There is an elephant in the room that Congress and the president know they must deal with before any meaningful gun-control legislation is possible, but so far they're not talking about it.
The problem involves civilian ownership of paramilitary weapons, such as the ones that were used to commit the Newtown horror. Should we outlaw civilian ownership of those guns and require their owners to surrender them to the government?
The obvious answer would seem to be yes, but if we do that, don't expect that legion of citizens who say we'll have to pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands to play nice and turn in their weapons. They will not! They will claim that the Second Amendment gives them the unqualified right to own guns, and they will defend that right to the death. We'll have an insurrection on our hands.
But if we grandfather in ownership of those weapons, the law will accomplish nothing. The guns would still be out there for at least another hundred years. And we would have destroyed any possibility of having any meaningful gun-control legislation passed into law.
Bottom line: Our only two options appear to be (1) outlaw private ownership of such weapons and invite a revolution, or (2) pass feel-good legislation that won't accomplish anything important.
I don't know of another option, but there has to be one. Maybe some sort of a compromise is possible.
If someone has an idea, I'm sure the folks in Washington would love to hear it.
-Skip
Friday, December 21, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Corporations: Greed Tempered by Fear
Corporations are not evil, as some people believe. They're just greedy and heartless by nature.
I was reminded of that by a series of articles in the New York Times this week that focused a spotlight on just that: Corporations exist only to make money, and everything else be damned.
As is true of Wall Street itself, greed drives corporations and only fear tempers them. They have no moral compass. They pit cities and even states against one another in bidding wars to find where they can get the most tax breaks, new infrastructure, or whatever else they can get in return for a promise to come to town and create jobs.
But when those plans don't make money for the corporations, or when they don't make enough money -- and often they don't -- the corporations pull up stakes, leave town, and stick us taxpayers with the bill.
Does the principle of greed/fear work for corporations? Of course it does. But not so much for their employees. Corporate profits have risen some 300 percent since the Great Recession began, while the average employee's paycheck during that time has remained about the same, or gotten smaller. (Executives continue to get their bonuses, however.)
As Chris Hedges writes in his book, Death of the Liberal Class, "They (corporations) exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill and lie to make money. They throw poor families our of their homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars to make profits, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women."
-Skip
I was reminded of that by a series of articles in the New York Times this week that focused a spotlight on just that: Corporations exist only to make money, and everything else be damned.
As is true of Wall Street itself, greed drives corporations and only fear tempers them. They have no moral compass. They pit cities and even states against one another in bidding wars to find where they can get the most tax breaks, new infrastructure, or whatever else they can get in return for a promise to come to town and create jobs.
But when those plans don't make money for the corporations, or when they don't make enough money -- and often they don't -- the corporations pull up stakes, leave town, and stick us taxpayers with the bill.
Does the principle of greed/fear work for corporations? Of course it does. But not so much for their employees. Corporate profits have risen some 300 percent since the Great Recession began, while the average employee's paycheck during that time has remained about the same, or gotten smaller. (Executives continue to get their bonuses, however.)
As Chris Hedges writes in his book, Death of the Liberal Class, "They (corporations) exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill and lie to make money. They throw poor families our of their homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars to make profits, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women."
-Skip
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Why I am a Jesusian
When asked what my religion is, I reply that I am a Jesusian.
You've never heard of Jesusians because it's a word I coined to describe my religious belief. I think many Christians will agree it describes theirs as well.
A Jesusian is someone who believes Jesus may or may not have been the Messiah (God's chosen one), but his importance was his teaching. Thus, "Jesusian" instead of "Christian."
I'm a Jesusian (pronounced jee-SOO-sian) because I reseached Jesus for 20 years before writing a book about him, and based on the biblical books of Matthew, Mark and Luke, that's what Jesus wanted.
In fact, in those three books, which are short biographies, he is reported to have claimed the Messiahship one time only -- and that time, the only witnessess were people who were trying to have him crucified. He never claimed the title again, although he had plenty of occasions to do so.
There are two reasons Jesus did not want people to label him the Messiah. One, he knew his enemies would crucify him for blasphemy before he could get his teaching out. And two, if people thought he was the Messiah, they would worship him instead of following him.
His first prediction came true about a year after he started teaching.
His second has been coming true among many Christians ever since.
(By the way, the Book of John does quote Jesus often as claiming the Messiahship. But John was written many years after the other three, all of whom certainly would have written about that had it happened. Read Matthew, Mark and Luke as factual stories, and read John as his conclusions.)
-Skip
You've never heard of Jesusians because it's a word I coined to describe my religious belief. I think many Christians will agree it describes theirs as well.
A Jesusian is someone who believes Jesus may or may not have been the Messiah (God's chosen one), but his importance was his teaching. Thus, "Jesusian" instead of "Christian."
I'm a Jesusian (pronounced jee-SOO-sian) because I reseached Jesus for 20 years before writing a book about him, and based on the biblical books of Matthew, Mark and Luke, that's what Jesus wanted.
In fact, in those three books, which are short biographies, he is reported to have claimed the Messiahship one time only -- and that time, the only witnessess were people who were trying to have him crucified. He never claimed the title again, although he had plenty of occasions to do so.
There are two reasons Jesus did not want people to label him the Messiah. One, he knew his enemies would crucify him for blasphemy before he could get his teaching out. And two, if people thought he was the Messiah, they would worship him instead of following him.
His first prediction came true about a year after he started teaching.
His second has been coming true among many Christians ever since.
(By the way, the Book of John does quote Jesus often as claiming the Messiahship. But John was written many years after the other three, all of whom certainly would have written about that had it happened. Read Matthew, Mark and Luke as factual stories, and read John as his conclusions.)
-Skip
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Re the movie 'Lincoln': Yes, but...
If you've seen the movie Lincoln, I'm sure you'll agree it's worthy of all the awards it's bound to get. It's an accurate potrait of Lincoln's uphill fight to get Congress to pass the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.
And of course, the man himself also deserves his place in history among the greats not only for leading the cause to abolish slavey, but also for keeping the nation one nation.
But you'll have to forgive us Charlestonians if our recognition of his greatness is dimmed a bit by something else he did, by the unnecessary and useless barbarity he showed Charleston during the war's last 18 months.
After Charleston started the war by firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ordered the Union army to attack. Six thousand troops did, but 500 Charleston defenders repelled them. So Lincoln had the navy attack, but Charleston repelled that, too. So Lincoln ordered the army and navy to attack together. But Charleston defeated that attempt, too.
So Lincoln ordered a 16,500-pound cannon be installed in a marsh a few miles from Charleston which would rain down destruction on the lower half of the Charleston peninsular - an area where there was no military presence, only civilian homes, shops and hospitals. And although Confederate Gen. Pierre Beauregard told him he was about to "commit an act of unspeakable barbarity," Lincoln personally ordered his troops to bomb the city without end, which they did - for 540 consecutive days.
The attack stands today as the longest military siege in American history. Lincoln smashed Charleston so hard that Gen. Sherman ignored us on his march up the coast from Savannah and burned Columbia instead.
So please understand if many Charlestonians, while acknowledging Lincoln's greatness, put an asterisk next to it.
-Skip
And of course, the man himself also deserves his place in history among the greats not only for leading the cause to abolish slavey, but also for keeping the nation one nation.
But you'll have to forgive us Charlestonians if our recognition of his greatness is dimmed a bit by something else he did, by the unnecessary and useless barbarity he showed Charleston during the war's last 18 months.
After Charleston started the war by firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ordered the Union army to attack. Six thousand troops did, but 500 Charleston defenders repelled them. So Lincoln had the navy attack, but Charleston repelled that, too. So Lincoln ordered the army and navy to attack together. But Charleston defeated that attempt, too.
So Lincoln ordered a 16,500-pound cannon be installed in a marsh a few miles from Charleston which would rain down destruction on the lower half of the Charleston peninsular - an area where there was no military presence, only civilian homes, shops and hospitals. And although Confederate Gen. Pierre Beauregard told him he was about to "commit an act of unspeakable barbarity," Lincoln personally ordered his troops to bomb the city without end, which they did - for 540 consecutive days.
The attack stands today as the longest military siege in American history. Lincoln smashed Charleston so hard that Gen. Sherman ignored us on his march up the coast from Savannah and burned Columbia instead.
So please understand if many Charlestonians, while acknowledging Lincoln's greatness, put an asterisk next to it.
-Skip
Thursday, November 15, 2012
GOP Should Lead Legalizing Marijuana
Thank you voters in Colorado and Washington. You voted in clear numbers, approximately 65-45 in both cases, to legalize adult use of marijuana for recreational purposes.
Thank you also voters in the four Michigan cities, including Detroit, who voted overwhelmingly to legalize, and voters in more than 40 Massachusetts cities who approved nonbinding ballot measures to either regulate marijuana like alcohol or simply to repeal prohibition altogether.
You have started the train rolling. And if Republicans really believe what they say they believe, they should lead the way.
Republicans constantly harp on the need for small government that spends all its money only on necessary programs. Yet, they strongly support spending countless billions of dollars on an utterly failed "war on drugs," even though they all know a definition of insanity is using the same techniques and expecting different results.
Whoever decides to engineer this now-rolling train, Republicans or Democrats, should take heed that America Will Be On Your Side. Nationwide polls by Gallup, Rasmussen and other respected pollsters reveal that most Americans support replacing cannabis prohibition with limited legalization and regulation. Further, nearly 75 percent of the respondants -- including 67 percent of Republicans -- oppose the federal government's interfering with state medical marijuana decisions.
And why not legalize and control a weed that grows wild on every continent on Earth except for Anarctica, and is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco?
Roll, train, roll.
-Skip
Thank you also voters in the four Michigan cities, including Detroit, who voted overwhelmingly to legalize, and voters in more than 40 Massachusetts cities who approved nonbinding ballot measures to either regulate marijuana like alcohol or simply to repeal prohibition altogether.
You have started the train rolling. And if Republicans really believe what they say they believe, they should lead the way.
Republicans constantly harp on the need for small government that spends all its money only on necessary programs. Yet, they strongly support spending countless billions of dollars on an utterly failed "war on drugs," even though they all know a definition of insanity is using the same techniques and expecting different results.
Whoever decides to engineer this now-rolling train, Republicans or Democrats, should take heed that America Will Be On Your Side. Nationwide polls by Gallup, Rasmussen and other respected pollsters reveal that most Americans support replacing cannabis prohibition with limited legalization and regulation. Further, nearly 75 percent of the respondants -- including 67 percent of Republicans -- oppose the federal government's interfering with state medical marijuana decisions.
And why not legalize and control a weed that grows wild on every continent on Earth except for Anarctica, and is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco?
Roll, train, roll.
-Skip
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
When a Church Splits
Most people who have been through a splitting church congegation will agree it can be a pretty un-Chistian experience. That sort of nastiness could happen with the splitting Episcopal Church in South Carolina.
But it needn't be. Instead, the splitting church could become a bright demonstration of why the church exists in the first place, just by practicing what it preaches.
Basically, the church is divided over theological issues. Conservative members say the national church is becoming increasingly liberal in ways that run counter to biblical teachings. They focus primarily on the church's consecrating an openly gay bishop.
And so the church is splitting. But does that have to be a bad thing? Why not this: You have your belief and I have mine, and since nobody can claim an exclusive knowledge of Truth, we'll all get along and be happy.
If the disagreement is a matter of who owns what church property, leaders of both sides could sit down together, without lawyers, and go into each session with one thought in mind: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If they did that honestly, I'm sure they could arive at compromise.
By doing so, the Episcopal Church could demonstrate the truth and value of its own teaching, just by getting along.
-Skip
But it needn't be. Instead, the splitting church could become a bright demonstration of why the church exists in the first place, just by practicing what it preaches.
Basically, the church is divided over theological issues. Conservative members say the national church is becoming increasingly liberal in ways that run counter to biblical teachings. They focus primarily on the church's consecrating an openly gay bishop.
And so the church is splitting. But does that have to be a bad thing? Why not this: You have your belief and I have mine, and since nobody can claim an exclusive knowledge of Truth, we'll all get along and be happy.
If the disagreement is a matter of who owns what church property, leaders of both sides could sit down together, without lawyers, and go into each session with one thought in mind: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If they did that honestly, I'm sure they could arive at compromise.
By doing so, the Episcopal Church could demonstrate the truth and value of its own teaching, just by getting along.
-Skip
Friday, September 21, 2012
Legalize Hemp
Hemp is one of the planet's most useful plants. It grows wild on every continent except Antarctica and it has scores of important uses. It grows rapidly, resists plant diseases and enriches the soil. And yet our Congress makes it a federal crime to grow, transport or possess hemp. Why?
Many people think it's because hemp is "marijuana" and you can get high by smoking it. It is not! Hemp and cannabis ("marijuana") are in the same class but have very different qualities - think Chihuahua and pit bull. You'd have to smoke a rope of hemp to get a buzz, and you'd be long dead before you got there. No, our government created and purposefully spead that lie (more on that in a minute) to stop its legitimate use.
The real reason hemp is illegal is because Big Business, especially the oil and forest industries, want it that way. Corporations!
Hemp can substitute for fuel, such as diesel fuel, which would reduce carbon monoxide and leave oil in the ground. It can also replace countless forms of plastics - bottles, cellophane, etc. And it's biodegradable, which would go a long way toward relieving our plastic-choked landfills. Think Big Oil would be happy with any of that?
Hemp also can replace wood in erecting buildings, including foundations, walls, paneling, roof shingles, even pipes and paint. It also makes the finest papers known, and they are naturally acid free and do not become yellow and brittle over time. Think of the trees that could be saved. Think the forest industry would go for it?
There is so much more. Medicines? Hemp can be used to make an astounding number of medicines. Food? Hempseeds and hemp oil are excellent sources of protein, minerals and dietary fiber; hemp is the only plant on earth that contains all of the essential fatty acids and amino acids required by the human body. Textiles? It can do everything cotton can do but do it better, especially with heavy materials such as jeans, tents, sails, ropes, webbing. The word canvas comes from the Latin word for hemp.
Now, about our government's blatant lie to prevent hemp's legalization. Here's a bit of history:
People have used hemp for myriad purposes for thousands of years. Until the early 1880s, as much as 90 percent of the world's paper was made of hemp. During the American Revolution, Congress made it mandatory for larger farms to grow hemp.
But hemp was hard to harvest in large quantities, so beginning in the late 1880s industrialists started looking for other sources. The Dupont Corp. patented oil- and coal-based plastics production methods. Papermakers turned to forests and began felling trees.
That lasted until 1930 when a hemp harvester was developed that could make hemp industrially viable again.
Green Left Weekly tells the story from there:
"Dupont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon, was US President Hoover's secretary of the treasury. He appointed his nephew, Harry S. Anslinger, to a position in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Anslinger whipped up a scare campaign about hemp, which referred to hemp as 'marijuana' so that people would begin to associate the whole plant with drug use only."
Not only did Anslinger's campaign work, it's still working nearly a century later. The public remains so stirred up about "marijuana" that it seems almost impossible to get a calm discussion going about hemp.
And deep-pocketed Big Business lobbyists are going to make certain it stays that way. All Congress has to do to end this lunacy is pass a law (there are no constitutional questions involved) but the issue isn't even on the table.
That's a shame. It should be a crime.
-Skip
Many people think it's because hemp is "marijuana" and you can get high by smoking it. It is not! Hemp and cannabis ("marijuana") are in the same class but have very different qualities - think Chihuahua and pit bull. You'd have to smoke a rope of hemp to get a buzz, and you'd be long dead before you got there. No, our government created and purposefully spead that lie (more on that in a minute) to stop its legitimate use.
The real reason hemp is illegal is because Big Business, especially the oil and forest industries, want it that way. Corporations!
Hemp can substitute for fuel, such as diesel fuel, which would reduce carbon monoxide and leave oil in the ground. It can also replace countless forms of plastics - bottles, cellophane, etc. And it's biodegradable, which would go a long way toward relieving our plastic-choked landfills. Think Big Oil would be happy with any of that?
Hemp also can replace wood in erecting buildings, including foundations, walls, paneling, roof shingles, even pipes and paint. It also makes the finest papers known, and they are naturally acid free and do not become yellow and brittle over time. Think of the trees that could be saved. Think the forest industry would go for it?
There is so much more. Medicines? Hemp can be used to make an astounding number of medicines. Food? Hempseeds and hemp oil are excellent sources of protein, minerals and dietary fiber; hemp is the only plant on earth that contains all of the essential fatty acids and amino acids required by the human body. Textiles? It can do everything cotton can do but do it better, especially with heavy materials such as jeans, tents, sails, ropes, webbing. The word canvas comes from the Latin word for hemp.
Now, about our government's blatant lie to prevent hemp's legalization. Here's a bit of history:
People have used hemp for myriad purposes for thousands of years. Until the early 1880s, as much as 90 percent of the world's paper was made of hemp. During the American Revolution, Congress made it mandatory for larger farms to grow hemp.
But hemp was hard to harvest in large quantities, so beginning in the late 1880s industrialists started looking for other sources. The Dupont Corp. patented oil- and coal-based plastics production methods. Papermakers turned to forests and began felling trees.
That lasted until 1930 when a hemp harvester was developed that could make hemp industrially viable again.
Green Left Weekly tells the story from there:
"Dupont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon, was US President Hoover's secretary of the treasury. He appointed his nephew, Harry S. Anslinger, to a position in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Anslinger whipped up a scare campaign about hemp, which referred to hemp as 'marijuana' so that people would begin to associate the whole plant with drug use only."
Not only did Anslinger's campaign work, it's still working nearly a century later. The public remains so stirred up about "marijuana" that it seems almost impossible to get a calm discussion going about hemp.
And deep-pocketed Big Business lobbyists are going to make certain it stays that way. All Congress has to do to end this lunacy is pass a law (there are no constitutional questions involved) but the issue isn't even on the table.
That's a shame. It should be a crime.
-Skip
Friday, September 14, 2012
Drug Test the Legislators
Conservative legislators throughout the nation are backing proposals to force umemployed people to pass drug tests before they can receive unemployment insurance. I think we should drug test the legislators.
Legislators make decisions every day that deeply affect every one of us, so why shouldn't we verify that they're free of drugs while they're making those decisions? We already test other people whose decisions affect us all, such as fiefighters, police officers and military personnel. Why not legislators?
For that matter, why not test all public officials? One can only guess at how many decisions former South Carolina treasurer Thomas Ravenel made while flying around on cocaine before he was caught and kicked out of office.
Does anyone really think Ravenel was the only one? Or that Ravenel's colleagues in state government weren't aware of his habit long before he was caught - and let him go on with it while saying nothing? How many others must there be.
I hope some legislators somewhere will see the value in drug-testing public officials and introduce a bill to accomplish it.
Why would any responsible legislator oppose such a bill?
Why don't they all demand one?
-Skip
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Romney's Motivation
I can understand why a person of conservative bent would vote against Barak Obama, but I cannot understand why anybody would vote for Mitt Romney.
The man is the king of flip-floppers. He's been on both sides of every issue there is. He was for abortion on demand; now he's against it. He was for gun-control; now he's against it. He was for providing health care for everybody--he even wrote the rules; now he's against it. He was a moderate Republican govenor; now he's a Tea Party Favorite.
So what would Mitt Romney do as president? It doesn't matter what he says he'd do because everything he says today is open to revision tomorrow. That's how it always has been with him. He will sail with the wind wherever the wind originates, and we all know where that is for him: that small band of super-rich who are investing mind-boggling amounts of money in their effort to buy the White House for him (and especially for themselves).
It has never been truer than now that the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class smaller.
Did I hear someone say Oligarchy? Plutocracy?
-Skip
The man is the king of flip-floppers. He's been on both sides of every issue there is. He was for abortion on demand; now he's against it. He was for gun-control; now he's against it. He was for providing health care for everybody--he even wrote the rules; now he's against it. He was a moderate Republican govenor; now he's a Tea Party Favorite.
So what would Mitt Romney do as president? It doesn't matter what he says he'd do because everything he says today is open to revision tomorrow. That's how it always has been with him. He will sail with the wind wherever the wind originates, and we all know where that is for him: that small band of super-rich who are investing mind-boggling amounts of money in their effort to buy the White House for him (and especially for themselves).
It has never been truer than now that the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class smaller.
Did I hear someone say Oligarchy? Plutocracy?
-Skip
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)