reason why the very young and the very old do not work. The very young are learning how to survive and the very old are trying use the skills they learned while young. Even people as remarkably healthy as I, still have physical issues that can impede productive work -- visual disturbances, hearing problems, arthritis, etc. How can they convince a prospective employer that they can be as useful and productive as their younger selves? Many of them need afternoon naps to keep up their strength or rest their eyes.
Remember that funny old saying, "them what has, gets"? Social Security recipients, while having an average monthly income of $1050 received no raise for 2010, 2011, a 3.6 per cent raise for 2012 and a prospective increase of 1.7 per cent for 2013. Supposedly our Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is based on the Consumer Price Index -W. Having lived through the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 to date, can you honestly agree that we had no cost of living increase in 2009 and 2010 or just 1.7 per cent in 2012? If these figures are correct, why can we buy so much less than we could a few years ago. The COLA is supposed to keep us at the same purchasing power as when the Index was lower.
Yet, Congress, some time ago, allowed themselves an automatic annual raise unless they voted before the end of the previous year to forego it. Ordinary Congressmen have an income of $174, 000, but they need an increase sometimes even when the Seniors and handicapped do not. "Them what has, gets."
In psychology and education, we talk about a phenomenon called the "Self Fulfilling Prophecy". If we think something negative might happen, our subconscious is likely to set up conditions so that something negative happens. Well, the current climate in Congress is that Social Security needs to be reduced or discontinued so it won't go bankrupt or cause the entire country to be bankrupt. So what does Congress do? They stop taking Social Security taxes from employee's paychecks. And what are Conservatives threatening? Republicans want to privatize the program. President George W. Bush suggested since people would like to leave something for their children, he thought privatizing was a good idea. Besides the fact that private funds would be threatened over and over by a volatile stock market, how can failure to tax the current workforce for Social Security or letting heirs inherit the private funds save the program? Subtracting funds from an already crippled system will kill the system, which is exactly what some Republicans such as Todd Akin of Missouri want to do.
Next we need to address issues related to large and small government. Right after the Civil War, a Union could not have been possible had the states not been given a lot of power and latitude. The entire concept of small versus large government is kind of a dinosaur, but the country keeps playing the old tapes over and over. Per small government conservatives, there are a lot of areas where the Federal Government does not belong. For Mitt Romney, one of these is health care. He presented once that his State Health Care plan would be a good model for the country, but for each individual state, not the Federal Government. Well, what a waste of time, manpower and dollars to replicate it 49 times. And, would there be equal protection fifty different times? Can't you envision a mass exodus to the state with the most popular plan? But more importantly, doesn't this underscore a basic hypocrisy in Conservative thinking? The very party that believes that the less government the better, is the one that wants to micromanage our individual lives -- what we do with our bodies, who we marry, what wattage light bulb we use, whether or not we use birth control. Our God is a taxing master, but even He offers us a choice. Local, state and federal governments do not belong in our private and religious lives. Mucking around in them is evidence of politics and government out of control.
We have yet to hear the debate about foreign policy. That hasn't stopped people on both sides from devining what the policies are or should be.
A lot of my family is up in arms over our relations with Israel. Per our military leaders, our country still has good rapport with the Israeli military. From what I have discerned from my reading, Israel does not have enough manpower or supplies to carry on a prolonged war with Iran. If they go into battle with that country, whether it is started by Israel or Iran, they will have to have the backing and support of the U. S. and their other allies. It would be to Netanyahu's advantage if he could coerce all of us to start the war for them. Some of the other Israeli leaders, however, do not believe the time is yet here when Israel and it's allies need to act. President Obama and our leaders are well aware that two recent wars are the major cause of our never-ending debt and that our troops are exhausted and stressed to the point of suicide. We do not need another war. We need to rest, grieve and heal both emotionally and financially. But Netanyahu will not cease his pressure to get the U. S. and the U. N. to go to war for him. Through his efforts to achieve his personal agenda, he has offended our President on more than one occasion, including dressing him down in a televised photo op on his first visit to this administration.
In addition, Russia and China do not want military interference between these two countries at this time, and yes they have a say. Our government and the other countries have opted to use sanctions in an attempt to avoid bloodshed and achieve a peaceful resolution. Besides, Ahmadinejad said that Putin informed him we had several thousand nuclear weapons, and that one bomb would be nothing compared to that. But go ahead, critics and continue to criticize our President and the U. N. for not engaging in our usual guilt-ridden knee jerk reaction to Israeli concerns. Then the next presidential election you will be able to complain about a war of your own making.
Now, let's deal with the Libyan debate. CBS did a timeline last week about what and when the Administration stated that the attack on our embasy was probably terrorism. In a meeting with some of his staff, Obama is said to have stated it was probably terrorism, and he mentioned not tolerating terrorists in his public news conference, less than twelve hours after the event. If ten kids get into a fight on the playground, the school staff may believe, while stopping it, that they know what caused it and who all was involved. But if they walk into the fray saying they know the gang kid started it and take action based only on opinion, they could come up short later when they find out Johnny four-eyes stole a candy bar from a little girl and the others began to protect her. Wherever the fight and whatever the cause, sane individuals have to methodically sift through the facts, examine forensically and make sane decisions before acting. And to think if he had come out swearing vengeance for terrorism and it turned out regular mob violence, all the critics would have risen against him for that. We need to leave personalities and our favorites out of this and think forensically ourselves.
The uprising in Egypt seems truly to have been provoked by the ill-timed and ill-conceived video that a coptic Egyptian published on-line from our country. Nobody seems concerned that Egypt has taken responsibility for their own cleanup.
The situation in Syria is a heartache. Our government considered sending in weapons to help the rebels, but could not because there was no guarantee they would not be used by AlQaeda, The Talliban and their sympathizers. Just think, we could have wound up with another gun/Cartel expose for everybody to bitch about.
But the bottom line is that Ron Paul is probably right. The United States is not the police force of the world. We are neither obligated nor qualified to be. We have more than we can handle policing within our own borders.
We all need to learn as much as we can. We must discern what remarks -- from both sides -- are fact and what are half truths and what are misdirections, or downright lies meant to win votes. We need to honestly assess if we are cherry picking points to support our pre-conceived party position or if we are really trying to eke out all the facts.
It is imperative that we align ourselves with politicians whose records to date show that they share our interests and have policies that will facilitate our own financial and life-sustaining needs. It is ludicrous when a part-time teacher or a hospital nurse's aid identifies so closely with a member of the upper one per cent that they think their needs and goals are the same. They are totally in conflict. And there are 99% more of us than there are of them.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Which Mitt Romney Would Be President?
Should Mitt Romey become President, which Mitt Romney would we get? Would it be the one who signed a health care bill into law while he was Governor of Massachusetts? You remember the law -- it was used as the model for the Affordable Health Care Act currently called Obamacare. Or would we get the Mitt Romney who vows to get rid of Obamacare his first day in office?
Would the pro-choice Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, arrive in the Oval Office, or would the currently pro-life "Romney for President" be the one?
Perhaps we will get the Romney who said the next President might eliminate the Dream Act that President Obama enacted by Executive Order or perhaps the one who now proudly exclaims he has an ancestor who was born of American parents in Mexico. Or better still, we might get the one who says this country was built by immigrants and even his ancestors were immigrants. Well, duh, except for those few of us who have native American origins, all of us were born of immigrants.
Perhaps we will see the man who favors giving senior citizens vouchers for Medicare and sending them off to fight the wars with insurance companies (but please don't call them vouchers, because that's an unpopular idea). Or maybe we will get the one who now says we'll have to have a governnment sponsored option as one of the Medicare choices.
Just possibly we will get the Romney that doesn't want the government in Affordable Health Care because the government doesn't belong in what should be a private industry. Or possibly we will get the Romney that believes in the afforementioned government option for Medicare.
Maybe we'll get the Romney that says to trust him with the details instead of the one we observe making them up as he does interviews.
Will we get the Romney who said that kids who want to go to college or start businesses should borrow from their parents, or will we get the Romney who now says educating our young people is important and he truly embraces Pell grants?
Do we anticipate the Mitt Romney, who as a representative of Bain, closed companies and cut jobs, not the one who says his Bain experience taught him how to create jobs? Or, will the Mitt Romney who took Bain's profits from the top and walked away, leaving some companies to file for bancruptcy, be the one we can expect?
Will we get the Romney that wrote 47 per cent of the population off in a private meeting, or the one who now embraces all of us as best friends -- the poor, the pregnant, the handicapped, the middle class, the Food Stamp People, the people he cannot comprehend, the multitudes who are too lazy and selfish to live off the always too low minimum wage, and the ones who cannot find two or three jobs in an economy that offers less than one each?
For sure we would be getting the Romney that wants to be president even more than a kid wants a candy bar -- so much he will say anything at all to get the nomination and the job.
But what we don't know from all the verbiage is which Mitt Romney will actually show up for work every day. How could we?
Would the pro-choice Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, arrive in the Oval Office, or would the currently pro-life "Romney for President" be the one?
Perhaps we will get the Romney who said the next President might eliminate the Dream Act that President Obama enacted by Executive Order or perhaps the one who now proudly exclaims he has an ancestor who was born of American parents in Mexico. Or better still, we might get the one who says this country was built by immigrants and even his ancestors were immigrants. Well, duh, except for those few of us who have native American origins, all of us were born of immigrants.
Perhaps we will see the man who favors giving senior citizens vouchers for Medicare and sending them off to fight the wars with insurance companies (but please don't call them vouchers, because that's an unpopular idea). Or maybe we will get the one who now says we'll have to have a governnment sponsored option as one of the Medicare choices.
Just possibly we will get the Romney that doesn't want the government in Affordable Health Care because the government doesn't belong in what should be a private industry. Or possibly we will get the Romney that believes in the afforementioned government option for Medicare.
Maybe we'll get the Romney that says to trust him with the details instead of the one we observe making them up as he does interviews.
Will we get the Romney who said that kids who want to go to college or start businesses should borrow from their parents, or will we get the Romney who now says educating our young people is important and he truly embraces Pell grants?
Do we anticipate the Mitt Romney, who as a representative of Bain, closed companies and cut jobs, not the one who says his Bain experience taught him how to create jobs? Or, will the Mitt Romney who took Bain's profits from the top and walked away, leaving some companies to file for bancruptcy, be the one we can expect?
Will we get the Romney that wrote 47 per cent of the population off in a private meeting, or the one who now embraces all of us as best friends -- the poor, the pregnant, the handicapped, the middle class, the Food Stamp People, the people he cannot comprehend, the multitudes who are too lazy and selfish to live off the always too low minimum wage, and the ones who cannot find two or three jobs in an economy that offers less than one each?
For sure we would be getting the Romney that wants to be president even more than a kid wants a candy bar -- so much he will say anything at all to get the nomination and the job.
But what we don't know from all the verbiage is which Mitt Romney will actually show up for work every day. How could we?
Friday, September 21, 2012
Voucher Brain Disease
by
Lou Hough
Unfortunately, the Republicans in congress, and perhaps a few Democrats, have been stricken with a dangerous brain condition which this author has coined Voucher Brain Disease. The congressmen most affected -- the worst cases -- tend to be small government, conservative Republicans.
This fad, which follows closely on the heels of one where U. S. Citizens were labeled whiners by our elected officials, seems to imply it is essential that the federal government get out of the management of our schools as well as our health care for seniors.
Consider the school children first. Suppose the government estimates it should cost a hypothetical $2,500 per child per year to educate each one in America. Part of the point they make is they will be saving taxpayers money in doing so. Another part of their point is they are getting the federal government out of our schools and resting responsibility with local and state governments. The first is probably a myth and the second is downright dangerous.
Why is it a myth to think that it would reduce taxes? First, these vouchers would not only be available to the usual public school students, but they they would go to private school children as well. Does that mean we, the taxpayers, would be paying for Paul Ryan's children to be taught Catholicism in their schools? That has been entertained as a possibility. According to sources, the Supreme Court would probably have to decide any congressional decision that included parochial schools.
It certainly means we would be paying for Mitt Romney's grandchildren to attend private schools. These are at least two classifications of schools for which taxpayers probably should not have to pay, especially if we are trying to save federal money and are cutting taxes to the rich. Think for a moment how many schools for which we do not pay now, that would receive children's vouchers under the proposed new plan. How can that possibly save tax dollars? (Note: Mr. Romney is said to favor similar plans for education as well as Medicare, but avoids the term voucher because it is very unpopular).
Second, as any senior on Social Security can tell you, the Congress steadfastly underestimates how much money is needed to live the barest existence. So, they apply this typical underestimate to education and the school districts find that it costs $3,000 per student. Who do you think will pay the difference? Well, you will, depending on how your state and local governments decide to handle it. Options include the student's family picking up the $500 extra per student or state and local governments increasing our -- yes, you guessed it -- taxes. Do state and local taxes to pay that extra cost any less than federal?
Also, they will try to tell you that it is better if local communities control the educational offerings. Education is actually one area where a larger collection of minds designing and recommending curriculum or teaching methods is better than a small local school system doing it. Even large ones can fail their students. The Kansas City, Missouri, district, based on student achievement, has lost it's accreditation and caused the state to have to take over. It not only takes a village to rear our children, as once written by Hillary Clinton, the village needs to be the entire U. S. A. in this case.
Think for a moment what the country's insurance companys could do with vouchers for Medicare. For seniors on Medicare now, remember that from the start of the program, our pay checks were taxed for Medicare. Next, once we were old enough to receive it, we had to pay a monthly fee which is subtracted from our Social Security payout. Then we are told we have to pay a deductible before Medicare steps in and that Medicare will pay only a percentage of the charges with the rest being our copays. In order to afford our deductibles and copays we have to subscribe to a Supplemental Insurance plan which currently costs in the neighborhood of $200 per month in fees. As most of the companys charge extra for older age categories, it can be even higher. In addition, we have to pay more per month for prescription coverage. Now the federal government, which forced us to pay taxes to insure our future health, wants to give us vouchers and leave us to the mercy of insurance companies? Worse still, the very ones in Congress who suffer from voucher brain disease, want deregulation of all U. S. companies.
If you vote for Republicans for Congress and the Presidency this year, you are voting for these kinds of problems to be visited upon yourselves and your family. Remember that this kind of thinking produced the Ryan budget plan that has already passed the Republican controled House of Representatives. Think carefully what you do. One celebrity said it's like giving them food stamps to go and get an education (or health care).
Lou Hough
Unfortunately, the Republicans in congress, and perhaps a few Democrats, have been stricken with a dangerous brain condition which this author has coined Voucher Brain Disease. The congressmen most affected -- the worst cases -- tend to be small government, conservative Republicans.
This fad, which follows closely on the heels of one where U. S. Citizens were labeled whiners by our elected officials, seems to imply it is essential that the federal government get out of the management of our schools as well as our health care for seniors.
Consider the school children first. Suppose the government estimates it should cost a hypothetical $2,500 per child per year to educate each one in America. Part of the point they make is they will be saving taxpayers money in doing so. Another part of their point is they are getting the federal government out of our schools and resting responsibility with local and state governments. The first is probably a myth and the second is downright dangerous.
Why is it a myth to think that it would reduce taxes? First, these vouchers would not only be available to the usual public school students, but they they would go to private school children as well. Does that mean we, the taxpayers, would be paying for Paul Ryan's children to be taught Catholicism in their schools? That has been entertained as a possibility. According to sources, the Supreme Court would probably have to decide any congressional decision that included parochial schools.
It certainly means we would be paying for Mitt Romney's grandchildren to attend private schools. These are at least two classifications of schools for which taxpayers probably should not have to pay, especially if we are trying to save federal money and are cutting taxes to the rich. Think for a moment how many schools for which we do not pay now, that would receive children's vouchers under the proposed new plan. How can that possibly save tax dollars? (Note: Mr. Romney is said to favor similar plans for education as well as Medicare, but avoids the term voucher because it is very unpopular).
Second, as any senior on Social Security can tell you, the Congress steadfastly underestimates how much money is needed to live the barest existence. So, they apply this typical underestimate to education and the school districts find that it costs $3,000 per student. Who do you think will pay the difference? Well, you will, depending on how your state and local governments decide to handle it. Options include the student's family picking up the $500 extra per student or state and local governments increasing our -- yes, you guessed it -- taxes. Do state and local taxes to pay that extra cost any less than federal?
Also, they will try to tell you that it is better if local communities control the educational offerings. Education is actually one area where a larger collection of minds designing and recommending curriculum or teaching methods is better than a small local school system doing it. Even large ones can fail their students. The Kansas City, Missouri, district, based on student achievement, has lost it's accreditation and caused the state to have to take over. It not only takes a village to rear our children, as once written by Hillary Clinton, the village needs to be the entire U. S. A. in this case.
Think for a moment what the country's insurance companys could do with vouchers for Medicare. For seniors on Medicare now, remember that from the start of the program, our pay checks were taxed for Medicare. Next, once we were old enough to receive it, we had to pay a monthly fee which is subtracted from our Social Security payout. Then we are told we have to pay a deductible before Medicare steps in and that Medicare will pay only a percentage of the charges with the rest being our copays. In order to afford our deductibles and copays we have to subscribe to a Supplemental Insurance plan which currently costs in the neighborhood of $200 per month in fees. As most of the companys charge extra for older age categories, it can be even higher. In addition, we have to pay more per month for prescription coverage. Now the federal government, which forced us to pay taxes to insure our future health, wants to give us vouchers and leave us to the mercy of insurance companies? Worse still, the very ones in Congress who suffer from voucher brain disease, want deregulation of all U. S. companies.
If you vote for Republicans for Congress and the Presidency this year, you are voting for these kinds of problems to be visited upon yourselves and your family. Remember that this kind of thinking produced the Ryan budget plan that has already passed the Republican controled House of Representatives. Think carefully what you do. One celebrity said it's like giving them food stamps to go and get an education (or health care).
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Fatal Flaw
by
Lou Hough
It was disappointing recently to hear a young congressman say he and his wife gave up their own goals to "save the country" -- a self-appointed savior who now wants to destroy our education system.
It was frustrating earlier to watch a president ignore the wishes of a large number of his people and ignore the vote of a world council to enter an unprovoked war because the other country might be a threat to America's security.
It is unconscionable that a senior congressman said his party's number one priority was to see Barack Obama was a one term president. Worse, he and his party wasted years of potential law-making and taxpayer's dollars in that endeavor.
Once again refer to Rick Santorum's words while electioneering -- he told a group of blue collar workers it was snobbery to want a college education available to all Americans. Yet, he does not deny educations to his own children.
One congressman did a little twirl on television and thrilled that there was no inflation, so Social Security recipients would get no cost of living adjustment that year. He continued making a little speech about how we are a nation of whiners to expect something just because we had been promised it. Retirees who had shoveled out years of taxes and insurance involuntarily for old age security were whiners because he and his ilk wanted to reduce or destroy the Social Security system. But, he will be collecting lifetime dollars at taxpayer expense himself.
It was extremely irritating to hear a wealthy man, with a smug look on his face, tell a television interviewer that, of course, he deserved his great wealth because he had the idea and he took the risk. He said it as if he had single-handedly made each part of each product by himself.
An arrogance that says congressmen are the elite and therefore entitled. An arrogance that says the rich should get more because they are rich -- and conversely that the poor should get less because they are poor! Elected officials suffering from a god-complex and acting as though the masses that elected them are worthless; unnecessary.
Recently a friend posted an article onto her Facebook page. It seemed to be a 2009 review of two biographies of Ayn Rand. Besides being filled with personal resentment, the article showed a lack of understanding of Rand's philosophy and work. The reviewer seemed to believe Rand's books were about the virtues of being rich, but they were more about the virtues of being valuable. Immediately, Congressional elitism and arrogance and implications the rich were totally responsible for their wealth sprang to mind. What if generations of greedy, self-serving, arrogant people were a product of reading or misreading Rand.
Rand's philosophy of Objective Ethics -- watered down into a nutshell says man, as a goal-setting, conscious individual is responsible for his own survival. Anything that stands in the way of that survival is evil. She recommended a rational selfishness that man should concentrate on his own survival to the exclusion of interfering incidents or purposes. But the selfishness was not to be based on desires, whims or aspirations. It was only to enhance survival. Man had to take responsibility for this goal.
She said human good does not require human sacrifice and cannot be achieved by sacrifice. She said rational interests of man do not clash. As long as men don't make sacrifices or accept sacrifices, but give value for value they can achieve a proper trade.
Trade, is the principle of justice. She said a trader earns what he gets. He does not treat others as masters or slaves. A trader expects to be paid for achievements. The exchange must benefit both, not just one.
Rand saw philosophies based on altruism to be the antithesis to her survival philosophy. A person who sacrifices himself or herself to others is not being a trader -- not someone who gives and gets value in a trade.
She was also an athiest -- her position, not mine. This author is as much a Bible reading, devotional writing, Virgin Birth believing Christian as Rand was athiest. That said, she has had a firm baptism in helping other people. One Southern Baptist minister recently said he believes that neglecting the poor and downtrodden is dangerous business for Christians because Jesus' sympathies are so tied to helping them. Perhaps a balance of altruism and self-protection might serve mankind better. I'm sure Jesus didn't mean to turn generations into foot rugs.
This article is not meant to support or defame Rand's position. It is simply explained to show how a misinterpretation of her meaning might have inspired greed, exploitation and neglect of one's fellow man.
If one interpreted trading value and the virtue of selfishness to mean soak the public for all you can get . . . or if seeing avoiding altruism to mean it was to work your employess for less than they need to support a family . . . or if they read being valuable to mean being rich, then we might just have found the fatal flaw that has ruined our economy and is tanking this country.
All of you Rand readers out there, reread her work knowing she meant value for value, not exploiting others to be rich. After all, Rand did say that parasites and looters can be of no use to a human being and she defined masters who exploit their "slaves" as being some of those parasites.
We might better have taken lessons from our Native Americans who believed in taking only what they needed to survive and sharing that with the others in their camps. But we didn't do that, did we? Had business owners also interpreted Rand correctly, they would have traded real value to those who gave them the value of their time and their work. But that didn't happen. The American way became that of a business owner's bottom line and any means to achieve it.
For our country and our people to survive, it seems important to learn and use Rand's challenge to engage in even trade. Had our bottom-line crowd done this, instead of turning employees into servants, our system of capitalism might be working.
Henry Ford is said to have wanted his workers to earn a decent wage and be able to afford to buy his product. He made it happen.
Had other business owners followed his lead, today's programs the Republicans are calling "socialism" would never have been necessary. It is not socialism, of course. We would not want to think that our leaders were so uninformed that they don't know socialism is a system that gives the community control of all industry, land and capital. But they don't think we know that. They view us as uninformed, nonthinking masses of parasites who will respond to their cries of socialism with fear and confusion. They mean to manipulate us to flock to the polls in November to vote out the liberals. They want us not to see the wisdom and compassion that brought about Public Education, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, the Affordable Care Act. They want us to give them the reins over it all so they can cut spending on valuable programs so they can fill their pockets with more wealth and line their retirements with more taxpayer dollars. But we have caught them at their game.
It is disrespect from the Chiefs for the Indians that has been the fatal flaw. Let's hope it's not too late to change the program.
Lou Hough
It was disappointing recently to hear a young congressman say he and his wife gave up their own goals to "save the country" -- a self-appointed savior who now wants to destroy our education system.
It was frustrating earlier to watch a president ignore the wishes of a large number of his people and ignore the vote of a world council to enter an unprovoked war because the other country might be a threat to America's security.
It is unconscionable that a senior congressman said his party's number one priority was to see Barack Obama was a one term president. Worse, he and his party wasted years of potential law-making and taxpayer's dollars in that endeavor.
Once again refer to Rick Santorum's words while electioneering -- he told a group of blue collar workers it was snobbery to want a college education available to all Americans. Yet, he does not deny educations to his own children.
One congressman did a little twirl on television and thrilled that there was no inflation, so Social Security recipients would get no cost of living adjustment that year. He continued making a little speech about how we are a nation of whiners to expect something just because we had been promised it. Retirees who had shoveled out years of taxes and insurance involuntarily for old age security were whiners because he and his ilk wanted to reduce or destroy the Social Security system. But, he will be collecting lifetime dollars at taxpayer expense himself.
It was extremely irritating to hear a wealthy man, with a smug look on his face, tell a television interviewer that, of course, he deserved his great wealth because he had the idea and he took the risk. He said it as if he had single-handedly made each part of each product by himself.
An arrogance that says congressmen are the elite and therefore entitled. An arrogance that says the rich should get more because they are rich -- and conversely that the poor should get less because they are poor! Elected officials suffering from a god-complex and acting as though the masses that elected them are worthless; unnecessary.
Recently a friend posted an article onto her Facebook page. It seemed to be a 2009 review of two biographies of Ayn Rand. Besides being filled with personal resentment, the article showed a lack of understanding of Rand's philosophy and work. The reviewer seemed to believe Rand's books were about the virtues of being rich, but they were more about the virtues of being valuable. Immediately, Congressional elitism and arrogance and implications the rich were totally responsible for their wealth sprang to mind. What if generations of greedy, self-serving, arrogant people were a product of reading or misreading Rand.
Rand's philosophy of Objective Ethics -- watered down into a nutshell says man, as a goal-setting, conscious individual is responsible for his own survival. Anything that stands in the way of that survival is evil. She recommended a rational selfishness that man should concentrate on his own survival to the exclusion of interfering incidents or purposes. But the selfishness was not to be based on desires, whims or aspirations. It was only to enhance survival. Man had to take responsibility for this goal.
She said human good does not require human sacrifice and cannot be achieved by sacrifice. She said rational interests of man do not clash. As long as men don't make sacrifices or accept sacrifices, but give value for value they can achieve a proper trade.
Trade, is the principle of justice. She said a trader earns what he gets. He does not treat others as masters or slaves. A trader expects to be paid for achievements. The exchange must benefit both, not just one.
Rand saw philosophies based on altruism to be the antithesis to her survival philosophy. A person who sacrifices himself or herself to others is not being a trader -- not someone who gives and gets value in a trade.
She was also an athiest -- her position, not mine. This author is as much a Bible reading, devotional writing, Virgin Birth believing Christian as Rand was athiest. That said, she has had a firm baptism in helping other people. One Southern Baptist minister recently said he believes that neglecting the poor and downtrodden is dangerous business for Christians because Jesus' sympathies are so tied to helping them. Perhaps a balance of altruism and self-protection might serve mankind better. I'm sure Jesus didn't mean to turn generations into foot rugs.
This article is not meant to support or defame Rand's position. It is simply explained to show how a misinterpretation of her meaning might have inspired greed, exploitation and neglect of one's fellow man.
If one interpreted trading value and the virtue of selfishness to mean soak the public for all you can get . . . or if seeing avoiding altruism to mean it was to work your employess for less than they need to support a family . . . or if they read being valuable to mean being rich, then we might just have found the fatal flaw that has ruined our economy and is tanking this country.
All of you Rand readers out there, reread her work knowing she meant value for value, not exploiting others to be rich. After all, Rand did say that parasites and looters can be of no use to a human being and she defined masters who exploit their "slaves" as being some of those parasites.
We might better have taken lessons from our Native Americans who believed in taking only what they needed to survive and sharing that with the others in their camps. But we didn't do that, did we? Had business owners also interpreted Rand correctly, they would have traded real value to those who gave them the value of their time and their work. But that didn't happen. The American way became that of a business owner's bottom line and any means to achieve it.
For our country and our people to survive, it seems important to learn and use Rand's challenge to engage in even trade. Had our bottom-line crowd done this, instead of turning employees into servants, our system of capitalism might be working.
Henry Ford is said to have wanted his workers to earn a decent wage and be able to afford to buy his product. He made it happen.
Had other business owners followed his lead, today's programs the Republicans are calling "socialism" would never have been necessary. It is not socialism, of course. We would not want to think that our leaders were so uninformed that they don't know socialism is a system that gives the community control of all industry, land and capital. But they don't think we know that. They view us as uninformed, nonthinking masses of parasites who will respond to their cries of socialism with fear and confusion. They mean to manipulate us to flock to the polls in November to vote out the liberals. They want us not to see the wisdom and compassion that brought about Public Education, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, the Affordable Care Act. They want us to give them the reins over it all so they can cut spending on valuable programs so they can fill their pockets with more wealth and line their retirements with more taxpayer dollars. But we have caught them at their game.
It is disrespect from the Chiefs for the Indians that has been the fatal flaw. Let's hope it's not too late to change the program.
The Value of a Public Education
by
Lou Hough
For many years this author has wondered about what drives the minds of individuals in Congress. Why would they vote to cut public education funds while valuing education so much they send their own children to expensive schools and pull strings to get them into Harvard?
It has felt for years as if school funds are tightest when Republicans hold the Congressional majority. Here they are again wanting to cut taxes for the rich by cutting funding for public schools, colleges and student loans and grants. Don't they know that it is the public education system that has made this country great? It is the opportunity to go from uneducated to contributing, productive citizen that has produced our country's worth.
The Romney/Ryan team, as well as the Republican Platform, show designs on practically destroying public education. The Platform shows the parents as responsible for the child's education. They prefer state and local control and want the parents to have choice in the child's education. But federal control and dispensing of funds equalizes the amount of dollars -- instead of a rich town or state having all of the opportunities. These are our great-grandchildren that would suffer.
Mitt Romney professes to want to award school vouchers to individual families and let them apply them toward their children's educations. He doesn't say how much of the costs the vouchers will cover or if they will be equal amounts in all the states or to all students.
He said students wanting to attend college could borrow from their parents and search for the lowest cost schools. The man has no clue what it is like to be lower or lower middle class, does he? Mr. Romney, where do you think these parents will get the money to loan their children? From their minimum wage jobs? How many more do you think they can work?
Paul Ryan's education plan, which passed the House but not the Senate, includes cutting $115,000,0000,000 from education -- yes, billion. He plans to have 2,000,000 less children in Head Start, that program that levels the playing field at least until fifth grade. He wants to cut Pell grants which help lower and lower middle class families afford college educations for their children. And yes, Ryan's plan passed the Republican majority House of Representatives.
To show the value of our free public education, take a moment to consider this author's high school graduating class. The small community of 12,000 was basically a coal mining and farming city. The class of '56 produced nine coal miners, some of whom became management, as well as seven homemakers. The two valedictorians (a tie) became a doctor (one of three) and a nurse (one of two). We also have an LPN from our midst. One of us became a public school administrator; another served that role in a junior college. At least two were teachers. Three or more owned their own businesses. We proudly claim four engineers. Five of us worked in real estate, some as brokers. We boast at least one insurance person as well as two investment gurus. One of us became a cinematographer who worked nationally. Another was a photographer. Two became counselors or psychologists. One is a journalist and book author. We can claim one person in electronics and one a systems analyst. One of us became a veterinarian -- three were electricians. Four are ministers.
Our free public education produced one computer programer, a court clerk and a travel agent. We have one trucker, two librarians, a mechanic and a plumber. One worked in television. Four of us served as bookkeepers or accountants. One became a postal employee. Six have worked in various levels of the phone industry. At least seven of us worked in some sort of sales and one in manufacturing. Four worked in childcare, one a cook, another a school bus driver, all jobs requiring the patience of saints. We boast the director of a charity, a seamstress, a millwright. Ten worked in some form of the secretarial/clerical field and one in the oil business.
Two were career military and others served as well. We are very grateful to the one (or more) who died in battle to save our country.
So, you see, had it not been for our free public education, most of us would have stayed at home in mines until they shut down, on farms until conglomerates or realtors bought us out or as housewives until we had to go to work because our husbands lost their jobs. Instead, we have spread all over the country from Florida to New York -- from New Orleans to Chicago -- from Texas to California. Our public education jump started our careers, turning us into productive, valuable members of society. Tampering with the funding for it is like signing a death warrant for our country and to our competitiveness with the world. We have vastly repaid our country for their investment in us.
Lou Hough
For many years this author has wondered about what drives the minds of individuals in Congress. Why would they vote to cut public education funds while valuing education so much they send their own children to expensive schools and pull strings to get them into Harvard?
It has felt for years as if school funds are tightest when Republicans hold the Congressional majority. Here they are again wanting to cut taxes for the rich by cutting funding for public schools, colleges and student loans and grants. Don't they know that it is the public education system that has made this country great? It is the opportunity to go from uneducated to contributing, productive citizen that has produced our country's worth.
The Romney/Ryan team, as well as the Republican Platform, show designs on practically destroying public education. The Platform shows the parents as responsible for the child's education. They prefer state and local control and want the parents to have choice in the child's education. But federal control and dispensing of funds equalizes the amount of dollars -- instead of a rich town or state having all of the opportunities. These are our great-grandchildren that would suffer.
Mitt Romney professes to want to award school vouchers to individual families and let them apply them toward their children's educations. He doesn't say how much of the costs the vouchers will cover or if they will be equal amounts in all the states or to all students.
He said students wanting to attend college could borrow from their parents and search for the lowest cost schools. The man has no clue what it is like to be lower or lower middle class, does he? Mr. Romney, where do you think these parents will get the money to loan their children? From their minimum wage jobs? How many more do you think they can work?
Paul Ryan's education plan, which passed the House but not the Senate, includes cutting $115,000,0000,000 from education -- yes, billion. He plans to have 2,000,000 less children in Head Start, that program that levels the playing field at least until fifth grade. He wants to cut Pell grants which help lower and lower middle class families afford college educations for their children. And yes, Ryan's plan passed the Republican majority House of Representatives.
To show the value of our free public education, take a moment to consider this author's high school graduating class. The small community of 12,000 was basically a coal mining and farming city. The class of '56 produced nine coal miners, some of whom became management, as well as seven homemakers. The two valedictorians (a tie) became a doctor (one of three) and a nurse (one of two). We also have an LPN from our midst. One of us became a public school administrator; another served that role in a junior college. At least two were teachers. Three or more owned their own businesses. We proudly claim four engineers. Five of us worked in real estate, some as brokers. We boast at least one insurance person as well as two investment gurus. One of us became a cinematographer who worked nationally. Another was a photographer. Two became counselors or psychologists. One is a journalist and book author. We can claim one person in electronics and one a systems analyst. One of us became a veterinarian -- three were electricians. Four are ministers.
Our free public education produced one computer programer, a court clerk and a travel agent. We have one trucker, two librarians, a mechanic and a plumber. One worked in television. Four of us served as bookkeepers or accountants. One became a postal employee. Six have worked in various levels of the phone industry. At least seven of us worked in some sort of sales and one in manufacturing. Four worked in childcare, one a cook, another a school bus driver, all jobs requiring the patience of saints. We boast the director of a charity, a seamstress, a millwright. Ten worked in some form of the secretarial/clerical field and one in the oil business.
Two were career military and others served as well. We are very grateful to the one (or more) who died in battle to save our country.
So, you see, had it not been for our free public education, most of us would have stayed at home in mines until they shut down, on farms until conglomerates or realtors bought us out or as housewives until we had to go to work because our husbands lost their jobs. Instead, we have spread all over the country from Florida to New York -- from New Orleans to Chicago -- from Texas to California. Our public education jump started our careers, turning us into productive, valuable members of society. Tampering with the funding for it is like signing a death warrant for our country and to our competitiveness with the world. We have vastly repaid our country for their investment in us.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Probably Not The Final Word, But . . .
by
Lou Hough
The Chick-Fil-A incident not only demonstrated how freedom of speech, behavior and corporate participation can work for both sides, it also demonstrated a need for all Americans to reconsider the nature of sexual humans -- both hetero- and homosexual.
Some say sex has evolved into "much ado about nothing". Compared with the need for food, water and shelter, such labeling seems appropriate. Without all the tabus placed on it, it probably would not have so much appeal.
In the creation stories (Genesis 1-3) God created man and woman in his own image and He told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth . . ." He left Adam to tend the Garden of Eden which had every tree that was beautiful or good for food, including a Tree of Life and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In Genesis 2, He made eating from the latter a tabu. God, then, left them to an innocent enjoyment of each other. Once they ate forbidden fruit, they clothed themselves and the sex act there-in-after was labeled sin. But the never asked question is did God forbid them sex or did He forbid them knowledge? Read it again.
Though they were to enjoy each others bodies and procreate prior to eating the fruit, childbearing became Eve's punishment afterward. Once sex was seen as evil, the die was cast. What God had meant as a warm intimacy between individuals now became a dreaded sin. As stated before, much ado about nothing.
As the world evolved, human interactions became so complex that rules, besides God's, were necessary. Anthropologists and sociologists refer to the need for "mores" -- rules first spoken and then written to eliminate chaos in the clans. These included marriage. That's right, when God blessed his newly created couple and told them to go and multiply, there seems not to have been a formal, licensed ceremony -- legal marriage. The first union was between God and the couple, not the couple and other people. It's the making of human laws that makes us think it's our business.
Laws against homosexuality began with the ancients, including the Jews. However, some of the incidents used by moderns as proof homosexuality is sin do not clearly pertain to same sex behaviors. The tribal war caused when some men wanted to have sex with a priest and ultimately raped a concubine unto death, as well as the incident when Lot's neighbors wanted to rape the Angels of God, were about rape, not homosexuality. The tribal war in the first was caused by the death of the concubine. Angels, who are said by many scholars never to have been human, may not even have sexual identities. If they do, are there no female angels?
Neither the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah nor Canaan describe exactly what the sexual sins were. It is just assumed by moderns that same sex relations were the problem. Hence, sodomy from Sodom.
Some readers believe the story of Jonathan and King David -- the King who seems not to have experienced any drastic punishment from God for his sexual exploits -- was a story of homosexual love.
The Apostle Paul, after experiencing hysterical blindness out of guilt for crucifying Jesus, did caution not to engage in homosexual activity. Even people who take his cautions not to marry with a grain of salt, accept his opinion about same sex love as the final word. But a closer look shows his objection was based on women abandoning their God-given role in life and engaging in sex with other women. That caused men to have to sleep with men. (And the ancients thought it was Atlas that carried the burden on his shoulders). Paul didn't like women dominating women and men being dominated by men. (Everyone knows men should dominate women -- at least in the eyes of the ancient church. Check out what else he said about a woman's place).
So now we have reached an impasse. We have nature, on the one hand, causing people to want to engage in both natural and "allegedly" unnatural acts and men of the Bible and others of the ancient world seeing God-given physiology as perverse and sinful. Saint Augustine said that to mix up whether a Biblical story is literal or figurative is wrong. He said if it pertained to virtue and truth it was literal. If not, it was figurative. But whose truth and whose definition of virtue?
Ever since the likes of Augustine, Paul and others of their times, any sexual act except that for procreation has been deemed a sin. Even sex for procreation, Augustine said was passing original sin from one generation to the next. Per him, Mary, Mother of Jesus, had to be born of Immaculate Conception lest a man's seed would pass original sin to her and from her to Jesus. Do you see the problem? Man has taken physiological creations of God and turned them into evil. But are they sin to God? If so, why did He allow the body to experience such phenomena?
Many fundamentalistic Christians see the reason great civilizations lost their world status as caused by one common factor -- they began to engage in homosexual relations. But are they ignoring other commonalities? For instance, they all began as small communities and grew to great and highly peopled kingdoms. Suppose homosexuality is a mechanism built within each organism and was meant by God as a means of controling for overcrowding?
Before you condemn me as a heretic, know this. Scientific studies among fish, worms, mollusks and plants indicate they can change sex when needed.
When reef fish have lost their single male, the largest female begins behaving like a male and can produce sperm in ten days. Some species of fish switch back and forth between producing sperm, then eggs. This occurs in at least fourteen species, even though their original sex seems genetically determined (physiological).
Switching in fish depends on either the size of the reef or the density of population. Sometimes entire harems convert to male. Males becoming female is less common, but in one species of bass, schools seem programed to have a certain number of males.
. Worms are born with no gender at all. As they travel, if they find a female, they become male, etc.
. Sex change is found in some frogs.
. Environmental factors can alter sex and gender.
. Some plants come with both male and female characteristics.
. Women are not always born with xx (women) chromosomes and men with xy (male) ones. If our gender physiology can vary among individuals, why do we find it so strange that our sexual orientation would vary?
Sometimes when in a fun-loving mood this author likes to visualize God as a right-brained, creative individual who was playing around in His heavenly laboratory. Not being left-brained, He neglected to follow rigid scientific rules and laws, thus causing an explosion. When He successfully recovered from His shock at the "big bang", He went to observe and clean up the mess.
Instead, He saw the earth, that it was good. Because it was without form, He set about hanging out the sun, moon and stars. He decorated it with the most beautiful trees, plants, colors and animal life available. He made man and woman simultaneously as in Genesis one. And he made them in His own image as androgynous individuals. He leaned back and watched them grow until there were too many, and then his alter physiological mechanism kicked in to slow the growth rate down.
Of course, it will take a lot more scientific work before these ideas are refuted or set in stone. But before that is completed, keep in mind that the ten rules that were set in stone did not include "thou shalt not enjoy sex with your significant other" or that "your significant other can't be of the same sex". And these were the rules written by the finger of God, not those that evolved from Man's need to control his fellow man. Also, don't forget, the great psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud, said all of us have latent homosexual tendencies.
So you can see, though the C. E. O. of Chick-Fil-A had a right to express his opinion, his ideas were possibly based on an incorrect assumption. Same sex love is probaly based on physiology, not sinful choice.
Probably not the final word, but . . . the final word is God's. And God would no doubt want us not to flaunt or critique what He meant as an intimate act.
Lou Hough can be contacted at jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com. See her other articles shown below.
Lou Hough
The Chick-Fil-A incident not only demonstrated how freedom of speech, behavior and corporate participation can work for both sides, it also demonstrated a need for all Americans to reconsider the nature of sexual humans -- both hetero- and homosexual.
Some say sex has evolved into "much ado about nothing". Compared with the need for food, water and shelter, such labeling seems appropriate. Without all the tabus placed on it, it probably would not have so much appeal.
In the creation stories (Genesis 1-3) God created man and woman in his own image and He told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth . . ." He left Adam to tend the Garden of Eden which had every tree that was beautiful or good for food, including a Tree of Life and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In Genesis 2, He made eating from the latter a tabu. God, then, left them to an innocent enjoyment of each other. Once they ate forbidden fruit, they clothed themselves and the sex act there-in-after was labeled sin. But the never asked question is did God forbid them sex or did He forbid them knowledge? Read it again.
Though they were to enjoy each others bodies and procreate prior to eating the fruit, childbearing became Eve's punishment afterward. Once sex was seen as evil, the die was cast. What God had meant as a warm intimacy between individuals now became a dreaded sin. As stated before, much ado about nothing.
As the world evolved, human interactions became so complex that rules, besides God's, were necessary. Anthropologists and sociologists refer to the need for "mores" -- rules first spoken and then written to eliminate chaos in the clans. These included marriage. That's right, when God blessed his newly created couple and told them to go and multiply, there seems not to have been a formal, licensed ceremony -- legal marriage. The first union was between God and the couple, not the couple and other people. It's the making of human laws that makes us think it's our business.
Laws against homosexuality began with the ancients, including the Jews. However, some of the incidents used by moderns as proof homosexuality is sin do not clearly pertain to same sex behaviors. The tribal war caused when some men wanted to have sex with a priest and ultimately raped a concubine unto death, as well as the incident when Lot's neighbors wanted to rape the Angels of God, were about rape, not homosexuality. The tribal war in the first was caused by the death of the concubine. Angels, who are said by many scholars never to have been human, may not even have sexual identities. If they do, are there no female angels?
Neither the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah nor Canaan describe exactly what the sexual sins were. It is just assumed by moderns that same sex relations were the problem. Hence, sodomy from Sodom.
Some readers believe the story of Jonathan and King David -- the King who seems not to have experienced any drastic punishment from God for his sexual exploits -- was a story of homosexual love.
The Apostle Paul, after experiencing hysterical blindness out of guilt for crucifying Jesus, did caution not to engage in homosexual activity. Even people who take his cautions not to marry with a grain of salt, accept his opinion about same sex love as the final word. But a closer look shows his objection was based on women abandoning their God-given role in life and engaging in sex with other women. That caused men to have to sleep with men. (And the ancients thought it was Atlas that carried the burden on his shoulders). Paul didn't like women dominating women and men being dominated by men. (Everyone knows men should dominate women -- at least in the eyes of the ancient church. Check out what else he said about a woman's place).
So now we have reached an impasse. We have nature, on the one hand, causing people to want to engage in both natural and "allegedly" unnatural acts and men of the Bible and others of the ancient world seeing God-given physiology as perverse and sinful. Saint Augustine said that to mix up whether a Biblical story is literal or figurative is wrong. He said if it pertained to virtue and truth it was literal. If not, it was figurative. But whose truth and whose definition of virtue?
Ever since the likes of Augustine, Paul and others of their times, any sexual act except that for procreation has been deemed a sin. Even sex for procreation, Augustine said was passing original sin from one generation to the next. Per him, Mary, Mother of Jesus, had to be born of Immaculate Conception lest a man's seed would pass original sin to her and from her to Jesus. Do you see the problem? Man has taken physiological creations of God and turned them into evil. But are they sin to God? If so, why did He allow the body to experience such phenomena?
Many fundamentalistic Christians see the reason great civilizations lost their world status as caused by one common factor -- they began to engage in homosexual relations. But are they ignoring other commonalities? For instance, they all began as small communities and grew to great and highly peopled kingdoms. Suppose homosexuality is a mechanism built within each organism and was meant by God as a means of controling for overcrowding?
Before you condemn me as a heretic, know this. Scientific studies among fish, worms, mollusks and plants indicate they can change sex when needed.
When reef fish have lost their single male, the largest female begins behaving like a male and can produce sperm in ten days. Some species of fish switch back and forth between producing sperm, then eggs. This occurs in at least fourteen species, even though their original sex seems genetically determined (physiological).
Switching in fish depends on either the size of the reef or the density of population. Sometimes entire harems convert to male. Males becoming female is less common, but in one species of bass, schools seem programed to have a certain number of males.
. Worms are born with no gender at all. As they travel, if they find a female, they become male, etc.
. Sex change is found in some frogs.
. Environmental factors can alter sex and gender.
. Some plants come with both male and female characteristics.
. Women are not always born with xx (women) chromosomes and men with xy (male) ones. If our gender physiology can vary among individuals, why do we find it so strange that our sexual orientation would vary?
Sometimes when in a fun-loving mood this author likes to visualize God as a right-brained, creative individual who was playing around in His heavenly laboratory. Not being left-brained, He neglected to follow rigid scientific rules and laws, thus causing an explosion. When He successfully recovered from His shock at the "big bang", He went to observe and clean up the mess.
Instead, He saw the earth, that it was good. Because it was without form, He set about hanging out the sun, moon and stars. He decorated it with the most beautiful trees, plants, colors and animal life available. He made man and woman simultaneously as in Genesis one. And he made them in His own image as androgynous individuals. He leaned back and watched them grow until there were too many, and then his alter physiological mechanism kicked in to slow the growth rate down.
Of course, it will take a lot more scientific work before these ideas are refuted or set in stone. But before that is completed, keep in mind that the ten rules that were set in stone did not include "thou shalt not enjoy sex with your significant other" or that "your significant other can't be of the same sex". And these were the rules written by the finger of God, not those that evolved from Man's need to control his fellow man. Also, don't forget, the great psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud, said all of us have latent homosexual tendencies.
So you can see, though the C. E. O. of Chick-Fil-A had a right to express his opinion, his ideas were possibly based on an incorrect assumption. Same sex love is probaly based on physiology, not sinful choice.
Probably not the final word, but . . . the final word is God's. And God would no doubt want us not to flaunt or critique what He meant as an intimate act.
Lou Hough can be contacted at jamiecarrpub@hotmail.com. See her other articles shown below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)