Whose Freedom?

Tags

1st Amendment, free speech, Paris

This whole Charlie Hebdo thing is pretty deep if you stop to think about it. Of course most don’t treat it as such. It has become a knee-jerk reaction for most. Jon Stewart pointed this out when he suggested that some countries who have championed free speech and press, actually arrest plenty of speech in their own countries.

We are all in danger, it seems to me, of being hypocrites, myself included. I confess right now that I have participated in at least two attempts to squelch the free speech of others when it came vile bigoted hate speech against the President.

It’s not nearly as easy an idea as it might appear to be.

A friend of mine posted a link to statements made by the Pope. He suggested that free speech must be protected, but that,   “You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” Francis did not expound on what should be the consequences of such inappropriate speech, but he warned that the attacks in Paris can fairly be expected from such talk.

I tend to disagree with Francis here, at least insofar as he claims that the ends justify the means. If he suggests that we should ban hate speech vis-a-vis religion if it would engender violence, then this leaves us under the thumb of every radicalized person about any issue he or she defines as “religious”. Where would it stop?

I am aware that all speech is not protected. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), you are not free to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Forever after we have lived with the standard of “clear and present danger” as the bellwether of when speech crosses a line to incite lawlessness.

To succumb to the threat of violence if you “say those things” invites the standard (a difficult one at best) to be flipped to be defined by the one threatening the violence. I have no doubt that the Pope spoke in the general, and as he put it in a friendly manner not meant to be a papal statement of substance.

Yet, of course, those inclined to think little and shallowly about the subject go off the deep end. In the wake of the Paris shootings, Oxford University Press, certainly one of the more respected publishing houses in the world, announced that it would no longer use the words pig, sausage, or pork-related products in its children’s literature. This as a means to not offend Jewish and Muslim readers.

They have been not only roundly ridiculed for such a decision, but criticized as well by the reputable press.

In the post I cited at the beginning, one read the expected Christian whine, “The only ones we have to be kind to are the militant, extremist muslims who might behead us. All the other religions are fair game.” Such rhetoric is of course, both nonsensical and off point.

In fact the world community has stood up very clearly and said, as offensive as Charlie Hebdo is to most people at one time or another, they have he right to say what they wish about Muslims or anybody else for that matter. In a country that is overwhelmingly Christian, (Pew estimates that 78.4% of all Americans define themselves as Christian) it is predictable that the religious right will complain that it is a victim of persecution!

This all suggests that at least some of the Je suis Charlie is nothing more than acclamation that the “right” religion is being attacked. Should Charlie Hebdo attack, (as they of course have done and no doubt will continue to do) Christianity, these self-defined freedom proclaimers will be calling for Charlie’s head.

Some things it seems to me need to be cleared up.

Speech is speech, and unless it reaches the “clear and present danger” standard, ought under no circumstances be prohibited. Westboro Baptist must be allowed to spew it’s hate, as well as the KKK and various right-wing evangelicals and their “burn the Quran”. Atheists who call believers names fall into the category as well.

Speaking against a religion is not persecution of that religion. Persecution involves state action to suppress a religion because of its existence. That does not mean that it is right or to be championed. It is to be marched against, spoken against, and shunned in the most clear way. But it must not be prevented.

When we speak of “not offending” another religion, we are again talking about state action. It is improper to set up creches in public places such as town property, because that is the government speaking then. It is quite proper for a private establishment decorate as it wishes. This is I think where people get most confused.

When a store decides to use the phrase “happy holidays” they are not persecuting Christians, they are choosing to respect all their patrons, Christians and others as well. Similarly if a store chooses to say Merry Christmas or Happy Kwanzaa that is their choice as well.

While I see Oxford Press’s point, I think they have stepped over the line. Some attempts at political correctness are simply absurd. Small children have no clue the point being made, and who are really addressed are parents, who are surely capable of explaining to their young if they think it necessary.

We simply begin down a dangerous path when we start deciding that certain types of speech are not allowed. In Germany for instance, I believe it is still a crime to speak out in denial of the Holocaust. While there might have once been reason to do such a thing in the raw years immediately after WWII, I’m not sure it is still valid. Many countries have liberal prohibitions of speech that attacks the state. These too are wrong, as most of us would agree.

We must never forget that at one time, the most innocuous of things today was then blasphemous. People were arrested for speaking about all sorts of things that threatened the state (religious or secular) either directly or indirectly. We have come a long way, in most of the civilized world. If we resort to making it illegal to speak our minds about anything beyond what threatens life itself, we run the risk of turning backward down a path that leads to dictatorship, repression, and tyranny.

Those on the Right, who so vociferously espouse “our freedoms” should be the first in line to defend speech. But of course, they have are not. But then, true patriots reside elsewhere on the spectrum, as we all suspect.

 

It Wasn’t THAT Long Ago. . . .

Tags

abortion, contraception, fundamentalism, GOP, Hobby Lobby, Women's issues

A little history seems in order.

Okay, so before we start, let’s get this straight. This is not an anti-male diatribe, much as you may think it is. There are damn well plenty of stupid women out there who have drunk the kool-aid and think women’s place is in the home, tending the kitchen, children and pets, in that order. The trouble is, the women who tell you that are ANYTHING BUT stay-at-homers themselves and even if they are, they are writing blogs, books, and preachin’ on social media that YOU should not be like them, but rather like the fantasy women they envision–pampered, protected, cared for, and wiper of runny noses all wearing that crisp peter pan-collared cotton frock and perfectly shined respectable two-inch pumps and pushing the vacuum with a free hand.

Whew. . . .

No this is against paternalism and all its ugly underbelly of psychological signals that tell the female gender that they are all they can be just by primping in front of the mirror and making very sure that that eyeliner is on straight and that lipstick is the latest fashion color of the season.

Ya see, I grew up in that tween place, on the cusp, able to see both shores as it were.

Women got the vote in 1920. My mother was born in ’26, so she grew up having it, though I must say, she pretty much used is as far as I can tell, as her husbands explained to her was right and good. But her mother came into her adulthood without it, my grandmother was born in ’01, so it impacted her most. I knew these women for whom the vote was a “new” thing,  but grew up knowing that voting was no different for me than for any guy I knew.

It was not until the 60’s, during the general period of awakening that lots of minorities were going through, least of all white males who were being conscripted to be the fodder in another war, but one this time that seemed to merit no one’s patriotic fervor, that we women began to learn of our own deeper oppression. We began to learn that it was not okay that our bodies were not our own to control, that we were not by “nature” relegated to certain types of jobs, and paid less in others simply because we were women.

We learned that there was much more to do in this journey to equality.

And we secured our right to control our bodies–in other words–to make mistakes just like men do with theirs.

And we worked hard to break through glass ceilings that prevented us from being fighter pilots, (if that’s what we wanted), neurosurgeons, police officers, firefighters,  and corporate CEO’s. And then we discovered that even when we got the jobs we didn’t get the pay, and we began that fight too.

Always with a certain segment of scared men and the women they controlled telling us that we were going against God, country, and well, nature itself.

Always with those who believed that as we gained our power to control our lives, theirs would somehow be diminished. Sharing is a hard lesson to learn.

They argued of course that women would become “just like men”, or worse, punish men in some Amazonian-driven lust for power themselves.

They argued that we would cry during tense negotiations with a Khrushchev and rain down upon America the nuclear holocaust that permeated the Cold War era.

They called us atheistic feminists and the spittle trickled down their chins, catching and rerouting through grizzled stubble, that they wiped away with grubby fingers still clutching ragged signs with misspelled words echoing their hate: Back to the kitchen you sluts!

But while these battles went on quietly across America with thousands of dedicated women, all the clamor died down, and life didn’t change a whole lot. We figured we were still on the journey, but life as we know it hadn’t stopped, and someday we would reach our goal of full integration and equality in America. Most of us thrived in a world that seemed increasingly equal to us.

And then along came the “IMMORAL MINORITY”  waving their bibles, and explaining to middle-aged white men who had failed in the great American dream to be great achievers, that women were the problem and not corporate greed. Women were and always were the problem ever since that bitch picked that apple off that tree and seduced God’s great creation Adam into sinning. Women were the problem.

And as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and the great middle started to age and find that damn they weren’t much better off than their parents, some thing had to give. Corporate America became adept at focusing the blame on minorities, takers all. Suddenly, feminism became a dirty word again. Our enemies are mostly aging white men who feel left behind (damn that Rapture, where are you?). The feel and it’s certainly palpable at this point, emasculated by articulate, educated women.

Ask me about it. I belong to a forum of my old high school, and my wars always end up being against these male types (one of which actually said that he ended up calling me names because “I drove him to it.”), and women who believe that women were created to serve me according to their fine uneducated reading of certain pseudo-Pauline texts.  And invariably they block me, so I can read the their comments and they don’t have to respond to mine. Except that there are men on the forum who are just as liberal as I am, just as knowledgeable, and just as “in-your-face”, and they don’t get blocked. Why? Because men can argue with men, but women must be very careful to be properly respectful lest they be branded as “stupid” and “a troll” and “self-defined intellectual”. (I was once told that educated people were “pissants” all, by one tiny-penised patriarchal dope.)

So along comes Hobby Lobby and it’s claim that its corporate religiosity is being assaulted by requiring it “pay” for certain contraceptive methods it in its utter stupidity deems abortifacients, and the Feds have no right to make them offer same to their employees. There is so much wrong here that it’s sick. First, HL provided all these methods before they were picked as the “plaintiff” and then told, “damn, guys, you offer this stuff already!” Hobby Lobby owner Green claims “shit, I have no idea”. Hobby Lobby gets I would guess 80% of its inventory from China, a nation that makes abortion a national policy and until recently required it after one child. Hobby Lobby has a 401K retirement benefits package which includes owning shares of various big pharma companies which, you guessed it, manufacture all the abortifacients that HL moans about.

So the SCROTUS decided that corporate religious well-being trumps women’s rights to good health. Along with that, they decided that there can be no buffer zone between women trying to enter clinics that offer contraceptive care along with abortions and those who want to scream at them demanding that they “think again”.  Women seeking treatment at a PPH clinic must be within “spittin’ distance” of those who seek to turn them away.

Across America, Republican led legislatures make it hard if not impossible for poor women to get reproductive care of any kind by loading down clinics with regulations (aren’t Republicans against business regulation as a matter of principle?) that are so burdensome that they have to close.

And all this in the name of NOT ABORTING. When all of these restrictions do exactly the opposite.

Republicans in Congress vote down equal pay for women.

There is a line.

It has now been crossed.

We will not go back.

Vote in 2014 as if you life depends on it, because control of it is surely at stake.

 

 

 

 

What’s Up With That?

Tags

1st Amendment, dominionism, teabaggers, Ted Cruz

Never let it be said that a college education isn’t a good thing.  But it does not mean, gentle folks, that everyone that secures one comes out, well, . . . educated.

Some come out with better talents at manipulating the world they hope to rule one day.

Case in point is Canadian Ted Cruz, that stalwart Haaaavard educated douche from Texas whose daddy is still quite certain that President Obama was born in Kenya, which apparently is something less good than being born in either Canada or Cuba as the case may be.

It would be inappropriate to compare Ted to another well-known demagogue, so we won’t, but gosh Ted could give any of a host of world ogres a run for their money when it comes to using white-hot rhetoric in attempts to raise the blood of the great stupid hoards.

Truth? Not so much. Truth is not the providence of a demagogue; not that truth has no place at all in propagandizing. It does, but a minor part at best. Truth becomes the kernel which is then popped all out of its original proportions in order to reach the goal of making black white and thus creating the “new” rallying cry of the duped.

My very own Senator, Tom Udall recently introduced a constitutional amendment before the Senate which would try to put a stop the abuses that stem from Citizens United. As you recall, the SCOTUS held in that case that corporations were “people” for purposes of the 1st Amendment and that they could spend unlimited money denouncing or supporting various candidates for office.

This led to the creation of “super Pacs” which collected millions of dollars which were funneled to various campaigns supporting various candidates. The one run by Karl Rove controlled over $300 million dollars.

Of course, we all agree (or at least most of us) that such behavior amounts to actually a very few people being able to buy elections for candidates who we must conclude feel rather beholden to their benefactors. Money has become “speech”. Indeed in the McCutcheon case, limits on the total amount an individual could spend on election campaigns were removed. All agree, that the average person, as a result has less and less a voice in these matters, being unable, even collectively to meet these staggering amounts of money, all designed to elect those who will be favorable to one’s desires.

One must remember that Citizens United involved a film, one made about Hillary Clinton, which was in all respects nothing more than a campaign tool used by the Right to smear Mrs. Clinton. That was the argument made, that the film was funded by corporate funds for one reason and one reason only, to affect the election against Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Ted has used this one fact, that it was a film to make the grandiose argument that the Democratic party intends to vote to eliminate the 1st Amendment.

He argues because this was a film (which has nothing to do with the decision at all, but is merely the vehicle for the principle embedded within it), that the very next thing to happen will be that Democrats will decide that you can’t read this particular book, view that particular movie, or go to that particular play.

Watch the video, and listen to the audible gasp by his Family Values audience as he announces this draconian fairytale. He then goes on to tell the audience that government wishes the authority to “muzzle you” if it doesn’t like your speech.

Of course this is not true at all. It is directed solely at the concept that a corporation can be a person with a political agenda, free to spend millions to do exactly what Ted decries as the eventual outcome–muzzling you. In fact it’s to keep your voice valuable, that the amendment is offered.

This all becomes the more sweet when we recognize that indeed Cruz is arguing that corporations are people in his view, a concept he shares with Willard Romney, who found that people were not really happy with his refrain, “corporations are people too, my friends.”

Indeed the irony is delicious here.

Ted is a dominionist by religious flavor, another of those Christianist offshoots that create their own theories about “what the bible means”. Ted’s daddy is a preacher who preaches this stuff through his ministry Purifying Fire International.

This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.” It seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights. It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism.

Note that the ideology calls for “anointed Christian leaders”. Well as you may have guessed, Ted is one of those “anointed“. And if you are at all unsure about that, you need but ask his daddy:

Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as “kings” to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the “Seven Mountains” mandate, and “bring the spoils of war to the priests”, thus helping to bring about a prophesied “great transfer of wealth”, from the “wicked” to righteous gentile believers.

So what we have here folks, is a man who is lying and making ridiculous claims about the Democrats being Fahrenheit 451 Democrats, determined to gut the 1st Amendment right to free speech, while at the same time, declaring that he has every intention of gutting the separation of church and state, and the right to freedom of religion, from the very same Amendment!

It pays to know what both hands are doing.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that perhaps the son doesn’t follow his father’s beliefs. He does folks, he certainly does.

Now, I recognize that normal people get Ted Cruz. The see him for what he is, and I have little or no doubt that he will fail miserably in his attempt to gain the GOP presidential nomination. You simply cannot hide all this stuff. It’s too well attested to by video alone.

But the antics of Ted serve to continually stir the pot of the crazy element in this country and that is a dangerous element, and becoming more so. One has only to examine the insane “open carry” nuts in Texas who even looked crazy finally to the NRA. Of course the NRA backed down, and that is even more worrisome. There is a level of crazy in Amerika that is increasingly willing, or so it seems, to use violence to achieve their goals however they articulate them beyond, “we don’t wanna pay for that” and  “we don’t want them people around us”.

Most will mess their pants at the first shot fired. But I’m afraid all too many are just nuts enough to bunker down and begin a “war”, one that will take no prisoners, but will mow down anyone who appears to be “not one of them”.

To the degree that Cruz and his ilk continually rile these folks up with blatant propaganda lies, we must all be very afraid.

 

 

Weeping For Joy

Tags

1 st Amendment, judiciary, tea party

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. —George Orwell, 1984 (1949)

There are times in life when the universe slaps you in the face, not out of spite or meanness, but to be most sure that it has your attention.

This is a good thing.

Such a thing happened to me.

It often does, I have to admit.

This, I ponder, may not be the case with most of humanity, it’s hard to say. I can only speak for myself. But it is a regular occurrence for me, I assure you.

If one believes, as some do, that the universe is a vast sea of intelligence, and we are but threads in the great tapestry that is the universal brain, then one is required, or so it seems to me, to respond promptly to its nudge, or slap as the case may be. Perhaps to the more aware it is a nudge. As I said, to me it seems a good healthy slap, one that stings for a few seconds, leaves a pink echo upon my cheek, but no lasting imprint.

The prompting today seems directed at reminding me that there is much to this thing called humanity, this thing of being human. In fact, there is so much diversity along the spectrum of human to not so very, as to suggest that some of us many not be exactly of the same species at all. This of course could figure quite prominently in those circles where UFO’s and alien meddling are believed to be involved in so-called human evolution. A helping hand to Darwin so to speak.

What I mean to say is that, well some of us seem not to play by the normal rules of logic. You know the drill. Two plus two equals four. Rain falls down unless carried by wind in some not gravity direction. You know, basics.

It is undoubtedly what makes it nearly impossible for rational normal people to get facts across to people of the TeaSwillin’ party. Which is a whole failure of logic in and of itself, since of course said party is not really known for its tea swilling at all, rather for its Bud delight I would generalize. Yet it clings to an appellation, their collective minds conclude,  that suggests  a willingness to “give the last full measure” for an America they have dreamed up at back yard barbecue meets during lazy Saturday nights.

The following is but an example.

There was a time, long ago and in a universe perhaps far away, when the public at large looked up to those of great learning. Such were judges, who were given a reverence seldom accorded politicians at least. Wearing archaic uniforms of flowing robes, they dispensed justice from on high. They did this by reasoning from old and rather dusty tomes of ancient writings which consisted of “precedent” or the honor given to past pronouncements from similar men dressed similarly.

But I must say, that no longer can we accord such men, or women if they exist, with this presumed pedestal right.

Alas, they too have proven to be of mere clay.

Fine you say, the likes of Thomas, Alito, Scalia have made that case  for some time now.

Yes, you would be right, but, no I speak of one so low as to commune with pond scum.

That man would be Chief Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, a state always in the running for title as location of the world’s stupidest people.

Yes, THAT Roy Moore, the fool who refused to remove the 10 commandments from a courthouse under order from a Federal Judge. For that he was unanimously removed from the bench by other jurists of that state. But, yes, you remember don’t you? The good but stupid people of Alabama sent him right on back.

Roy was no doubt a stellar student at Alabama University but must have slept through most of his Constitutional law courses. This seems plausible, since Roy admits that his tenure as company commander of a MP unit in Vietnam was, shall we say, problematic. Known for his strict adherence to rules and interpretation, he became known as Captain America. This was not an endearing name, and poor Roy took to sleeping upon sandbags should his men decide to lob a grenade under his cot. So he might well have been in need of sleep during those years after in stuffy constitutional law classes.

In any case, Roy has developed a rather unusual interpretation of the First Amendment in its entirety. It seems, or so Roy says, that the darn thing only applies to Christians, since as he says, Buddha did not make us, and he is unaware of any copy of the Koran having come on the Mayflower.

If you don’t know this, then Roy invites you to “get back and learn your history”.

Roy expounds on life itself, saying that it’s clear that life begins “when the baby kicks, not when it’s head comes out!” Common sense found at the bottom of a cracker jack box folks.

Now if all this sounds somewhat different from what you learned, well, you don’t inhabit Roy’s jello brain.

See the universe is trying to tell ya something here folks. Not all humans are created, well quite human. Some of us are imposters. Roy proves that.

Aren’t you glad you don’t live in Alabama?

Get out there and look for the aliens among us…If you smell tea, you are on the right track.

Source: The Raw Story

Roy on vacation

Exactly How DO You Manage to Walk and Chew Gum at the Same Time?

Tags

1st Amendment, free speech, religious freedom

The Extremist Right has its panties in a twist once again.

Just once I wish they would actually think through their objections and place them side by side their other objections and make sure all that shit lines up. Cuz it never does you see, for the Extreme Right have brains that are rather odd. Cognitive Dissonance is well, their best friend.

See in the Extreme Right mind, beliefs and ideas are fairly free-floating. They may bump into each other, but they are like tea cozy meetings–a blind teapot meeting a blind tea-pot. They politely say “S’cuse me” and careen off to bump into another idea, unaware that these two ideas are in grave conflict and by rights they should throw off the cozies and fight it out. And this would be a war to the death, since both cannot co-exist in the same mind without craziness creepin’ into the skull and reducing the occupied persona to a pile of whimpering snot.

Since having some thirty million or so folks collapse into whimpering piles of snot would be messy, unattractive and a huge drain on the psychiatric community, happily such realizations do not often happen to the Extreme Right brain. Lucky for them. Unlucky for the rest of us folks who have to contend with people WHO MAKE NO FREAKIN’ SENSE.

Case in point.

The Duck Dynasty. I won’t bore you with the history. Suffice it to say there are four relatives of some sort or other, who designed a duck caller that swept the nation and resulted in them becoming millionaires. Never heard of it? Well in fairness, it seemed to have only swept those establishments that cater to duck hunters. How that could give rise to anyone being a millionaire is beyond my comprehension, but apparently there are more nasty quacker shooters that I thought.

Any the ways, one of the relatives, the so-called patriarch of the family (such things being amusingly relevant to these types of folk), one Phil Robertson, was interviewed by GQ, a magazine you wouldn’t immediately think of when you think of duck hunters to be sure. But they did. And Phil talked his little sad brain off. And he talked about things having zero to do with duck callin’ which was a sure mistake if he had the brains to think of it.

But he talked about things he has no familiarity with, by his own admission: gay folks and Black folks. And well, he said things like this:

When asked what he thought was sinful, Robertson replied: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

But homosexuals aren’t alone, Robertson said. “Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,” he told GQ. “Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field. … They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!

“Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues,” GQ quoted Robertson as saying.

Now, A & E, the network that shows Duck Dynasty, replied by puttin’ old Phil “on leave”, claiming that Phil’s remarks are not at all in line with A & E’s corporate morality.

Well the old Extremist Right blew a teabag, screechin’ at the top of Sarah perky lungs: How DARE they do that. Why they are discriminating against Phil’s religious rights and that free speech thing too!

“Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us, . . .”

So, what we have here is a dilemma, at least to this brain of mine which regularly alerts me when two of my ideas collide in a nuclear explosion of contradiction.

Let me put it this way.

Ms. Palin and others of her ilk deny the right of the corporation A & E to register its moral shock at an employee of theirs by placing him on suspension, whereas the corporation Hobby Lobby is perfectly within its right to register its moral shock at employees of their by imposing a financial burden upon them. In both cases, the corporation has moral views dissimilar to the employee.

But Ms. Palin and other Extremist Right think it just terrible that corporations like Hobby Lobby should be forced to allow their insurance carrier to do what it wishes (cover contraceptive care) and demands it be stripped out of the policies because Hobby Lobby is offended by this for religious reasons.

According to the Extreme Right, the corporate sensibilities of A & E do not count, while those of Hobby Lobby do.

I can but scratch my head in confusion.

Now, that is not to say that I agree with A & E here. And that should make even the most hardened of Extreme Right folk pass out from the vapors. I’m not alone in claiming that A & E are wrong.

Phil has every right to spout his odious ideas publicly and GQ has every right to print them.  However, the proper (IMO) way for A & E to respond is to put out a statement that Mr. Robertson’s beliefs and opinions are not reflective of A & E, and in fact are contrary to their moral position. However, A & E recognizes the right of people to believe what they choose, and they will be motivated by their customers desires in watching the show or not in determining future contractual obligations with the Duck folk.

In the same vein, Hobby Lobby “corporate feelings” can be whatever they are, but they are not allowed to force them on their employees. They do not extend making their employees live under their religious strictures.

That’s the way I see it.

And you?

<

Oh No She Di’nt. Oh Yes She Did

Tags

children, Entertainment, Individual Rights, Media, sex, violence

One thing you cannot call me is a prude. I grew up in the 60’s where it was sex, drugs and rock and roll for goodness sakes. We reveled in turning on and tuning out. We dabbled on the edges, at least most of us, and a few sadly jumped off the mountain and died young.

So, don’t say, oh go back to your knitting old woman, this is the new generation. We were all the new generation at one time, and the roaring twenties had nothing kiddies to do with lions.

But even I have to come up short once in a while, and ask. . . . “Really? Haven’t you gone just a bit too far here?”

And I’m not even talking about the occasional “over the top” display of boobs, vaginas, or exploding heads with sprays of blood in every direction. I can even buy that some of this is “necessary” to convey the true horror of the event, time, or business as usual attitude.

I’m talking about the constant one-up-man-ship that seems increasingly necessary in order to capture and keep the attention of the average person.

The danger is never that one single act of viewing will so warp the mind that it will forever impact the life of the viewer. It is so much more than that. It is numbing if the mind to the point that we are becoming more and more desensitized. What used to shock no longer does.

And it happens rapidly.

Just last evening I was bemoaning once again that we have started to watch Breaking Bad when it first started and then for some reason, bailed after a couple of episodes. The Contrarian gently reminded me that the reason was “the violence”. Wow. We had stopped watching Breaking Bad for the same reason we ceased watching the Sopranos?

Yet here we were watching Hell on Wheels and Copper, and The Following. We had avoided Dexter, but were watching  The Bridge which treated us to bodies sawed in half and side nudity and some good simulated sex to say nothing of the same in Copper.

We had, in a word, become desensitized.

And we are technically now “old people”. We have some ability, one would assume, to separate real from simulated, and reality from fantasy. How does one attribute such abilities to tweens?

When three young fellows decide to kill a person because “they are bored”, we have probably reached the point where reality is no longer recognized as much different from the latest edition of Grand Theft Auto.

I will be the first to admit that the jury seems still out on how much all this has to do with changing the minds of our youth. Reasonable psychologists do disagree, but it cannot be a good thing that we treat violence and the ugliness of exploding bodies a good thing. It cannot make us a kinder, gentler people. Certainly we can agree on that.

It seems to me one thing to blow up star ships even though we ignore that they are filled with hundreds of living beings, and quite another to blow off two-thirds of the face of a man as they recently did in an episode of The Bridge. The fact that it’s not “real” is hardly comforting to young minds. Hell it’s not comforting to me.

It’s now the norm in my household to avert one’s eyes, yelp in shock, and yell out, “they could have warned me!” at the gore that is de rigueur for most cable shows these days. Have you learned to turn away as the crazy person raises the gun to their own head yet? We sure have.

Now, you can argue that we are just watching lousy crap, and that may be true enough. Still, some of these shows are compelling in showing us a bad side of our own history. Hell on Wheels may be often too too graphic in its portrayal of blood and gore, but we do learn that how freed slaves were treated in the real world in the Old West, and how women used their bodies to make a living, and how everybody used and abused the Native people as needed. The were alternatively “saved” and massacred as time allowed.

Which all brings us to Miley Cyrus and her “act” at the MTV Awards the other night. First I did not watch it, but I have seen the video. Anybody who breathes has heard of it no doubt and the jury is split into “what a slut” and “who the hell cares?”

Women seem to care more than men, since it’s still true that women bear the major burden of raising children, and this shit scares them. Little girls, sadly, love these pop stars, want to dress like them and act like them.  Anybody who has seen Toddlers and Tiaras, knows only too well of what I speak.

One can speculate about Ms. Cyrus’s upbringing, her mental state,  and a host of other psychologically related issues regarding her and her idea of what is appropriate to do in front of cameras, but most of us would rather not have our children witness this behavior as something to emulate. Much as Ms. Cyrus may disagree, this is not the way you “prove you’ve grown up”. Rather it proves that you have a very very long way to go to reach that destination.

I’m the first to admit here that I have no answers to any of this. As you know by now, I don’t specialize in answers so much. I prefer to rant about what is wrong. You find the answer. I’m busy rooting out the problems. And this is a growing one it seems to me.

The business of simulated sex is just not necessary it seem to me. I find it impossible to almost ever conclude that it is “necessary” to a faithful honest portrayal of the character of incident. We can all figure it out without all the grunts and groans and the “yeah baby, now” crap.

The violence? That has a better argument in some cases. I do think it’s important to see the ugliness of our history. Saying that people owned slaves didn’t have much effect until Roots showed us (graphically for its time) what it was to be a slave. The same for things like Amistad. As I have said, Hell on Wheels insofar as it shows the misery of life in the West while building a railroad, gives us a new appreciation for those that built this country. Not the Rockefellers and Carnegies, but the average people who lived out short mean lives doing the business of building.

But where to draw the line? Oh gosh, I don’t know where to begin to set the standards. And perhaps that is the reason we have so little in the way of standards. Where is free speech, art, and individual freedom in all this? All I know is that we have gone too far it seems to me.

Related articles

• Not Just a Whorehouse: Female Representation in Hell On Wheels (rookerville.com)
• Miley Cyrus: White Trash Never Looked This Bad (thoughtcatalog.com)
• Breaking Bad is brilliant (catherinecrilly.wordpress.com)
• Breaking Bad Contest: The First Three to Die? (thomaspluck.com)
• Top 10 most bad ass TV characters (angelomedici.com)

 

Some Uncomfortable Truths

Well, take it from me.

People can really suck.

If you are looking to prove that, it’s fairly easy.

It’s just about as easy to prove that they don’t.

But this post is not about the latter. It’s about the former, because this ain’t no pie-in-the-sky utopian blog, it’s a rant haven where the ills of society are regularly pointed out to the tone-deaf idiots who don’t read this blog anyway, but should.

That said.

People really can suck.

I was over reading Squato Rant’s post today about how Tennessee continues to screw over poor people,  because they can. And it pointed out a very serious truth to me. People continue to believe what they want because it serves some purpose–mainly their moral worldview. Now their moral worldview may be world’s away from mine, and thus, from my perspective damned offensive, but they actually (hate to admit this but it’s very true) believe it just every bit as sincerely as I do mine. The fact that to do so is jackassery in the extreme is also part of my worldview.

But I have to admit that they are sincere.

You see we not only search for that which supports our being right in the world, we also vary the amount of proof required accordingly. According to Professor Haidt, it’s called, can/must thinking.

See, when we want to believe something, we look for any evidence that says we can. It doesn’t matter if most of the evidence says we can’t, as long as some speck of evidence says it’s “rational”. So you want to believe in creationism? Sure. While the vast array of evidence suggests that the earth, the universe and all it contains,  was not created in six days, there is that pesky bible, if believed literally, which says it was. And if there is one shred of question about ANY tiny aspect of evolutionary theory (and there always will be), then I’m “allowed” to believe in creationism, no matter how utterly crazy that is. I can believe in it.

But conversely, when you don’t want to believe something, you look for any shred of evidence that suggests that you are not required to believe in it–must I? No, it might be incredibly prudent in order to not look like the wrong end of an elephant, but if you are willing to do that, by all means, there is that little hole in the evidence over there. Go stand by it and proclaim that evolution isn’t true because they haven’t solved this mystery of how life originated from inert matter.

So that’s where we find ourselves, each clinging to all sorts of things we want to, while denying all sorts of other things we don’t want to believe are true.

The fact is, the truth is what it is no matter what.

Now there is some answer here. We gotta assume that most people are interested enough in reality to mostly cling to stuff that is actually true, and mostly discard that which is not. We gotta assume that most people are psychologically sane in other words. And since we have cars, computers, skyscrapers (do they still use that term?), and electric can openers, we can pretty much assume that that assumption is correct.

So here is just a list of stuff that ain’t true no matter how many times you say it. Just in case you are confused.

1. People who have a lot of money are not “job creators”. They are experts in making money. They try to make as much as they can, and that means selling whatever they sell for the most money, and at the cheapest cost to themselves. Cheapest cost, includes labor. Nobody hires one more person that they think they can get away with and still make the highest profit. (Proviso: there are some rich folks who aren’t in it for the money, and actually believe in everyone making a fair wage. These are called exceptions to the rule).
2. Climate change is real. No matter how much you wish it weren’t and no matter how much you don’t want to pay for it, it’s still real. I just read that Senator Inhofe from the great? state of Oklahoma, used to believe in climate change. That was before he found out how much it would cost to repair the damage. Well he decided to look for “evidence” to the contrary, and shockingly, he found it. Truth is sorta not interested in costs Senator.
3. America was not designed to be a “Christian” nation. It was created by men who were more deist than anything. Moreover they were men of the Enlightenment–the idea that reason was supplanting religious explanation for physical phenomenon. The came from theocratic countries and wanted no part of that sort of government–hence the 1st Amendment and its proscription against government intruding on religious freedom. Even St. Paul recognized that God was known through creation by the use of mind: “since God has made it plain to them: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things.” (Rom. 1: 19-20) See, it’s not a trick, we can trust our minds and our senses.
4. The North won the civil war. Get over it. Same with Obama.
5. Women will still have abortions as a last resort no matter what you legislate Republicans. You can force them to go to back-alley charlatans or you can get out of the way so they can obtain them safely. They always have gotten them throughout history. That’s the truth.
6. The world is increasingly NOT-white. Deal with that. Or at least get over it. It’s true, and it’s going to remain true. It is also true of this country which will be more non-white than white shortly. Trust me, I live in New Mexico. I live in a city where the population of Latino people is larger than that of the white population. I can’t imagine why anyone would care. And you get to learn a whole new cuisine and culture. What is bad about that?
7. In any universe known or unknown, the truth is that Louis Gohmert (not giving people food stamps to buy King crab legs!), Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, James Inhofe, and a whole list as long as my arm x 20, are still going to be insufferably stupid, evil, and owned by big business interests. They represent loons. Is that a good use of your tax money.

That’s just a few. No doubt you have others.