It is Time

 

 

Proposed legislation in Michigan would allow health care practitioners to refuse to provide any procedure or prescription for any moral reason. In the past that has been confined to abortion. In the new legislation the morality clause can be applied to almost anything - from contraception to Viagra. Indeed, I wonder if the men who promote this Bill really intend for it to be so broad. If they realize that it enables physicians to refuse to prescribe Viagra and pharmacists to refuse to fill those prescriptions, I wonder if they would be so eager. I would bet on a clause to exclude Viagra and other ED prescriptions. Otherwise, the men in the state would raise a huge outcry. What they need to realize is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The hypocrisy in Lansing seems to run rampant these days. Not only are the male Republican legislators working to regulate women's healthcare they also are trying to force drug testing on people who receive welfare in Michigan. So the poor who receive state money must be tested for drugs but the legislators (who are paid by the state) and corporations (CEO's presumably) are not. This hypocritical tactic has already been tried and found wanting in Florida. Meant to save the state money, it cost thousands of times more than it saved. Only about 5%of welfare recipients ever tested positive. What would happen if state legislators were tested one could only imagine.

It is very easy to legislate morality for those who are either voiceless or oppressed but those values are never enforced for the oppressor (almost always straight, white men). There comes a time when the oppressed rise up and say with one voice, "no more!" It is that time. It is time for women to say, "no more!" It is time for the poor to say, "no more!" and it is time for the LGBT community to say, "It is time for love to triumph over hate." It is past time.

Neither Rhyme Nor Reason

Sometimes it feels like the world is "going to hell in a hand basket." This is one of those times. It has been a terrible week or so, starting with the Boston Marathon bombings. I think most of us have been emotionally impacted by the horror of what happened, the death, the injuries, the terror. We have also have been moved by the heroism of those who, with little thought to their own safety, rushed to the injured to help any way they could. I suppose we all look for silver linings in the face of the tornado but it is amazing at how often they are there to be found. Among the horror of children killed and having legs blown off there were those who tore clothing to make tourniquets, those who carried the wounded and much more. It was a day to stand up to terror and Boston did. They continue to do so. Brave Boston.

And then there was the terribly wrong-headed vote in the US Senate which failed to overcome the filibuster by the GOP that prevented a vote on expanded background checks for gun purchases. There, in the face of those from Sandy Hook who survived a mass shooting, in the face of Gabrielle Giffords who has fought long and hard to recover from an assassination attempt by a mad gunman the US Senate caved in to the forces of fear - the gun lobby.  The Senate was too afraid of the gun lobby to do the right thing when they should have been emboldened by the presence of the heroes who struggle everyday to overcome the effects of guns on their lives. Rather than see in those faces the human cost of the unregulated gun industry, the industry of death and destruction, they were emboldened only by money. Shame! It was indeed a shameful day on Capitol Hill.

Next there was, of course, the terrible explosion of the fertilizer/pesticide factory in West, Texas. So many people lost in the blink of an eye simply because the state OSHA hadn't seen fit to inspect the plant for DECADES. How many people have to die because of corporate greed and disregard for safety? So much negligence, so much sorrow.

So much death and destruction, so much chaos. So little reason. 

Homeless Jesus

                                      Carlos Osorio / Toronto Star

Who is Jesus? This question has haunted the Christian church since it's very earliest days. In fact, it is the point of four different Gospels in the New Testament, each having it's own interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth. For all four, Jesus led a group of disciples, performed miracles, preached in Jerusalem, was crucified and resurrected from the dead. However, each of the Gospels has it's own particular point of view. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, referenced in "Gospel", Wikipedia: 12 April 2013 http://bit.ly/B1WNk .)

"The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke).[67] In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[36] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[36] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[36] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.[68] Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[66] Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.[68][69]
The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming.[36]
Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple. He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics. The Gospel of John ends:(21:25) 'And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen' " (Multiple sources referenced in "Gospel", Wikipedia:14 April 2013 http://bit.ly/B1WNk ).

So, Jesus has ever escaped the grasp of the Church, refusing to be caricatured by anyone, even the earliest Christians. Was he Man of Wonder, Son of God, Son of Man, Teacher, Healer, Messiah?  Was he the Savior of all humankind or the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy? The questions, seemingly, never end. And perhaps that is as it should be.

The latest formulation of " the Jesus question" appeared in the form of a statue by Timothy Schmalz. It depicts Jesus as a homeless person, covered and laying on a park bench. "Jesus, the Homeless" is the Savior who was made flesh, and lived among us. Jesus the homeless, became one of us and, more than that, identified with the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the ones without a place to stay. In short, Jesus the Homeless is the Jesus born in a humble stable (or grotto).

This Jesus has not always been well accepted, especially by the wealthy and well-off. These folks prefer Jesus the Teacher. Teaching has always (till now) been a respected and accepted occupation. The wealthy have no problem accepting the One who came and taught humanity. They do not, however, care much for the Jesus who overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple or the Jesus who healed Lepers and related to outcasts. Most of all, they do not like Jesus the revolutionary.

It should be no surprise, then, that two prominent Roman Catholic Churches, one in Toronto, the other in New York, turned away "Jesus the Homeless". The statue was not welcomed by either archdiocese ("Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches"  by Leslie Scrivener in The Star, 14 April 2013 ) Apparently, church administrators do not appreciate the humility of Jesus either. Perhaps they do not like the mirror this statue holds up for them. In the homeless Savior, the well-off and powerful see themselves in stark contrast to Jesus who calls us all to identify with the "least of these"

It is too bad that "Jesus the Homeless" only found a home in front of a seminary. Somehow, I don't believe that this Jesus was meant to be seen and embraced only by the scholarly. Jesus was never meant to be captured by books but is understood best through service.

Guns and Private Prisons

There are many people in jail and many of them used guns in the commission of their crime. This led me to wonder whether there is a connection between the gun industry and the prison industry.

It is pretty clear that the private prison industry benefits from crime created by poverty, drugs and personal desperation. The more people incarcerated the more money they make. The less private prison companies have to spend per prisoner the more money they make. This leads to substandard conditions in private prisons as the company tries to hold costs down. Prisons that can pack them in stand to profit the most as do prisons which don't spend as much on medical care, rehabilitation, food etc.

In general, private prisons profit off people's misery and pain. And there is plenty of human misery to go around. The rate things are going, there may soon be more of us behind bars than on the outside. Already 1 in approximately 30 people either are in jail/prison, are out on parole or otherwise in the prison/court system (1,2).


 Since exposure to violence increases the risk of violence in teenagers (3) one wonders if the vicious cycle this implies can ever be broken. If not, the private prison industry will continue to thrive. Indeed, I cannot help wondering if there is a connection between the NRA, the gun industry, the promotion of guns and private prison companies. The more guns, the more violence. The more violence, the more crimes prosecuted. The more convictions, the more prison space required.

All these parties seem to benefit from the cycle of guns and violence. On the gun industry's part, the more violence, the more people are frightened. The more frightened people are, the more likely they are to buy a gun for protection. The more guns for protection, the more people get shot. The more people get shot the more people end up in prison. It is such an intriguing correlation that I can't help wondering if someone, somewhere, isn't intentionally seeking to profit from it.

The answer, apparently is, "Yes":

" It sounded like a throwaway line. Toward the end of a four-hour Senate hearing on gun violence last week, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president of over two decades, took a break from extolling the virtues of assault rifles and waded briefly into new territory: criminal justice reform. "We've supported prison building," LaPierre said" (4).

Quite literally, the NRA went on a campaign to push for more prisons: 

"Starting in 1992, as part of a now-defunct program called CrimeStrike, the NRA spent millions of dollars pushing a slate of supposedly anti-crime measures across the country that kept America's prisons full—and built new ones to meet the demand. CrimeStrike's legacy is everywhere these days" (5). 

"LaPierre launched CrimeStrike that spring with $2 million in seed money from the parent organization and a simple platform: mandatory minimums, harsher parole standards, adult sentences for juveniles, and, critically, more prisons. "Our prisons are overcrowded. Our bail laws are atrocious. We'll be the bad guy," he announced." (6).

Wayne LaPierre, NRA

They are not even hiding their connections. The NRA and the Prison Industry are hand and glove and profit is their motive. No matter how they word it, the truth is there for all to see. The NRA and prison corporations both profit from violent crime: Guns create violence which create the demand for more guns. The gun violence results in criminal convictions and thus more people in prison. That means more money for both the gun industry (NRA) and prison corporations. What we have are entire industries profiting from violence, death and dying: The new Merchants of Death. 

For more see:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/wayne-lapierre-crime-strike-three-strikes

ENDNOTES

1.    Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006. By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar. Quoted from Wikipedia, "United States Incarceration Rate."

2.    U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), US Department of Justice. Quoted from Wikipedia "United States Incarceration Rate."

3.   Exposure to Gun Violence Increases Teen Violence by Charles Montaldo, About.com Guide May 26, 

2005.

4.    Tim Murphy, "The Big House That Wayne LaPierre Built" Mother Jones, 2/8/2013, quoted from the Democratic Underground, 2/10/2013).

5.   Ibid.

6.   Ibid. 

Christianity, Guns and the Constitution

What part of the Constitution do we NOT understand? Apparently, all of it. There has been holy hell to pay by gun folks over proposed universal background checks because the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Guns should not be regulated in any manner  according to these Second Amendment fundamentalists. The only problem is that their literal reading is a mistaken reading. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution says this about Congress' responsibilities:

15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16:  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

According to the Constitution, Congress has the responsibility to call forth the Militia, the same Militia referred to in the Second Amendment which is the reason for the right to keep and bear Arms. The Militia in Article I, Section 8  is more akin to the National Guard: they are called up to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. This Militia is to be well- regulated (by Congress). It is to be well organized and CONGRESS is responsible for arming them. The words "well-regulated" are crucial. Congress has the DUTY to regulate the ARMS kept by the people. You cannot understand the Second Amendment without the context of Article I, Section 8.  To quote the Amendment without the context is misleading and specious.

These same people seem to want to do away with the FIRST Amendment as North Carolina tried to make Christianity the official religion in that state. It was defeated but a poll by Huffington Post shows that 31% of Americans want Christianity to be the State Religion. The First Amendment says, as we all know:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that there should be separation of Church and State and it should be an absolute separation. Congress cannot make Christianity a State Religion. Period. Yet, the same people who are absolutist about the (misunderstood) Second Amendment are not so excited by the First. It seems that they want to pick and choose what part of the Constitution they want to follow. Sorry, my friends, you can't have it both ways.

The worst part would be the SORT of Christianity they want to impose on the rest of us. They want us all to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior but also to accept the rules THEY choose, like making homosexuality illegal, abortion illegal, contraception illegal, etc. They want us to be the land of the Christian Taliban, imposing their version of Sharia Law. Once again, they totally misunderstand Jesus who was, in his day and age, a radical breaking from Pharisaic legalistic religion. Jesus was the opposite of Pharisees and the present day Right Wing is the modern equivalent of the Pharisees. Jesus interpreted the Law this way: You shall love the Lord Your God and love your neighbor as yourself. Love, not Judgment. In the Gospels Jesus was a teacher of Mercy and Grace while the Pharisees were rule oriented. The modern day Pharisees would impose their rules on Christianity and make God in their own image: legalistic AND idol worshippers.

What we ALL need is Love. If you call yourself a Christian, that is what is required. In what sense is unregulated gun worship Christian? Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he cut off the ear of a Centurion in Gethsemane. He healed the Roman soldier. Weapons were not the answer. Neither are they the answer now.

"Entitlements"

Much of the debate about the budget and deficit has centered around an attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. While the debate is controversial, the language used in the debate (on both sides) is incorrect. Social Security Medicare and Medicaid are NOT "entitlements".  We need to be more precise in how we speak about this issue. The language we choose to use is reflected in our politics and politics tends to distort. To be clear about the language can inform the politics, or so we hope.

The word "entitlement" comes from the French word "intitulare" ( to give a name to, to entitle) and the Latin "titulus" (distinction, claim to fame, honor, title) [myEtymology: http://bit.ly/16zxSpJ,  4 April 2013] Thus, the original meaning of the word is "to give a title". In this sense Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are clearly not entitlements. There are no entitlements in the United States in the original sense of the word, which refers to giving a title of nobility to someone.

The Constitution of the United States says this: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign " (Article I, Section 9).  Entitlements don't exist here, therefore Social Security/Medicare are not entitlements.

The word, however, is most commonly used this way: "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security ..." (Dictionary.com: http://bit.ly/Zel0Gl; 4 April 2013). Even this definition is incorrect.  Social Security and Medicare not guaranteed benefits nor are they good deeds or gifts, per se, but earned benefits into which we pay our entire working lives.

The word "benefit" comes from the Latin, "benefactum" (good deed). Though Social Security and Medicare can, I suppose, be considered to be good deeds because they help people in their old age and disability, they are not good deeds in the sense of unearned gifts. We do not normally pay for a good deed.  Indeed, we work very hard and pay into all three, as we pay for health insurance or life insurance. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are best to be understood as "insurance programs" which ensure our well-being through pre-paid policies or taxes. If we speak of this trio of programs this way perhaps we would be less hasty about making cuts.

It is easy to talk about cutting a program which is a good deed or unearned gift but not so easy when we speak of cutting insurance programs. Indeed, most of the time, the government is very harsh with companies which do not fund their pension programs fully. If companies are forced to do what is right with their employees pensions (which ARE usually GIVEN),  how much more should the government fully fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? 

The bottom line is this: say what you mean and mean what you say.

Exxon Mobil Oil Disaster Part II

From the people at Exxon Mobil, who brought us the Exxon Valdez debacle come the newest oil spill disaster, this time from a tar sands pipeline in Arkansas. The spill from the pipeline was "tens of thousands" barrels of the same toxic kind of oil which would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline if it is approved (You Tube Video : http://bit.ly/16l12qJ). The difference would be a matter of scale, any leak from the Keystone XL pipeline almost certainly would be far worse.

According to LeeCamp2, the poster of the You Tube Video, the media is being kept away from the spill itself only being allowed the limited close up footage which shows nothing of the scale of the disaster.  What the aerial footage on You Tube shows, however, is the widespread nature of the leak. It has affected neighborhoods  oil running down streets) and environmentally sensitive wetlands, killing ducks and other wildlife as it spreads. What remains an unknown is the possible effect on drinking water in the area.

The question that comes to my mind first is, "Who allowed Exxon Mobil to build a tar sands oil pipeline through wetlands?" What kind of idiot would allow that? It may be a rhetorical question but the probable answer is: someone who is beholden to the oil industry and its lobbyists. Even so, it was the height of stupid.

Expect more of the same  to the 10th power.