How Silly Of Me...The Problem Is Government!

How often does a politician say something like this quote from (of all people Tom DeLay) about Newt Gingrich:

In fact, DeLay speaks of Gingrich with undisguised contempt. “He’s got this new shtick now—‘solutions,’ he calls it, like government is the new solution. Government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.” DeLay smiled.

I just heard Republican presidential candidate Milt (or Mitt, or whatever the hell he's calling himself these days) Romney say the same thing.

What do those words mean? Do people that say this really believe government, especially what they call BIG government, is the problem? Big government is by its nature corrupt, inept, inefficient, and unfair, and there's nothing anyone can do about it? How many have noticed that the ones who say this loudest and most often are politicians?

If the government is rife with corruption, pandering, special interests and ineptitude (it surely is, and more so), who should be held accountable for that? The people, to a certain extent. But who are the ones that pull the strings, have the hand under the table, have the lobbiests paying their bills and providing trips with luxury accomodations? Sure as hell isn't the people, for if it is someone's been hogging my share.

So if government is vile, perhaps we need different people in the government. Get rid of them. Especially the ones that crow about the evils of government while they ride on the cash cow that it provides. But wait...we've done that. Time and time again. And the same thing happens. Ah, the problem of government again! So the blowhards would say, and point out how this makes their case. It's nonsense. It's pandering to folks who've had a belly-full of government, by politicians that have no intention of changing it. And why should they? It's working out pretty damn good for most of them.

It is not government in and of itself that is the problem, contrary to what the paragon of virtue Mr. DeLay has to say. It is the ones that have leadership roles in government that are a lot of the problem. It is the virtual monopoly of that leadership (forget the lies about a two party system) on elections, cash flow, influence, pork barrel pandering, and out and out lying that create most of the 'government evil' they so crow about.

This has been going on for a long time. Power at first was given to these pseudo-leaders by the people in good faith, and that good faith has been rewarded by the stealing of most of the rest of it. It is not government that is the problem. It is corrupt government. The ones that are the most accusatory are the greatest corrupters. For them to say it is not possible to have a more efficient, more honest, more equitable government is a lie. If that were true, there would be no cause to have any hope for our country and this world at all.

Humans for sure cause many of the problems in this world. But if there was no hope that humans can also solve many of those problems, what would be the use of even trying? The trick in making things better through positive change is to finally learn how to live together, to realize that if one of us goes hungry or is subject to injustice, we all can fall to the same fate. Doesn't make it any easier when the same professional liars keep throwing up walls and ravines to divide us.

Here's the quote from DeLay that I started with:

In fact, DeLay speaks of Gingrich with undisguised contempt. “He’s got this new shtick now—‘solutions,’ he calls it, like government is the new solution. Government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.” DeLay smiled.


Notice the 'DeLay smiled' at the end? Of course he's smiling. He's been run out of Congress on a rail, endicted for lord knows how much wrong-doing, and is still part of the Washington good ol' boys club. Why not smile? Playing the anti-big government card while you've helped create it, and are still reaping the rewards from it, is quite a trick if you can pull it off. But that's what happens with big government, you know.

Random Thoughts While In Church

Last Sunday in church was Shepherd/Sheep day. Most of us know the story and the analogy. Christ is the Shepherd, and we are the sheep. I've heard it countless times myself. But for some reason this time around, the story and the analogy struck me as being very odd.

Not that I've paid much attention to the analogy over the years. I think it is a gross simplification as to what a person's relationship should be with their deity. But on this day it was as if I was hearing it with different ears.

The preacher started a detailed comparison between 'human' sheep, and the 'sheep' sheep. The biggest point she seemed to want to make was how dumb sheep are. How many times have I heard this kind of species bias? Like us humans are so far above animals that we have the right to judge them?

Fact of the matter is, a sheep in the wild is just as smart as a sheep needs to be. Most all they have to know is where to find food and water, and how to make baby sheep. Some skill in climbing rocks and mountains would come in handy too. For this they have been abundantly endowed by the Creator.

But are domesticated sheep dumber than wild sheep, or are the things that sheep raisers demand of them contrary to their natural behavior? And after so many centuries of selective breeding and domestication, perhaps there has been an intentional sheep dumbing down. No doubt the sheep that displayed the traits that man was looking for (a fine coat, good looking legs for leg of lamb roast, size, easily managed) are the ones that got the opportunity to roll in the hay, as it were. The ones that didn't have the desired physical attributes ended up in the stew pot with no chance to breed. These ancestral sheep just may have been the smart ones, but lost out because they couldn't cut the mustard otherwise. After all, if you were a shepherd and had your choice of a dumb sheep with good looking gams and a fine coat, or one that was smart and more difficult to contorl, which would you choose?

Then the clincher of the sermon. Humans are as DUMB as sheep! At least in this religious context. Sheep go astray, so do humans. Sheep need to be guided by the shepherd's crook, (maybe even whacked with it once in awhile) so do humans. If sheep stray too far, they run the risk of death by predation. So it goes with humans too (watch our for that devil!) The good shepherd tends the flock, provides and protects them. And so it goes with humans.

The 'domestication' of humans has been going on longer than the domestication of sheep. How much 'dumb' stuff do humans do because they are being forced into situations and environments that are not natural? How many doctrines and 'essentials' are demanded of people in religion that are against our nature? Are not some religions trying to do the same thing with people that the shepherds of long ago did with sheep? Trying to domesticate all the brains out, (makes sheep easier to control), giving preferred treatment to the brainless to reproduce (Think about it. The restrictions against marrying outside your faith attempts to do that.) Not to say that all domestication is bad. Society does require a certain amount of it for people to get along together. But domestication can be taken to extremes beyond the need for people to get along.

So is the shepherd/sheep analogy valid? If the shepherd had a more direct way of communicating to the sheep, perhaps. But as it is now, the only idea we have of what the Shepherd wants is given to us second-hand, at least for us poor mortals that have no hot line to God. And many of these 'shepherd go-betweens' seem to relish brandishing the shepherd's crook in a very punitive way against the 'unsheep.' Get out of line, and you're apt to get whacked alongside the head with the crook of the shepherd, or even something worse.

Am I so bold to think that I'm NOT a sheep and that I DON'T need a shepherd? Well, yes. I think the shepherd /sheep analogy , when taken to extremes can be abused tremendously. I prefer to go my own way, discover things out for myself. Now I'm not saying a mentor wouldn't come in handy. Someone I could go to when I really get confused and need guidance. So something more like a facilitator/mentor is what I'd like. Not someone to guide my every movement, and to whack my knuckles with a dogmatic ruler whenever I do wrong. But I do admit, having a facilitator/mentor instead of a shepherd would sure mess up the poetry; The Lord is my facilitator/mentor, I shall not want...

An Irritating Email

Below is one of those forwarded emails that I get on a regular basis. It's like these things have a mind, a life of their own. Also, it is amazing how so many folks seem to have the time to forward so much garbage, but don't have the time to go to their elected Representative's website and give their opinion, or get off their butts and at least register to vote.But I digress. The email:

CELL PHONE vs. BIBLE
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our cell phone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we flipped through it several times a day?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to Kids as gifts?
What if we used it when we traveled?
What if we used it in case of emergency
This is something to make you go....hmm...where is my Bible?
Oh, and one more thing. Unlike our cell phone, we don't have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill.
Makes you stop and think "where are my priorities?"
And no dropped calls!

This email has me irritated and flummoxed. I've got my own ideas about all this bible stuff (don't we all, at least I think we should), and I try to live and let live as best I can with others and their beliefs. But this particular forward has set me off.

Perhaps I've reached the saturation point with this kind of thing. So many hold the bible sacred, but I've found that there's not a whole lot of people know much what's in it, let alone have actually read it. I'm no authority on comparative religions, and knowing what little I know about human nature it's probably true across the board, but it sure seems like so many Christians base their belief on hearsay evidence. That is, they don't know much about the history of their faith, what is contained in their holy scriptures, so they swallow what someone else tells them about it.

It doesn't help matters that I vaguely know the guy that sent me this email. Does his knowledge of his holy book amount to a handful of parsed-out platitudes that he pulls out with incredible timing at the most appropriate moments? Or does he truly know the book. Does he also know that the Qu'ran is the epitome of evil because he's heard a few verses from it that promote 'death against the infidels'. Perhaps, but you can't expect someone to know any more about a different religion than they do about their own. And what I've said above pretty much reveals what I know about the sender. It's not the first time this type of email has come my way, courtesy of him.

So I guess it's a combination of the things mentioned above, and the incredible amount of the Internet that is taken up with pure unadulterated BS, and the amount of susceptibility all of us have to that BS. Not that everything I do on the 'net is of earth-shattering importance. But c'mon, gimme a break. Is it necessary to have the most up-to-date computer system and broadband Internet service to do what our ancestors used to do across the fence post; talk, swap gossip, and spread BS?

To imply that just having a bible in your pocket like a cell phone makes you a better person is rubbish. If you do not know what is in it, if you do not ponder and discuss with others in a non-condemning way its meaning, what's the point? The bible is God's story book, man's thoughts about God (the definition of theology). It is full of myth, wonder, violence, love, and wisdom. Truly a book for the ages.

I am not a bible scholar, not even a mainline christian, but I have read it enough to know that much of what right-wing fundamentalists believe is not even in the bible, but basically comes from a fire and brimstone preacher from the 19th century named Darby. And even his preaching has been distorted somewhat to fit the beliefs of the modern fundamentalist.

So I guess that's my beef. A book in your pocket is just a book in your pocket. If you have no clue what is in it, and you take someone elses word for it without question, you're just as well off keeping the cell phone in your pocket and your bible on the shelf. You'll do less harm with the cell phone, and you'll know more about it.

Random Thoughts On Lent And Easter

Such a wonderful time of year for Christians, Lent and Easter.

We get the holy sign of the cross made on our forehead with ashes on a Wednesday. We get to wave palm leafs around in church on Palm Sunday, and shout HOSANNA. We get to go to church on Thursday, (Maunday Thursday to be exact) and hear glorious stories, and partake of the communal cannibalistic ritual otherwise known as Communion (or The Eucharist, according to the religion).

We get to hear all over again the beautiful story of how a man (well, God actually) was brutally beaten and horribly executed, and all because WE ARE SINNERS! We get to hear covert accusations (and sometimes not so covert) how it was THE JEWS that killed our man-god. And the equally beautiful story of how our man-god rose on the third day (not spiritually, but LITERALLY) and PROVED IT ALL! And if I need more graphic proof, I can always watch the movie by that fine Christian Mel Gibson. I bet there's even some movie theatres that will 'resurrect' the film to show to us Christians. No doubt, seeing it all on the big screen. larger than life , in Surround Sound and living color, it would make a more profound impact.

I dread Lent and Easter more and more each year. Perhaps it is time that I excommunicate myself totally from a religion that is in some ways as much of a cult of death as the Nazis. I still go to church most Sundays, for there are folks there I have known all my life. And I try to support the good things that the church does in the community and around the world. To be sure, Christianity is not all evil.

But look at what traditional Christians believe in. The inherited evilness and wickedness that we are born into, all because two mythical 'first humans' that were overtaken by the curiosity that their God gave them, and did what that same God told them not to. The preordained horrible death of the literal son of God to atone for our sins. The absolute necessity for the 'Prince of Peace' to die a painful death, all because of OUR SIN! For that is what some of the message is, that the death of Christ was OUR FAULT. So we are burdened from birth (and perhaps even from conception?) with guilt, sin and wickedness. Is there any chance for peace among Christians, let alone with any other beliefs in the world, as long as these things are the cornerstone of Christianity?

I look out over the congregation in church and am curious. If there was a way I could peel back all the layers and get to the pure truth of what people believe, how many actually believe this crap? Or do most just mouth the words out of tradition, habit, or fear?

I think of the quote by Mark Twain (not verbatim, but close enough) "Religion is somethin' you say you believe in, that you know ain't so." So on this coming Easter, perhaps instead of going to sunrise service, I'll stay in bed. But then again, they do serve a hell of a breakfast at church after service on Easter Sunday! So much for my belief, I guess. I'm a part of the problem of Christianity myself.

A Response To An Article By Jim Wallis

I have read an article by Jim Wallis with the title 'The Religious Right's Era Is Over'. My comments:

Well, I don't see much to celebrate so far. I've read Jim Wallis' book God's Politics after many people recommended it. There are good things in it, but the thing that really stands out in all of this is that Jim Wallis and other progressive evangelicals oppose not only the religious right.

When he says that the Left is starting to get it, does that mean that he isn't 'left', and that the 'left' is just as much a problem as the 'right'? In his book he comes across as having a lot of answers, and a definite vision of the way things ought to be. I for one don't see where a religious left would be any better than a religious right if they were in power. Either one, in the long run, would discount those that do not fall under the umbrella term of 'believer'.

What is being done here, to my eyes, is increasing the size of the tent and allowing more people to stand under it. But there is still a requirement. This tent is a tent of believers of an historical, traditional God. Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, and what he calls the 'spriritual but not religious'. Is there also to be room for Wiccans, Agnostics, Athiests, Pagans, and the myriad other 'religions', or not?

Whenever I read something by the self-proclaimed progressive christian evangelicals, I get the feeling that, in their own way, they would be just as controlling, just as intolerant, as the fundamentalists they oppose.

Perhaps it is my distrust of organized religious institutions, my agnosticism, my cynicism, coming into play. One of the basic dogmas of christianity, that says Jesus died for our sins, is still strong. I do not believe in redemptive violence that most christianity believes. I believe that the redemptive violence taught by the church contains the seeds of redemptive violence for all of humankind towards one another. It glorifies the horrible death of a fellow human that was brought about because of politrical reasons, and turns it into a condemnation against all humankind. For if Jesus died for our sins, we are to blame.

Does not the bible also teach that Jesus was a champion of the under dog, that the powers that be of the Temple were the ones that oppressed the poor and down-trodden? That all humans are of equal value, and that the religion of his day had become corrupt, and actually caused much of the afflictions of the poor and down-trodden? So then why, with the death of this man that believed in the equality of all, were things spun into a blanket condemnation of human life itself as being sinful?

So is the religious right's era over? No. Perhaps it's influence will be lessened, but it will come back sooner or later as strong as ever. Conservative thought tends to glorify the past, and eventually the longing of return to a 'better time' that never was, will happen. So will the religious left's era be better? Not better, only different. Jim Wallis and the progressive evangelicals are changing the outlook of religion, make no mistake. But it's still organized religion. It still has its dogma that dictates what is 'proper' and what is 'improper' to believe. That perhaps is the problem, and as long as it is, doesn't matter which side is in charge. The results will be the same.

A Poster, A Video, My Reply

A video was posted on a message board I frequent. The video can be viewed here, and my response to the one that posted it follows:

The reasons for the war in Iraq are many. Was there faulty intelligence about WMD? If there was, an awful lot of people believed it, on both sides of the aisle. I agree that Democrats are just as responsible for the beginning of the war as anyone else. But of what use is all this now? It is history, and as such it will most likely take years for everything to come to light.

Was Hussein deposed? Yes. Was the Iraqi military neutralized? Yes. Is there peace and democracy in Iraq? No. Has the occupation of Iraq stopped terrorism? No, but it has shifted the focus to Iraq, where acts of terrorism against Iraqis and the American military are an everyday occurrence. So why keep belaboring the point about Democratic hypocrisy? There are plenty of examples of hypocrisy from the other side also.

What do we do now is the question. Historians will debate on the particulars of the beginning of the war on Iraq. All of that is irrelevant to the here and now. The Republicans don't have a clue, and neither do the Democrats. Perhaps, just perhaps if the partisan finger-pointing would cease, they could work together and decide where we go from here.

But as many of your previous posts have shown, you are not in favor of bipartisanship. You want the ultra-conservative war-mongering agenda followed to the letter. Any deviation from that is suspect for you, is feared by you, and needs to be ridiculed and dismissed as hypocritical, unpatriotic, patronizing, appeasing to terrorists.

So of what value is a video on youTube produced by the Republican National Committee that calls Democrats hypocrites? As much value as if the Democrats made a similar video about the Republicans. Both would be totally worthless, both would be partisan bullshit. To stubbornly keep bringing this kind of crap to the fore adds nothing to any possible solution. It only increases the division in the country. It is a sick political game you play, while people are dying. I hope you're having fun.

A Reply From One Of My Senators, Dick Durbin

I recently wrote a letter to one of my Senators Dick Durbin in regards to the continued funding of the Iraq occupation. His reply is in bold, my reply is in italics:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about funding the war in Iraq.

Senator, the war in Iraq ended a long time ago. Bush himself declared a victory from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Saddam Hussien was deposed, a new government has been formed. Our continued presence in Iraq is no longer a war, but an occupation. Perhaps if this situation were aknowledged as such, there could be a more timely resolution agreed upon to end our involvement.

I understand your concerns about our nation's involvement in Iraq. I voted against the resolution authorizing this war, and far too many of our men and women in uniform have died there. With our involvement now in its fourth year, more than 3,000 American soldiers have been killed and more than 22,000 have been wounded. In addition to the loss of life, this war is costing us $2 billion each week. Add to this the escalating sectarian violence, and the unknown number of innocent Iraqi civilians who have perished as a result, and it is clear that the current "stay the course" approach is not working and that the Bush Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory.

I am well aware of your voting record. With all due respect, that's history, Senator. What concerns me more than history is the future. The immediate future. You have quoted the sad numbers of our dead, and of the Iraqi dead. You have rightfully put the blame for this upon the Bush adminstration's failed policy. But let me ask, do you really think there can be a victory in Iraq? If so, just what would that victory be? The stabilization of Iraq will not come about by our continued presence there. Some say a civil war will erupt if we leave, some say that war has already started. Again I say to you, if we are to maintain a presence there, whose side shall we take? Can we remain neutral while occupying a country with so many warring factions jockeying for power and control?

It is time for us to end our open-ended commitment in Iraq, and for American troops to start coming home. At the end of 2005, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact legislation declaring that 2006 must be a year of significant transition toward full Iraqi sovereignty and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops. This measure passed 79 to 19 with strong bipartisan support, reflecting the widespread frustration that many Americans feel toward President Bush's handling of Iraq. The Administration has not demonstrated the same sense of urgency regarding this transition, and the President has instead called for a major escalation adding more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

If this measure passed, why was Bush not made to adhere to it? Is there any kind of congressional control over a president at all? Are all these 'measures' and 'resolutions' even worth the paper they're printed on?

I am working to secure Senate passage of a measure opposing President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq and calling for a strategy that would charge the Iraqi government with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence and fostering reconciliation. I also support the conclusions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which would allow most U.S. combat forces to redeploy from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008.

As you have already stated the numbers of dead and injured since we've been involved in Iraq, how many more would be killed or wounded over a year-long redeployment plan? Perhaps I am naive, but why spread it out so long? Get our troops out of there in a more timely manner, and there will be less death, less injury. And also, is there any reason to believe that this new measure you are working towards has any more teeth in it than the measure passed with bipartisan support in 2005?

I have strongly disagreed with the Bush Administration's policies toward Iraq, and I have not hesitated to express my objections. However, with more than 150,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, I could not in good conscience vote against funds to support our men and women in uniform who are already deployed and to ensure that they have the best equipment and protection we can provide.

Your good conscience prevents you from voting against any more funding for a 'war' you have repeatedly said you are against? Do you have the courage to vote against funding this continued occupation or not? I cannot believe that if funding were cut for this occupation that our troops would be in any more danger than they are right now. Fund their immediate withdrawal, not the continued occupation. Get them out in as orderly and timely a fashion as possible, but get them out! Are Democrats that afraid of being called non-supportive of the troops, that they will continue to vote hundreds of billions of dollars to continue the killing? Do Democrats have enough courage to frame this in the proper language, instead of letting the pro-war people frame the issue in their own terms?

At the same time, we owe it to our troops and their families to hold our government accountable and continue to press for a new direction. Our troops have done everything we have asked of them. The test of a successful plan for Iraq is that it allows the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers there to start coming home to their families, while Iraqis take the responsibility to govern their nation, engage in an effective reconciliation process, and establish and maintain peace with the help of a trained and fully functioning Iraqi security force. I will continue to do all I can in support of efforts to achieve this goal.

You cannot have it both ways, Senator. Either congress has the ability to stop this occupation, or it does not. And if indeed congress does have the ability but not the will, because of political reasons? Then shame on all of you. There is blood upon your hands as much as the ones that got us involved in the first place. It is time to do what has to be done to stop this. Not next year, but now. The election of 2006 has shown that the American people have had enough of this occupation. I live in Whiteside county, one of the counties that had a non-binding referendum on the ballot that read:

"Shall the United States Government immediately begin an orderly and rapid withdrawal of all its military personnel from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves?"

Whiteside county is hardly a liberal county, but the results of this referendum? 59% voted YES. Not a year-long withdrawal, but an immediate withdrawal. That is the opinion of many in Illinois, and across the nation. I truly believe the majority of people want out now. Senator, have the courage to do what needs to be done. You have the backing of the people. If you haven't the courage, perhaps the people will find someone else in 2008 that does.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to stay in touch.

Thank you for responding. Rest assured, I will stay in touch. You have had my support in the past, and I hope I can continue to give you my support in the future. Take the firm stand on the Iraq situation that I believe your conscience is really telling you to do. There is much more at stake here than your political future or anyone else's. Human lives are at stake. Our valued soldiers as well as many others.