The Problem With Marriage

It’s been a while since I last wrote a serious article on the issues that face us today. I didn’t know what I was going to write about, as there were so many good topics out there to cover. Especially with the advent of all the activity on Capital Hill this week. Everything from torture, to expenditures in the war in Iraq, to corrupt politicians, to the Republicans possibly losing both of the Houses in Congress this come November. I chose none of them. Instead, I was randomly clicking through blogs on WordPress, when I came across a post about the “sanctity” of marriage. It seems that the article was written in response to the issue of same-sex marriage, and the author was rather irate at the fact that anyone would want to institutionalize this type of marriage. He even went on to compare the downfall of the Roman Empire with the fact that homosexuality was an accepted cultural norm within the Roman culture (patently false).

This is a touchy issue for a lot of people, for reasons that are extremely religious in nature. The cries of “One Man, One Woman”, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, and other ignorant, slightly homophobic remarks arise. The problem with these people, though, is that they do not seem to realize that there are two aspects to a marriage. These would be the religious, and the legal. Neither does it seem to these people that the institution of marriage is just as embedded into historical processes as other institutions. In other words, they would like you to think that the customs of marriage that are prevalent in society right now are the same customs that have been in place for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our very concept of marriage has changed throughout the years, just as our concepts of virtually every other thing has.

If you look at history, especially at the context of marriage as it has been practiced throughout the eons, you will notice that first and foremost marriage was a contract that was intended to cement property. Indeed, the whole purpose for hundreds, if not thousands, of years was to solidify control of land, property, an businesses, whether mercantile or agricultural. Hence, the adoption of the customs of dowry, and groom-gifts. It has been only in the past two hundred years or so that the current, romantic idea of marriage based in love has taken root in western society.

The problem, though, is that in this day and age, most people cling to the idea of the nuclear family with a father, a mother, and two kids living in a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. While admirable, and to be envied by those who are living that dream, this dream is becoming more and more difficult to achieve. Notwithstanding, even those who are heterosexual suffer calamities in the form of divorce. It matters not whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or one of the other parties. It does not matter if they are Christian, Atheist, or Pagan. The notion of marriage, and the family, has underwent a severe revolution within the past sixty years or so. Now, people are more likely to live in blended families, or with only one parent. If the idea of marriage was to create and protect the nuclear family, and if conservatives really wanted this to endure, then current laws on divorce would never have been enacted. However, it seems those with cooler heads have prevailed, as there will always be cases where abuse, either sexual or physical, is present, and the marriage needs to be dissolved. There are cases where infidelity is committed, and depending on the person’s religious or moral views, the marriage needs to be dissolved. The causes of a divorce are rampant, and making marriage a tighter institution, binding without compassion, is needlessly cruel and uncompassionate. Morality in the case of marriage cannot be legislated. It can only be reinforced by education, and the support of a community that knows what a good marriage is, and how to make it last. (Hence, the whole idea of having witnesses present at a marriage, as it is viewed that a marriage can only be upheld through the support of friends and families.)

Continuing on from there, there are other factors at work. What has been touched on so far is only the social. What about the religious? Should a religious interpretation of marriage be made into law? The very beginnings of marriage were not very religious in nature at all. It was the advent of Paul, who, in his epistles, created the idea of marriage with a religious aspect. Before this, most marriages were contractual affairs between families. Even after the advent of Paul, most marriage of the upper echelons of society were nothing more but the transference of goods and properties desired to keep the social status and wealth of the two respective families intact, or to augment them. Where is the religious undertones in that? Indeed, the very nature of a religious marriage between two peoples as it is currently encapsulated in society can be traced back to Puritan views of the institution.

Be that as it may, the one thing that is the pride and joy of America is the separation of the state from religion. The government could not, because of the separation clause, legislate which marriages were to be legal, and other that weren’t, based on the factor of religious ideas to the application of marriage. While this country has a long and varied history on the differing acts that have been passed that touched on this issue, the one thing that is clear is that marriage, as conceived of by the government, was an issuance of a certificate that legally recognized the union under the tax codes, and through the years, bestowed benefits upon those in such a marriage in the form of tax breaks, transference of Power of Attorney, and sundry other legal matters. In effect, there is, and was, a dichotomy within the institution. There were those factors that were completely legalistic in nature, and then there were those that were religious, and were handled by the couple’s respective churches.

In this day and age, this is desirous to have. The whole reason why the Gay Right’s Movement is rallying behind the idea of marriage for themselves is because too often a couple will be restricted in their activities of things that can be performed. For instance, if one person in the relationship were to fall ill, the other has no recourse when it comes to visiting the ill person, or in executing affairs of estate that have been left to the other because of the first’s debilitating illness. Also, when a couple has been living together, own property in tandem, and lives as a married couple of the heterosexual persuasion, why would they then be expected to contribute more in taxes then the heterosexual marriage? When a couple becomes married, there is an estimated 1,044 different tax benefits that they then receive. Do we, as a society, really want to legislate discrimination in such a form? Is that what liberty is about?

The fact of the matter is that people can become married in our government without even stepping foot into a church. All they have to do is perform their blood tests, and then sign the marriage certificate. That’s it. Nothing more. The rest of the ceremonies attending a marriage are wholly religious in nature, and divorced from the legal realities. Those who would like to ban same-sex couples from receiving the benefits of marriage are after nothing more but introducing more and more elements of theocracy into our government.

After all, who really is destroying families? From my vantage point, the vast majority of families that are disrupted have been the fault of heterosexuals. I’ve yet to read a case of a gay or lesbian person that has single-handedly disrupted even one family. Not to mention that the “sanctity” of marriage is a farce. In a day and age where people get married to boost ratings on a television program, or get married and then divorced twelve hours later, there really isn’t that much that can be considered “sanctified” by the institution.

Political Religion

I’ve known for quite some time now that the Religious Right is very active in politics. Anyone who lives in the US and does not realize this is either living in a cave, or a server room. (This is not a joke, as anyone who works for a Fortune 500 IT company can testify.) Usually, I have no problem with people of whatever religious stripe to become active in politics. The line in the sand that is crossed repeatedly, and which gets my dander up, is when they then use political power in order to silence others. Today, this is being done through the auspices of the IRS.

From the article:

Stepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates.

For those of you who do not pay much attention to the tax code as it applies to non-profits, an organization that has the status of a 501(3)(c) Non-Profit organization can only remain as such as long as the organization refrains from politics. This includes endorsements of politicians, Political Action Groups, and so forth. However, if you read the news on a daily basis, there is almost continual support among certain far right groups such as Focus on the Family and others for GOP candidates, positions, and programs. This includes “Voter Guides” on prospective candidates, usually with erroneous or outright false information on them, designed to depict any Democratic Challenger in the most negative light possible.

This is nothing new. This has been going on since the formation of the Moral Majority back in the ’70’s. The problem is compounded today with the usurpation of power in the Executive branch, thanks to proponents of the ‘Unitary Executive‘ theory of government that is guaranteed to make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. Combined campaigning for GOP candidates within the auspices of a church, the funneling of currency to Faith Based Organizations that only support George W. Bush, and now the attack on those churches that have taken an anti-war stance bodes ill for the future of this Republic.

To combine it all into a nutshell- only those organizations that support policies that are in opposition to this administration are being investigated. Those non-profit organizations that continually flout the tax code in the area of expected behavior of a non-profit, tax exempt organization that support the administration are ignored. For crying out loud, the whole reason why the church is under investigation is because of a sermon about Christian values of peace!

Sound familiar? Remember Pastor Chan Chandler? This is the pastor that told his Democratic leaning members of his congregation that voting for John Kerry was a sin, and that they should leave his church. Remember the fiasco between Karl Rove and James Dobson? If a tax-exempt organization is supposed to refrain from endorsing candidates, then why is the GOP consulting far right wing groups before nominating a person?

This continuation of events will only lead to tyranny, for religious people of all flavors.

Theocracy Ascendant

“This Republican party of Lincoln has become a party of Theocracy.” — Rep. Shays (R-CT)

“Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not.” — Rod Parsley

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”–Randall Terry

“We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996.” –Pat Robertson

“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” — George H. W. Bush

“I hope I live to see the day, when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!” — Rev. Jerry Falwell

“There should be absolutely no ‘Separation of Church and State’ in America.” — Dave Barton

“So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” — Gary North

“Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and public lives do not belong in office.” — Beverly LaHaye

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after. World conquest.

That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.” — George Grant

I could have gone on and on with the quotes, as the Dominionists in our society have not been shy about making it known exactly what they want. However, let’s reflect on what makes our country great. Some may say that it is a democracy, and this is what makes it great. I, however, think that is of secondary importance. What really makes America great is the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in history had the liberties and rights of man been encapsulated within a document meant to protect all. While the first draft of the Constitution was by no means perfect, the Founding Fathers created a mechanism in order to amend it and bring it closer to perfection. Hence, the outlawing of slavery, the granting of equal rights to women, due process, and other amendments. Indeed, it is the idea of Liberty that has made this nation great. The second most important characteristic of the Constitution is the limitations of the three branches of government, and the checks that they each applied to the other two. Thirdly, the idea of representative democracy.

However, our system of government is under attack by people who want to impose their vision, their values, and their (im)morality on the rest of us. Specifically, they want to impose their vision of Christian Fundamentalism in the Charismatic flavor on the nation. They would like to abolish teachings of science that contradicts their views of the world and universe, criminalize and execute gays and lesbians, marginalize people of other religious viewpoints to their own. That last is the most important, as they consider all forms of Christianity aside from their own to be perverted, blasphemous doctrines designed to confuse ‘the very elect’. This would mean the trivialization of Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, and so on. Only those who hold to the doctrines according to the Pentecostal Movement, the Word of Faith Movement, Dominion Christianity, Prosperity Doctrine, and other ‘fringe’ doctrines of the Charismatic movement would be deemed worthy in this new world order that they would like to establish in this country.

Don’t believe me? Look at the Terry Schiavo case. Do you think that Congress has more information, more intellect, more pathos when it comes to cases that are as complicated as this one case was? Do they have any right to bring the federal government intruding into a State’s Right matter? That was only the latest taste that actually made it onto the news waves. Look at the Faith-Based Initiatives that George W. Bush enacted. To date, all of the money that has flowed out of his office for these initiatives have only gone to those Christian associations that campaigned, promoted, and helped him in his bids for the presidency. No Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist charity working with the poor, the elderly, the convicted, or the terminally ill have received any funds from this bureaucracy.

What did the Founding Fathers actually say in reference to the type of government they wanted to see in action?

“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'” — James Madison, February 27, 1811

“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.” — George Washington

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …” — from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” — Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church and state.” — James Madison, March 2, 1819.

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” — James Madison, in “Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785

“The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.” — George Washington

 

 

”History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”—Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

 

 

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.” -Benjamin Franklin

 

 

“All national institutions of churches, whether Christian, Jewish, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” — Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

 

 

 

 

Red State or Blue State

In the vein of similar ‘tongue planted in cheek’ satire as was previously posted on Nick’s blog, here is a definitive list of how to differentiate whether if you are living in a Red State or a Blue State:

Blue States:	Home of good schools
Red States:	Homeskooled good
Blue States:	Want a big tent for their Party.
Red States:	Wears a big tent to her party.
Blue States:	Favor electric cars
Red States:	Favor electric chairs
Blue States:	Concerned about ballooning deficits’ effect on capital markets turning gains into thin air
Red States:	Concerned about whether it’s demons that make balloons float in thin air
Blue States:	Dream of making enough money to kite and swim with Czechs in Biarritz
Red States:	Dream of kiting enough checks to swim in Schlitz
Blue States:	Favor institutionalized health care for the poor
Red States:	Favor institutionalizing the poor
Blue States:	After the 9/11 attacks, put coffins in the ground
Red States:	After the 9/11 attacks, put magnetic flags on the car
Blue States:	Forget that God did not give Adam a Steve
Red States:	Forget that not only did God give Abraham three wives, He gave Solomon 300 concubines
Red States:	Enormous Hummers that serve as the engines for Arab oil
Blue States:	Provide the “tax” part of “tax and spend”
Red States:	Provide the “spend on a new 8-lane highway to link a Wal-Mart to the Olive Garden” part of “tax and spend”
Blue States:	Believe we’re all brothers and sisters under the skin.
Red States:	Don’t mind if we’re brothers and sisters under the sheets.
Blue States:	Fighting to clean up skid row
Red States:	Fighting to clean up skid marks
Blue States:	9/11 survivors mourned at night as the television coverage showed those killed
Red States:	Mourned television coverage of 9/11 that killed that night’s “Survivor” show
Blue States:	Concerned about global warming
Red States:	Don’t like to travel and are too fat to fit in an airline seat anyway, so glad to hear that the tropics are coming to Texas. Yee-haw!
Blue States:	Follow Jesus, but doesn’t believe in Him
Red States:	Believe in Jesus, but doesn’t follow Him
Blue States:	Want to repeal the Patriot Act
Red States:	Want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation
Blue States:	Looking for a method to weaken China every day
Red States:	Sold everyday china for a weekend of meth
Blue States:	Favor drafting annoying laws on assault rifles
Red States:	Assault annoying in-laws with rifles after being drafted
Blue States:	Want the right for everyone to worship as they choose
Red States:	Want the right to choose everyone’s worship
Blue States:	Champion women wrestling with the right to choose
Red States:	Choose women’s wrestling championships
Blue States:	Want a rational energy policy
Red States:	Want policy of energetic irrationalism
Blue States:	Used benefits to assist victims on account of attacks
Red States:	Used attacks to benefit Toby Keith’s bank account
Blue States:	Watched friends in New York die in foxy attacks on America
Red States:	Attack New York on Fox for not being friends of America
Blue States:	Believe God loves us and gave everyone free will to be different
Red States:	Believe God willed us to freely hate everyone different
Blue States:	Believe absence makes the heart grow fonder
Red States:	Believe abstinence saves the tart from plunder
Blue States:	Believe in Mr. Darwin’s theory of “Evolution”
Red States:	Believe in Mr. Jesus’ “Talking Snake” theory
Blue States:	Slave to pay inheritance taxes
Red States:	Inherited slaves
Blue States:	Buy art
Red States:	Collect Beanie Babies

9-11 Commentary; Or, Why the Country Despises Bush

This is one of the best commentaries on the state of affairs in the United States that I have seen to date! Keith Olbermann exemplifies all the reasons why people in the country, either Right or Left, Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Green, despises this administration. To quote from the transcript:

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.’

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”
They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Edit- If you disagree with this assessment, then I encourage you to post why you do not in the comments section. Perhaps Olbermann, and myself, are mistaken. As is everything else that I post in this blog, I will only adhere to it until convincing data and reason surface to falsify my previously held position. Also, links to more information are always welcome!

Propaganda, Bush Style

First, let me write that if you like Keith Olbermann’s program, then write in! It seems the extreme right wingnuts took offense to Keith calling a spade a spade, and are now deluging MSNBC with vitriol of the most inflammatory nature. Fire up your e-mail clients and write to countdown@msnbc.com.

Second, I’d like to point out the new version of propaganda that Rove has perfected: the timing of news releases to coincide with trivial news articles. It was no mistake that Faux News covered the Aruba story almost non-stop for five months. Everything else in the news at the time was extremely negative for the Republicans. Now, however, with the recent media feeding-frenzy over the resurrected JonBenet Ramsey case, one has to wonder: what else was going on?

The Republicans have become masters at misdirection. When news that is critical of the administration, or can be seen as a huge indictment on the activities of certain Republicans, they trot out the smoke and mirrors. Most people wouldn’t notice this unless if they do a fair amount of digging around on the Internet. Let’s face it: most people are lazy when it comes to keeping abreast of public and civil affairs. The Right Wingnuts use this to their advantage, as it seems all five media conglomerates that control the majority of print and broadcast media are riding in the GOP’s pockets.

Think the Smoke and Mirrors argument is a little hokey? Check out this link from Think Progress. Yes, that’s right, Honorable Judge Taylor found:

“In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids.”

Who in the media reported this? I’m a news junkie, but I found not one whisper, one tittle of information on this in the broadcast news. (My television is usually tuned to CNN most of the day, and MSNBC for Olbermann’s show.)

A better understanding of the issues surrounding this case can be found on this article written by Thom Hartmann. Also, check out this link on the “coincidences” between the release of unfavorable news items towards the administration and the raising of the threat level. Scroll down half the page to get to the Top 10 list, written on October 12th, 2005, is enumerated by Keith Olbermann.

To wit- the Bush Administration broke the law. A federal judge has found that not only was the law broken, but the Constitution was violated as well. Rather than cover this news, the media decided that a decade old sensationalistic news story was more worthy of top coverage. The GOP gets another “Get Out of Jail Free” card yet again.

How is this not propaganda?

Ripping into the Rhetoric

If you paid attention to the news yesterday, you would have noticed in between the attention that CNN and Fox paid to the Jon Benet Ramsey Case and some coverage of Hurricane Ernesto, that Ronald Dumsfeld, er, Donald Rumsfeld, made a speech at the VFW. In this speech, he used the usual rhetoric of accusing people who do not believe in the policies of the current administration to Nazi sympathizers and enablers prior to World War II. The last time such inflammatory rhetoric was used by the government was during the McCarthy era, wherein accusation of being a communist equaled instant guilt, and any who opposed McCarthy were labelled as Communist Sympathizers.

One of the reasons why I’ve been on such a rampage about the terms “fascism” and “reason” lately is because this administration has turned into the very thing that all Americans should loathe. While paying lip service to the ideals that we Americans hold so dear (such as ‘one man, one vote’, capitalism, equal rights for all, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, even if you do not agree with the other person’s viewpoint, freedom of the press, freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, and on and on) they have systematically worked up pogroms to expunge much of these freedoms. Much of this has been done under the guise of accusing those who would oppose the expatriation of these rights as being an enabler for the terrorists. Enough is enough!

Finally, there was a person who stood up to the rhetoric. In standing up, not only did he delve into the historical perspectives and showed exactly what happened, but he countered almost all of the points that the Secretary of Defense made. Hopefully, others within the broadcast media will start to make similar stands in the upcoming weeks.

For those of you who do not watch “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”, take a look at this segment:

War Widows

Just found a very interesting article pertaining to one Honorable <ahem> George W. Bush and a war widow. The topic? Iraq. The setting? Maine.

While reading the recount of the meeting, I was struck by how cold, impersonal, and genuinely disinterested the POTUS was in concern to the human collateral that has been offered up in the name of a war founded in lies, deceit, and treachery. (Yes, treachery, there is no other way to view the Valerie Plame and Joseph Smith affair.) The number one thing that can be seen when parsing through government records, reports, and data provided by the GAO is that this war was almost entirely founded on the notion of enriching the compatriots of those associated with the Foundation for a New American Century. No one else has been enriched by this. The “value” of this war is questionable, at best. Not to mention the fact that by going into Iraq has drained resources needed to keep North Korea, Iran, and China in check when it comes to nuclear weapons and economic extortion. From the journal:

‘But Halley has just given me a much more detailed account of her meeting with Bush. She told me that she went much farther in her criticism of the President, telling him directly that he was “responsible” for the deaths of American soldiers and that as a “Christian man,” he should recognize that he’s “made a mistake” and that it was his “responsibility to end this.” She recounted to me that she was “very direct,” telling Bush: “As President, you’re here to serve the people. And the people are not being served with this war.” ‘

Before some of you criticise me, there is one thing that I want to make very clear here: I am not a “peacenik”. I do believe that War is a tool that needs to be used from time to time, as human greed, stupidity, ego, and corruption are everywhere and does not seem inclined to disappear anytime soon. However, before this most potent and lethal of all tools is used, I believe that other options have to be exhausted first. World War II was a mistake, in my opinion. We should have entered into the fray sooner. Vietnam was another mistake. The policy of the “Communist Domino Effect” had no basis in reality, but, then again, no one was able to actually study Communism without be branded a Communist themselves during that era. (Also for the record, I loathe communism as it makes everyone a slave to everyone else, a notion that I find despicable.) We should never have entered into Vietnam, no matter how hard the French pleaded with us.

In effect, wars such as Iraq are lost as soon as started, as there is no objective, no concise analysis of the geo-political structure, no plan for the aftermath, no framework that has been developed to deal with guerrilla insurgents. It was most especially lost when the one goal that was defined was “Democracy”. This is a mistake, as Freedom and Liberty only exist when a person wants to fight for it. It cannot be imposed from the outside, just like any other value.

Continue on to read the Journal from TPM Cafe.

Where is the Outrage?

Okay, I’ve about had it. I’m tired of people not utilizing their critical thinking skills. I’m tired of people just accepting a proposition because someone in authority said that this is the way things are. Most importantly, I’m tired of the mangled mess the English language has become in the media. Case in point: Islamo-Fascism.

I know this phrase sounds great for provoking fear, especially since it is aimed at middle-aged Caucasian Christians. The fear that it evokes is great for boosting readership to Blogs and for spiking the ratings game in favor of an article, newscast, radio show, or forum. The ratings are good for delivering advertising and widening one’s mind share in the info-tainment industry that used to be a News Industry. However, all of these things are bringing people more into the keeping of fantasy, fear-mongering, and irrationality then into the light of seeing new facts, evidence, and reason. The main culprits at this juncture are (gasp!) the Neo-Conservative talking heads, lead by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Bill o’Reilly. You would think that with their track record of breaking ethics, lying, terrorising their audience, and distortion of the truth that people would take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

First off, to educate most people who haven’t been bothered to actually research anything that they’ve heard, there is no such thing as Islamo-Fascism. Fascism is defined by Mussolini, the first leader of a Fascist state, as corporatism. A better definition would be to define fascism as the marriage of governance to corporate power. In extrapolation of this definition, we see that the wealthy elites are the ones that control the direction of the country. However, here are some other qualities of a fascist regime:

1. Within a fascist state there is extreme nationalism, with a xenophobic outlook on other nation/states and peoples; usually expressed with an outpouring of flags, memorabilia, mottoes, and other emblems of nationalism.
2. Scapegoating. Facsist regimes increasingly scapegoat the “other” as the cause of the nations problems. This usually takes the form in labelling as the “enemy” liberals, intellectuals, unions, academics, scientists, and others, either inside of the state, or outside, but usually both.
3. Censorship, either through direct state control of the media or through indirect economic means. Actual news is anathema to a fascist regime and its policies, so the news must be replaced with propaganda.

While there are other tell-tale symptoms of a fascist regime, I believe these are the most obvious ones that a person should watch out. All of these took place within the states of Italy, Germany, and Spain during the Second World War, but those states do not by any means exemplify the only ways that a fascist regime can exist within the world stage.

Now, take these definitions and apply them to the Middle East and Muslims, can we see any Fascism? I do not believe so. The thing that I see when I look at the political structure of the Mid-East is state after state that is an Autocratic Theocracy, a much different animal from Fascism. Most political scientists would agree with this assessment.

Why, then, would the right-wing press within this country refer to Islamo-Fascism all the time? Outside of fear, I believe that the answer lies with the psychological concept of “projection”. This is a feature by which a person attributes to others the ideals, values, and fears that the person adheres to. With the U.S. having taken an extreme turn to the right, most right-wing commentators are unwittingly subscribing to a political philosophy that they say they do not agree with, and yet do agree with according to their actions and their indirect rhetoric. It is akin to the Creationist labeling Evolution as a Faith, even though it is nothing like a Faith. Or the adulterer accusing others of committing adultery. The analogy can go on and on.

For example, let’s look at the title of a book written by one repugnant wing-nut, Michael Savage. The title of the book? _The Enemy Within_. If you read the book with a definition of fascism to the side, you would immediately see that everything that he accuses Muslims and Mid-East countries of doing are the same things that he is doing. While evoking the cry of “Islamo-Fascism!” he has set himself up as a Fascist as well. Will the irony never cease?

To quote from an anonymous source, “If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!”

Much Ado About Everything

It has been a few days since I last posted something, and I apologize for that. However, I was reminded of a quote from one of my favorite Sci-Fi authors yesterday because of all the intensely differing stuff that I’ve been doing and learning. The quote? Here it is:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, give orders, take orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” -Robert Heinlein

I have certainly been living up to his proclamation in the last few days. Lately, I’ve been patching dry wall, replacing light fixtures, laying out new flooring, re-ordering the placement of electrical sockets, building the foundations for a deck, learning Python (a scripting language that is very efficient and something that I’m going to use from now on when it comes to SQL database searches), writing a book review (For a book by Terry Goodkind, I’ll post it later), manipulating images with the GIMP for inclusion of future articles on this blog, changing spark plugs on my car, changing the oil on the car (might as well, I was already out there and had the items to do so), applying for my new classes this quarter, making gourmet Salmon meals for my neighbors this past weekend (I live in the Pacific Northwest, and some of the salmon runs are starting right now, all I can say is DELICIOUS!), hiking the Cascade Mountain range with my dog, and the list goes on and on and on. Right now, I’m back to my normal routine schedule, so I should have much more time for posting articles and such.

While I prep the next article on the question of Christianity and Slavery, why don’t you good fellows check out this clip from Hardball? I find it sad that the GOP hasn’t even bothered to change their talking points yet. The points of talking that they concocted a while ago were false sounding when they first came out, and now their is no excuse for them to keep on spouting the same false, misleading messages. Now that it seems the corporate owned media is back on track for bringing public accountability to this administration, albeit in extremely limited amounts, maybe we will see some more progress in getting the truth out, coming up with a plan for bringing or men and women home safely, and prosecuting the war profiteers who put our nations service members in jeopardy. (Kellog, Root, and Brown as well as Khaki International, I’m looking right at you!!!)