Is he really that stupid?

I believe Donald Trump may be a shrewder politician than he appears.  He continually deflects attention away from his serious actions like Gag orders on Federal Agencies or re-instituting the Mexico City Policy in foreign aid, by tweeting very stupid shit about voter fraud, inauguration attendance, or flag burners.  Over and over, his tweets consume the news cycles and social media taking time away from the “real” news. It also allows congressional leaders to spend the news cycles expressing their outrage or confusion about “X” tweet, instead of explaining their actions. 

So from now on, whenever I hear that he said or repeated something stupid, I’m going to look at what’s really happening.

Good Choice, Bad Choice --- Let God Decide

Sex is natural. Often resulting in conception. This is life. And life is full of choices and consequences.

Both of our children were planned, and because of our planning, we were never presented with that monumental dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy.  Had we have, we might have three children -- or the unthinkably, we might not have had our Lauren or even Megan.  The reality of the situation is that an early pregnancy could have resulted in totally different outcome for us.

So when I consider how circumstances could have resulted in such a universally different life for us, I also better appreciate our planning.  At that time we weren’t as young as most.  We were more educated that most.  Maybe that was why we never had to face an unplanned pregnancy, or maybe we were just lucky. Not everyone is so prepared or lucky though.  Sometimes people just aren’t in a position to start a family. Then a pregnancy can be a tragedy.
  

Before I go any further, I need to say, I hate the idea of an abortion, and I also reject the idea that anyone rejoices in the idea of abortion.  It’s physically and mentally strenuous on the woman.  The abortionists and any assistants can’t take pleasure in their work except as a medical service provider.
So if anyone could present a situation where someone likes the idea of an abortion, I think that individual would be dealing with mental illness. Therefore in my logical world, abortion is a choice of last resort. No one is “pro” abortion, except as an alternative to a lesser desired outcome.

In the world I live in though, total strangers believe they are in a position to decide what any woman should do about a pregnancy.  Some of these strangers even think any family planning is abhorrent, often starting with the abolition of sex education and extending through restricting or denying contraception to fertile couples.  Usually these strangers express their divine knowledge of God’s wishes to justify their positions.  I’m personally satisfied with letting God decide who’s overstepped His wishes.  Really as far as I’m concerned the religious arguments are unfounded. God never really talked about abortion except to say life in general is precious --- and except for those children of the Bible who were terminated for pissing Him off.  Anyway I too think life is precious.  Children are precious.  But children are a tremendous responsibility and becoming a parent is not for everyone, at all times.
  

I advocate sex education as a tough love subject. There’s good reasons to advise children to delay sexual activity, but in any case, educated people make better decisions.  And we should give those who are going to be sexually active easy and “free” access to the medically appropriate, contraceptive methods. Only when education and planning fail, does the option of abortion become that choice of last resort.  But even though it’s a viable and legal option, it’s still necessary to address the ugly facts of abortion. Medical procedures in general are ugly with abortion one of the most ugly.  Even uglier though is the suffering of an unwanted, unloved, ignored, or abused child.
   

Politicians feed off opportunities to take the moral high ground, and the abortion debate is a perfect case for them.   But the recent political call to defund Planned Parenthood is a classic political opportunist’s contradiction of proposed purpose to actual consequence.  Because spending of federal government funds on an abortion is already against the law, defunding Planned Parenthood does nothing except take away their ability to provide service like family planning and supplying contraception, thereby forcing more women to face a choice of abortion. To me that’s crazy, but so is politics.  I just wish I could convince others that it is best left up to God to judge the decision of a mother.

Bob Rank
September 2015

Subnote: Around a month after beginning our relationship, Kathi and I visited a Planned Parenthood facility in Long Beach.  I’m ashamed to say I waited in the car, but I’m thankful that Planned Parenthood was available and that Kathi was so wise.

My Perfect Candidate 2016

What I and America needs in the next president.

I want someone who cherishes family values and the right to life.  I’m not like Catholic crazy against birth control, but everyone needs to pay for their own birth control. And my candidate will get rid of that abortion factory Planned Parenthood. God alone should decide who has a baby. So if people want to screw around, then they have to take responsibility for their screwing. 

We need someone who’s willing to protect my rights to privacy as long as it doesn’t involve same sex copulation or anything more kinky than what makes sex exciting. It’s just plain silly to think gays, lesbians and whatever those other initials are, have a God given right to marriage.  I think those freaks just want the government benefits married people get.

And speaking of government benefits.  It’s time we really get tough on letting people just get a free ride.  Like I heard about a woman who drives a Mercedes Benz to the welfare office, and that just really pisses me off.

The perfect candidate will finally cut off benefits to all those freeloaders, so that we can bring the debt and deficit down without cutting defense related spending. I heard a guy on TV complain that the U.S. spends more on defense than the combined amount of the next top ten military spending nations in the world. Well so what? If that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes.  We need to make sure we can protect our national interest and liberate countries with swift action so we can get those missions accomplished fast. I’d rather be poor than forced to pray to Allah.

There’s someone out there who cherishes our country and its natural beauty enough to courageously ignore those lying science guys who are always claiming we could be harming our own environment.  I flew over America once, and it’s really big. I can’t believe we could be hurting something so big with a light bulb or a little exhaust. And my candidate won’t waste any of my precious taxes on alternative energy sources so long as there’s plenty of oil and coal.

 

I want someone who is willing to restrict immigration to people who want to fit into my community. Certainly, not any non-English speakers or atheists or Muslims, or … Let’s just make it easy and limit immigration to Christians, preferably Protestants. Okay, maybe a few Jews if they are Israeli or holocaust survivors.

The right man will implement sufficient measures to ensure not even one person will be able cast a ballot without proper identification to prove he is who he says. Maybe he could have everybody take a test to prove they believe in the right things.  And speaking of IDs, this Man will ensure that I will NEVER need to carry a National Identification Card, because then the Government would know too much about me like where I live or vote. 

The next candidate will not spy on me except where it's good for America. Nor will he condone any international action that might shine an unfavorable light on my America, like torturing or starting stupid wars we can’t win.   Back door, black ops are okay just so long as we don’t get caught.

And I naturally want the Candidate to support my right to bear arms.  I want to be encouraged to openly carry any weapon capable of protecting my family against all threats real or imagined and not limiting the amount or type of ammunition.  I don’t want any run of the mill armor stopping me from stopping any threat --- dead in its tracks.

My candidate will also be dedicated to making government smaller.  For one thing, he will get rid of the IRS, EPA, and Department of education.  The IRS has shown they can’t be trusted, and the EPA has strangled business with all their environmental rules making it impossible for me to get the good job like my Daddy had at the paper mill.  And why is the federal government getting involved in a local issue like education.  I don’t like the government deciding what’s best for my kid. That’s a concern that should be left to parents, teachers and locally elected school boards.  We know what our kids need --- and more importantly don’t need like evolution and climate warming indoctrination.

I wouldn’t mind my candidate proposing a National Law requiring all children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance daily.  I think it’s the only way to guarantee that our schools are producing patriots. And while we’re at it, I don’t think we need to spend much time teaching about American history that didn’t work out too well – like Vietnam, slavery, support for dictatorships, etc.  I think that’s something else that should be left for parents to teach their kids.  Oh yea, and while we’re at it we need to make it a felony to deface an American flag.  And if we all wore red on Friday, we’d be able to tell who the real patriots are, but that shouldn’t be a law.  Just good advice to people who want to get along.

It’s real important that my candidate respects the US Constitution.  I want him to try and get rid of those radical organizations that are always hating on American values like the ACLU.  And if one of those old Supreme Court justices dies I want him to nominate and fight for a justice that thinks just like us.  Heck I wouldn’t mind if all them women were replaced.  They just don’t seem to think like a man does. Maybe my candidate can figure out a way to make that happen with an executive order or something.

In conclusion I want a President like the ones we used to have that kept America safe and made sure everyone had a good job and plenty to eat and didn't try to butt into my life except when I needed help.  Is that really too much to ask?

NOTE: I wanted to get the above posted on my blog before the next round of presidential candidates got started, but with Ted Cruz’s announcement yesterday, I didn’t quite make it.  And while Ted has talked to some of my concerns, I don’t think he will be my favorite candidate --- maybe a VP, though.

OMG

The three great unknowns for humanity are: where did we come from, why are we here, and what is to become of us? Religion has all the answers; we are here because God put us here, so we could revere Him, and end up in heaven or hell depending on our degree of commitment to Him.

Religious faithful have no problems with these answers.  Others doubt some or all that religion has to offer … the agnostic to the atheist.  I don’t consider myself an atheist, because I don’t deny the existence of God.  However, I certainly don’t feel the need to believe in someone else’s ideas of a God where that belief is not only unsupported by any concrete evidence, but defies logic as well.

I like God, the Creator.  It’s nice to have someone to talk to, beseech, and ask for advice. I do all these things with my God.  But the one thing I’m not going to do is to believe that my God is better than anyone else’s, and I see no reason to believe that any other belief is better than mine. In short, I find all formal religious dogma lacking.  I won’t believe that God is going to favor me just because of something I do like attending a church service. There's certainly no evidence that he favors those who do.  Oh ya, the favors come in the after life, and isn't that a convenient sales tool.

So if I’m not an atheist and not religious, then what am I.  An agnostic yes, but the title I like best is scientist.  I don’t believe without some logical justification.  Give me evidence or at least a reasonable hypothesis, before expecting me to follow. In other words, I guess I’m willing to risk eternal damnation for independence of thought. Which is not to say my God won’t hold me responsible for my actions. It’s just that He doesn’t demand unquestioning allegiance and is willing to respect my self determination to do what’s right.

I know the term scientist is not popular with many religious faithful.  Scientist are often denigrated as a class of intellectual elites.  I respect scientists for the same reason.  Scientist are the ones that have put forth the effort to demystify nature.  They have rules and procedures and systems of review that question their ideas.  On the other hand, religions have elite, spiritually intellectual spokesmen who promote supernatural events to justify their ideas all the while discouraging inquiry.

In addition to being easier to understand (because you’re not expected to) religion has capabilities that transcend being just an explanation of nature. First off religions promote the comfort of community. That pleasure of being around like minded people with a common purpose: that purpose being the promotion of a common belief in their special relationship with God.  I’d call that a self-perpetuating purpose. Those wacky scientist have discovered the  how the faithful can enter emotional states that can be exceedingly pleasurable, and not surprisingly, addictive. Obviously there are degrees of pleasure among the believers, but even as a non-believer, I've experienced awe from the grandeur, pomp, and ceremony of the many churches I've visited.  Yet I think religions wrongly use these emotional highs to convince their followers that they are being rewarded for their unquestioning faith.  It’s also easy to look at some religions and say there must be something really special going on because of the sacrifices of their faithful: fasting of Ramadan, snake handling oops, denying self of modern medicine. But these sacrifices actually just demonstrate the communal goal of exceptional-ism for the group with the added promise of redemption for the individual's efforts. Religion is self perpetuating.

I’m not saying that religion hasn’t helped anyone.  Many people have used religion to turn otherwise misdirected lives around.  However no one could question that science hasn’t also been beneficial. What should be obvious is that both have been used by evil doers to accomplish evil deeds and good people to accomplish good. To me it seems that the questioning aspect of science permits less manipulation than the unquestioning obedience of religion.

Equally obvious is why science has a difficult time competing with religion.  For many people science is just too hard and unrewarding a way to find meaning in life.   I don’t really wonder why religion feels so compelled to deny a scientific discovery like evolution.  Religion teaches that Mankind is God’s perfect product.   And while religion could embrace the logic and evidence of evolution as the method of creation, it won’t.  That would just be another concession to science that maybe humanity isn’t all that special because science has shown that evolution is ongoing and, how can that be? Religion has argued that God is perfect, and so should His greatest creation, us, is perfect, and needn’t … wouldn’t change? 

Denial of the science of evolution, is one of my most basic disagreement with the fundamental Christian who believe natural abilities like eyesight are too complex to have developed through the trial and error inherent in evolution. Yet they do this without answering, if the Creator designed eyes, who created the Creator? Wouldn't He have to be infinitely more complex than any of His creations? Apparently, faith renders those answer unnecessary -- for the faithful.

 I believe that religion will someday have to concede evolution as the tool of creation, just like it eventually gave up on the belief of Earth as a center of the Universe. Maybe that will be when life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe, although even that discovery might be faithfully answered with a dismissive “God works in mysterious ways” argument.

“So, oh my God, what should I do?”

            Sincerely, Bob

 “Not much My son.  Just keep doing what you’re doing, and hope the misguided don’t screw things up in My name, too much longer.

            Your Buddy, G

Judicial Profiteering

A year ago Kathi got a ticket for running a red-light in a confusing intersection that cost us over $400 in fines.  Our conversation went something like, "What a fucking rip-off!"
  

What might the conversation have been between the woman who served me my burger at McDonald's today and her husband?  Possibly something like, "We are fucked! Ruined!"

For that same offense: $400 is a nuisance for us, but over a week's pay for them. We obviously paid our ticket, but they would probably pay their rent instead.

Kathi and I  have a "WTF" kind of story. They have the fear of arrest hanging over them, because their ticket went to warrant with a doubling of the fine: now two weeks pay. If stopped again, she could be incarcerated for the outstanding warrants, easily losing her current job as a no-show: jeopardizing future employability. Plus there could be continuing additional fees charged: court cost, probationary administration fees, and even room and board charges while in jail.

On the surface, I might applaud the courts making offenders pay court and jail  expenses.  But when these payments are sometimes four times the original penalty, then these fees are simply profiteering by the courts through extortion of those least able to pay. 

This is the situation where I live.  Is it the same in your home town? Is judicial profiteering justice?

And who might the other husband in this scenario be: a poor black man, an illegal alien, a newlywed, a recently discharged veteran, or... there but for the grace of God go I?  

Answer: any of the above.

Obama Scare

The Republican led congress has voted 40 times to repeal Obamacare.  How many bills have they passed that would fix their perceived deficiencies of Obamacare? None. Why?

It’s my opinion that the Republican Party in picking Obamacare as the reason only they should be allowed to govern, has beaten the drums of doom so loudly they are scared to death their predictions will not materialize. They’ve painted themselves into a corner with their worst scenario being nothing too terrible happening. 

There’s going to be some problems in implementing the Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act), and especially so in the states where republican majority governments have refused to comply with the law’s covenants and are expected to continue stonewalling implementation.  But the proof in the pudding will be in the states that have complied.  Assuming a successful implementation, California, with a large population of under insured and a cooperative legislature should be the proof in what could have been in the resistant states.

Should California’s implementation be deemed a failure, I’ll be the fool.  However if California’s cooperation proves relatively painless transition, then the doomsayers will have egg on their faces. But I wonder if those I know, who have subscribed to the republican rhetoric, will have the courage to admit their error.

The one thing I’m sure of it is that we haven’t heard the last word from the ObamaScare folks--- they just have too much to lose to give Obamacare a chance.

Bob -- August 24, 2013

Vote for the Lesser of ...

Dated Monday, Nov 5, 2012

I’ve spent the last four years defending Obama not because he was so good, but because he wasn’t so bad. It’s easy for a candidate to make promises, so I don’t pay much attention to those. And obviously, neither of the current candidates could be is as bad as his opponent depicts. 

 

I'll concede one point to Romney. Things aren’t great in America. But despite his promises, there's little evidence that he will fix anything that time itself wouldn't fix. Recessions come and recessions go with the worst recessions going slower.  So to say there a problem is stating the obvious and promising a fix is wishful thinking.  However if he wins, I wish him luck.

 

Anyway, I’m going to vote for the candidate I think will do the least harm, and because I don’t think either candidate really has the power or ability to fix the economy, I'm going to stick with the devil I know.

 

What I'm absolutely sure of is that politics in America is broken, and until we get the outside money out of the election process there is no hope of a fix.  When even a moral man has to subjugate his principles just to get elected, too often he won't.  Then we are left with the individuals with lesser principles.  

 

When I look at the big changes in the election process of recent, I'm struck with the Citizens United case that allows individuals and corporations and (yes) unions to contribute enormous sums of money to political entities without the need to even disclose their identity.  What chance is there for honesty in politics when the ability to get elected lies more in the publicity campaign than in the man.

 

The Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United was split along the lines of the party of the president responsible for the justices appointment with the conservatives in the majority. It doesn't look like either candidate is going to break the deadlock in the congress, so the best hope for the next candidate is to maintain a balance in the Supreme Court. 

 

With four of the justices in their 70's (two appointed by Regan and two by Clinton) there's a good chance that at least one new justice will be appointed in the next four years. The current balance is 5 to 4 with a conservative majority and the Chief position.  I think a liberal (Obama) appointment will do the least harm to the court and the nation. 

 

That's why I'm voting for Obama, tomorrow. Besides, I think he's the better of the two evils, and I'd sure like to show all those assholes that made up all that stupid shit about Obama, his policies, and actions --- that cheaters never  prosper.

 

 

I Support Planned Parenthood

TODAY'S NEWS ---
By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times (edited here for major content only)


February 1, 2012

 In what looks to be a break between two organizations dedicated to women's health, a national breast cancer awareness group said it would stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation.

In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood receives federal money but cannot use it to provide abortions.
 
After reading this article today, I filled out a contact us form on the  Susan G. Komen website stating that while I'll continue to support their cause, I will no longer be able to support their organization.
 
Then I contacted Planned Parenthood:
 

Gotta Hate Them Muslims!

Before I got too wound up in hating Muslims, I decided to try to get an understanding of all the really hateful parts there are to Islam. Here's what I found out starting with a little history.

Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam traces its roots to the biblical Abraham. It was Abraham (a descendant of Noah) that entered into the agreement with God whereby in exchange for believing in Him as the one and only God, Abraham and his descendants would live a prosperous life. That assumed Abraham had any decedents. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was barren, so she suggested that her slave/maid Hagar become Abraham's second wife to bear him children. It worked. Hagar had a child they named Ishmael. Well 13 years later, Sarah had her own baby, Isaac, and wanting to ensure Isaac would be first in line for Abraham's inheritance, Sarah talked Abraham into freeing and evicting Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham agreed kicking them both to the curb.

Understandably Hagar was really despondent, but God came to her and told her not to worry. He would take care of her and Ishmael. And so he did. The 12 children of Ishmael went on to become Tribal chiefs in the Arab lands, and one of these descendants is believed by Muslims to be the one and only Mohammed -- the final prophet, messenger, of God to the people of the world.

Isaac didn't do so badly either in leaving his mark. His decedents began with Jacob, then Joseph (with the Coat of Many Colors), and not last nor least -- Jesus of Nazareth.

So the relation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all began with Jacob who started the monotheist (one God) movement. But in staying focused, I'll stick with Mohammed's line of the family. The line that I'm supposed to hate.

Mohammed was born in Arabia in 570 CE. He was orphaned at a young age and raised by his Uncle to be a merchant. He was about forty when he got his first of many "Revelations" from God through the angel Gabriel. Three years later he began sharing these revelations, building a following. His main complaint was that the Arabian holy city of Mecca was run by tribes that still worshipped many idols where as he was preaching there was only one God and he, Mohammed, was his messenger

For years Mohammed and his followers fought wars with the Mecca folk eventually defeating them. All during this time, Mohammed continued to receive God's Revelations that he wrote down and now form the verses of the Ouaran, the Holy Book of Islam.

After Mohammed's death in 632, his followers now numbering over 10,000 began not to worship Mohammed directly, not because he was a deity, but because they considered him the perfect being whose life and actions should be emulated. Therefore Mohammad's biographers' recordings of his life, sayings, and traditions became additional holy books for Muslims intent on following the actions of the perfect human.

The main schism in Islam came almost immediately after Mohammed death. One faction of his followers believed the next leader of the religion should be (as was Mohammed) a direct descendents of Ishmael. The other faction, believe the leader should be the best candidate regardless of ancestry. This disagreement led to the Shia and Sunni denominations, with the Shi'a favoring ancestry and Sunni expertise. In today's world Sunnis are the vast Muslim majority with somewhere around 85% of the total world Muslim population followers of 1.6 billion --- second only to Christian adherents totaling 2.1 billion... (See bottom graph for more info)

It's easy to become a Muslim all one need do is to profess, "There is no God other than God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." That's it. That gets you into the religion, and that's the first of what is known as the five pillars of Islam. The other four pillars (in no particular order) dictate what it takes to be a righteous Muslim

Pillar two regards the five times a day that a Muslim is to spend time in prayer. There are detailed directions for these prayers including time, direction and position of the body. While there is no rule that says a believer need to be with others during prayers, most Muslims prefer not to be alone and Fridays are a big day for communal worship in a Mosque. The prayers are scripted and actions are choreographed. It's expected that when reciting the prayers the language will be Arabic. So it's like me singing La Bamba -- I don't try to sing it in English, because I can understand the translation.

Pillar three regards fasting, going without food, water or sex during daylight hours. Fasting is a personal sacrifice to atone for sins and although there are a number of occasions to fast, the major one is the month of Ramadan. In the Arabic calendar, this was the month when Muhammad first spoke with the angel Gabriel. There are lots of exceptions to fasting requirements for the young, infirm, or travelers. But wherever possible the faithful are expected to make up missed days later.

The fourth pillar deals with tithing or giving of alms. A Muslim is expected to donate a percent of his wealth (not just income) and spending to ease economic hardship for others and eliminate inequality. There's a minimum due that as of 2010 was $3,275, but for the poor personal good deeds and behavior can be substituted. Obviously, this pillar relies heavily on the honor system to succeed.

Pillar five is a onetime obligation, a pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca during a specific month. This trip is called the Hajj and anyone who makes it can add a title to their name of hajj (hajja for a female). Like most of the obligations, the Hajj is waived for the infirm or those who cannot afford it.

The biggest difference in the Muslim faith is it goes beyond just prayer and involves itself in politics and law. That's because that was what Muhammad was all about. He brought down the tribal religions and built his following through being involved in every aspect of life. So it's not God who tells Muslims to spread the faith, but rather the desire to emulate everything Muhammad. If Muhammad fought wars to spread his religion, then that must be the path all Muslims should follow. Right? No, wrong. Muhammad was more than willing to live with the other faith. Especially, those of Abraham's beginning: Judaism and Christianity.

It's true that Muhammad fought battles with the Jews, but these battles were more political in nature than religious. So for a Muslim today to think that God wants them to make war with the Jews, is just a misguided (if not misused) concept of what defines a faithful Muslim. This is not to say that an objective of the Islamic faith is not to spread the faith -- it is. But isn't that an objective of Christianity, too. Tell me it's not a Jehovah's Witness, Catholic Missionary, or Mormons objective to spread their respective religion.

Some people look at how Muslims treat their women or just live in poverty and it's easy to hate them for how they live -- in poverty and ignorance. But there are as many differences in how Muslims live as there are in Christianity. Is there no difference between an African, Central American or Italian Catholic? Of course there is, and just like with Muslims it's often more a function of culture than religion.

Still there's a commonality in countries with majority Muslim populations that follow Shariiah, the religious code of Law. But not all do. Turkey is a secular government country and so is Pakistan. Even the Shariiah law is debated amongst most Muslim as those derived from the Revelations and those derived from customs of the time with some give and take of the ones to follow.

Absolutely backward countries like Afghanistan don't seem to care about the difference, but they appear to be more than a little screwed up in their thinking anyway. For instance in how they treat women as a sub species. This might have been the way it was pre Mohammed, but he introduced many women rights. He made it possible for women to inherit and own property. He made it possible for a woman to divorce her husband. In other women issues, it's easy to see that not all denominations or Muslim majority countries share customs like the facial covering laws.

So what makes Muslims fly airplanes into sky scrapers? In the big picture, I don't think it has a whole lot to do with religion. Even seemingly religious wars are almost always about politics. Nevertheless, religions are good at creating fanatics who are easily duped into doing the nefarious bidding of politicians, both secular and non-secular. The "Jews killed Jesus" allegation has been the cause of many a pogrom started by Russian czars more often than not to take the public's attention away from Czars inability to care for their people. The Catholic versus Protestant wars of the 16th and 17th century were more over the Papacy's revenue than ideology.

It isn't illogical that people of abiding faith have difficulty arguing with a; "I command you to ...," coming from God -- or one who supposedly speaks for Him? Logic has to go out the window before people can become unquestionably faithful. My favorite definition of faith is -- The illogical belief in the improbable. So when your illogical faith that God will protect and direct your actions (despite overwhelming evidence that God has not properly directed or protected other faithful that proceeded you - witch hunts, inquisitors, ...) is what gets you to listen to a man of God. Then faith can have you trusting false men of God. It's a logical conclusion that the most faithful would also be most easily led astray, to fanatical violence. So maybe we should question those who lead us.

Maybe hating Muslims for killing the 9/11 victims is not going to be any more effective in solving problems than hating the Jews for killing Jesus, or hating witches for ruining the crops. Maybe these are problems not related to religion or superstitions. Maybe.

Then if it's not religion, what is it that ticks these people off? Colonialism, western support of dictators with the best oil deals? Or could it be Western support for Israel.

Now Wait a Minute, Bob. Israel's our friend. The Jews were the first ones in Israel. They have a right to take their historic lands back. Right?

Sure, just like the Native American Indians have a right to their historic lands. Maybe we late comer Americans might get a little pissed if the Indians retook their lands. We might even fight back, and not just because they worship The Great Spirit. Also we might also get pissed at whoever helped them.

I could ponder these things for many more pages, but I think I'm just going to say, "I can't hate all Muslims for the actions of a few Muslims on 9/11, anymore than I can hate all Christians for the actions of a few Christians, anymore than I can hate all (fill in the blank) for the actions of a few (fill in the blank).

Finally I found the following chart (CIA supplied) informative with respect to the task of hating Muslims. There's a whole lot of them.

If you're still with me do you find these numbers revealing? You should before you decide who's right or wrong.

BDR 9/11 (that's September 2011)

What I Learned About Judaism

It was in the 60s and 70s when I read books like James Michener's The Source and Leon Uris's Mila 18 and Exodus, that I became facinated with the Jewish religion if for no other reason than the stick-to-itiveness of its followers. But I was always ignorant of the evolution of modern day Judaism, its celebrations, observances and sects, so I did a little research and ...

Three of the most important Jewish celebrations are now thought of as marking biblical events actually originated with traditionally agricultural celebrations. The first of these, Passover, was originally a celebration of the first barley harvest of the year. Passover now marks the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt after Moses brought the 10 plagues of Egypt forcing Pharaoh to release the Jews from slavery. The last of the Plagues was the death of the first born children. However this death plague "passed over" all the first born Jews, hence the name, Passover.

The modern day Passover holiday lasting seven days, begins with the Seder (ritual) meal where the food symbolizes the period of slavery and the stories of the Exodus (escape) are retold. The menu includes bitter herbs to symbolize the difficulties of slavery and Matzo or unleavened (incomplete, without yeast) bread to symbolize the speed with which the Jews fled.

The next biblical holiday, Pentecost (from the Greek for 50), celebrates God giving Moses the Ten Commandments fifty days after the Exodus. This day was formally the agricultural celebration of the wheat harvest.

The third biblical celebration is Sukkoth or Feast of the Tabernacle (tent) and is a remembrance of the forty years that the Jews spent wandering the desert after the Exodus. The idea is that God ordered the tent structure built to represent a "dwelling" for his presence with the Jews during their wandering. This celebration coincided with the agrarian final harvest celebration.


The first non-biblical celebration, Rosh Hashanah begins the Jewish New Year and according to Jewish tradition is the day where God inscribes each person's fate for the coming year into the Book of Life and waits ten days (until Yom Kippur) to "seal" the verdict. During those ten "Days of Awe", a Jew tries to amend his or her behavior and seek forgiveness for wrongs done against God and against other humans. The evening and day of Yom Kippur are set aside for public and private petitions and confessions of guilt. At the end of Yom Kippur, Jews consider themselves absolved by God. Now my research didn't say anything about what happens if someone is not absolved, so I'm guess dying in any fashion during the next year would be an answer to that question.

Yom Kippur, also known as Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the year for the Jews. Its central themes are atonement and repentance. Jews traditionally observe this holy day with a 25-hour period of fasting and intensive prayer, often spending most of the day in synagogue services. Yom Kippur completes the annual period known in Judaism as the High Holy Days (or sometimes "the Days of Awe").

Two lesser holidays are Purim and Chanukah. Purim commemorates the deliverance of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire from destruction as described in a story recorded in the Biblical Book of Esther. According to the Book of Esther, Haman, royal adviser to the Persian King planned to kill the Jews, but his plans were foiled by Mordechai and Queen Esther. The day of deliverance became a day of feasting and rejoicing for Jews. Purim celebrations include public recitation of the Scroll of Esther, giving gifts of food and drink, giving charity to the poor, and a celebratory meal. Other customs include drinking wine, wearing of masks and costumes, and public celebration.

Chanukah has always been my most familiar Jewish celebration just because it coincided with Christmas, my favorite holiday. The celebration about a miracle lamp that stayed lit for eight nights with only enough oil for one night, as well as the representative eight day celebration of lighting the eight candled menorah really doesn't need a lot of explanation. The most to be said is that really Chanukah's not a very important holiday anywhere except America where it gave the Jewish kids something to brag about --- eight days of Christmas, wow, was I impressed!

Another area I found interesting is how these Celebrations evolved . In the earliest days after their release from Egyptian slavery and before the Common Era, the Jews celebrated at the Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple was where the Ark of the Covenant that held the tablets bearing the Ten Commandments were kept making it the Holiest place for the Jews. Even though the first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians around 586 BCE and the Ark disappeared, subsequent rebuilding of the Temple occurred and remained the central holy place for Jews at least until the times of Jesus. So to celebrate the Jews would need to travel to the Temple and where they would offer sacrificial lambs. After the repeated destruction of the temple, there was a change in the way Jews observed. Regionally located synagogues replaced the centrally located Temple and prayers replaced sacrifices.

There are two main religious documents of Judaism. The Torah which is what the Christian faith calls the Old Testament of the bible. The text of each book is more or less the same in Jewish translations as what you see in Christian bibles, although there are some occasional, slight differences in the numbering of verses and there are some significant differences in the translations.

In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws of the scriptures to everyday life. Orthodox Jews believe God taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah. In addition to these two main works, Jews have Midrashim, which are basically stories expanding on incidents in the Bible to derive principles or Jewish law or to teach moral lessons. For example, there is a Midrash about why Moses wasn't a good speaker (he put coals in his mouth as a child basically as a way of proving that he wasn't greedy... Okay, that explains it all).

Then there are Responsa: answers to specific questions of Jewish law where committees of Rabbi interpret Jewish law to specific questions. This tradition continues to the present day, and there are several rabbis in this century who have developed responsa on issues relating to modern technologies. For example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who died in the 1980s, wrote responsa on such diverse topics as the permissibility of cosmetic surgery, the koshering (proper use) of automatic dishwashers, and artificial insemination. There are thousands of Responsa volumes in print.

My final question was about the different sects of Judaism: Orthodox versus what? Most of the schisms of Judaism are caused by the interpretation of the Mishna. Orthodox Jews believe that the faithful must follow the laws literally, while other sects to varying degrees feel the laws were more cultural than sacred and can in many instances be ignored. For instance Reform and Progressive Jews believe the laws against eating pork or shell fish were cautionary health rules developed in the days before refrigeration, and never intended to display devotion.

Also, interesting is that the world Jewish population is only 13.5 million people (2009 CIA figures). Of that number 43% (5.8 million) live in Israel and 39% (5.3 million) live in the U.S. The remaining 2.3 million are spread out all over the world. I find this surprising that the numbers are so small. I mean, the US has a combined population over 305 million, so the Jews account for less than 2% and they are the second largest US religion after Christians.

I just find those numbers surprising low considering the influence that people of the Jewish faith have had in so many measures of my sixty-four year life. I've always had Jewish friends and have worked for two Jewish owned businesses. Why do I know these people's religion, because one way or the another they made it known. But it's never made any difference to me.

I really learned a lot here, with the biggest surprise being how most Jew's lives, while rich in tradition, aren't as locked into the Religious dogma as I had thought.

For my next essay, I want to write down some of what I've learned about Islam, then Buddhist, then on to some Christian cults: Mormon, Catholic, ... Fascinating stuff --- to me.

Abortion?

Anti-abortion people most often seem to have a moral objection to abortions based on their religious convictions. They are a minority but that doesn't stop them from wanting to force the end of abortions by any means available. Why wouldn't everyone agree? Should I question their convictions?

I could ask why these moralist don't quit having surgery or using medicine to cure their ills and start using their convictions to cure their ills as does another minority religion, Christian Science. Is it because unlike themselves, Christian Scientist don't really have a correct understanding of what God wants? Is it even just that He wants us to quit killing unborn babies? I guess so, because war, capital punishment, gun totting self defense all seem to be getting a thumbs up from from many of these same anti-abortionist's God? Now I could discuss those issues, but maybe abortion is a big enough topic to limit my discussion here.

I personally deplore the idea of abortion. While working as a volunteer board member for The Huntington Beach Community Clinic, I developed the idea of "No Choice". Give boys/girls/men/women access to birth control, so that an unwanted pregnancy could be avoided in most cases. No Baby -- No Choice necessary. However, in case of a pregnancy for any reason, I don't think I have the right to object to the termination of that pregnancy if that be the decision of the mother.

I don't give the father equal rights in deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, because nature didn't give the father responsibilities equal to the mother's in carrying the baby to term. In fact God even fell short with not requiring care for a newborn beyond birth. Had He, there wouldn't be any trash can babies or need for "No Fault ... Surrender Baby Laws" .

As a teacher and world traveler, I've seen and known unwanted children. Would the world have been a better place had those children been aborted? I don't know. Could the world have been a better place for those children? -- absolutely!

So until the anti-abortion folk are ready to accept responsibility for making the world the best place possible for all children, I'm not going to respect their moral objection anymore than I'd respect a Christian Scientist's intolerance for cough medicine.

If it were not for Anti-Abortion crowd painting a wide swath of objections to anything however loosely associated with abortions, their existence could easily be ignored. But when an organization with as much positive impact on society as Planned Parenthood is vilified, because they legally provide abortion services and counseling to less than 3% of their clients, I feel a need to enter the conversation.

In the late 1980s, the Huntington Beach Community Clinic lost its state funding not because it performed abortions (it didn't), but because it 'might' refer a woman to Planned Parenthood if she expressed an interest in abortion services or counseling. The Clinic survived and that funding was reinstated when that era's anti-abortion governor was voted out of office.

But that blanket incrimination of any and all associations with anything pro-abortion has continued to ebb and flow with the political climate. Although the GW Bushes administration can be proud of their contributions to combating Aides in Africa, they should be ashamed for excluding some of the most capable health care providers in Africa from administering the programs just because they legally provided abortion services and counseling in their home countries. Those restrictions were lifted shortly after Obama's inauguration.

It's regretful that Abortion has become such a political issue when rightfully it should just be a personal or moral (albeit Religious) issue. But issues make good bedfellows, and the GOP right have fostered the Religious right until they have become equal voices in the abortion opposition movement. Federal laws like the Hyde amendment, have restricted since the early 1980s, any federal funds being used directly to pay for abortions except under the most strict of circumstances: mothers health, rape, etc. Still that's not enough to silence the outrage. There's still guilt by association.

Planned Parenthood gets one third of its funding from government grants and service payments. The other two thirds comes from private donations and service fees. But that's not going to deter the guilt by association taint. The Government gives money to Planned Parenthood (remember only 1/3 of PPs operating revenue) . Planned Parenthood provides abortion services (remember only 3% of PPs contacts were for abortion related). Therefore the Government pays for abortions!

"My/Your taxes pay for Abortions! Those guys are using my tax dollars to pay for abortions!" I bet you can guess who those Guys are, and I'll give you odds which political party will rescue Me/You from this travesty.

That is guilt by association. A political and moralistic weapon used here against abortion, but it's illogical at best. Then what's the solution?

Pass a law against abortion.

But the Supreme Court might strike that law down as unconstitutional.

Then pack the court with anti-abortion justices.

But that's been tried and failed since Roe v Wade, 1973.

Then propose and pass an Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Okay!

Okay, do it! But until you're done, please just shut the fuck up!

I Don't Hate Sarah Palin

Over and over, I read and hear about how the Right loves Sarah Palin and the Left hates her. I consider myself on the Left, and I don't hate Sarah. I just can't understand why anyone thinks she is so great -- much less, good enough to love?

When she came onto the national scene as McCain's running mate she took a lot of flack. It wasn't her fault she was unprepared. It was McCain's fault for picking someone so unprepared to stand up to the public scrutiny. But her failure to take off running only led to more suspicion of her qualifications and thus began the "left hates her" or the VICTIM defense. Every time she failed to perform to what the public expected of a Vice Presidential candidate she and her people held her up as a victim of left wing hate. And so it goes on to this day.

The first time I vividly remember the Palin Victim Defense being utilized was when Rudy Giuliani was speaking before the Republican National Convention. He kept stating his disgust in how the Left had questioned Sarah's maternal abilities -- from the transcript[1] he said, "One final point. And how — how dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?"

After that speech I spent the next hour Googling, trying to find a single source for who the "they" were that Giuliani was referencing. I couldn't find a single article from a reputable news organization where anyone was quoted as questioning Sarah's motherly abilities. In fact, from everything I could find, it appeared that the Left was bending over backwards not to mention that Sarah was even female. The left was probably skirting the subject even harder than the right was trying not to mention that Obama was black.

So what was Giuliani doing? He was creating a victim. No woman should be treated this way, was the clear message, and it was the evil left ( the They) that had done it. He made poor Sarah a subject for sympathy. It's good to love her, so it's hateful not to love her.

From that day on Sarah was a consummate victim. If she couldn't answer a question like Katie Couric's, "What newspapers do you read?" well she didn't answer because she was being harassed, victimized. It certainly wasn't because she didn't have an answer, as one might believe form the following transcript of that interview conducted about two weeks after the Giuliani speech:

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

Okay, so this was the proof that led Sarah to believe that the main stream media (MSM) were unfair in their treatment of her. After all it had only been a little over a month since she'd been selected as McCain's running mate and this being her first interview by the MSM (i.e.: not Fox News media). So how could she be expected to answer so difficult a question?

But Sarah hasn't just been victimized by the MSM. From reading her book, Going Rogue, it seems she was victimized by her own Alaskan citizens. For instance, she felt it was necessary for her to resign her governorship eighteen months early because of the all the nuisance, ethics violations filed against her by them Alaskan liberals.

Alaska doesn't have a rule like other states where the attorney general defends the governor against nuisance suits -- yep that would be too wussy for them independent and tough Alaskans. Even the State Personnel Board, was against her as evidenced by the appointment of Thomas Daniel to investigate one of the more recent complaints about her starting an Official Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.

Here's how she was victimized: The so-called "independent counsel" who started this investigation was an attorney from President Barack Obama's law firm.[2] That would be Daniel who is a partner in a national law firm with over 700 lawyers that has on occasion represented Obama, other democrats, and with a number of Fortune 100 company clients where you might find a republican or two.

Well in his alleged biased investigation Daniel found that using the term "Official" did in fact make the appearance that the Fund was state sanctioned which violates the Alaskan Ethics Act.[3] For this he was attacked on Fox News[4], numerous blogs, and on Sahara's own new defense fund and Facebook Wall as a "so-called 'independent counsel'."

Here's what Daniel had to say in his own defense: “They are trying to make the argument that because I’m a registered Democratic and have given money to Democratic candidates that I’m biased. But in fact, you know I’ve dismissed five complaints out of six,” Daniel said. “If I were out to get the governor because of politics, I doubt that would have occurred.”[5]

The six complaints Daniel referenced were all against Palin. And as more evidence of his independence, in 2004, Daniel was hired by the Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint against then-Attorney General Greg Renkes. That complaint was brought by Sarah Palin and state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat. Renkes resigned amid conflict-of-interest allegations, and the case was settled. Oh and by that time Sarah Palin had already resigned her position from the State Board where her complaint originated. Yes, Sarah had resigned, because she didn't like the way things were being run.

The obvious point though, is that Sarah was not being victimized by Daniel or the Personnel Board. She and her attorneys made a mistake, and she could have moved on without the bias claims, but then that wouldn't promote her victim persona. And she now has an unofficial legal fund that has reimbursed her for most if not all of her expenses. As a side note, she never attempted to use a $100,000 reimbursement fund established by Alaskan legislature to aide in her ethics defense, "because she and her attorneys decided not to use (it) because of the difficulty in separating the alleged ethics violations as against her official governorship duties or those associated with her fund raising or other activities."[6]

There were other plenty of other conflicts for Sarah in her political life. In her Going Rogue she points to conflicts she had with the Wasilla Mayor and later with the Police Chief as if these were badges of courage, because well... she was on the side of truthiness. And can anyone forget Sarah's widely reported conflicts with and within the McCain campaign staff. But Sarah also explained away those conflicts in Rogue, and it sure wasn't her fault.

I can't believe it's this "poor-is-me" causing all the loving for Sarah? Sympathy maybe, but not love. So then is it the common sense, ideas she has that will fix America? Maybe, but without facing the MSM, answering the tough questions, how will we ever know? And while just playing the "Regan" card gets her respect (maybe love?) from the conservatives, it's not going to do it for me -- Regan wasn't all the good for this country, but I'll save that for another blog entry.

In conclusion, I'm a left wing, liberal who has difficulty understanding the conservative love affair with Sarah, and who also definitely doesn't hate Sarah -- or Tag or Willow or Todd or Bristol (or even the little dick-head that was doing what boys try to do to Bristol). I don't hate any of them. They look like nice people. Misguided? Yes, but aren't we all. Maligned? Not as much as they would have us believe. No, I don't hate her or hers. But do I expect her to explain herself as something more than a victim of persecution, conflict and resignation before her or any of her clan occupy the White House? You betcha!

[1] http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/03/transcript-rudy-giuliani-speech-republican-national-convention-2008/

[2] http://www.sarahpalinlegaldefensefund.org/about.php

[3] http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/07/21/14/Legal%20Defense.22542.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

[4] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/palin-investigator-ties-democratic-party/

[5] Anchorage Daily News, ADN.com, From Lisa Demer, July 24, 2009

[6] http://community.adn.com/node/142582#ixzz14c4r6ygk

Creationism --What Me Worry or Should I?

So why should I care about Creationism or its most recent incarnation: Intelligent Design (ID)?

Creationism teaches us that there was a creator whose design resulted in nature as we see it, so that every change or mutation is just a step in the designer’s process. The alternative, evolution teaches us that nature is a function of natural selection: if a mutation improves an organism then nature will embrace it (survival) and if the mutation fails to improve then nature will reject it (extinction).

ID attempts to take a turn away from a faith based ideology, by not specifying that the creator was God, but as the promoters of ID are all Christian based organizations those attempts are somewhat weak. However even evolutionist don’t deny that the existence of a creator, so where is the conflict of ideas.

Evolutionist many of whom believe in a creator believe that if there were a creator he started the process and then stood back letting natural selection take over. And accordingly, there’s no reason to believe natural selection is finished. Some doubters even joke that if the Creator took the path of an intelligent design, He made it look like evolution to a scientific mind. Regardless the process is still 'evolving'.

ID however seems to view the present as the end of the process. And with humans currently residing as the top dogs in nature, then humans are the ultimate design. The creators masterpiece. And here is where I see danger.

Evolutionism tells us that humans are just a point on a timeline: subject to extinction, whereas ID can be used to posit the creator will protect humans from extinction -- at least until He’s decided in His wisdom that it’s time for the Apocalypse.

Then ID/Creationist can take a fatalist view to nature – “what happens is destined”. While evolutionists understand that we humans are probably one of the first species ever capable of intelligently designing our own extinction, so we better take precautions.

Maybe that’s why I as a believer in science and evolution have a greater respect for the possibility of man made global warming. And I wonder if my friends who deny this possibility aren’t relying more on their Creator to take care of these kinds of problems than taking any personal responsibility.

Are the two equations?

Creationism = don’t worry, be happy: it’s all decided.

Evolution = be careful or you might end up extinct like 98% of all the other Earth life forms that preceded you.

If so there’s danger in the differences. I and every other evolutionist should resist the Creationism and Intelligent Design movement if only as a survival for mankind strategy.

Update 2/28/2010: Just found this quote by Rush Limbaugh from a book he wrote in 1992 (The Way Things Ought to Be) that illustrates my concern better than anything I could say:

"My views on the environment are rooted in my belief in Creation .... I refuse to believe that people, who are themselves the result of Creation, can destroy the most magnificent creation in the entire Universe."

Scary? And Limbaugh is now regarded by many as the voice of the Republican Party.

Words and Labels of Hate and Stupidity

Before any commentary, there needs to be an understanding that ignorance is the basis of hate. We fear what we don't understand. Fear makes us uncomfortable. In fact, we really hate what makes us fearful and that's the problem. So what makes us afraid? That's easy -- things we believe might do us harm. Categorizing helps make sense of a problem and brings me back to the subject ...

What are the labels of hate and what do they really mean? More importantly what's the progression from a difference of opinion to hate. I'll start with categories, names, labels ...

A good beginning is with stereotypes or a generalization about a person or group of persons. Then there's a bias developed when individuals are unwilling to obtain all of the information they would need to make fair judgments about people or situations.

Stereotyping creates the framework for a bias. Bias referring to a type of selective thinking whereby individuals tend to favorably view what confirms their stereotypical beliefs, and ignore or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts those beliefs. Actively seeking out individuals who share a bias is sometimes called bias confirmation.

Next is prejudice, often derived from stereotyping and bias confirmation, that is just the prejudgment of a person or situation that fits a negative stereotype or bias; and when left unchecked can result in bigotry. A bigot being an extremely biased, narrow-minded, individual who's very intolerant of persons to whom conform to their prejudice or oppose a bias.

A racist believes that a person's race dictates their human traits. Racist beliefs are almost exclusively opined as a negative thereby allowing the racist a feeling of superiority.

While a racist always has a prejudice and is often bigoted, a bigot or prejudicial person is not always racist. Example: Joe's a misogynist, a woman hater. Joe hates all women regardless of their race. So although Joe's bigoted toward women, he's not a racist -- well, not unless he hates Asian women more than other women. To keep the word game going we can also bet that Joe's a chauvinist; or persons convinced of the superiority of their own gender.

Another important word to define is race. In 'today speak' the concept of race is often confused with ethnicity, and this is especially true when considering racism. Technically speaking race is genetic and ethnicity is learned.

However racism today seems to include both. Obviously, a white supremacist is a racist. And so is a black man that hates white men. But why is a Jew hater called a racist -- isn't anti-Semitic enough? And then why is it that a Muslim basher can also be called a racist -- since when is a Religion genetic and not learned?

Why? Because hyperbole rules hate. When someone says or believes something stupid, why stop at calling them ignorant when you can label them prejudice or a bigot or even better -- a racist? And isn't it easier to hate (or love depending on your bias) a racist, than it is to hate (or defend) someone who's just stupid?

If there's any solution for this hate proliferation, it will come from understanding, resisting fear, breaking the cycle of confirmation bias. We need to start listening to people who sincerely want to ratchet back the hyperbole. I'm not going to look to politicians or news reporters or anyone else that has something to sell me to reduce the hate. Their job security is fear -- pick me! I'll protect you.

Nope the solution is yours. Listen to yourself. If that (politician/TV talking head/cleric/retail salesman) says my only possibility of (security/happiness/redemption/rests) is in accepting their message -- then it's probably bullshit! Don't let that message be your belief foundation.

Final note: Oh and has anybody noticed that one of the few truly large groups you can hate anymore without being called a racist are homosexuals. Is it because they're everywhere? In your race, your gender, your ethnicity, even your own family. Oh well, I guess bigotry, prejudice, and stereotyping will have to suffice.

Redistribution of Wealth: Let's Start Here...

I'm starting to get interested in the Tea Party's anti-redistribution of wealth stance -- taking from the rich and giving to the needy is apparently a bad thing. And as it's the Feds that are doing the nasty, let's start by not redistributing federal taxes paid from rich states and giving it to poorer states.

As of 2004[1] for every $1 in Federal Taxes paid, California only received $0.79 back in federal spending. Some of the biggest Tea Party membership states faired a lot better. For instance for every $1 in Federal Taxes paid here's what some of those states got back: Kansas, $1.12; Oklahoma, $1.48; Idaho, $1.28; Kentucky, $1.45; Mississippi, $1.77; Alaska, $1.87 ...

So shouldn't us Californian's demand a 21% deduction from our tax bill, and shouldn't Oklahomianites get a 48% tax increase, and Mississipianiters get a 77% tax hike, etc. ?

Of course it's not as simple as that, but I'm also not as simple minded as a lot of those tea baggers --like Sarah Palin. for instance. I doubt I'll make it to her next Tea Party appearance. But if you're there. ask her about that 87% redistribution of wealth to Alaska. Golly-gee, I bet she's not gonna offer to give that back.

---

[1] Not the most recent info, but a pretty good picture of the present trend HTTP://Taxfoundation.org

Another Rush Job

Another Rush (Not a lie. Just a distortion of the facts.) - disclosure.

I looked at Rush's site today and found this story ripe for investigation. Basically his story indicates that a MS-NBC news woman, Andrea Mitchell, was pleading with a black congressman, Elijah Cunningham, to get the health care legislation passed. Especially suspcious was the story headline - Andrea Mitchell Makes On Air Plea: "You've Got To Get This Done for Him!"

Next, read the 1st picture story top of this page: Rush's story taken as a snag-it picture from his website.

The headline caught my attention, and I read the story. It didn't make a lot of sense either. So I did some research starting with a Google search. Most of the hits were right wing blogs decrying how a supposed journalist of the MSM (main stream media) had been caught, concluding with proof like this how could the left (with reporters like Andrea) ever criticize Fox News.

It took awhile before I could find a site with an actual video clip and not just a transcription. I could have heard the audio of Rush's show but I was unwilling to become a "Rush 24/7 Member" at the bargain price of $6.95 a month. Finally I did find a video clip a video clip of the interview that also didn't make much sense . Although within the nineteen second clip, it did appear Andrea was saying what had been reported. However it didn't sound like a plea as much as an argument -- like, "This is what you're trying to do, Isn't it?"

When I finally found the full length video on Andrea's Face Book wall (picture 2 above), I confirmed my suspicion. Andrea and Elijah had been talking about the black congressional caucus and how they were trying to support the president who had been a member. So her words were more a recap of her understanding of the situation of how YOU, the caucus, feel about Obama and his efforts on health care reform, and are going to work to get this done for HIM.

So except as a stand-alone Rush/Blogger sound bite, what Andrea said was in no way a personal plea or even a personal opinion. The greatest misstatement (besides Rush's) was Elijah's response to her statement, "Andrea, I agree with you a million percent." What he should have said is that he agreed with her understanding of the situation.

Now Rush and the bloggers didn't listen to the interview in its full context. Or more likely they did, but the full interview didn't present the opportunity to distort the "NEWS" to their benefit/satisfaction. The sound bite allowed Rush and the bloggers to rage on about how all Obama does is just about HIM, his legacy, his efforts, his sense of power... Had they only have played the next few seconds of the interview their audiences would have heard the next words, as spoken by Elijah, "But it's not just about HIM, it's about getting ..." and he continued on with something maddening like "... It's about getting affordable health care for millions of Americans." etc., etc.

This is my third shot at taking a Rush story -- almost at random -- and doing a little research of my own. Regretfully, for America with its millions of Rush followers, I have been able to discover misleading, misdirected, and/or missing information in each story that demonstrates Rush's distortion of the facts. "But ah, ah, ah folks, he just wouldn't be interesting if he were truthful -- or fair and balanced."

A good quote from Bertran Russell appeared on my Google page today that seems to fit here:

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.

It's what he doesn't say that counts!

Hey Rush, is there anything you forgot to mention in this story?

It’s not what he says, but what he doesn’t say that’s enlightening. In Rush’s Story One yesterday (last week) Rush again pointed out how the idiots were running Obama’s economic recovery. Specifically naming Lawrence Summers (Obama’s Director of Economic) as the “idiot” responsible for Harvard University losing 1.8 billion in it’s endowment fund because of his “too aggressive” investment policies while he was the University’s President.

The facts that are true in this story: Summers was Harvard’s President and during the recent downturn the endowment value lost 1.8 billion dollars.

The facts that are missing from the story: Summers was Harvard President from 2001 to 2006. He left two years before the current bear market. During his Presidency the endowment grew from $17 to $30 billion and continued to grow after Summer’s departure to $35 billion before it fell to it’s current $33 billion. Bottom line the endowment almost doubled during and shortly after Summers’ Harvard Presidency.

That’s the kind of “idiot, egghead” (Rush's words) I want looking after my finances.

This isn't my first try at debunking a Rush story. In fact I try to do it every few weeks just to confirm my belief that Rush lies to his legion of worshippers who obviously never take the time look through his smoke and mirrors.

Bob

Sources:
I reprinted the Rush transcript as printed on his website rushlimbaugh.com, November 30th, 2009 below. I’ve also attached a link to the “Boston Globe” story linked to as the source for Rush’s comments. ( http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/?page=4 ) And to be totally fair, the article had some reasonable critisism of Summers operating cash, investment policies during his tenure as President, but fell way short of Rush’s claims of his being an idiot. Example: the article states “Even with the losses, Rothenberg said, the cash strategy has earned Harvard returns averaging 8.9 percent over the past 10 years. He and other university officials say the cash pool is still ahead of where it would have been, if invested more conservatively all along. But no one could be specific about what that net gain has been.”