Who the Hell Are We?

Today, the news media (corporate) reports that an executive with a German car manufacturer made the mistake of driving in Alabama (where the company had built a plant) without his passport. He was arrested. When one of his associates brought his passport, he was released, but still has to appear in court.

The reactions to this are both predicable and informative of the great divide among us. Some people said it was a pity to have done this to a legitimate visitor on visa given the fact that the states are trying so hard to attract foreign investment (millions of dollars in incentives for this company). Others are saying, serves him right for not carrying his passport at all times; they cite experiences in Europe where they had to produce theirs.

I've been in Europe, little dogies, I AM European (to the extent the British will admit it) and I thought we were better than them over there. If they want to have police states, deity bless em, but that's not the home of the brave and free. Except I guess some of us want to be nasty and impose the police state over here. I'm left wondering why when so many of us have been trying to escape it.

So who the hell are we?

My answer: we are two different sets of people. One set of us is hell bent on applying the rules--goddam, I conformed, so can you. I was raised on a set of values and I'm going to apply them, because by golly they were applied to me. I listened to those old-time preachers and they sounded good to me, so you'd better go my way or I'll call you unAmerican, and I don't care if the rich keep their money as long as the poor, whom I disapprove of, don't get any of my hard earned dollars.

Before you throw me to the curb here--this has pretty much been the attitude of the Catholic Church through the ages, but also, to be fair, of the protestant evangelical sects that replaced but did not depose the varieties of spiritual experience.

Then there's the group that resonate to the idea of class warfare and raising the banner for the poor and downtrodden. It's easier to sympathize with this group because--well--the poor are the poor. But let's admit it, many of these guys know how to play the system. I've seen it myself. I've also seen companies die from union efforts at creating utopia.

So, who the hell am I?

Like so many of fellow independents, I chose from both sides. This, I think, is the great distinguishing characteristic between us in the middle and the dream-ons who populate both extremes. Increasingly, there will be more of us because we will refuse to be forced into choosing between two equally stupid options that don't fit in the twenty-first century.

To our current political wantabes, who are among the nuttiest I have ever had the misfortune to have rammed down my throat on TV, I want to say this:  back up on the phony religion (there's a whole bunch of us who see it for the manipulation it is); quit with the ideologies (they're boring us); figure out what's going to work with what most of want: a stable workable approach to life; quit with your theories in favor of what works; and spare us your pretenses and hypocrisy.

If the American tradition is hard work and speaking straight--here I am. Catch up with me if you can.

Biscotti Jars and China

I went out shopping today. It's one of life's pleasures, as long, that is, that I can find things that I want to have in my life. It didn't take long, however, before I began questioning whether the things on offer would really meet that criteria. In other words, were the things being offered for me to buy really the things I wanted to have?

There's a bit of a story here. A few weeks ago, I met Kimi in Las Vegas to celebrate our August birthdays. Beides the slots, one of my favorite things is to go see the garden display at the Bellaggio Hotel. It's always artistic and dramatic and once we've taken pictures, I like to browse the shops around it. This time, I went into one that specializes in Italian imports. I fell in love with a biscotti jar. It was terra cotta and showed the Tuscan countryside with a villa, cypresse (cypress trees), and farm implements--very traditional. I debated for a long time and the only thing that prevented me from buying it was the problem of getting it home on the plane. If I'd had my car there, it would have been a done deal.

Back home in Denver, I regretted my decision. So, I trekked off to Park Meadowns Mall (one of our upscale shopping centers) today, looking for a biscotti jar made in Italy or Portugal. I couldn't find one. Oh there were biscotti or comparable jars all right, but invariably, they were what I consider to be fakes. They were made in China. There was no way I would buy one of them. And I'm not talking about Penneys or Sears here. I'm talking about Dillards and Sonoma-Williams. The latter did have things from Portugal and France, for which I commend them, but there were all too many things that were mere imitations, and not always the best.

This led me to consider the larger meaninng of my quest to find something authentic.What does it mean to us as a society? All I can conclude is that for every thing we buy made in China, we deprive someone in Europe and the US of their jobs just so we can buy cheap imitiations. I suppose I should say someones plural because it takes a lot more than one person to make something of lasting value. I can see cheap-o stuff flooding the discount shops like WalMart and Kmart and even Target, but when it invades even our upper scale shops it means that these store also condone peddling this stuff to us. I have to wonder not only about them but also about the corporations supplying them.  Have we become so addicted to accumulation that we don't even care what we collect?

The corporations with their bottom line of squeezing every penny are no small part of this. They slap their names on things they have made outside the country, claiming they need a sweatshop workforce to be competitive. What they are really doing is sending our jobs overseas to get things made more cheaply, and I do put the emphasis on cheap. In going offshore, I think they underestimate us seriously and they run the risk of us boycotting them, which they will deserve.

Today, I went out looking for beauty and quality. I found mere imitations, a cynical assumption of the style of another country to be paraded as real because our corporations have equally cynically assumed we will satisfied by it. From what I can gather, imitation has been China's method--copy the work and design of some other county and sell it cheaper. I, for one, do not see buying cheap stuff as satisfying anymore. In the future, I will look for where something is made and choose accordingly.

I can't be the only one feeling this way. I have to believe there might even be room for a new set of stores called Made in the USA or Not Made in China. Maybe the choices in them would not be as numerous. But I would feel much better knowing where my money is going.

In the meantime, I guess I will just have to go back to Las Vegas and hope they still have the biscotti jar.

The Media Are Us

It used to be fashionable to ask Miss America contestants if they thought the media was to blame mounting violence in society. The young woman's reply was always no, she didn't think so, and she came up with some alternative indictment of parents, or schools, or even a crisis in faith.

I was thinking about this the other day as I watched the Murdoch debacle and the demise of the News of the World, and I realized that if I were to turn back the clock and suddenly become nubile while still keeping my experience of years of living, I would beg to differ. Yes, Mr. Parks (that's how far back I go), I would say, the media have a good-sized share of the blame, but so do we all who lapped up squidgy-gate and the rather vulgar conversations between Prince Charles and Camilla.  Wherever did we think they got this stuff? We didn't ask because we wanted to know and, after all, they were the wealthy and privileged and it's their duty in life to entertain us. It only counts when the media do it to "ordinary people" like us.

But I'm going to go further and also say that the media have a good sized chunk of the responsibility for the roiling anger consuming this country. The media does not come out (usually) to promote political agendas on the front page. Such opinions are supposedly by-lined and put on the editorial pages, where people can pick and choose which op ed pieces confirm their own prejudices.

But there are  subtle ways that the news on the front page can appear to be objective while still presenting a politically slanted view. Let me explain. When I taught college English, I used to tell my students the story of a car accident that supposedly occurred at the bottom of the campus. One car broadsided another. At first I told them that one of the drivers was in his late 80s, just returning from a visit to the doctor's office. The other car was driven by a man in his twenties. Speed was not considered a fctor.

Who might they think was to blame? The wisest ones, onto my ploy, said they didn't know enough. I caught a good number of them assuming that the senior driver was "probably" to blame because everyone "knows" that serniors have declining driving skills.

All right, I'd say, here's some more: the 20 year old driver had a suspended license, there were three other men in the car with him, one of them was partially undresssed, and there were beer cans on the back floor.
My students looked a bit ashamed but then went on to do the same thing. Now, it looked like the younger folk were to blame.

The devil was in the details provided and withheld.  And it happens to us all the time if we rely on the media for our information instead of looking more deeply ourselves.

On Tuesday, July 12, The Denver Post ran a front page story with the headline "Draft Ramps Up Kid Rules: The Child-care Lincensing Plan's Focus on Quality Meets Quikc Skepticism."  The lead paragraph stressed that the proposed (note: only proposed) rules would "impose (notice that word) sweeping changes on Colorado Licensed child-care centers." The second paragraph quoted "some" child care operators as saying the proposed changes were a "vast overreach." The next paragraph named the operator of three centers who didn't say anything about the overreach business but commented that health and safety needed to be balanced with quality and that there be some flexibility.

By then, all those opposed to government intervention in anything were probably thumping their chair arms and yelling about damned government sticking its nose into everything.  This would probably produce a very nice rant if the reader was a tea-bagger, meaning that he or she was probably not going to read the rest of the story on 7A buried inside.  Now, on  that equivalent of a back page, we learned that the proposals are a draft to be negotiated by the parties involved and that many of the suggested policies were recommended by childcare operators themselves because Colorado is one of bottom states when it comes to regulating early child-care providers.

Looks different doesn't it? The devil was in the order of the details in this account and since the "balance" didn't come until the end, one must conclude that the writer intended to stir things up. In other words, we were snookered and it was a non-story. However, the next day, the Post ran an editorial no less saying that the draft policies went too far as if the story had been credible and only the media reporting had "saved" the day.

Having actually served on some of these committees to propose anything, I know how they work. You throw everything in but the kitchen sink so it can all be negotiated and people can work together as a team to discard anything really unreasonable. That is how democracy and consensus work. In this case, though, the media picked out the controversy, played it up irresponsibly to sell papers, and by doing so fanned the flames of division.  Who needs enemies when you have media fighting for readership?

But let's be honest. We get the media we deserve. If we aren't willing to educate ourselves to look skeptically at what is presented to us as fact and if we aren't willing to embrace even a rudimentary form of intellectual engagement with the world--and we're seeing mounting evidence that many of us are not--then we are going to continue being presented with gossip masquerading as truth. Shame on us for settling for this.

What Would Shakespeare Blog

Recently, I accept the challenge to imagine what Shakespeare, the greatest writer in our language that ever was, would blog about if he were alive today. I found the experience both amusing and profound. I'm sure he would have laughed at the same pretensions and lunacy as we do, just as I am sure he would be just as depressed at how little we have learned from those before us. We are still the same people, just in different times and settings and, unfortunately, armed with better and more destructive technology.

Here is what I wrote:

One thing about William Shakespeare, he never met a human being he couldn’t bump up into an archetype. His characters were never just people. That’s not how his brain worked. He looked for meaning and played with life by asking questions. What if Aristotle’s idea of the tragic hero could be tweaked, maybe turned upside down, and used to show how we grubby human beings fall short of anything like true heroism? What if a sociopath were to be dropped into the middle of unreflective, morally complacent people—who would win? What if an ambitious man were suddenly shown a short-cut to real power, how would he handle it? Shakespeare populated his world with people faced with moral, ethical, and emotional problems and moved them on his chessboard while he worked out his answers.


In the end, his “answers” had to be partial because unknowable things can be resolved only in the acceptance that “the rest is silence.” But what a journey he took us on.

Shakespeare took his characters where he found them: from history books, from the ranks of the royal courtiers, from everyday people around him. He turned every one into a moral or intellectual lesson. He found no shortage of material in sixteenth-century England, just as he would find no shortage now. The world is still populated by the same greedy, unaware, willfully ignorant, morally complacent, and unreflective types. He would understand modern politics because he had seen it all before.

For example, he wrote about a king who confused the power of his position with his personal authority. “A dog’s obeyed in office,” was the sad lesson that king had to learn. He could have been writing about George Bush. But the lesson he might have drawn from the Bush administration is that just because one has the power to do something (like invade another country) does not mean one should. At the end of the Shakespeare play, the stage is littered with the bodies of the king’s family (you can never just remove a targeted piece of evil like Saddam Hussein, Shakespeare told us, everyone must suffer in the process). The stage at the end of the Bush drama is littered with the deaths of thousands of people who gave their lives abroad and the near death of our economy. A dram of evil, indeed.

What would he have made of Bill Clinton? Here was a man capable of doing good and admirable in so many ways, yet brought down by his own weaknesses. The tragic flaw, Shakespeare might have pointed out, just as Aristotle described it. The rueful Clinton, apparently having learned his lesson, now says he indulged in a sordid affair “because he could.” Prime Shakespeare material. He might have said the same about Representative Weiner.

Or how about the swath of Tea Party candidates? “A flag upon the waters,” Shakespeare would have said. He never liked popular movements anyway. He didn’t trust the people not to be ignorant and just go for popularity.

All in all, Shakespeare wrote about power. His subjects were courtiers, hangers-on become pawns to those in power, women who encouraged murder but wanted to be blameless, parents who destroyed their children, and psychopaths who ruined others just for the experience. Today he easily could find comparable if not exact duplicates. With the internet, he would only need to read the headlines.

Shakespeare was fascinated by the getting, the keeping, the abusing, and the losing of political advantage. Politics and history were his natural milieu. He showed us the truth of Santayana’s comment that those unaware of the past are doomed to repeat it. So, as we head into yet another election cycle, it would behoove us to remember this cynical and yet hopeful observer of humanity, who would advise us that nothing is new under the sun. We could do a lot worse than to go back and and reread his plays.

Growing Old Graciously

Growing old is something of a conundrum: for something we are told exists only in our minds, people seem to spend every waking hour thinking about it. The problem is that no one quite knows what to do. Even our media is hopelessly conflicted on the subject.

On the one hand, the media hits us with ads for every manner of potion, lotion, hair dye, viagra, and other chemical known to humankind, all designed to prevent or reverse time. We're shown admiring portraits of people who have surgically tightened, smoothed, and sucked away their age, the implication being that if we look like "before" pictures it must mean we are lazy or cheap. Into this category fall those "raging against the light" (to quote Dylan Thomas) and those older men and women who pursue youth by literally pursuing youths, using the mantra, "if I can get away with/afford it, why not?" No one HAS to look old is the mantra that keeps plastic surgeons in their Ferraris.

On the other hand, we are given unctious sermons on accepting ourselves as we are and growing old "gracefully," which seems to mean not whining about getting old, accepting whatever stereotype of age our culture decides to imnpose on us, and showing up on time to babysit the grandchildren. Usually, though, it's tied to appearance as few overweights (even the mild forms) are said to be aging "well."

If we take all this nonsense seriously--which I can't--what, then, are we left with? The apparent choice seems either to take action against a sea of sags ( the solution approved by a society that links appearance to success) or get off the boat and sink beneath the waves (a solution not favored by people who still have alert minds).

Well, I neither desire nor wish to pay for growing old "well," nor do I wish to recede into a rocking chair waiting for the ultimate call. Instead, I propose to grow old "graciously." Allow me to explain.

You are at a busy airport with heavy luggage and someone you don't know offers to help. What do you do?

a.  Say you are perfectly capable of handling your things. You're not a cripple, thank you very much. You've got enough money to pay for a porter if you want one.
b.  Agree to the help but complain about how things are so rushed these days and warn the person not to damage your suitcase.
c. Although perfectly capable, accept the help with a smile and thanks.

If you chose a), you're still trying to compete with the big dogs in the world of power. If b) you have sunk into self-pity. If c) you are gracious.  The person who offered help to a) will walk away muttering about old farts. If b) the person will feel used and manipulated. If c) the person will feel they have done a good deed and, who knows, maybe they'll be a little bit kinder to other people for the rest of the day. The younger folk are so unkind to one another these days, a little genuine humanity and concern for others might go a long way.

Little acts of kindness--the pat on the shoulder I got from the waiter at lunch today, the unexpected offer to open a water bottle with a stuck cap, doors held open a little extra long for me, help pulling my suitcase off the airport carousel--can only be done for children and seniors because we are believed safe to show kindness to. They don't think we're still competing or slighting others--frankly, because we're supposed to be mature and grown beyond egocentrism and greedily grasping for a world that is no longer ours. Some of us anyway.

I believe growing old graciously means providing a model of maturity and compassion for those behind us still locked in the rat race. We don't have to be rich, looking fifteen years younger, and flattening and shaping our aging bodies to compete with the people to whom youth really belongs. We carry with us the marks life has put on us, but we have one thing youth doesn't: we have experience and instead of spouting about the good old days, it would behoove us to behave as a model of them.

Fortunately, experience is one thing that's safe from botox.

Leaders of the War and Peace

As a species, we tend to glorify the creative forces among us--those people who initiate new things like internets, cures for diseases, new government structures, and wondrous works of technology and art. You know, the big stuff that gets an age named after it. The bronze age, the age of steam, the age of electricity. Schools teach the famous names of these movements, well, maybe not the bronze age, but we all know about the Curies, Salk, Whitney, Edison, Crick, and Gates et al. The pioneers of each new field are lauded and feted with prizes of various value and prestige, well deserved, of course, but perhaps inclined to blind us to what happens next. I'm thinking here of the classifiers, statesmen, and philosophers who follow behind, looking beyond the joy of creating something that did not exist before and on to the question of what such discoveries really mean and how they interact with one another.

I found myself thinking about this process the other day by recalling a poignant scene in the David Lean film, "Lawrence of Arabia." It occurs toward the end. One of the sheikhs, played as I recall by Alec Guiuness, tells Lawrence that young men fought the war but must now leave it to old men to negotiate the peace. In that moment, Lawrence's role in the war he has so passionately fought is over and he knows he is no longer wanted. The world is now in the hands of others.

It's not hard to imagine a similar thing happening in regard to the protests in Egypt. The revolution is over, thank you very much, and now the politicians, and the military, and the business-as-usual-men, will take over. The protestors will undoubtedly fight their marginalization and they may earn a few up-front concessions, but eventually their own protests will turn on themselves and become ugly. 'Twas ever so with mass revolutions--they are difficult to control because of the varying purposes and motives within them. Undoubtedly, the idealistic and ethical among the protestors will be indignant about being lumped together with a criminal element, but it will be inevitable. Attacking a CNN female reporter in the square is one example; it smacks of hysteria and thuggism and will be used to show the unfitness of any protestors to play a role in building a new constitution and country.

Yet one cannot be too judgmental on this process. The qualities that build enduring nations are not the same as those that defeat armies and tear down walls and barriers. With few exceptions, revolutionary leaders capable of inspiring men in desperate battle seldom make effective leaders of the peace. It's rather like the current political process in the US these days--I wonder if it isn't easier to be part of the minority party snapping at the heels of those in power rather than being in power and trying to make sensible decisions for our future.

A Little Revolution Now and Then

I haven't felt much like writing of late. Partly it's being strung between two homes--one the 27 foot RV down in Phoenix and the other our main home, both of which require attention when left to their own devices. When we came home this time, the hot tub blew a freeze plug, emptied itself, and fountained water at us. Fortunately, this happened with us on premises or who knows what further mischief it might have done. But I'm fully aware that the RV is lying awake at night without us there, plotting what to do to us when we go back.

It's not as if there hasn't been a lot to write about. Floods and weather everywhere, political upheavals, economic misery--it seems that Sid may be right when he commented the other day that Mother Nature dodesn't like ugly. Since we've been ugly all right, I guess we are being served  the results of our polluting, uncaring, and insensitive behavior.

But there's something more in the air that speaks of unrest. In particular, I've been watching the events unfold in the Middle East with very conflicted emotions. Anyone British with any sense of history has to look at the world's trouble spots and recognize the heavy hand of Victorian empire. India, Pakistan, Palestine, Africa--Britain was right there. And while a case might be made for the advantages of the British raj--language, legal system. education et al, I sense in that argument an echo of Kipling's "taking up the white man's burden" of bringing civilization to those deemed to be in need of it. The native populations seldom took the same view of the garrisons among them.

But quite apart from that, history tells us that empires cannot hold for long. Greece, Rome, France, and Britain--not to mention the German Reich--have been among those to learn that lesson. There are always barbarians at the gate, not to mention local populations who object to seeing their goods and treasure take a one-way journey into the coffers of their conquerors.

History also tells us that when these empires crumble, it is am ugly process. Seldom are fuindamental changes brought about through moderate transition. Telling Tom Payne that he should negotiate a transitional process with King George would hardly be persuasive. The colonial rebels wanted action and wanted it now. It's a given that those in power never yield authority willingly. There must be force or the threat of it to effect change. We might wish that things were different, that everyone behaved in rational ways, but that is not the way of the human species.

But there is more than Egypt. In my opinion, we have two revolutions going on right now--the physical uprising in Egypt and an unrecognized one in this country.

Egypt's is the most obvious since our media is in love with it. One can only shake one's head at the current Egyptian premier who had only to look at his country's demographics to predict the unrest. When a country has a predominance of educated people under 40 who have no prospects for employment and careers, it is only a matter of time before they spill into the streets. This is their version of the tea in the harbor in Boston. There will be change in Egypt. It is inevitable. But it is very unclear whether the change will address the issues of the young or will prove to be yet another corrupt regime that started out idealistically but was coopted by special interests.

The US is on the opposite end of the spectrum, but we have just as many discontents. One look at US demographics tells the story. In this case, the population is an aging one. People over 55 are in the ascendancy. If younger people may be (stereotypically) expected to be passionate and looking for opportunity, our aging population may be expected (stereotypically) to behave like a querulous octagenarian, opposed to change, mired somewhere in a familiar past, self-involved, and dedicated to its own comfort.  The octagenerian will not take to the streets but certainly takes to the airwaves and the ballot box. Given the passion for the status quo, it remains to be seen whether the weapon arsenal built up in this country will be used against its citizens. If it is, it may be the well-armed over 55s against the younger minority population.

I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic. As the captain of Red October said in the novel, The Hunt for Red October, "a little revolution is a good thing now and then." I wish Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and the other countries with oppressive leadership all the best in their search for a brighter future. I just hope that the passion pouring into the streets translates into wise and humanitiarian decisions further down the line.

An Illegal Is Not Just a Mexican Bird

Recently there has been a flap down here in RV land—our park, which shall remain nameless lost its activities director. He had been directing things here for six seasons, long enough to build an empire and have followers. He was given a severance package and twenty-fours notice to remove his rig to another park. Ashes and sackcloth followed. People were in tears, people threatened not to return next season, people cursed the park owners. You would have thought someone had been killed.

The reason for all this heartbreak? It turns out that the activities director was not a US citizen and was working illegally. In other words, he was an illegal alien to the extent he was violating his tourist visa.

The situation (his unlawful employment) came to light when various parks and businesses catering to RVers were called into a meeting and told that there was going to be a crackdown.

Right there, you can tell he wasn’t Mexican. When Mexicans are involved, the IRS raids, arrests, and sorts thing out later. The director was Canadian. The park was warned, he was given a severance package, and he was moved out quickly (probably on advice of legal counsel) since his RV space was part of his pay package. No arrest. No jail. No deportation. Genteel, as these things go, and definitely preferential.

Now what gets my goat and the reason for this blog is that the same people wearing ashes and sackcloth have been the ones passionately complaining about illegals here in Arizona. The law has been broken, they’ve said loudly, and why couldn’t these people wait for work permits and green cards, why don’t they learn English, and why don’t they go back where they came from? The whole matter has been turned in a moral maelstrom in the park.

The many Canadian RVers don’t really understand the seriousness of the situation so think he treated shabbily with only 24 hours notice. The director’s followers see the loss of their little privileges and wonder why now after six years (good question). And the self-righteous among us are busy stereotyping all Mexicans into vicious criminals and drug runners (even the children) in order to defend the director from label of illegal: he was a good guy, why aren’t they out catching the real ones.

Now I’m not in favor of illegal immigration myself (I went through what I call the sewer of the regular process to emigrate to Canada and then the US) but I am a foe of hypocrisy. I am making myself unpopular, of course, pointing out the fallacy to those folk now saying the director “at least came legally into the country.” He came in on a tourist visa, chums, that says specifically that he may not accept employment in the US. The law is the law, and—yes—anglos, I want to tell them but don’t, it applies to you too. I think it says reams that this park is just about one hundred percent anglo.

I’m glad the director wasn’t taken out of the park in handcuffs. I’m glad he’s not sitting in INS jail with all the Mexicans awaiting a hearing. I’m really glad they didn’t shut down the park and freeze assets (which would have seen the lot of us trying to find spaces in 24 hours with no refunds), but I am very disappointed in the park’s willingness to expose all of us to those risks (and, yes, the IRS and INS can do that).

The little legalistic core in me, left over from dealing with federal investigations on campus (which no one in their right mind would ever want—trust me) says there’s a reason the figure of Justice wears a blindfold.

Life's Illusions 2011

Anyone reading my blog through the years will not be surprised by this list. This is where I stand and it lies behind everything I have written. As we start 2011, therefore, I'd like to thank you all for reading my work. It's been a personal adventure for me and I hope a source of interest and amusement for you. Here's hoping that the new year is kind to us all.


• Religion and Politics are not ends in themselves—they are symptoms of the people who support them. If people did not need to feel secure and superior, neither would exist.

• Organized religion is a corporation providing a service: giving pre-digested answers to life’s great questions, licensing human behavior, and providing employment.

• Religions exist for community. They become political when they legislate human behavior and then attempt to enforce it.

• Spirituality does not require an organized place of worship or prescribed ways of recognizing blessings.

o The founders of a religion are the idealists. Followers take and pervert the original ideas as people sign on. It is much easier to gain followers by promising benefits than asking for sacrifice.

o People can create better myths and beliefs for themselves if they go out to a hillside in complete darkness and try counting stars.

o It is entirely possible to be ethical and not part of organized religion.

o Any religion looks ridiculous if its basic beliefs are examined closely. Contrary to religious belief, science is not a religion. It is subject to hypothesis and correction through evidence. Belief and truth are not the same. Try telling the creationists to prove or disprove their beliefs.

o Parents who raise their children in an organized religion without thinking shut down young minds and then act as enforcers for religion if the children start to think for themselves.

o Politics is not the art of the possible: it is the art of the expedient, particularly in lining the pockets of those who know how to play the game. Too often, any good done for society as the result of political action is incidental and accidental. The wisest question to ask a politician is “Who is benefitting from this?” or, more bravely, “How are you benefitting from this?”

o Religion assumes prominence when people are starving and stressed. At other times it is one more form of oppression, purporting to add spiritual authority to human unkindness.

o Religious and political “values” are merely slogans to sway large numbers of people by referring to ideologies and ideas that people know only by name and have not taken the time to examine. Anyone who really studies politics and religion should be scared witless by them.

o Wars are a form of profit seeking and taking. Lunatics start them, people die for them, religion justifies them, and armament manufacturers encourage it all. Money is not the root of all evil. People believing they deserve it is.