I have lots of time on my hands waiting for my new knee to heal enough to allow me to get out and about. I've been reading and thinking, playing my guitar, and watching TV. Actually, I'm watching Netflix TV shows on my laptop. I'm about 10 episodes into Breaking Bad, which I never got around to on regular TV. For those of you who are not familiar with the show, it's main character is a high school chemistry teacher, who upon discovering that he has lung cancer, begins a second career of making Methamphetamine to pay for his treatments, and to provide for his family after his demise. It's a really good show, gritty and seemingly realistic, and it allows me to segue into what I really want to talk about, which is health care.
I've heard a good deal of talk about an article in Time Magazine by Stephen Brill entitled "Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us". This article came out in the March 4, 2013 edition of the magazine, and is a long 38 page expos'e of hospital costs. The article follows the experiences of six patients faced with understanding and coping with their medical bills. Stephen Brill certainly deserves a Pulitzer Prise for his work on this article, and the article should be a must read for everyone in the country. I urge you to find a copy, read it, and pass it on to someone else.
The article exposes the absolute evil of hospital chains like the one here in our town, which, while providing good health care on the one hand, is administratively bent on wringing every penny possible out of each and every patient with the other. This system is not free market based, it is out and out extortion.
Surprisingly, while exposing the medical care industrial complex, the article provides the best explanation I have ever seen of how well Medicare works , and how it can be improved. The article would be well worth reading just for it's insight into medicare.
After reading the article, you might understand how a show like "Breaking Bad" could almost be true.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
Michael Steel should abandon the GOP
When Michael Steel Was the national chairman of the Republican Party, I would watch him with disgust as he reiterated whatever talking point the party was pushing that day. It always galls me to see a Republican minority pundit because I generally feel they are just being trotted out as a token spokesperson. The Republicans like a black or Hispanic pundit, they love a black or Hispanic gay Republican, and they would fall all over themselves for a female black or Hispanic gay republican, if they could find one.
Anyway, Steel has now lost his chairmanship, and often appears on MSNBC and other venues as a Republican Pundit. His views have softened a bit, and while still a fiscal conservative, he has taken the blinders off, and is often critical of the far right in his party. I can forgive Michael for being a fiscal conservative, but I cannot accept his support of his party, even though I think I understand his reasoning.
Over my years of keen observation of the human condition, I've noticed that successful people who come from poor beginnings, often lean to the right, and exhibit an intense disdain for others who are not as successful. They tend to believe that their success is solely the result of their own hard work, and that other people are just lazy, and could be wealthy (.IE successful) also, if only they applied themselves.
I suspect that Michael steel is a poster child for this kind of reasoning. I read a bio of him on Wikipedia, and I know that he was raised by his grandmother under very poor conditions, but that he did well in school, and attended good colleges. I suspect he got a lot of lucky breaks along the way.
I've also come to the conclusion that success is in reality, more a combination of lucky breaks than anything else . In this world their are many of kinds of luck. There is the luck of superior intellect, the luck of family money and connections, good looks, charisma, family values, your age when you start school, support from teachers and other mentors, focus, the luck of having ambition, and, most often, the luck of being in the right place at the right time. These things all aid in success, although, I'm mostly talking about the conservative definition of success, which is wealth and power. No one or even two or three of the things I mentioned guarantee's success, but without some combination of the above, success cannot be achieved.
Unfortunately most people in this world are not endowed with any of the lucky traits, or more commonly only a few. Notice also, that many of the traits involve the help of other people, so, so much for the self made man.
I believe Michael Steel is fundamentally a decent man who just needs to do a little self-evaluation. He should disabuse himself of the notion that his success illustrates the character flaws of others. Then he should consider whether he wants to continue being a black foot soldier for the Confederacy in the on going war between the states. Let me explain that outlandish statement to those of you who don't get it.
After the Civil war no self respecting southerner could sink to being a Republican (The party of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery). These Dixiecrat's only began to switch parties during the end of segregation around the time of Kennedy and especially Johnson. If you look at a 2012 red state/blue state election results map, you will notice that the core of the red states are the states of the old Confederacy, with the exception of Virginia which went for President Obama because of the populous I-95 corridor. (It is also interesting to note that an overlay of a map which shows the states that receive more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes, very closely matches the red state voting map.) (Takers not makers)
So Michael, I call on you to secede from the Republican party. You can still be a moderate fiscal conservative Democrat (There are quite a lot of them), or you can become an independent. Believe me, you will feel good about yourself, and the country will be better off.
Anyway, Steel has now lost his chairmanship, and often appears on MSNBC and other venues as a Republican Pundit. His views have softened a bit, and while still a fiscal conservative, he has taken the blinders off, and is often critical of the far right in his party. I can forgive Michael for being a fiscal conservative, but I cannot accept his support of his party, even though I think I understand his reasoning.
Over my years of keen observation of the human condition, I've noticed that successful people who come from poor beginnings, often lean to the right, and exhibit an intense disdain for others who are not as successful. They tend to believe that their success is solely the result of their own hard work, and that other people are just lazy, and could be wealthy (.IE successful) also, if only they applied themselves.
I suspect that Michael steel is a poster child for this kind of reasoning. I read a bio of him on Wikipedia, and I know that he was raised by his grandmother under very poor conditions, but that he did well in school, and attended good colleges. I suspect he got a lot of lucky breaks along the way.
I've also come to the conclusion that success is in reality, more a combination of lucky breaks than anything else . In this world their are many of kinds of luck. There is the luck of superior intellect, the luck of family money and connections, good looks, charisma, family values, your age when you start school, support from teachers and other mentors, focus, the luck of having ambition, and, most often, the luck of being in the right place at the right time. These things all aid in success, although, I'm mostly talking about the conservative definition of success, which is wealth and power. No one or even two or three of the things I mentioned guarantee's success, but without some combination of the above, success cannot be achieved.
Unfortunately most people in this world are not endowed with any of the lucky traits, or more commonly only a few. Notice also, that many of the traits involve the help of other people, so, so much for the self made man.
I believe Michael Steel is fundamentally a decent man who just needs to do a little self-evaluation. He should disabuse himself of the notion that his success illustrates the character flaws of others. Then he should consider whether he wants to continue being a black foot soldier for the Confederacy in the on going war between the states. Let me explain that outlandish statement to those of you who don't get it.
After the Civil war no self respecting southerner could sink to being a Republican (The party of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery). These Dixiecrat's only began to switch parties during the end of segregation around the time of Kennedy and especially Johnson. If you look at a 2012 red state/blue state election results map, you will notice that the core of the red states are the states of the old Confederacy, with the exception of Virginia which went for President Obama because of the populous I-95 corridor. (It is also interesting to note that an overlay of a map which shows the states that receive more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes, very closely matches the red state voting map.) (Takers not makers)
So Michael, I call on you to secede from the Republican party. You can still be a moderate fiscal conservative Democrat (There are quite a lot of them), or you can become an independent. Believe me, you will feel good about yourself, and the country will be better off.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The New Reality Update
Here's an update to a post I wrote back in December of 2009. I read this story in the Huffington Post this morning, so I copied the image and posted the link below. This is a picture and story about a new women's personal pleasure product, the "Vibrator/Alarm Clock". I think it does a nice job of reinforcing the slightly tongue in cheek point I tried to make. Men, we best watch out, we can be replaced. And by the way, when it comes to sex toys, we seem to be getting the short end of the stick. A while back, I fell asleep on the sofa, and woke up about three in the morning. I'm not sure why my wife didn't wake me up and tell me to come to bed, but I have my suspicions. Anyway, the TV was still on, and here were these four women, setting around a coffee table extolling the virtues of various sex toys. "This one comes in four exciting colors and three sizes." " This one vibrates, pulsates, and ........... rotates. " "You can keep this discrete miniature model in your purse." I'm thinking, it rotates? That's going to be a hard act to follow. Discrete miniature model? Judging from most infomercials, I always assumed that women just have smaller bladders than men, and sometimes need to repair their makeup. Who knew they talk about stuff like this in the middle of the night. This show was on regular cable, not CBS, but not the Girls Gone Wild pay for view either. I think it might have been the Lifetime Network.
Now, before I go on with my next observation, let me say that this may offend some people. Don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity offender, and I promise that if you are not offended now, you will certainly get your chance in some later posting.
I've long had a theory about homosexuality. I have no data or personal experience to back this theory, but here it is anyway. I don't think that men choose to be homosexuals any more than people choose to be left handed or redheaded. However, I'm not so sure that the same can be said for all lesbians. I think that some women, like their male counterparts, don't have any choice in the matter, but, I think that some women consider it a matter of personal choice. I suspect that in general, women tend to be less inhibited than men, so the actual act doesn't seem so unacceptable to them. Plus, it seems that women are more able and willing to form close relationships with other women, where as men tend to be a lot more reserved in their friendships with other men.
The point I'm trying to make is that we men may be about to become redundant. Between the availability of sex toys, and the abundance of other women, we may be becoming a poor third choice. Look at the line up on any TV network. It's one show after another showing men behaving badly, or portrayed as hapless buffoons. Let's face it, we don't have a good record either. We've done everything possible to insure women's subservience to men for thousands of years. We've restricted their dress, their ability to vote, the practice of religion, you name it, we've held them back. But now, at least in this country, women have gained a lot of independence, and they are beginning to exercise their independence. So, watch out, if we don't do a better job, we can be replaced. Here's the link to the new vibrator/alarm clock. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/wake-up-vibe-alarm-clock_n_4764599.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
Now, before I go on with my next observation, let me say that this may offend some people. Don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity offender, and I promise that if you are not offended now, you will certainly get your chance in some later posting.
I've long had a theory about homosexuality. I have no data or personal experience to back this theory, but here it is anyway. I don't think that men choose to be homosexuals any more than people choose to be left handed or redheaded. However, I'm not so sure that the same can be said for all lesbians. I think that some women, like their male counterparts, don't have any choice in the matter, but, I think that some women consider it a matter of personal choice. I suspect that in general, women tend to be less inhibited than men, so the actual act doesn't seem so unacceptable to them. Plus, it seems that women are more able and willing to form close relationships with other women, where as men tend to be a lot more reserved in their friendships with other men.
The point I'm trying to make is that we men may be about to become redundant. Between the availability of sex toys, and the abundance of other women, we may be becoming a poor third choice. Look at the line up on any TV network. It's one show after another showing men behaving badly, or portrayed as hapless buffoons. Let's face it, we don't have a good record either. We've done everything possible to insure women's subservience to men for thousands of years. We've restricted their dress, their ability to vote, the practice of religion, you name it, we've held them back. But now, at least in this country, women have gained a lot of independence, and they are beginning to exercise their independence. So, watch out, if we don't do a better job, we can be replaced. Here's the link to the new vibrator/alarm clock. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/wake-up-vibe-alarm-clock_n_4764599.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=TechnologyFriday, December 21, 2012
Stop or I''ll Shoot
I took the afternoon off, and happened to catch two things on TV that got my mind churning. The first item was an add for ADT (the home security service), in which a young woman relates the experience of a home break in, and was, afterwards, not able to feel secure in her own home until she had an ADT security system installed.
The second item I saw was the speech by Wayne LaPierre the spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, concerning the recent school shooting in Conn. In this speech, he made no concessions about gun control, instead, he blamed the media, video games, the president, and our mental health system. he called for a national database of mentally ill people, and for armed guards in every school in the country.
Now, here is the connection between the NRA speech and the ADT advertisement. Both of these organizations pretend to promote security, one with the use of guns and guards, and the other with the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment, but in fact both organizations intentionally promote insecurity in order to achieve their own agenda.
In the case of ADT, if they can convince Americans that they are no longer safe in their own homes, they can sell more security systems. The NRA, using the same logic can sell more guns. What's that you say, the NRA does not sell guns? No, not directly, but dig deep and you will find that the NRA is deep in the pockets of the arms industry. There is no direct connection between the NRA and the arms manufacturers, but you can bet that they pull the NRA's strings. This, by the way, is analogous to the AARP and the insurance industry except that AARP is actually owned by an insurance company.
Who knows, perhaps an armed guard might at some point successfully intervene in a school shooting, perhaps arming all the teachers, principals, and janitors might be even more effective. Maybe ADT can get into the act as well, with security cameras and locks. But at what cost? Do we want to run our schools and homes like prisons. If we fall for these measures, the overall pain of our insecurity will be a million times greater than out gain.
A disclaimer here, I am a gun owner, I have owned guns since I was a child, I like to shoot guns, I like to hunt, although I don't hunt any longer, and I believe it is my absolute right to own a gun or guns. I also play violent video games like Halo and Gears of war, and go to violent movies. I think both industries are over the top with their violence and dialogue. It may be that these things sometimes have an adverse affect on an already fragile state of mind. Maybe reruns of "Rambo" should be banned so that all those assault weapon mega clip carrying Walter Mittys out there will quit thinking of themselves as heroic patriotic defenders of America. Perhaps they should take out their frustrations on some video game aliens. Then maybe we could pass some sensible gun laws.
The second item I saw was the speech by Wayne LaPierre the spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, concerning the recent school shooting in Conn. In this speech, he made no concessions about gun control, instead, he blamed the media, video games, the president, and our mental health system. he called for a national database of mentally ill people, and for armed guards in every school in the country.
Now, here is the connection between the NRA speech and the ADT advertisement. Both of these organizations pretend to promote security, one with the use of guns and guards, and the other with the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment, but in fact both organizations intentionally promote insecurity in order to achieve their own agenda.
In the case of ADT, if they can convince Americans that they are no longer safe in their own homes, they can sell more security systems. The NRA, using the same logic can sell more guns. What's that you say, the NRA does not sell guns? No, not directly, but dig deep and you will find that the NRA is deep in the pockets of the arms industry. There is no direct connection between the NRA and the arms manufacturers, but you can bet that they pull the NRA's strings. This, by the way, is analogous to the AARP and the insurance industry except that AARP is actually owned by an insurance company.
Who knows, perhaps an armed guard might at some point successfully intervene in a school shooting, perhaps arming all the teachers, principals, and janitors might be even more effective. Maybe ADT can get into the act as well, with security cameras and locks. But at what cost? Do we want to run our schools and homes like prisons. If we fall for these measures, the overall pain of our insecurity will be a million times greater than out gain.
A disclaimer here, I am a gun owner, I have owned guns since I was a child, I like to shoot guns, I like to hunt, although I don't hunt any longer, and I believe it is my absolute right to own a gun or guns. I also play violent video games like Halo and Gears of war, and go to violent movies. I think both industries are over the top with their violence and dialogue. It may be that these things sometimes have an adverse affect on an already fragile state of mind. Maybe reruns of "Rambo" should be banned so that all those assault weapon mega clip carrying Walter Mittys out there will quit thinking of themselves as heroic patriotic defenders of America. Perhaps they should take out their frustrations on some video game aliens. Then maybe we could pass some sensible gun laws.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Servant Economy
One of my favorite quotes, from Voltaire, is that " the comfort of the rich requires an abundant supply of the poor". I'm afraid this is the future of American workers in this country. Maybe a few people will remember President H W Bush making the statement that America is evolving into a service economy. Approximately 20 years later I think I can safely say that instead of evolving in to a service economy, we are devolving into a servant economy.
Remember when we thought advances in technology would make life easier for everyone. How robots would perform arduous and repetitious tasks so efficiently that goods would become abundant and cheap for us all. How we would work less hours, and yet have a better life style. So, what happened? The technology is here, America produces more manufactured goods than ever before in our history, yet American manufacturing jobs have decreased from around 36% of all jobs in America to only about 16% today. At the same time, the American middle class has been on a steady decline since at least the early eighties, except for a brief expansion during President Clinton's tenure. ( I'm not praising Clinton here, he was just the beneficiary of happy circumstance)
Here's what I think happened, and here's where I think we are going. Simply put, the wealthy kept the profits made from our increased productivity, and passed none of it along to the rest of us. On the contrary, because we've seen a surplus of American labor caused by increased productivity, and an influx of cheap foreign labor and goods, corporate America has viewed the American worker as just one more commodity to be purchased at the lowest possible price. At the same time, the American labor union movement has been vilified as socialist, communist, or worse, even though that same labor movement brought to Americans almost every advance in worker rights that still exist today. This is true no matter that you belong to a labor union or not. I'm talking about the forty hour week, overtime pay, vacation pay, sick leave, child labor laws, equal pay for women, the minimum wage, employer provided health care, all of these things can trace their origins back to the American labor movement, certainly not to the largess of the employers. I don't hesitate to add that each and every one of these worker rights are under assault by corporate America, and largely the republican party.
And where are we going? Unless unchecked, the American worker will find himself, increasing desperate for work, and increasingly the only work available will be servant work for the wealthy. Our pay, benefits, and our jobs will be at the mercy of the royalty we serve. We will have voted ourselves right into a nation of royals and serfs.
If even a small minority of republicans would simply forget the side issues that the party panders to, abortion, gay rights, gun laws, religion, repeal of "Obama care", welfare, and race, and a larger number of apathetic democrats would get out and vote for their best interests, that is, an America that is not dominated by the wealthiest 1%, we could truly take this country back.
Remember when we thought advances in technology would make life easier for everyone. How robots would perform arduous and repetitious tasks so efficiently that goods would become abundant and cheap for us all. How we would work less hours, and yet have a better life style. So, what happened? The technology is here, America produces more manufactured goods than ever before in our history, yet American manufacturing jobs have decreased from around 36% of all jobs in America to only about 16% today. At the same time, the American middle class has been on a steady decline since at least the early eighties, except for a brief expansion during President Clinton's tenure. ( I'm not praising Clinton here, he was just the beneficiary of happy circumstance)
Here's what I think happened, and here's where I think we are going. Simply put, the wealthy kept the profits made from our increased productivity, and passed none of it along to the rest of us. On the contrary, because we've seen a surplus of American labor caused by increased productivity, and an influx of cheap foreign labor and goods, corporate America has viewed the American worker as just one more commodity to be purchased at the lowest possible price. At the same time, the American labor union movement has been vilified as socialist, communist, or worse, even though that same labor movement brought to Americans almost every advance in worker rights that still exist today. This is true no matter that you belong to a labor union or not. I'm talking about the forty hour week, overtime pay, vacation pay, sick leave, child labor laws, equal pay for women, the minimum wage, employer provided health care, all of these things can trace their origins back to the American labor movement, certainly not to the largess of the employers. I don't hesitate to add that each and every one of these worker rights are under assault by corporate America, and largely the republican party.
And where are we going? Unless unchecked, the American worker will find himself, increasing desperate for work, and increasingly the only work available will be servant work for the wealthy. Our pay, benefits, and our jobs will be at the mercy of the royalty we serve. We will have voted ourselves right into a nation of royals and serfs.
If even a small minority of republicans would simply forget the side issues that the party panders to, abortion, gay rights, gun laws, religion, repeal of "Obama care", welfare, and race, and a larger number of apathetic democrats would get out and vote for their best interests, that is, an America that is not dominated by the wealthiest 1%, we could truly take this country back.
With friends like this.............
I received some Face book fan mail today. Someone, apparently a younger person, sent to me an anonymous letter in the mail taking issue with something I posted on Facebook. I looked back at my wall postings and could not find exactly what this person was referring to, so I think it must have been a comment I made about someone else's posting. I'm reprinting the letter below, and would appreciate any comments about the letter. So, here it is.
"Mr. Eudy. I saw a note you put on facebook last week and I thought it was strange. Do you really think all republicans are rich? We are not. And all of us are zealots? We aren't that either. I said something to my parents about it (you worked for them a couple of years ago.) They said its just because you are probably not a christian and you don't think like we do. So I decided to tell you how we think so you might understand. We believe in God and the Bible. In the Bible there are commandments that we try to follow. One is that we have no other god before us. Sometimes it seems that ppls (peoples I guess) political parties become their religion. Even if it goes against God's ways. Another is not to covet someone else's possesions. It seems democrats are always mad because someone else has more than they have. And they want the government to take it away and give it to them. They say they don't pay their fair share. How is that when 1/2 the ppl don't pay anything? Another commandant is not to kill. Abortion is killing a baby. They say it's a women's body and she can do anything she wants. Christians believe everything belongs to God, even our bodies. The bible say's they are God's temple. The Bible says homosexuals are an abomination. Democrats say it's OK and want to promote it. Democrats want God out of our schools and government. I've read a lot about the founding fathers. Prayer was included in almost all of their meetings. They even said all of our rights come from God. Why do democrats now want God out of our lives? They say that republicans are mean spirited. It looks to me like the mean ones are the democrats saying bad stuff about the republicans all the time. And they get mad and burn stores and knock out windows. We don't want to starve ppl. We give food to the food banks and volunteer at the Salvation Army. It's usually Christian groups that do this. I haven't seen any atheist groups down there or ppl that don't go to church. Christians tithe (give ten percent for the poor, missionaries, etc.) because they want to. Not because they have to. They showed not long ago that the vice president only gave a couple of hundred dollars to charity for one year. Looks like he's the mean one to me. Christians try to obey the laws. How come the president wants to let illegal mexicans stay in the country. He should make sure the laws are obeyed. Christians don't usually do drugs, at least all the ones we know. But the people that are in the democratic party sure use drugs. Like president Clinton. He admitted using drugs. And he lied in court. The democrats said that was OK because he was just lieing about cheating on his wife. That sounds crazy to a Christian! Anyway, dad says you can't change ppls politics. They are usually what their parents taught them to be and don't really think things through. But I think if you went to church and became a Christian, you might change the way you think and understand why you don't have to be rich to be a republican. I don't want to sound mean because we try not to be mean. I hope you start going to church."
Wow! How do I respond to that. If anyone know where I posted the lead in about rich republicans and zealots, please let me know. I would like to know the context around the remark It admittedly sounds somewhat intemperate. I certainly don't believe all republicans are rich, nor are all or even most of them zealots.
A couple of comments.
It seems that this person believes that republicans pretty much have a lock on Christianity, and democrats are all godless sinners. I expect that most of my friends would take issue with this regardless of their political affiliation.
No, we are not mad because someone else has more than us, we are mad because many people in the richest country in the world do not have enough to get by on, and we believe it is the government's role to alleviate that problem. It, by the way, is a basic Christian belief that it is the government's role to do so, read the 13th chapter of Romans, or read Psalm 72, or just read the New Testament and read the words of Jesus about the rich and the poor.
One thing I agree with the writer on is what he said about his father's views on politics. People often believe what their parents tell them and don't really think things through. Case in point.
"Mr. Eudy. I saw a note you put on facebook last week and I thought it was strange. Do you really think all republicans are rich? We are not. And all of us are zealots? We aren't that either. I said something to my parents about it (you worked for them a couple of years ago.) They said its just because you are probably not a christian and you don't think like we do. So I decided to tell you how we think so you might understand. We believe in God and the Bible. In the Bible there are commandments that we try to follow. One is that we have no other god before us. Sometimes it seems that ppls (peoples I guess) political parties become their religion. Even if it goes against God's ways. Another is not to covet someone else's possesions. It seems democrats are always mad because someone else has more than they have. And they want the government to take it away and give it to them. They say they don't pay their fair share. How is that when 1/2 the ppl don't pay anything? Another commandant is not to kill. Abortion is killing a baby. They say it's a women's body and she can do anything she wants. Christians believe everything belongs to God, even our bodies. The bible say's they are God's temple. The Bible says homosexuals are an abomination. Democrats say it's OK and want to promote it. Democrats want God out of our schools and government. I've read a lot about the founding fathers. Prayer was included in almost all of their meetings. They even said all of our rights come from God. Why do democrats now want God out of our lives? They say that republicans are mean spirited. It looks to me like the mean ones are the democrats saying bad stuff about the republicans all the time. And they get mad and burn stores and knock out windows. We don't want to starve ppl. We give food to the food banks and volunteer at the Salvation Army. It's usually Christian groups that do this. I haven't seen any atheist groups down there or ppl that don't go to church. Christians tithe (give ten percent for the poor, missionaries, etc.) because they want to. Not because they have to. They showed not long ago that the vice president only gave a couple of hundred dollars to charity for one year. Looks like he's the mean one to me. Christians try to obey the laws. How come the president wants to let illegal mexicans stay in the country. He should make sure the laws are obeyed. Christians don't usually do drugs, at least all the ones we know. But the people that are in the democratic party sure use drugs. Like president Clinton. He admitted using drugs. And he lied in court. The democrats said that was OK because he was just lieing about cheating on his wife. That sounds crazy to a Christian! Anyway, dad says you can't change ppls politics. They are usually what their parents taught them to be and don't really think things through. But I think if you went to church and became a Christian, you might change the way you think and understand why you don't have to be rich to be a republican. I don't want to sound mean because we try not to be mean. I hope you start going to church."
Wow! How do I respond to that. If anyone know where I posted the lead in about rich republicans and zealots, please let me know. I would like to know the context around the remark It admittedly sounds somewhat intemperate. I certainly don't believe all republicans are rich, nor are all or even most of them zealots.
A couple of comments.
It seems that this person believes that republicans pretty much have a lock on Christianity, and democrats are all godless sinners. I expect that most of my friends would take issue with this regardless of their political affiliation.
No, we are not mad because someone else has more than us, we are mad because many people in the richest country in the world do not have enough to get by on, and we believe it is the government's role to alleviate that problem. It, by the way, is a basic Christian belief that it is the government's role to do so, read the 13th chapter of Romans, or read Psalm 72, or just read the New Testament and read the words of Jesus about the rich and the poor.
One thing I agree with the writer on is what he said about his father's views on politics. People often believe what their parents tell them and don't really think things through. Case in point.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The Nature of Sin
I was having dinner with some friends a few weeks ago, when, as usual, the conversation veered away from polite, onto the verboten topics of religion and politics. I'm like a victim of Turret's syndrome, I just can't stop myself from blurting out things that get people riled up.
The issue that got the ball rolling was the question of whether homosexuality is a choice, or is caused by genetics or some other reason. My statement that I believed that in males, choice is seldom a factor, but that in women, choice is often a part of the equation, immediately got the women at the table stirred up. I've written about this before, and if you are interested in my reasoning, look up my blog from December 2009 "The New Reality". By the way, I recently read about a study of Identical twins, both male and female which corroborated my reasoning.
The conversation followed several vectors. From the cause of homosexuality, we went on to weather or not the marriage of gay couples should be recognized, and if so, should they be allowed to be married in the church. We were in uneasy agreement about the first part, but I was definitely in the minority on the second. We all pretty much agreed that gay couples should be afforded the same legal rights as straight couples, but I argued that they should be allowed to be married in the church as well. The chief argument against gay marriage in the church, was that it would sanction a sin as stated in the Bible. Here the conversation took a surprising third turn.
My agnostic views are pretty well known, so I guess the question one of my friends asked should not have surprised me. He asked me how I can even recognise sin if I am not convinced in the existence of God. I cast about for an answer, muttering something about my moral compass not needing religion to show me the way, but like most spontaneous conversation, there was not time for deliberation. I've had time to think about it, so here we go.
When I think about the Biblical concept of sin, there are two main sources, the first being the Ten Commandments, and secondly, the many specific sins delineated all through the Bible, especially in the old Testament.
I think that they can all be broken down into two categories, the first, being questions of fairness, and the second , sins of social convention.
In the ten commandments, the last six fall under the first category, and the first four under the second. It is certainly unfair to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, dishonor your parents, and generally covet your neighbor's property. The first four are about the social conventions that strenghten the bonds of monotheism in the Jewish and Christian faiths. You can see that the commandments of fairness have withstood the test of time, while the first four have been somewhat subject to the pressures of modern times, especially the commandment to honor the sabbath.
Beyond the Ten Commandants, most of the other sins of the Bible fall under the category of sins of social conventions. Some are still pertinent, while others are archaic and are widely ignored. All are subject to revision as societies knowledge and beliefs change. These conventional sins cover a lot of ground, including masturbation, homosexuality, dietary requirements, dress, etc. In many cases, it seems that the rules were instituted for control of the masses by the church, especially the control of women.
I find it interesting that the Cardinal sins: Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy , and pride, seem to be largely ignored by most, or even embraced as virtues by my objectivist friends. These sins are essentially sins of selfishness.
I find it interesting that the Cardinal sins: Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy , and pride, seem to be largely ignored by most, or even embraced as virtues by my objectivist friends. These sins are essentially sins of selfishness.
Personally, I find that the Golden Rule (a version of which can be found in almost all religions); "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", encompasses everything I need to know about sin. I may occasionally get lost, but this moral compass keeps me headed in the general direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
