The Madness That IS Climate Change

I feel the need to talk about this subject, particularly now as in the northern US, we are thawing-out from a second, brutal winter.  Many in the United States have a tendency to look at weather as a surface problem.  But weather - or Earth's circulatory system actually - is NOT just a surface issue, but a deeply layered issue where cause and effect have serious ramifications.
I will of course, preface this by saying - I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST.  However, I have the ability to read; I have the ability to absorb the information that meteorologists convey to the public at large; and I have the ability to decipher and correlate the evidential information I receive and put it to practical use.  This is the ability of the evolved, human brain.  All of us with normal brain function can accomplish this task.
There are those in this country and world - in positions of power - who, while seemingly possessing similar brain power, either don't actually have it or are intentionally spewing calculated ignorance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TIOy7MZRR0

So the point of SENATOR Inhofe's graphic display, is in a nutshell, to say that global warming and 2014 being the hottest year on record is a simple lie ... because it snowed.
This is like saying America has no poverty because, Bill Gates is rich.
In both instances, two conditions CAN still exist together and yet be true.
No one said that 2014 was so goddamn hot that snow will cease to exist - only that the global temperature AVERAGE for the YEAR was HIGHER than it ever has been in RECORDED history.

So - now the debate becomes whether or not this heat will ruin our world as geologic history shows us that Earth has experienced periods of much warmer climates and much colder climates - NATURALLY.
Of course this implies that the warming, (which IS happening and I will post several links at the bottom to responsible studies by actual scientists), is man-made or natural.

BUT - I am going to propose a NEW (well not really new, but mostly overlooked) angle on the whole issue!  Instead of arguing over who or what is to blame for the warming trend and the subsequent and very visual and measurable, world ice-melt ... why don't we instead start planning for the future?

There are two components that I feel are most relevant.
1) regardless of the melting power of fossil fuels - why not switch to clean energy for the reason that it tends to NOT POISON US and all other life on Earth?
2) enact plans to enable us to live in a world that contains a lot more surface water than we had previously planned. 

We can debate the "why's" and the "who's to blames" until we're all blue in the face.  Meanwhile - Florida will be under water. New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Houston, New Orleans will be under water - IF we do nothing.
In fact, the only way - in the future - to salvage these cities will be by great feats of engineering and mastery of flood control.
Also - maybe we should consider more radical plans such as cities built underwater or on the water - floating cities even.

Going back to that whole brain thing - we DO have the ability to combat most of what nature can throw at us and come out on top - like cockroaches.  Though with them - it's just sheer numbers.

We can either sit around and deny and fight each other and weep when it's too late ... OR we can plan ahead, wisely like intelligent life forms should.

I'm going to tell you now - this government will not save you.  "God" will not save you.  Only we can save ourselves.  It's all we've ever done to survive - it's what we must do to continue.
And that brings up a point - this future won't be a big deal for those of us at the helm now.  This WILL be a problem for our kids' kids and beyond.  But our prodigy has every right to life that we have.  And if people can't see that - well they don't deserve what they have now.  Our founders didn't do all they did to create this nation just for them - they did it for us.  And we shouldn't just piss it away.

Elect leaders who make decisions based on facts.  Not on how much money it earns them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJhbQIlu4mk

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/18/the-right-warms-up-to-climate-change.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/climate-change-economics/parker-text

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/17/climate-change-demands-immense-economic-changes

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/16/climate-change-in-the-arctic-is-messing-with-our-weather

https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/overview/

Research it yourselves. Don't stick your head in the sand. This is not the end of our civilization. But we need to learn to adapt.
And if you refuse to believe the science because you don't trust scientists ... well I just can't help you there. Enjoy your new pool/living room.

On Media and Motive - The Chapel Hill Murders

      About 2 a.m., Wednesday February 11, 2015, three bodies were identified as the victims of a shooting in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  The victims were college students, 23, 21, and 19 years of age - all shot in the head by a Craig Stephen Hicks, also a resident of Chapel Hill.
      This event quickly whipped our "crack" media infrastructure into a frenzy, where they expeditiously sought to assign motive to this horrible crime.  Oddly, the standard media angle - a mass murder by gun - was almost completely passed over in this instance in favor of a more inflammatory one - the murderer was an atheist and the victims were Muslim.
While I'm sure the Fox newsroom broke into spontaneous orgasms over this revelation, curiously all the mainstream media latched-on to that angle as well.
      Keep in mind - no motive had been released or even found yet by the police department handling the crime, with the exception of a known argument over parking.  Yet the media, having investigated Hicks' Facebook page let pure speculation run rampant despite the complete absence of correlation between the event that occurred and the information on the page.
      Fox News, The Silver Fox on CNN, The Today Show, The NY Times, even local affiliates began reporting the story as a "hate crime," and even before a motive had been established.  But was this a hate crime?  Those who know Hicks said no.  Now - one might expect friends and family to cover for someone they care for, but when you look at the Facebook page - the one of the alleged Muslim-hating, godless atheist who was fueled by his Muslim hate to commit murder, you don't actually see the motivation.
      His Facebook page confirmed he considered himself an atheist.  He was in favor of gay marriage.  He was in favor of abortion rights.  He re-posted a number of typical atheism-related memes.  He did question religion - most specifically, Christianity in his posts.  But very little was present that would suggest he so viciously hated Muslims, he felt the need to randomly go murder three in an apartment complex.
      It would seem that not only were these innocent people deprived of their lives by a man who clearly snapped, WE have once again, all been deprived of a reasonable and factual media.  It's as though it were a deliberate attempt to whip the American - and world public - up into a frenzy, probably to bolster sagging ratings.
      So now the pot has been stirred and a table is being turned on atheism.  Atheists, myself included, tend to regularly point out the correlation between religion and psychopathic and/or homicidal behavior in individuals and groups.  Naturally, this event is forging a backlash that puts atheists and atheism in the spotlight for similar transgressions.  However, the reasoning behind it is clearly unsound.
      First point - atheism is NOT and organized community.  There is no charter.  There is no book of laws and regulations.  There are no churches - aside from perhaps the internet and occasional groups who meet maybe once a month to drink beer and talk.  More importantly, there is no code within atheism that provides for hate crimes to be committed.  There is no sanctioning of violence or exclusion or immoral behavior.  Atheism is NOT a religion.
      By contrast:
           The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). 
          In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church.
          All tallied, the God (Yahweh), of the Bible kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
          The Holy Qur'an - The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

            Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

            Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." 
            Now these are but a few verses and examples.  The books are literally LOADED with words allegedly from GOD or ALLAH, spewing hatred, jealousy, immorality and death.  And that doesn't even take into consideration the heinous acts done over the centuries by the Catholic Church, reform churches who burned "witches", Holy wars of both religions and the horrific things coming out in the name of Islam today.
      So religion is predestined to create environments where horrific things become justified - "in the name of God."  Two-thousand years of acts of homicide are supposed to be excused, but one atheist goes nuts and it's ALL our fault?
      My second point is this - despite one's upbringing, despite one's belief system, some people just lose their shit.  Some people are caught in madness and that's the way it is.  Some people are religious, some aren't.  Most people don't murder three innocent people on a Wednesday, but occasionally some do. Religious or not.
      This Chapel Hill homicide appears to be far less about religious hate and far more about internal madness.  And even if it is found that he hated the victims for some reason, because they were Muslim, atheism holds no triggering factor that would've promoted the action.
      Despite what our illustrious media machine may have to say about it.

ISIS - clear and present danger

First of all - Hi! I'm back. Haven't posted in a couple years, but I feel I need to take my rants off Facebook and channel them elsewhere, so this seems as good a place as any.

Today - my rant is ISIS. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, but it's far more than that. The opinion I'm about to express will contain some well-known facts about ISIS/ISIL that I encourage readers to research for themselves. And of course, I will espouse my opinion on the situation involving this uprising.

Let me state for the record, that I am NOT a racist. I hold nothing against any human being based upon their race - where one is born or what race one is, is no one's "fault" and in fact creates wonderful diversity for our planet.
I will however, reserve the right to critique the choices people make - as adults - with the full capacity to reason their own actions.

There is a tendency in the media, the political spin doctors, and at all levels of government to classify ISIS or ISIL as a terrorist organization. While terrorism IS part of their modus operandi, it should not be mistaken for the be-all, end-all of their existence.
There is also a tendency to disconnect the group with the Islamic religion, in favor of labeling the group simple "madmen." While I agree that their intentions are in fact "mad", it is wrong to ignore the influence of Islam - particularly the Qur'an and the words of the prophet Mohammed - with respect to the group's ambitions. For that matter, their very name bears the name of their religion.

What is ISIS/ISIL?

ISIS stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Syria). ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. There is much confusion over these terms, I've actually heard people criticize president Obama for using ISIL, prompting the ill-educated public to accuse him of "being so stupid, he doesn't even know the name of the group he's talking about."
TO BE CLEAR - ISIS and ISIL - are the SAME GROUP. There is NO difference aside from which faction happens to be referring to it.
ISIS (ISIL) is a jihadist, rebel group which controls territory in Iraq and Syria an also operates in North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia.
It has allegiance to Al-Queda and other Sunni insurgent groups.
It's leader is a man named, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the group has grown considerably under his leadership. He was the key to the sudden strengthening of the group because he is believed to be a  prophesied caliph (leader) to bring a WORLDWIDE caliphate, (claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide), to fruition.
The group actually controls vast areas of northern Iraq and eastern Syria at this time, despite meager military bombardments. They also control pockets all across the regions I previously described.
Their actual, stated intention is to, in five years, conquer the entire Middle East, Muslim Africa, Muslim Asia, and in fact - SPAIN.

While a 5-year plan may be a bit optimistic, they have conquered vast swaths of land very quickly. And their plan to achieve this is not unlike many conquering armies of the past.
They start with a village, conquer it, conscript more men and teen boys from that village, kill anyone who opposes them, and moves on to the next village. Repeat.
It's a simple and comprehensive plan.

But what of the religion? You say they sound like simple brigands and they are not of "God"? 
Wrong.
They have been very successful because they use the words "of God" available to them in the Qur'an. The Qur'an very explicitly dictates in many ways that a caliphate should exist and Sharia Law should be achieved via Jihad.
Essentially, anyone who is not on-board with this is guilted into being on-board with it using their own religion as an example. If that doesn't work - they die.  The use of their RELIGION is how they have been able to conquer so much so fast and how they are able to have so many cells in the region who will likely one day soon become an equal problem.

For the record - Christianity once did the same. Still does in more mild manners. But at one time, Christianity was as bloody a proposition as Islam.
Islam is about 600 years younger. Go back 600 years or so into Christianity's past. Think about the chaos. The Inquisition, the Crusades, burning "witches" - every bit as barbaric.
ISIS represents the "growing pains" of RELIGION. Period.

But we don't live in benign times. In 1400, no one was going to destroy entire countries via nuclear annihilation.
If ISIS continues to flourish and uprisings start occurring everywhere they are now and the world sits back and does nothing ... how long before they get hold of something that will really do some damage? And think of the millions of Muslims worldwide, embedded in other countries.  How much damage could even a small percentage do if they became seduced by their religion's dark side?

Bottom line - ISIS is the problem in the Middle East that we should've been waiting for. If ever a time was necessary to stop a growing army - this is it.
I am sorry we spent so much time fighting in the Middle East, plutocratic wars that were little more than profiteering for our elite. Because this day was bound to come. Now we're really being backed into a corner and most Americans don't even see it.

Yesterday this happened:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obamas-isis-war-powers-request-heads-congress-n304316

Link it up - check it out.
Unfortunately - this one IS necessary.

But I can only hope our leaders realize that we've taken too much out of our economy and military to go this route ourselves. We need to organize a global response to the question of ISIS.  The security and stability of the world may lie in how we proceed.

The USA cannot be the designated "world police." We cannot sustain that title anymore. We need to acknowledge that we need help with this battle and we need to accept it.

A New Political/Economic System?

So I recently set out to define my personal, political belief system. What prompted this is kinda dumb ... Facebook. I sought to update and define my political views in the "About" section. The "religion" part, I got down pretty easily, but when it came to politics ... I find that I'm a bit more complex. My belief system falls into capitalism - but capitalism goes too far. It also falls into socialism - but socialism goes too far. Now many capitalist and socialist societies fall into a "mix" category. But my version of the mix is a little more complex and precise I guess. The Constitution of the United States of America does not (despite popular belief), define a form of economy. We developed into a capitalistic form over time that has come to be assumed as the law of the land. In fact, it is constantly being tweaked. And in recent years, has become open to more scrutiny and corruption than ever. I believe, we need to become pioneers once again. The world has changed. We need to open the doors to a new, sustainable, fair, and prosperous way of life. We need to eradicate poverty, excesses of greed, damage to our environment, and we need to restore some form of compassion for our fellow mankind. So what is it I believe? Well - I am not against (as some may believe), free enterprise. I think one of our greatest American freedoms has historically been the right to establish, own and operate our own businesses. This practice has built this country and by default helped to perpetuate the idea of democracy across the globe. However, what I fear from capitalism in its present form, is greed. Greed has been permitted to proliferate and damage the system we hold so dear. Our politicians, in general, have proven to be of poor character and are proving to be easily bought and swayed by corporate lobbyists. Now this is exactly what our founding fathers feared would happen. Now - how we end this is unclear. It is obvious that it can't continue but as more plutocratic control over this country's systems occurs, the more difficult it will be to break it. So something will have to give - and soon. I'm also a fan of some aspects of socialism. For example - one of the biggest controversies in this country is the idea of universal healthcare. I'm all for it. And yea, though most politicians in Congress will tell you it's the Devil's work - they of course benefit from ... anyone??? Ferris??? You got it - universal healthcare. Until the day they die. So while it's not OK for the common citizen to receive such benefits, it's OK for them? Hmmmm??? Curious. At any rate, socialism, while virtuous in many areas, establishes state control over production. So in many socialist countries, while private business do exist, the economies of those countries are interdependent upon the businesses within. This is a slippery slope. We can see the negative affects of such inter-mingling in Europe presently. Germany, with its social market economy has fared the best, but even that system has been criticized as placing money over people in the order of importance. So, we're finally coming to the meat of my blog - what I think should be established. Some of my beliefs DID actually exist in the U.S. until recently. As I list my thoughts, I'll be sure to point that out. First of all, I would like to see a mixed economic system, where free-enterprise and the market continue to exist ... BUT ... I believe the government (as in WE the PEOPLE), should retain control over all basic, human needs. In other words, I don't trust private enterprise to handle responsibly, those areas critical to the needs of our citizens. The areas I deem critical and therefore retaining the need for "social" responsibility include: - Public utilities (power, water, sewer, waste management(contractors OK here for pick-up) - incidentally, all of these used to be run by municipalities until the latter half of the 20th Century. - Phone/internet (communication has become paramount - I believe that the cell system should be dismantled and in its place a revolutionary satellite system involving ground-based repeaters be established. Perhaps we could combine forces with Canada to make it a North American effort.) This would still provide private enterprise for phone manufacturers and web-based companies but the people would control the open lines of communication. Laws would be established to ensure that the web remain free and not open to the cherry-picking of sites. - Prisons - I would see that it is made illegal for private industry to own and operate prisons. I believe every aspect of the incarceration of citizens should be handled by the government. It is in my opinion, one of humanity's most colossally dumb actions, to have opened prisons to be "for profit." The actual corruption occurring is already unfathomable, and that corruption is likely to increase the longer this practice is permitted. (Again - privatization was a late 20th Century change to our system) - Healthcare - universal. I think it is the RIGHT of every citizen to receive healthcare when sought. I think it is the RESPONSIBILITY of a free and human society to see that we take care of each other in times of need. By reducing the bloated military budget and the price-gouging that the government is subject to for goods and by no longer subsidizing industries who are turning RECORD PROFITS and by not subsidizing religious institutions - who don't pay taxes ... universal healthcare can be easily achieved. Period. It's NOT rocket science. Other areas of concern: - Food supply - I want to see the return of the family farm. Yes - this is private enterprise, and yes - this is how it USED TO BE DONE here in the USA. Family farms would produce, they could organize co-ops to help transport their goods to the food companies and markets which would of course remain privatized. This system worked. The size of our country and our exports of food is NOT a factor in the ownership of family farms. Corporations began establishing control of agriculture in the 1980's when Uncle Ronnie made it difficult for the local farmer - clearing the way for the Monsanto's and the Conagra's of the country to plutocracize the nations food supply. This needs to stop. No one is saying that Monsanto can't process food, but the unfair business practices - the virtual rape of the American farmer was and is wrong. I would like to see the family farmer make a comeback. The system used to work and food was safer and the agricultural system was more accountable. - Military - I mentioned earlier that we need to cut back on the budget. The reason I say that is NOT because I want to weaken the military. To the contrary - better focus on our resources will strengthen our security. We have military personnel on the ground in 148 countries on Earth (Politifact). We also have 662 bases in 38 countries worldwide (Politifact). Add to this - the fact that the United States military has technically been engaged in a constant state of war since World War II. This statement includes the Cold War, many various conflicts, cyber-war, and the current war on terrorism - which of course is an on-going battle. Our founders clearly intended our military to be a DEFENSE force. Instead the plutocratic powers that be, in the 20th Century and spanning to the present, have been in a constant state of imperialism. We are the current Great Britain, Spain, Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia - name your empire. We are it. And we control the strings of more people than any other empire previously. Our founders gave the world democracy. They showed the world a system of self-governance - not new, but not used at the time of our nation's birth. And now more countries than ever employ some form of that system. Negligence however, will make us fail. It is time to focus our military energy on technology rather than coverage. We could save so much money by cutting our worldwide presence and instead by building alliances around the world, create security. Meanwhile, we can continue to focus on innovation here and free money up for much needed use at home. - Regulation. The final viewpoint I'd like to see implemented in our country - in our political system is proper regulation. I believe our government does a piss-poor job of regulating business. While business is important to our economic prosperity - it should never come at the cost of the lives of the citizens who build those businesses. Again - this is a symptom of greed. Poor working conditions result when the few seek to profit at the EXPENSE of the many. Unions were created to combat this situation, but unions and the questionable tactics they employ and the corruption they can breed would be wholly unnecessary if the government would simply create rules and regulations that defend the people. Again - don't forget - the government of the U.S. IS the people. Or it's supposed to be anyway. Why don't we create regulatory laws that serve our best interests? It is simply illogical. In my perfect sociopolitical system, private enterprise would be encouraged but not at the expense of the well-being of the worker. Unions would need not exist because the government of the people would see to what is right! Less government is bullshit - unless you're a CEO or corporate owner. Yes, it could mean less of an overall profit, but if forced - it would also create an economy where those profits would become the norm - driving the price of inflation down to meet it. And it might mean a corporate owner makes a pitiful $20 million instead of $25 million a year. But gee - that's a price they might have to pay to do the right thing. So in conclusion, I don't really know what you would call this system. My political and economic viewpoints are diverse and hard to define. I suppose it's mostly a liberal viewpoint, but I think rather than looking at defining systems of government, maybe it's time we just start doing what's right.

The Millennial Story of the "Job Creators and tax cuts."

This election cycle, much is being written and verbalized in the media about tax breaks for the wealthy and job creation. The political pundits love to go back and forth over tax breaks for the wealthy - firing up supporters hugging each side of the issue. Beginning in 2001, with the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" and then amplified with the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003", then-president George W. Bush lowered existing taxes for all Americans resulting in a real, yet menial yearly savings for most Americans, but a healthy cut for the wealthiest Americans. The Bush tax cuts had a provision built-in that would have them expire in 2010. However, in 2010, bowing to political pressure mostly from the right, but certainly by those in his own party, president Barack Obama signed a two-year extension called the "Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010." This bill extended the life of the "W" tax cuts for two years, but more importantly it began to stand as a precedent for a concept that was then and is today, being loudly touted by the political right-wing in Washington. A political ideology that states, "tax cuts are needed for the Job Creators (wealthy) so that they will create jobs." This is where the meat of my story really begins. So let's examine that assertion for a minute. The idea is that by ensuring the wealthiest Americans have significant tax shelters, they will in turn, use that money to create businesses to employ Americans, thereby helping to restore the economy. But the obvious elephant(no right-wing pun intended), in the room is that for the past eleven years, the wealthiest Americans have been receiving a reduction in taxes, allowing them to keep more of their capital for themselves and have yeilded a miserable record of creating jobs. In fact, during the recession beginning in 2008, they have done even less to create jobs. And that's actually somewhat understandable. When you look at it logically - it's a recession - bordering on a depression. Everyone has become more conservative with their spending whether they like it or not. But that's not the political take on it. The Republican Party is trying to sell the continunace of these cuts for at least another couple years and in reality - indefinitely. They are basing this sell on the idea that wealthy Americans create jobs for more Americans. But is that really true? Paris Hilton for example is wealthy beyond her wildest dreams but she pretty-much uses her money to whore around. Still many other wealthy Americans head corporations who have repeatedly outsorced jobs overseas and moved manufacturing plants to various third-world shitholes. And then there are the investment firms. No viable products whatsoever - just Americans making money hand-over-fist by buying and selling American interests and American jobs. The truth of the matter is that the wealthiest 1% - hell, even the wealthiest 20% aren't the primary job creators in the United States. The job creators are small business owners. Small businesses are the innovators - the wealth of new ideas that turn into game-changers globally. And by-and-large, small business owners are not considered by any means to be wealthy. They are you and I. The rank and file ... if I must use a cliche. The voters who continually allow ourselves to be duped by political agendas. The truth about what President Obama wants to do regarding the Bush tax cuts and in fact, his own extension of them, is to simply let them expire. This is NOT a RAISE in taxes for anyone - including the wealthy. It is simply restoring taxes to what they were before the Bush cuts. A necessary tool to help fix a runaway economy - that was partly due to the Bush tax cuts in the first place. Add to that wars on two fronts - one of which was completely unneccesary and the other which has been dragged-out far longer than it should have at great cost to our people and our economy. In exchange for these cuts, Obama has repeatedly said he would work with small business owners to encourage ACTUAL job creation. Meanwhile, every American pays a fair share in taxes and no longer would millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than, for example, retail workers. And finally here's an interesting perspective in all this. Earlier in the 20th Century, when tax rates on the wealthy were sky-high, they managed to create jobs a plenty. Take a guess why. The reason was actually really simple. By paying such high tax rates for being wealthy, they were able to find great tax shelters in other ways. One of those primary ways was by ... BINGO! ... creating jobs and expanding business. So ... is it POSSIBLE that we actually have it all backwards on this issue? Just sayin ...

American Heritage???

It occurs to me that while I am American, I simply don't always agree with some of the fundamental thoughts of my fellow Americans. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm basically pretty liberal. As a "left-winged, pinko-commie liberal", I have a tendency to listen to NPR (National Public Radio to my conservative friends - not Fox anyway.)
So, I was listening to a conversation today (don't really know what the topic was), that got me thinking that perhaps there is a flaw in the way that we Americans think about our culture.
The discussion took a turn for what I can only refer to as, "self-righteous pity."
The guest was describing how "we" as Americans, came to this land through struggle. Our ancestors, whether white, black, Hispanic, what have you - all had to overcome such deep adversity to colonize the country we see today and have made us who we are as a society.
Now this is where I see the problem. I am sick to death of self-righteous sociologists pinning who "we" are on our ancestors! I think it is absolutely safe to say that our ancestors did in fact face many trials and tribulations - certainly some more than others. But to equate the struggle of colonizing the new world with the modern, American society is ludicrous and irresponsible!
The guest was basically implying that unlike our European counterparts, who often point to their "elitist, aristocratic" past, we come from far more humble beginnings and are better for it because we have overcome!
Now, on the surface, I can see how people may buy that. We have, over time stamped-out slavery, given (relative) equal rights to women, and come a long way with regard to race relations. We are by no means perfect - or even near perfect, but better. Still the timeline it took this "revolutionary, democratic, human rights-filled" country to do some of these things is pathetic! All of the western, free-world abolished slavery before we did and schools were still segregated within my lifetime in certain places.
But I digress.
The point I'm making here is that yes, our ANCESTORS did overcome great obstacles to form this nation, but to compare their struggle to today is unfathomable! We are NOT a damned-thing like our ancestors! We have know idea what it was like to come to a country with nothing, build a house in the wilderness, confront horrific and frequent diseases, battle with a domestic enemy who resented the robbing of their lands, being a slave - owned by another human being - made to work so that the owner can become wealthy. We don't know these things! We live a posh and spoiled life in general. We live in the lap of luxury - poor people today are goddamned kings and queens compared to the way most people lived in the 17th or 18th centuries.
So to say that our ancestors shaped who we are is more than slightly skewed.
This is not to say that we shouldn't be thankful for their courage. The men who established our constitution and laid a general fabric for our country are to be commended. However, as much as I personally honor them, they themselves were NOT omnipotent, omniscient beings that had the answers to everything. No human being can be that.
The lifestyle of people in the modern world compared to the lifestyle of people even 50 years ago is like a massive leap through time.
History is about learning from it - to avoid making similar mistakes. It is not an excuse for modern society.
For example, one of my favorite documentary film makers, Michael Moore (enough with the groans neo-cons), once suggested that perhaps we live in such a violent society because of our violent history. In essence, blaming the sins of today on the sins of the past. He later determined through further examination however that the past didn't have to do with it. Canada had and has gun ownership and they have a fraction of the violence we do. Australia was like the old west in the 1800's - and again a fraction of the violence today.
It's the culture of the here and now that makes the difference.
We as a society, must stop blaming the past for our modern condition. We cannot keep recycling the crutches of our ancestors on which to stand tall. We read history - we learn from it and we move on to make our own history. Our world is far, far different than it was in 1776.
Our founding fathers pointed us in the right direction, but ultimately it is our world now and whether we pass or fail is up to us and us alone.

Humanism

I haven't posted a thing on my blog in some time now. I don't know whether out of sheer laziness, writer's block, lack of interest ... whatever.
But I'm back - with a brand new edition. C Eagle's back, so you might as well listen!
Topic today - Humanism. So what is humanism? Those who consider themselves humanists, (like myself) often have different definitions. But to give it its most basic meaning, humanism is the philosophy that finds meaning through reason in our lives and universe. Humanism does not rely on religion, mysticism, or any other "faith-based" system to guide us through life.
However like most of the world's religions it does employ the "golden rule" in its most basic form - do unto others as you would have done to you. This basic mantra is found throughout the world's cultures and though to many, it is the rule that "God" or "gods" have bestowed upon humanity, it is really more a common sense approach to a bountiful life.
Humanists use reason and scientific analysis to formulate their outlook on life and where we may be going as a species. Humanists do not subscribe to belief systems that offer up no valid or verifiable evidence to substantiate themesleves.
Humanists by definition, cannot be members of any organized religion. For to be part of a religion, there is a requirement that the member is of the belief that there is, without question a specific god or gods that determine human destiny and usually that all human processes first take into consideration, the will of that particular deity.
Humanism doesn't work that way. Humanism places the responsibility for our collective destiny in the hands of what is known or knowable about the universe and ultimately at the mercy of human action or inaction.
Humanists are either agnostic (a belief that the notion of "God" is not impossible, but is not within the realm of discovery and therefore should not be the focus of the common, human discourse) or atheist (simply no belief in god, gods, or a higher power, and should not be the focus of the common, human discourse.)
So ultimately humanists must take full responsiblilty for how we treat our fellow man, our planet, the species that live here as well. We must be responsible for our social injustice our man-made destruction, our own sense of hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.
On the other hand, we must also take pride in our accomplishments, our ingenuity, our capacity for understanding and comradery and love. The latter traits unfortunately too seldom find their way into the daily realm of mankind. But humanists have far fewer constraints placed upon us to enable the world to become a better, more positive place. The reason for this is that we simply don't have the restrictive "rules" of an alleged omnipotent "god" or "gods." The world's major religions and tribal religions all seek to control mankind for the power of the few instead of the inalienable rights to freedom of the whole.
When we examine the founding of the United States, we find that most of our founding fathers believed in humanism more than they did religion. The democracy that we bestowed upon the world, though rooted in the words of persecuted individuals from their past, came to fruition under their tenure. And to this day, that democracy is threatened by organizations, mostly of religious nature, that seek to destroy that foundation.
In closing, after years of self-examination, my understanding of religion and the world around us has led me to humanism. I am not part of a cult or "new age" philosophy. There is no temple in which I aspire to worship mankind. There is only reason and scientific knowledge. The knowledge of how we got here, what we are doing with regard to our species, and the hope of where we might aspire to go with it.
We are all we truly have. If another world exists beyond this dimension, and we can somehow transcend our earthly bond, then that will be revealed upon our individual deaths. However until that time comes for each of us, we have only what's in front of us. And that time should not be wasted.