Praying away the AK-47s

Ya just can't make this stuff up.

From the Huffington Post:  Rick Perry, the GOVERNOR of Texas, and a serious 2012 candidate for PRESIDENT of the United States, has revealed his own plan for combating America's gun violence problem: prayer.  PRAYER!

Huffington reports that in the Houston Chronicle, Perry acknowledged the problem of violence in the U.S. but said enacting tougher gun laws was not the right way to solve it.  Perry said that there was "evil prowling" in the world that has appeared in television and movies, and then found its way into vulnerable minds.  Perry reportedly said, "As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children."

Perry also assailed the liberal media and politicians for attempting to use the Sandy Hook shooting for a political end "that would not have saved those children," according to the Chronicle.  This is not the first time the outspoken governor has launched rhetorical assaults on "secularism." In September, Perry unloaded a blistering attack against those who believe strongly in a separation of church and state:  "Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you, and one of the untruths out there that is driven -- is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena," Perry said on a conference call.

Huffington concludes by noting, "This idea that prayer is the ultimate protection, even against guns, has been circulated among the conservative Christian community in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.  Bryan Fischer, an executive with the American Family Association, said God did not protect the victims of one of the deadliest school shootings in American history because children and teachers were not allowed to pray for protection in the classroom."

What to say?  Gosh, I've ranted about the idiocy and toxicity of organized religion more than once.  When "religious" people sort of mind their own business, I guess I can mind mine.  But when religion collides with public policy--in this case, whether we need legislative answers to the problems of gun violence--then I have a lot of bones to pick with people like Perry.  And I have to continue to ask, why in the world do the Rick Perrys of the world even have a national platform in the first place?  Why should they get ANY attention?  It's disgusting.

But, not to worry--get ready to pray away the AK-47s!

The 2000-year-old myth

Well, another Christmas season has come and gone, and once again I let out a huge sigh of relief.  There is something about the "holidays" that is often more depressing than inspiring; theologically, the problem is that the entire Christmas story is largely mythological.  That makes celebrating difficult.  And this is not a good time to be reading, as I currently am, Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion!  Nor is it a time to read the December 17 issue of Newsweek, where the cover story is, "Who Was Jesus?"  Dancing rather carefully around its main point, the Newsweek article notes that "the birth narratives of the New Testament are historically problematic," and that "the accounts of Jesus' life in the New Testament have never been called 'histories'; instead, they have always been known as 'Gospels'--that is 'proclamations of the good news.'  These are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts."  Translated into less polite prose: the Bible is a story at best, not to be taken as anything that really happened.

That the Bible is not literally "true" is such a no-brainer to me that I have to wonder about anyone who believes otherwise.  Indeed, any educated person ought to know better.  Dawkins cites evidence that virtually all studies on the subject find a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ--that is, more intelligent people are less religious.  He also cites a survey of scientists that tallied 12 "believers" and 213 "unbelievers."  Dawkins challenges atheists to "out" themselves, much like gay people, because he offers evidence that atheists are held in even lower regard than homosexuals.  In a nutshell: smart people know that Christmas and Easter are a lie, and those who think so ought to say so and not politely sing "Away in a Manger"; otherwise, ignorance, prejudice, and a form of discrimination will continue.

To have the courage of one's convictions: this is a sobering challenge, no matter what the issue.  But with religion specifically, we live in an environment where there's a world of hurt waiting for those who profess to be unfaithful.  Those who were willing to kill Matthew Shepard may also be willing to kill the unbelievers; that may sound outrageous, but I'm willing to bet that any outspoken atheist has received his or her share of death threats.  Things are just that crazy.  If you don't believe me, consider the case of 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist  [http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/atheist-teen-in-rhode-island-receives-death-threat]; recently, she successfully sued to have a prayer removed from her high school cafeteria, making her the target of online attacks and death threats which are being investigated by authorities. She now needs a police escort just to go to school.

Onward Christian soldiers!

The 99 percent blues

Overall, it's been a pretty good week.  First, we have great weather for mid-November!  And, it's Thanksgiving--my favorite holiday for several reasons.  Finally, my stock at work seems to have risen--long story, but I got a little recognition for a couple things, and that was much appreciated.  In short, I'm feelin' a bit happier than normal and kinda successful, too.

Then the mail arrived yesterday.  It included a brochure from my undergraduate alma mater titled, "Macalester Tomorrow: Making a Difference One Student at a Time."  I thought that sounded appealing, so I turned inside to read, "You can help students forever with an endowed scholarship."  (Well, there's an appeal to immortality if I've ever read one--helping students FOREVER!)  And so it turns out that the college is asking if I'd like to help fund an endowed scholarship.  How can I support such scholarships at Macalester?  "With a gift of $100,000 or more, you can establish a new endowed scholarship fund."

Whoa.  Time out.  Stop the presses.  With a gift of $100,000 or MORE?  How about $75 or LESS?  Who in the bleep has this type of money to donate?  Where have I gone wrong?  In general, we seem to be doing OK, financially.  For most of the year, there's been a little bulge in the checking account of a couple grand--we haven't had that month-to-month, paycheck-to-paycheck panic that used to characterize our finances when there were two additional mouths to feed.  But the idea that we would have $100K--$100K--to give is so far out of my latitude of acceptance (social judgment theory/Sherif) that it's all at once amusing, insulting, and depressing.

There's been a lot of talk in the last year about the "1 percent."  I have to admit that I am envious of those people.  I consider it a big expenditure (as it was this week) to spend $344 to fix one of our vehicles.  But for some people, $344 truly is chump change.  The CEO at my workplace has a base salary of about $250,000--that's over $20,000 every month.  Yikes--what would I do with that kind of coin?  I think I'd figure out a way to spend it.  But I'm still not sure I would have enough to fund one of those endowed scholarships!

Advice for the GOP

Well, fortunately, my fears that Mr. Romney would be elected were unfounded!  That's one big "whew"!  Despite all the problems we face, I believe that we are better off staying the course with a more enlightened Chief Executive.

I say "enlightened" because one thing became painfully clear during election 2012: a fair number of Republicans are just plain ignorant, narrow-minded, and dogmatic.  In so many ways, the Republicans have been behind the times.  An essay in the current Newsweek by David Frum, former speechwriter for Bush the Elder, makes the point with laser precision.  Frum concludes his piece by writing,

"On the Republican side, the road to renewal begins with this formula: 21st century conservatism must become economically inclusive, environmentally responsible, culturally modern, and intellectually credible."  Very well said!

The reality is that 21st century conservatism embraces beliefs that simply don't square with modern sensibilities.  You can't pray away the gay.  You can't keep disputing that there is climate change.  You can't keep protecting the rich from paying their fair share of taxes.  You can't keep ignoring that the gap between the poor and the rich is widening.  You can't possibly believe that we should go back to criminalizing abortion.  You can't contend that it's God's will if a woman gets pregnant after being raped.  You can't keep yelling "Socialist" every time someone wants the government to have a role in things.  You can't seriously suggest that evolution is "just a theory."  And you can't let people carry around AK-47s because some guys 200 years ago wanted everyone to be able to carry a musket.

I do think there is such a thing, potentially, as "intelligent conservatism."  But I haven't seen very much of it of late--and as along as Republicans stick to their nonsensical propositions about the world, they help their opposition.  Which is just fine with me.  But really, GOP: do you want to make it quite that easy for those liberals to win?  That's my idea of "unintelligent design."

More fun and aggravation with "Kyle"

From previous posts, my thousands of daily readers from Boston to Bangkok may remember my friend "Kyle" (not his real name--gotta protect both him and me, for different reasons).  Kyle and I knew each other in high school and we were both on the debate team, but from there our lives went in very different directions.  Over the years, Kyle's political views have evolved into something that might even make Rush Limbaugh wince occasionally; he's about as far to the right as anyone I can imagine.

So, it should come as no surprise that Kyle is a little peeved about this week's election results.  And I can't blame him--from his perspective, it had to be a very deflating experience.  Therefore, to "make nice" just a bit, I wrote to him and complimented both Romney and Obama for running reasonably civil campaigns.  And I forwarded to him a Star Tribune commentary that made the same point--taking each of them to task at times, but also saying that it was anything but a gutter campaign for the two standard-bearers. 

But--surprise, surprise--Kyle would have none of that:

"Of course you want to claim Obama was 'within bounds' with his campaign. However, most observers agree that Obama started early trashing Romney personally and professionally, while the same cannot be said of Romney. Sorry, I do not agree that Obama is basically a decent guy. He is a product of the Chicago hood mentality of politics and it shows in his campaign and his campaign staff. It also shows in his administration.

"As for the next 4 years, I  see Obama doing all the socialist things he has done in his first 4 years, only more so. I see folks like myself, entrepreneurs, investors, and business folks hunkering down to survive the onslaught of big government. We are already seeing it in the first 3 days after the election, with massive numbers of layoff announcements, hour reductions, and companies going out of business. I don't think Obama will do anything about the deficit or debt, and unemployment will get worse rather than better. Regulations will continue to skyrocket, welfare and food stamps, and other such programs will continue to increase, family net worth will continue to drop, and the workforce will continue to shrink. Taxing the 'rich' will not come close to fixing the deficit, nor will slashing the military. Medicare will continue to go bankrupt, and social security will continue toward bankruptcy. Obamacare will dramatically increase in cost over the original estimates, and much of the private healthcare industry will begin to fade away. Obama will propose another stimulus so he can pay off his cronies again, and it will fail like the last one. He will also attack our 2nd amendment rights, and continue to favor our enemies over our allies on the world stage. He will do nothing about Iran and their nuclear development. He will continue to appease the Islamic world while they laugh at him, and he will set the stage for terror attacks abroad and at home. He will continue to push abortion rights and mandates on the church and others opposed to abortions, and will continue to undermine traditional marriage. He will push the global warming hoax as a route to government revenues, and further restrict the development of fossil fuels in the USA, leaving it to the private sector to actually develop private resources. Lastly, he will continue to hide his birth certificate, his school records, his passport records, his Selective Service records, and all the other records he has kept from public scrutiny.

"So you have your prediction, and I have mine. Check with me in 4 years. As for me, I will be protecting my family and my livelihood. I will do as little as possible to feed the federal government/liberal establishment beast, and will not tolerate nor do business with those who are undermining this country."

Whoa.  What to say?  I didn't want to spend an hour grappling with this hostility, but I did send Kyle this response:

One of these days, maybe, I'll figure out how someone who is so warm, gracious, and friendly in person turns into such an ogre when it comes to politics!  And maybe I will also figure out how someone can have such a black-and-white, heaven-and-hell view of the world, neatly divided into friends and enemies, good buys and bad.  And finally, maybe I'll figure out how basically every sentence in what you wrote includes some over-the-top, hyperbolic, and melodramatic language ("skyrocketing" regulations, "slashing" the military, Medicare going "bankrupt," paying off his "cronies," "favor our enemies," global warming "hoax," etc.).  And when you suggest that Obama is out to "undermine traditional marriage," you say something that is patently incorrect and quite out of touch.  In fact, I really do not know a single political figure in the U.S.--not a single one, Democrat or Republican--who is trying to "undermine traditional marriage."

As for the campaign itself, your charges are broad and unsubstantiated.  The debates, for example, were certainly spirited, but both Romney and Obama stayed out of the gutter.  And your comments about Obama seem to ignore what he said in the debates about these issues.  

You're right, of course, that taxing the rich will not come close to fixing the deficit; it's merely part of an overall program.  But it can make a difference.  And there is evidence to suggest that tax rates are not closely aligned with the overall health of the economy; the idea that a slight increase (from historic lows) in tax rates for the wealthy would wreck the economy is not borne out by any economic analysis that I've seen.

Take a cleansing breath.  And have a little faith in America.

A little voice in me says that when it comes to Kyle, we're not done with this.  But as my friends have counseled--and I have taken it to heart from time to time--this may be such a losing battle that it's not a battle worth waging.

Romney: the least worst Republican

Don't tell my liberal friends, but Mitt Romney is probably the one Republican I could vote for this year.  In his heart, I think he's really pretty much a moderate and a pragmatist.  If he could accomplish things as Governor of Massachusetts, dealing with a Democratic legislature, maybe he could help undo the gridlock in the nation's capital.  Having said that, I don't think, as the election finally nears, that he deserves our vote.  And there are several key reasons:

1.  We just can't reward such incredible flip-flopping.  Yes, all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth to some extent, but Romney has brought this talent to new heights.

2.  Women's issues.  The idea that abortion could be criminalized ought to make us all shudder.  I don't think we want to go back there. 

3.  Gay issues.  Gosh--we've made a lot of progress on this front in the last few years.  I'd hate to see it come to a halt.  As it is, same-sex marriage is facing huge obstacles which can only become greater if Romney is elected.

4.  The Supreme Court.  Do we really want Mitt nominating people for what is arguably the most powerful office in the land?

5.  Foreign policy.  Hasn't America's international image taken a huge step forward in the last four years?  Obama has a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of these things.

6.  Taxes.  Tax rates for the super-wealthy are at historic lows.  Do we really want to once again hear the Republican mantra that the wealthy should somehow be immune from paying their fair share, all in the name of "creating jobs"?

7.  The auto industry.  Does anyone doubt that Obama helped save it?  Would letting them go bankrupt have been in the best interests of our nation?

I predict that this is going to be a very close election.  Obama could actually lose.  But I think we are all better off if Barack has another four years to finish the job.  The reality is that the economy is going to get better in the next few years no matter what, because, frankly, Presidents don't control the economy and we're due for a continuing upward trend.  And as long as we can get the economy back on track, the other issues favor the President. 

But, there's been so much toxic crap out there on the airwaves that it's anybody's guess what will stick.  As in 2008, this election is a test of people's basic awareness and intelligence--and there's no reason to assume that people will pass the test.

Thoroughly Modern Davie

I know there are people--a lot of people--who venerate the past.  For them, the glorious past is embodied in figures such as Plato and Aristotle, or Washington and Jefferson, or the apostles of Jesus.  And in each case, these people (usually male people, by the way) are considered to have knowledge, wisdom, and insight that we poor modern folks lack.  And of course, I would never argue that various iconic individuals from our past have nothing to offer--far from it.  But I am arguing that when all is said and done, I'll take more "modern" perspectives on things over ideas that are "ancient" and "traditional," because the fact of the matter is, our forebearers were ignorant in ways that today are simply mind-boggling.

Case in point: I'm reading a fascinating book that was recommended to me by someone in my running group--Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard.  When I say it's a book chronicling the life and ultimate assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, it's tough to suppress a yawn.  But as one reads on, it's clear that Ms. Millard has chosen an interesting little niche of U.S. history to examine.

For those who weren't around in 1881, President Garfield was shot by a mentally imbalanced man named Charles Guiteau.  As it turns out, Garfield's wounds were not exactly fatal--the one bullet that was lodged in his back, near his pancreas, could have stayed permanently in the deep tissue where it rested and he would have been none the worse for it.  But, since Garfield was the President, and something certainly had to be done (it was the President, after all!), a team of doctors rallied to help in this emergency situation.  And all of them--especially the most vocal of them, a Dr. Bliss--made two tragic mistakes.  First, with both their own bare fingers and various long probes, they tried to extricate the bullet from Garfield's body, unsuccessfully.  But second--and far more disconcerting--in that era, as Millard carefully documents, U.S. physicians were extremely skeptical of the claims being made by a European doctor by the name of Lister.  Since you have heard of Listerine, you probably know where this is going: Dr. Lister had argued passionately at various public and professional meetings that doctors needed to work in an antiseptic environment because of something called GERMS.  But American doctors--most of them, anyway--would have none of it.  At this point, Candice Millard tells the story better than I can (pages 184-185):

"Although five years had passed since Lister presented his case to the Medical Congress at the Centennial Exhibition, many American doctors still dismissed not just his discovery, but even Louis Pasteur's.  They found the notion of 'invisible germs' to be ridiculous, and they refused to even consider the idea that they could be the cause of so much disease and death.  'In order to successfully practice Mr. Lister's Antiseptic Method,' on doctor scoffed, 'it is necessary to believe, or act as if we believed, the atmosphere to be loaded with germs.'"

"Why go to all the trouble that antisepsis required simply to fight something that they could not see and did not believe existed?  Even the editor of the highly respected Medical Record found more to fear than to admire in Lister's theory.  'Judging the future by the past,' he wrote, 'we are likely to be as much ridiculed in the next century for our blind belief in the power of unseen germs, as our forefathers were for faith in the influence of spirits, of certain planets and the like, inducing certain maladies.'"

"Not only did many American doctors not believe in germs, they took pride in the particular brand of filth that defined their profession.  They spoke fondly of the 'good old surgical stink' that pervaded their hospitals and operating rooms, and they resisted making too many concessions even to basic hygiene.  Many surgeons walked directly from the street to the operating room without bothering to change their clothes.  Those who did shrug on a laboratory coat, however, were an even greater danger to their patients.  They looped strands of silk sutures through their button-holes for easy access during surgery, and they refused to change or even wash their coats.  They believed that the thicker the layers of dried blood and pus, black and crumbling as they bent over their patients, the greater the tribute to their years of experience."

"Some physicians felt that Lister's findings simply did not apply to them and their patients.  Doctors who lived and worked in the country, away from the soot and grime of the industrialized cities, argued that their air was so pure they did not need antisepsis.  They preferred, moreover, to rely on their own methods of treatment, which not infrequently involved applying a hot poultice of cow manure to an open wound."


Again, the result of all this ignorance was the death of President Garfield from infections that could have easily been avoided.  Just imagine that this sort of mindset was prominent in our medical community less than a century and a half ago!  And you wonder why I have my reservations about the "founding fathers," or Cicero, or the Apostle Paul?  Yes, we continue to have our blind spots and make our mistakes.  And yes, truth is hard to come by.  But I'm grateful to be living in 2012--a year in which we believe in germs and lots of other crazy things such as carbon dating, genetic testing, the theories of evolution and relativity, what is a "normal" sexual orientation, anesthesia, x-rays, and a host of other ideas that--despite our ancestors' best intentions--were simply not on their radar.  (Oh, that's right--they didn't have radar back then!)