Reality Principles

Just a reminder...

2008-12-31T13:26:00.003-05:00

Do you like cats, kittens, pooties, kitties, or felines?

Then you will LOVE my cat blog, The Way of Cats.

Now the LATEST CAT ADVICE is just a click away.

The Secret of Visualization

2008-04-02T22:48:00.004-04:00

A popular video and book claim to be able to tell us "The Secret," which will bring all our dreams to life.

However, my experience leads me to believe too many people have deficient imaginations, unable to get off the couch or get its own snack foods, and thus, this powerful tool will be beyond them without considerable practice.

For instance, the depraved mayhem perpetrated on the country by the Republicans over the past seven years has not instructed some people's imagination to the point where they can easily visualize how perpetuating this Republican rule will, inevitably, lead to more mayhem.

I don't know how, but some people cannot use their imagination.

I really noticed this, of all things, watching the show "Sell This House," on one of the cable channels.

They would show videos of people going through perfectly fine houses, and complaining.

"This bathroom is kinda dark." (Geez, spring for some bulbs, would you?)

"The living room looks cluttered." (If you buy the house, it will be your living room, and you can decorate it any way you'd like.)

"I don't like that bedspread in the master bedroom." (In the name of all that's holy, did you not realize that bedspread is going to be on the U-Haul leaving the place once the papers are signed? It's not your bedspread!)

But once the expert came in (take out half the furniture, paint everything beige, and put a vase of fresh flowers in the foyer) the people couldn't stop talking about how roomy and welcoming the same place was.

They can't friggin' visualize.

Many people have imaginations so atrophied, so limited, so flabby from lack of exercise, they can't come up with a speculative scenario to save their life.

Even if it will.

Branding the Republicans

2008-03-30T10:11:00.000-04:00

Consumers may not realize the amount of effort and thought that goes into Brands. "Kleenex" and "Xerox" lead the fight to keep their brands from becoming generic terms for "tissue" and "photocopy." Because so much money is at stake.

We Progressives are in a unique time and place to re-position our Brand. Let's do it, and stop letting the Republicans do it for us. Establish both our Brand and theirs, and we will turn the Republican's strength into a weakness. We have to.

Because so much is at stake.

How can we get through to the low information electorate quickly and simply? There's so much to cover.

The contaminated pet food and toys that strikes the most vulnerable of those we love?

The senseless war that has killed, damaged, and endangered the least vulnerable element of our society, the military, and left it unable to do its job?

The ridiculous tax cut and deregulation policies which crumble the foundations of our roads and bridges, our education and our skills, our business and our dollars?

It's everywhere. It's huge. How do we sum up ALL the cronyism, corruption, and callousness?

Republican.

They bought it, they broke it, and now they own it.

Republican.

They've been whining about it, flooding our airwaves with it, and screaming about it for long enough. Let's hang it around their necks.

Republican.

For thirty years the Republican party has been defining our brand for us. We are the "tax and spend" party, the "wimpy on National Defense" party, the "elitist, latte drinking, Volvo driving," party. The fearsome, horrible, ineffectual, nanny state people who have been damned with the label "liberals."

Okay. So we're Progressives. It even sounds better. As Democrats, we will differentiate ourselves from the Republicans by advancing Progressive ideals and policy.

Democrats want to fix all the stuff the Republicans broke.

No more of this sidling over to the Republicans. No more of this "me too" campaigning. What distinguishes the different dish soaps, laundry detergents, and other cleaning products that fill the aisle in the supermarket? Not much, frankly. And they know that. So they hammer at Their Brand. They never, never, never say their dish soap is in any way like another dish soap.

Because that's not how you capture the market. The way to capture the market is to say, loudly and clearly and constantly, that their brand is Different! and thus... Better!

So we must do the same.

The Republicans have destroyed their brand. They hope the electorate will not notice. That's why McCain is campaigning as an American's American in America for Americans who are proud of being Americans.

McCain, the Republican, isn't campaigning as a Republican. They know their brand is screwed. They're hoping the voters won't notice. They're hoping we won't notice.

We can't make this just another stunt they get away with.

They bought it, they broke it, they own it.

Republican.

End this talk of "Bush administration," and "the conservative mindset" and the "Neocons," and the "religious right." These are holes, ingredients they can label as something their brand no longer has. Of course, it's lies. That's why they say it. But unless and until they change the name of their party, they can't take the Republican out of the party. That's what they are. That's what they all are.

All the lies, betrayals, treason, secrecy, mayhem, and bloodshed they have perpetrated is Republican.

It's ALL Republican.

The falling dollar, bleak economic picture, and high prices at the pumps and produce counter?

Republican.

The malfeasance and bribery and contempt for our press, our government, and our freedoms?

Republican.

The ruthless destruction of our homes, our children, and our lives?

Republican.

Make that word the horror it is. Create in the electorate the same revulsion the word has come to mean for us, who understand it, who realize what's going on, who know how important it is that we break the linkage between what people think they are getting, and what they actually get when they vote:

Republican.

All of them. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. The Iraq war, the wrecked economy, the dangerous goods they let into our country and the dangerous ideas they have lulled and lured the electorate with.

Sum it all up in who they are running for President, for Senator, for Representatives, for National, for State, for Local.

These are Republicans.

Now we know what happens when we vote for Republicans, don't we?

Every complaint on the street or at the checkout counter, every political discussion, every cry of disillusionment and despair, must be countered with their Brand.

Republican. That's the problem.

We can't let McCain run away from it. He's gone along with everything they did. He's sucking up to their movers and shakers. He's literally embraced Bush.

He's a Republican.

All this maverick stuff is just talk. Maverick started as a designation for unbranded calves, which anyone could pick up. But, of course, calling him a maverick is a lie. He's sooooo branded.

Republican.

It's not just Bush, or imperialism, or deregulation, or Katrina or Iraq. It's all of it; every looted dollar and dead soldier.

They bought it, they broke it, and they own it.

Republican.

Let no one forget.

At this busy time... let's thank Karl Rove.

2008-03-26T21:33:00.001-04:00

I want to buy Karl Rove a great big thank you card with puppies and kittens on it.

It seems too small a gesture for the way he has transformed our country.

Yes, there's the terrible, twisted, sick things he made possible. I am not discounting them. At all.

But in the classic, evil sows the seeds of its own destruction kind of way, he has been responsible for two sea changes.

One is the rise of the worst government policies ever, that have brought us to the brink of annihilation.

But he also paved the way for us to rise from these ashes.

What the heck do I mean?

I have a movie.

A blend of The Boys From Brazil and The Manchurian Candidate.

At the dawn of the Goldwater era, a band of renegade scientists began an bold, audacious project. They recruited new concepts from others of their kind, trained before the school boards began cutting evolution out of the textbooks, and genetically engineered a very specific type of man.

He was designed to be an unconventionally masculine man and was placed in the most mercilessly conventional of conservative enclaves. A father figure would be provided, but one who was especially deemed lacking in what his environment considered the most important quality in a father. It was an upbringing cruel enough to create resentments as deep and unyielding as granite.

Contempt. How could Karl Rove not feel contempt and anger towards the attitudes around him that never accepted him, never supported him, and made him feel inadequate and inferior? But he buried it deep. He would show them!

At a critical time in his adolescence, the plotters provided father figures who applauded his achievements and tutored him in the dark arts. At a critical time in his adulthood, they waited for his ambition to fire over an array of proper candidates.

When it did fire, their project had learned all the dirty ways to win. Because he had to win. He had to show them. He bored from within until he had the most secure and powerful position in government, balking at nothing to achieve his goal. Always with his secrets and insecurities buried under layers of pride and ambition and the stinging lash of contempt.

If Karl Rove were a secret agent, raised since birth, trained by exacting masters, to destroy the Republican party, he couldn't have done any better.

After all, he’s driven the man under his tutelage into record low levels of approval, presided over record levels of corruption, and broken the Republican party for at least a generation to come.

And that's not all!

He lured weak reeds from the opposing party into his cunning plan, letting them destroy themselves by allying themselves with the party he was bringing down. All the corruptible and power-mad elements of the other party also succumbed to his siren song of hate, division, and dirty tactics.

And now, I am seeing something that only a chaotic, desperate, terrible time can create.

Political realignment.

We know how badly Rove damaged the Republican party. But he has also damaged the go-along, get-along, we-love-lobbyists-too! wing of the Democratic party as well.

That's the part Hillary belonged to. Her weaknesses, her dirty tactics, her willingness to do anything to win; they are all working against her in the atmosphere Rove has created in today's electorate.

She's refusing to quit because she, and those around her, can't believe the rules have changed. It always worked before. She's not doing anything different, but it's not working.

Because things have changed.

And Karl Rove; more than seminars and position papers and the many many working diligently to restore sense and accountability to our government, more than politicians and speeches and good intentions; Karl Rove has done that.

Karl Rove is the one I hold most responsible for Iraq, Katrina, the shredding of our Constitution and the implementation of torture in our name. Without his actions, we wouldn't have the Bush administration and all that followed.

We wouldn't have people waking up and looking around and going, "Damn. This is really screwed."

Sadly, this is apparently what it takes. A complete, spectacular, and utter meltdown.

Courtesy, more than any other, of this one man.

I want him to know he made it possible.

I want to say, "Thank you," to Karl Rove.

This One's for the Whiners

2008-03-24T20:46:00.002-04:00

I'm reading a lot of handwringing over the entirely overblown Reverend Wright flap. The Republicans found something to pick at. Oh, it's just terrible that Obama goes to a church where someone got angry in the pulpit. We have a politician who refused to throw someone under a bus. Oh, the horror.

Surprise! Surprise! Obama's a BLACK MAN!

Who didn't see that coming?

What? You were surprised that Obama knows other black people? And that some of these people might have encountered racism in their lives? And that some of these people might be angry about it?

Did anyone think the Republicans weren't going to notice that? And come up with ways to remind people if they didn't notice?

Edwards? Loved the game he talked. But not so much the way he walked... before the primaries. Remember the Bankruptcy Bill, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act?

John Edwards voted for them.

Thanks, John, you nutty populist you!

And HRC? People tell me they think "she's tough, and we need someone tough against the Republicans."

Yes, she's tough. But she's never tough against the Republicans!

Has anyone missed the fact that our current front runner came from nowhere to the front in such a short period of time? That's he's the front runner, and has the delegates, because of the simple reason that more people voted for him?

We ran a really smart white guy in 2000, and in 2004, and it was still close enough to steal.

Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Neither of our smart white guys was able to deflect Republican attacks properly. And no one is sorrier than I am that our smart white woman didn't figure out a way to handle Republicans back when, and still doesn't.

So now we have a smart black guy who seems to be able to overcome the horrible handicap of being a black man, AND deflect both Republican and Democratic attacks, AND gives speeches good enough to make all kinds of people cry and give him money.

More money than either of his rivals.

So mark me down as thrilled with the way things are shaking. Democrats haven't gotten anywhere playing "me too" with the Republicans. The R's are always going to play dirtier, scream louder, and make bigger fools of themselves over lies and misconceptions. As long as the Democrats tried to play that same game, they lost. Because the R's play it better and with more gusto.

We needed a clear difference.

So we're running the polar opposite of W.

If you find ways of whining now, you'll just have to wait for Jesus himself. Though he'd have to shave the beard and cut his hair. And he's hanging around with the dregs of society! Those lepers are going to hurt him in the polls. Sure, that Sermon on the Mount thing was good, but when is he going to give a long wonky speech laying out every aspect of his policies?

In this world, we run human beings. With all their frailties, inconsistencies, flaws and (hat tip to the 60's) hangups. All that can be given to us is to choose the best person we can.

And that's what I think we've got.

About Last Ditch Criticism

2008-03-23T09:15:00.002-04:00

The very idea of America is now under attack.

I am taking two candidates to task for their treatment of a particular skill of a third. People can still think what they think, and make up their own mind... after all, isn't this still America?

What does that wonderful phrase mean to us now?

I just had to share my disquiet, on a deep, visceral level, that both John McCain and Hilary Clinton have attacked Barack Obama's speeches on the basis that he offers hope.

Excuse my language, but WTF?

The oft-repeated disclaiming response about the effect Barack Obama's speeches have on the people who hear them is something that disturbs me.

People can come to their own decisions about his policies, his character, his campaign style, and what they might know, or not, about the people around him.

But I'm here to discuss his speeches.

Calling their effect "cult-like," claiming that "America needs more than speeches," and generally disclaiming any emotional stirring resulting from such exposure is more than cynical.

It's downright unAmerican.

Have we truly devolved as a country to the point where a man who gives speeches that stir positive emotions and evoke what I consider such true American sentiments as working together, accepting challenges, and being honest... can be attacked on that basis?

Are the other two leading candidates actually doing that?

Shredding the high points of our own history that includes speeches by such Presidents as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy? Such moral leaders as Eleanor Roosevelt and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Such compelling appealers to our better nature as Clarence Darrow, Eugene Debs, Robert Kennedy, and Margaret Sanger? Such literally revolutionary speakers as Patrick Henry and then General George Washington?

Speeches that defined us, motivated us, and uplift us still?

Speeches that actually created our history, by changing minds and hearts?

Now, suddenly, doing such a difficult and important task is wrong?

By so doing, they are not simply running a negative campaign. They are deliberately, for short-term personal gain, attempting to undercut, tarnish, and destroy the mythological history that, for good or ill, at least bound us together and gave us something to reach for.

That, at its best, let us accomplish incredible feats and create a dream so powerful it was named after us.

The American Dream. Whether it came true often enough or not, it was there, an inspiration to an aspiration. That things can be better.

Even more powerful; that we can make it better.

More powerful yet; that we should.

Despite the rise of media campaigns, catchy ads, and relentless focus groups, we have, in these speeches, a reminder of something that is a constant in not only our American history, but in our entire history. Before film, before radio, even before writing, there was words.

The sound of a human voice reaching out.

It can stir us as nothing else can. It pulls us along, capturing our minds and caressing our hearts.

It can do things nothing else can. No ad can punch through preconceptions, no article can divert misconceptions, no medium can stir new conceptions, as purely and precisely as a good speech.

Have we been ground into the dirt so deeply that this ability is now merely another item to be spun and muddied and stripped of all meaning?

That the mere human act of being moved by another's words is fodder for devaluation and diversion, something to be mocked and mutilated?

Inspiring speeches made our country. It created, shaped, and improved our country. Something, anything, that can reach people and unite them towards some worthy goal is a precious gift.

Whereever it appears, however it is delivered, and whoever is able to do it, this is something we, as Americans, as humanitarians, and as people, should treasure.

This is something we should protect.

What I'm saying is that it is perfectly all right to debate whether or not the person making the speech can deliver on their promises, implied or otherwise. We can even discuss whether those promises should be made. We can decide for ourselves if we want to answer the call to make it happen, or not.

But making fun of hope?

Disparaging a positive emotion, a deep need, a human motivator, and, sometimes, the only thing left?

We have candidates asking for our support to make our world a better place. They all have different visions and abilities, and we can choose among them for reasons of our own.

We can choose the world we want, a vote for what we want it to be.

But I, for one, do not want a world without hope.

An Epidemic of Assery

2007-10-27T17:29:00.000-04:00

Photo from this store, Gorey Details. I tried my best to tastefully illustrate this subject. By so doing, I was in no way implying that cats are a half-assed pet. To the contrary, cats so rarely make asses of themselves, and are so obviously mortified when they do, that they serve as excellent role models of Unassery. If there is anything inoffensive, in the world, on the subject of assery, it is cartoon cat butts.

There is a epidemic of assery loose in the country, and it is not hidden. Yet it is past time to step in and turn this raging inferno of assery back to the low, background simmer which is more containable. We usually cannot cure victims of Total Assery, but if we did not handle them in some humane manner, more good people will be lost to assery.

There are people who will always do things some half-assed way. Such people are unteachable. While not always slow to learn, they are certainly unable to learn this: Don't do things half-assed.

Now, Unassery consists very much of this First Law of Assery, Don't do things half-assed. That's because humans can sometimes have difficulty judging the importance of things. Being able to judge the importance of things when we can't stop doing things half-assed will at least mean we will never do anything important for the sake of humanity.

Because only Total Asses forget the Second Law of Assery: The degree of assery is inverse to the degree of consideration.

The danger of doing things half-assed is that, uncontained, it can progress to Total Assery. The Total Ass creates, in The Theory of Black Holes of Assery, a dangerous state of being wherein people raging with Assery Fever create a tremendous collapse of Utter Assery from which no living thing has ever returned.

We do not know the Threshold of Utter Assery. Urban legends abound of brave scientists pulled back from the brink who lived, but were afterwards a source of psychic pains in the asses of humans within range, and are obsessed with discrediting the theory of evolution on which all biology is based.

When it is the authorities who are being Utter Asses, the infection can reach critical mass in a terrible explosion of Utter Assery which has a half-life of decades, if not centuries.

Assery must be suppressed with a public health initiative. Once assery is destroyed by repeated injections of reality and constant compresses of ridicule, the afflicted should be treated for the rest of their lives in exchange for their quarantine from spheres of influence, from which the infection spreads.

These "Typhoid Marys of Assery" must be treated humanely, lest we all succumb to assery, but they are a terrible danger.

We must think of the children.

New, Obsessive Interest

2007-10-14T13:23:00.000-04:00

This blog is descending into an even darker level of neglect with the recent acquisition of a new kitten rescued from a shelter and the evolution of a blog in his honor:

the way of cats

What started out as a way to let farflung friends see his baby pictures turned into an activist blog to get cats homes, discuss their winning ways, and dispense my hard-won expertise in cat rescue.

If that interests you, please feel welcome to visit!

Because pooties make us feel better.

The Wal-Mart Fallacy

2007-07-18T17:00:00.000-04:00

In case the punchline of the cartoon at left is rather small, I will repeat it: "Pluggers know that quality equals quantity."

Well, Pluggers are wrong.

What do we really want? A cheap computer which crashes all the time, or a computer which works all the time? A bag of rags, or a pair of pants? A bunch of incompatible people to date, or finding the one who makes us happy?

I recently had a discussion with someone who did not believe me when I informed them that Wal-Mart sells different products from the name brands that can be gotten elsewhere. I explained that in order to meet Wal-Mart's price point, the companies have to downgrade their product's manufacture just for Wal-Mart.

The Lee jeans at Wal-Mart are not the Lee jeans at the Gap. That is why they are cheaper. Wal-Mart shoppers are not getting them cheaper.

You are, in fact, paying only what they are worth. This can be an advantage if you are buying products which you don't intend to use extensively, such as children's clothes which they will grow out of, a kitchen appliance for occasional use, or purely decorative items that don't get used.

But I think people are shopping at Wal-Mart because they want the same thing, only they think they are getting it cheaper. And that's The Wal-Mart Fallacy.

It reminds me of the old joke, "The food was terrible! And such small portions." The joke here is why anyone would want more bad food. Yet, in the age of Wal-Mart, that is what they are getting, but they don't know that.

They don't want to know that.

That is why my conversational companion fought me so hard. I pulled up articles by major manufacturers explaining why they sold to Wal-Mart, and what they did in order to accomplish that. And my conversational companion didn't want to believe.

Of course you don't want to believe that! That's your whole retail reason for existing. Somehow, people who shop at Wal-Mart want to believe they have beaten the system. That they have gotten something for less! Our every fiber of American DNA rebels against this thought. We are good consumers! We manage to get a bargain against every market indicator that lives and breathes against our doing that. We have beaten the system!

Only we have not.

We are paying what the merchandise is worth. No more, and certainly, no less. Yet, Wal-Mart is convincing people that they are getting a bargain. A coffee maker that lasts nine months, a pair of jeans that lasts little more. But we got it so cheaply!

Ah.

There's the rub. Is all you can eat of stringy beef and watery mashed potatoes the same as a real grilled ribeye and mashed red skin potatoes? Is it?

Is it?

If you think it is the same; no, if you think you are better off, paying less... for less.

Congratulations. You are an American consumer. In other words...

You are a sucker.

Which is against the whole American mythos. You can't be a sucker, paying less for jeans or coffee makers which... dagnabbit, don't last as long. But it was a bargain!

So be happy. That you've made China richer, and yourself... poorer.

Enjoy.

UPDATE:

Manufacturers are understandably reluctant to make this point public, so here are some articles I found:

The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
Bodega Goat Cheese
Cheap Cuts Both Ways

Justice, For All

2007-04-10T20:12:00.000-04:00

I think we should consider waterboarding Attorney General Gonzales.

Here we have an issue of national security, with reason to believe the person in question is not going to be forthcoming, who has already been caught in several lies.

Isn't this suggestion against the law? Not according to Gonzales. He finds the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and doesn’t think we need habeas corpus anyway. He has put out memos stating as much. This is the Attorney General of the United States.

He must know best.

It would be on CSPAN, naturally, but I think excerpts should appear on the nightly news. Probably with a disclaimer first. For the children. But it is always educational for citizens to see their democracy in action.

A proud moment, really. To show who we are and what we stand for.

And this isn’t anything that shouldn’t be shown on television, is it? There’s no nudity involved. He’ll be nicely dressed in a suit and tie.

Just a simple procedure, performed by professionals, doing what their government wants them to do.

When he appears in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the accoutrements should be waiting for him. I understand the materials are simple; some plastic wrap, a table, and a bucket of water. In keeping with the gravity of the Chamber, and the integrity of its carpet, there should be a tarp laid out; messiness seems unavoidable.

And an Attorney General who is not willing to be honest about the way he runs our prosecutorial system is certainly a danger to Our Way of Life. Isn’t he? Is it okay to let our justice system conceal its operations, obscure its procedures, and refuse to discuss what they are doing?

No. Of course not.

We should be willing to do whatever it takes. And it's not as though I'm advocating torture. Dick Cheney has said that he doesn't consider this torture. This is the Vice President of the United States.

He must know best.

It is a hallmark of justice that it be applied evenly. It is not justice if the rules apply to one person and not to another. The law is the law, and must be obeyed. And what greater committment to principle can a man make, than to submit to those same principles?

I don’t understand why anyone would think this is an outrageous suggestion. This is the man who legalized these procedures. This is the man who works for a man who authorized our military to perform these same kinds of procedures on people who have been deemed a danger to Our Way of Life. The President of the United States.

He must know best.

So I would think Gonzales would be proud to step forward and convey his admiration for the law, his reverence for justice, his committment to his own legal opinions.

And lie down on that table.

We should waterboard Attorney General Gonzales, in the Senate, on television.

You couldn’t ask for a better time, or a better place, or a better person.

The Separation of Matter & Anti-Matter

2007-04-07T19:54:00.000-04:00

Ye cain’t let them touch, Cap’n! Or she’ll blow!

As Scotty well knows, certain elements must be kept separate from each other, or there’s hell to pay. Fresh butter and old fish. Disco and metalheads. Church and State.

Theocracy uses government structure to enforce observance to a particular religion. Religion relies on faith which is built on belief. All of which, by their very natures, cannot be proven, only believed. And therein lies its explosive quality.

Belief must be arrived at through each human heart. It is about trust and acceptance. It is a mythic structure we spin about what we do not know or incompletely understand. Belief is a product of consciousness and our own ability to speculate about philosophical questions. It cannot be explained, only felt. So, ultimately, true belief is about a lack of enforcement.

Because, dammit, if you have enforcement, it’s not belief any more.

Inquisitional Catholics saved souls with torture. Or so they deluded themselves into thinking. It was lip service; torn, parched, contorted lip service. This is the ultimate expression of theocracy; torturing people into paying lip service to something they do not believe in. The beginnings of this nation were both the product of, and the reaction against, just that kind of Ultimate Theocracy.

So if we sink down through the stormy seas of “Christian Nation” and “lost values” and the “Culture War,” through the cold sink of implacable resolve, we come to the depths where nightmare creatures dwell, distorted by the pressure above. Where we find the true desires of those calling for Theocracy to return. The desire to have their own lack of belief reinforced by judicial fiat.

Doubt, that demon beloved by Satan, dances in the back of every theocratic mind. If only doubt had no place to play; if only every media outlet, organ of government, and (wo)man-in-the-street had to think the way they do, doubt would vanish. And they could stop the ceaseless, yammering, tormenting cries from their own mind that imperils their immortal soul.

That’s what it is about.

Those who have never swum in the scummy waters of rabid fundamentalism are unaware of how pervasive, how acidic, how terrifying, the anxiety can be. One wrong move — a paragraph of secular humanism, a glimpse of thigh, a half-heard snatch of Pink Floyd* — and all one’s hard work can become undone. And then, oh, then, my brothers and sisters, there might be the runaway semi, the sudden heart attack, or the helpless immersion in hardcore Internet porn. While still in the limbo of Doubt. And that is the unforgiveable sin that casts one into the Fiery Pit** (type of pit may vary, please check your policy) without any hope for all of eternity.

Ugly creatures, indeed.

It is the despairing, last ditch cry of every failed authoritarian, whether parental or otherwise. “My way or the highway!” If you won’t go along, By God, I’ll make you go along. Not caring if the heels are dug in up to the elbows. Not caring if the belief is brain-washing sincere, or resentful, reluctant compliance. Not caring. Only compliance.

I’m sure some devoutly religious people are reflexively regarding it as a good thing. Who wouldn’t want to live their life according to God’s wishes? The problem remains: Whose God?

This is what the Founders wrestled with. And since they were, whatever else they were, Free Thinkers, and proud of it, they came up with: Freedom. The freedom to choose, or not choose at all. The free and unfettered practice of whatever beliefs their fellow countrymen might come up with. From dogmatic boxes to naked Pagans. And everything in between.

And I, for one, like that. A bunch.

There’s religion. There’s spirituality. There’s philosophy. And they should all be as free to caper in the groves of the mind as we can possibly make possible. Belief is neither as irrational as some of its practitioners, or as rational as its secular critics. It is a unrational characteristic of the human mind, which has a habit of creating three new questions for each one it answers. And messing with the unfettered ability to let each person find the boundaries of what they need to believe, what to believe, and come to believe, is where any civilization mucks up what should be their goal of: the most good for the most souls.

Because Belief can’t be legislated. To quote the Awakened, Enlighted, Grinch: It came without tags! It came without packages, boxes, or bags! Belief must come for each person, individually, sincerely, and wholeheartedly uncoerced.

That is the only way it has any meaning. At all.

In closing, I would like to remind everyone of what will happen when Belief becomes Legislated.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?" He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Thank you, Bill Hicks. I’m sure you had a soul, and I’m sure it’s resting, or not, somewhere.

And far be it from me to dictate anything else.

This is my post as part of Blog Against Theocracy.

Find out more with First Freedom First .

*For some reason that really should be studied by dedicated sociologists, (grant application available on request,) Christian Fundies hate Pink Floyd. I’m talking foaming at the mouth, over the top, ranting and raving, hatred. I think it’s because they like it. And they’ve been told they should, under any circumstances, Not.

**Fiery Pit most lovingly realized in the works of Jack Chick. See Chick Tract Reviews — My Guide to All Things Chick.

The Equations Have Changed

2007-04-04T20:06:00.000-04:00

Living as we do, in the back of beyond, what most people consider “shopping” is more than an hour away. So if I can’t get it locally, I find what we want online, and let it arrive via a Big Brown Truck which is coming to town anyway. There’s the key to a vast energy saving solution.

Bring back delivery.

When you look at how many things used to be delivered, you realize just how much companies have outsourced what used to be a part of their service. Instead of one truck from each store going around, dropping off the milk, the produce, all the myriad things we need every day, the stores have persuaded us, all of us, thousands of us, to get in our cars and go out and get it.

They did it by cutting their price by a little, and persuading us the bargain was worth it. But is it? We’re not paying delivery fees, but then again, we are. In more gas, more rubber worn from our tires, more time taken from our busy days to go to the store, drive around to a parking spot, drag our stuff back to our cars and drive them home again. We’ve become such reflexive bargain hunters we’ve lost sight of our own bottom line.

A while back I helped keep Wal-Mart out of our little town. As I researched Wal-Mart, I discovered how deeply they have committed to this delivery outsourcing concept. They open a store with lowered prices to drive all the competition under. Ah, the rejoicing. Such low prices! Once all other stores are ground under, they raise the prices, because where are you going to go? Less rejoicing, but at least we have all this selection! When that has gone on for a while, the third stage is to close the store, forcing everyone to drive further away to reach another Wal-Mart. Too late, Wal-Mart reappraisal begins. But where are you going to go?

In a ruthless, capitalistic, sold-my-soul-to-the-company-store sort of way, it’s brilliant.

It’s not just Wal-Mart. It’s the very Big Box concept. Any purchase, from home entertainment to lumber, big things to little things, becomes An Expedition. You are driving more miles to a huge place and waiting in long lines just to buy a screw. And boy, are you.

To quote a favorite movie, Galaxy Quest, “By Grabthar’s hammer, what a savings.”

Segments of our society, mired in the Wal-Mart concept of “low prices,” has lost a vital part of the math involved in not just acquisition, but also satisfaction. A few years ago, I needed something to lug around all my Daily Stuff, from a laptop to a cell phone. I could have looked for a bargain by driving around to a dozen stores, trying to find something I’d like and settling for something that wasn’t quite right, then getting exasperated a few months later and repeating the search, hoping they were now stocking something that would work better for me. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Instead, I went to Build a Bag on the Timbuk2 website. I customized a bag, from colors to handles to accessories. It’s made in San Francisco, by people who make a living doing artisan labor, and they made me a bag just the way I wanted it. Now I have a sturdy, well made object that will serve me for years to come, and is so obviously useful two friends have gotten their own custom bag. A bargain? Yes, indeed.

The equations have changed. Carbon footprint is going to be the new cost multiplier in the way we shop. The whole economic structure will be shaken up as countless spreadsheets burn through the shortest distance between two points. And that is simply: the right goods-the right people. There won’t be money or energy left over to make things people will wind up not wanting. The middleman must fall.

Our circumstances, so unusual in the modern world, have paradoxically made us much more aware of the cost/benefit tradeoff. Between taking us to where the goods are, and bringing certain goods to where we are. Those big buildings, full of a buyers best guess of what people might want, all heated and cooled and lighted and staffed and populated with people who all drive cars to get there; obsolete.

When it comes to Internet shopping, this is only the guns of April, 1775. The real revolution is yet to come. The end of actual stores, and the beginning of virtual ones. The fall of the Big Box, and the rise of Vast Choice.

In the back of beyond, far from where you might find the cutting edge, I have already made the leap. Into the future of shopping.

Reality Handling: Under Siege

2007-04-01T09:44:00.000-04:00

Remember your T S Eliot:

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

Our brains filter reality through narrative and story. That's the point of myths; they are stories that help us understand. The difference is that myths are to inspire and cohere, they are a standard we are to strive towards and use as cautionary examples.

They are not meant to substitute reality; they are meant to illuminate it.

Our brain evolved for thousands of years with some immutable touchstones regarding our senses. If you saw it, if you heard it, it was there.

And that is no longer true.

Once, there were portals separating the myths from your life; you'd go to the big stone amphitheatre, the big tent in the muddy field, the big vaudeville or movie house. You'd leave here and go there. Then you'd come back from the there into the here, hopefully with lessons learned.

The portals have broken down. The television in your living room brought movies and television shows and news and video games into our lives without seams, without doorways, without a pause to recognize what we are leaving and where we are going. There aren't any simple obvious markers to what your brain believes. Now, it needs help.

And it's not getting it.

Television is delibrately blurring the line. It used to be the the "shows" had some markers; you watched a comedy, you watched the news, and there was some definition between them. Not anymore. The television is a constant flood of "mockumentaries" and "reality shows" and "photo ops." The shows are like the soaps and that's the news.

I think our current media is deliberately cultivating this gap, this "reality gap" in their audience. It's not just that they are heartless shills that go where the money is. They want a confused audience that believes what they are told. The more they cultivate the suckers, the more impact their commercials will have.

People already think a pill can make them lose weight, that an infomercial gadget will get them to cook, and that terrorists attacks are more to be feared than their lack of health insurance.

They would rather believe that, than actually change their eating habits, change their cooking habits, or realize the depth of the chasm that might loom before them.

And it works because so many people have become helpless to distinguish between cunning artifice and actual reality.

We laugh, now, looking back at Orson Welles's production of War of the Worlds on the radio. All those people streaming out of their homes, fearing the alien invasion.

But we shouldn't laugh. It was a warning.

Having it both ways.

2007-03-07T17:56:00.000-05:00

The above is a screen shot of a section from the Woman's Day Magazine Website which is pretty darned representative of the women's genre of magazines, so I'm not picking on any of them in particular. They all do it.

They all imply one can have it both ways.

The covers either have a slim woman or a luscious dessert. Inside, they always have both. And we all want both, despite the fact that it's highly unlikely for that to happen. Only in fantasy land can we have a slim body and unlimited (18 varieties!) of gooey goodness.

I've got nothing against health or chocolate. I've got nothing against fantasy land. But what they are promising just doesn't happen. We know that. We don't want to believe it.

I've always gotten an inner chuckle when I hear the phrase, "I don't believe in..." Ghosts. Entropy. The cholesterol theory of heart disease. Some of these may exists, some may not. But one's belief does not change any of their existence, or non-existence, one iota. That truth dwells in reality, which may, or may not, have anything to do with one's belief.

I've been hearing about The Secret, a film that reveals the amazing claim that "wishing will make it so." This film is pretty persuasive, judging from the comments I've been hearing. But I think it falls less into the area of powerful ideas or good production values than in the simple wish for all of us, that it be so.

And if we all wish it were so, then it must be so, right?

Belief is powerful stuff, no question. It's the important first step to making one's dreams a reality. But it's only a first step. It's not the whole thing. Or... everyone would have a pony. And that's not happening, is it?

What does wanting it both ways lead us to?

The healthy doughnut.

Focus on: The Reality Challenged

2007-03-02T14:17:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading Bob Altemeyer's extraordinary online book, The Authoritarians. He's a soon-to-be-retired Professor of Psychology from the University of Manitoba, and in this work he sums up the most pertinent findings of his career-long interest in Authoritarianism.

What is Authoritarianism? My own take on the subject is that it measures one's vulnerability to accepting authority over reality. Thus, those who score highly on the Authoritarianism scale, (People With Authoritarian Tendencies, or PWAT,) despite any other traits they may have, are those who most successfully ignore reality. They are most likely to be prejudiced and blindly obedient, and least likely to think for themselves and adjust their conceptions to new information.

They have chosen understanding via what they are told instead of through their own thoughts and experiences.

One of the most interesting sections is chapter 3: "How Authoritarian Followers Think." This thinking processes is characterized by:

Illogic-deficiences in logical reasoning; if PWAT's like the conclusion, they ignore any logical fallacies in the steps that got there.

Highly Compartmentalized Minds-a conclusion reached in one area does not affect another area; PWAT's ideas do not form an overall structure, but rather a series of "files."

Double Standards-a natural consequence of rigid compartmentalization; PWAT's don't see the hypocrisy in their views because the conclusions occupy different "realms."

Hypocrisy-the inevitable conclusion of such compartments; a PWAT can demand a rigid moral code yet support leaders who do not follow it.

Blindness to Themselves-PWAT's have little self-understanding and cannot see the contradictions in their thinking.

Profound Ethnocentrism-PWAT's motto is "With Us or Against Us," with no middle ground.

Dogmatism-accepting what you are told without question or flexibility; ably summed up by the author as "You don't know why the things you believe are true." Thus, it is difficult for PWAT's to defend their beliefs without parroting defenses they have been told, and have no ability to counter an unexpected challenge. Their beliefs have to be defended with the same blind obedience by which they were absorbed, since they were never subjected to thinking in the first place.

Of course, we all have these tendencies in ourselves. We can be blind to our own contradictions, unable to explain why we think a certain way, and have certain files that rarely rub against other files. PWAT's, though, have them everywhere. This is their response to everything. This explains a lot about the rigid, dogmatic individuals we all know, and probably, avoid: their imperviousness to logic, their unthinking prejudices, their complacency about contradictions, and their angry reaction to any reality that challenges these tendencies.

To further contemplate just how dangerous this kind of citizen can be to the still unspooling story of the Enlightment (yes, we are still in it, and yes, it's still in danger of getting derailed) one can read John Dean's book, below, which drew heavily on Dr. Altemeyer's research.

It is nice to be certain about things. That's why we all strive for it. But certainty should be as rigorously challenged as any other aspect of reality. If not, it isn't really certainty, is it?

The Evolutionary Principles of Reality Assessment

2007-02-23T18:12:00.000-05:00

How did we get here?

By that I mean: having a discussion about the nature of reality. Isn't reality just, you know, stone obvious?

And yet, it is stone obvious reality is not stone obvious.

Misconceptions are not unique to humans, of course. There are many dogs who believe themselves boss of the house, (and many dogs who are.) I once inadvertently scared my cat with a pair of those claw-footed animal slippers. And for all we know, amoebas regard themselves as powerful beings with free will and a conscience.

I do believe we are the only creatures who have taken belief in unreality as far as we have. It is difficult not to encounter someone whose grasp of reality is woefully inadequate. And I don't believe there's a person anywhere whose record in this area is perfect. We are all prone to believe what we want to believe.

But how far, and for how long? These are the crucial elements that separate rational beings from the wearers of tinfoil hats. So why did we develop this ability to be so wrong?

Because the downside of reality warping is so great, the upside is equally great. We have the ability to imagine, a greater ability than any other creature on earth. The advantages of combining our opposable thumb with our imagination is the way we have been able to shape our environment, for good or ill, far more than any other species. Which makes us so successful that we have become not only a danger to all other species, but also a danger to ourselves.

To create, one must first imagine. And so we do. And because our imagination is so powerful, so delightful, so seductive, we can so easily fall into the trap of rearranging the truth for ourselves. And sometimes, such is our powers of persuasion, for others as well.

Why hasn't the genetic tendency to be able to fool oneself into awful situations been taken out of the population by now? Because it's not one gene, or one cluster of genes... it's about the very way our brains work. Remember, I said we are the best at imagination. We are not the only ones.

Studies of the great apes indicate tool using and language skills that are counterparts to our own, including the ability to visualize something that is not there and to predict the consequence that would follow from an action. It's not just close relatives; studies have shown that dogs, pigs, cats and others also have these abilities.

So, just like our opposable thumb, we can use this great ability for good or ill. We need to remember it's a valuable ability that we all should treasure, and use properly.

Thumbs up, or thumbs down.

Disbelief Can Kill.

2007-02-06T17:51:00.000-05:00

When I say disbelief can kill, I'm not speaking metaphorically. I'm thinking of Aiko Koo.

She was a fifteen year old hitchiker who made the terminal mistake of accepting a ride from Edmund Kemper, the "Coed Butcher," on September 14, 1972. He drove to a deserted spot and showed her a gun. It should have been clear what was going on, and what the stakes were. But disbelief must have offered its siren song.

Kemper got out of the car and locked himself out of it. "She could have reached over and grabbed the gun," he said later, in an interview, "but I think she never gave it a thought." She wanted so much to think this wasn't really happening. She must have wanted to think of it as a delusion, a mistake, a joke.

She unlocked the door and let him back in.

Let me repeat that.

She unlocked the door and let him back in.

Her remains were not found until the following May.

Edmund Kemper had a high IQ, and despite his large size, an ingratiating manner. The day after he killed Aiko Koo, Kemper was questioned by two psychiatrists, since he was still on parole for killing his grandparents. He'd enrolled at a community college where he'd made good grades. He'd become drinking buddies with local police officers. No one knew about his extra-curricular activities. So the two psychiatrists declared him no longer a danger to society and he was a free man.

It's somewhat understandable that a bright person who had become adept at hiding his true nature fooled psychiatrists and cops. He was on his best behavior with them. He wasn't in front of Aiko Koo. She had every reason to believe he meant her harm, but she didn't want to believe it.

We are all confronted with unpleasant facts. We know, intellectually, that not facing unpleasant facts allows them to become more unpleasant. Yet, all too often, we don't face them anyway.

Usually it is not as clear as the situation in a out-of-the-way spot in a California September. There is wiggle room, there are extenuating circumstances, there are abundant rationalizations for us not to face unpleasant facts. Facts are rarely as unpleasant as they were for Aiko Koo, not as stark.

Yet... and yet...

She unlocked the door and let him back in.

That is the power of disbelief.

And it could kill you. Metaphorically, or otherwise.

Without the War

2007-01-04T22:20:00.000-05:00

I mourn the loss of those dead in the Iraq war.

I also mourn those who lost their previous life, dead in the Iraq war.

The latest statistics I have read equate one dead to every six wounded. And usually, greviously wounded, unable to take up the life they knew before. Whether destroyed in either body or spirit, there is a great deal of loss for us to mourn.

And that's not even counting the civilians of Iraq, who never had a say in anything that went on, and no longer even have a home to think of going back to.

I say this to allow us to understand what I mean when I say: Where would we be without the war?

Where would we be?

If Bu$hCo, that great juggernaught of profit over life, had passed up this opportunity, and instead just concentrated on the water-on-rock drip of lowered services, predatory financial practices, and slow descent into indentured servitude: would people have woken up in time? Would they have rolled along, cursing the insidious grip without realizing its deeper meaning... without the war?

Without the war, would we have the Democratic majority that just took office today?

Terrible loss brings with it a reorientation of priorities. Concepts emerge from the mist of misunderstanding in sudden, stark clarity. What is going on? the populace wondered. Someone is dead, someone has come home so grievously different than what they were before, and what is the purpose?

What was the sacrifice for?

Bush has come out with that freighted word, sacrifice.

And it makes us wonder.

With wonder, with re-evaluation, comes enlightenment.

I wonder, myself, what the country would be without the war. Without that terrible rallying point, without that undeniable reality, would business as usual gone on as before? And for how long?

Past the point of no return?

It may be small comfort. It may be no comfort at all. But I do think our soldiers sacrificed for the ideals on which our country was founded. They did give up their lives for us to be able to consider all that we have at stake. And I think they did save our country. Their lives, all of their lives, past, present, and future, were for us.

I think, without the war, people would not be awake.

It was the point. Our freedom, our rights, our lives.

It was not in vain.

What You Already Own

2006-12-31T09:56:00.000-05:00

Organized religions offer a morality structure, a contact system for the Divine, and the architecture of an afterlife.

In return for one's soul.

Because all of them acknowledge that there is a soul, and that we have it no matter what religion you follow. It's the custody of that soul, now and forever after, that religions jockey for. By signing up with one or another, we transfer custody. From us, to them.

So they admit we own our own souls.

What we do, worshipping in some organized way, is sign up for the program as laid out in the brochures. By following their bylaws, using their communications equipment, we will arrive at our eventual destination, sort of a time-share where we get it all at once, at the end. Because they all say souls go somewhere. By signing up with one or the other, we are paying into their version. Which is always much more appealing than the other kind.

The part I've always disliked about time-shares, condominiums, and other shared ownership schemes, is that we really don't own it. We don't have the freedom to paint it anyway we like, or have parties after a certain time. We park where we are told and plant the flowers that are acceptable to all. So you are paying to own something that you don't really own.

They are selling the illusion of ownership. You are really renting with equity.

Religion takes it a step further. Follow their moral laws, use their communications equipment, and get their afterlife. What is kind of insidious about it is this: we already have, by virtue of being a human being, moral laws, a line of communication, and some kind of afterlife.

Anyone who thinks about morality can formulate their own moral laws, which can be more flexible, more understanding of changing circumstances, and more moral than a lot of the rules of organized religion. Why not eat ham, have a drink now and then, and live with a significant other instead of getting married? What is truly wrong with that?

And the communications hookup is all around us, if we simply pursue our own relationship with the Divine, whether nature, or kindness, or beauty, or all three? There's no reason why not. Spirituality is part of our nature, and it is our nature to contemplate it and find how to communicate with it.

And the afterlife... who can say? If it is truly a matter of belief, why not create one's own? Since there is not a lot of people coming back to say what's it's like, anyone's conception is as good as any other.

The only assurance organized religion offers is a safety in numbers. So many others think this way. Some find that soothing, even though huge groups of people can be wrong, even more easily than one person can. Huge groups of people can foster even greater delusions than a single person can, because the support of the group prevents dissension. We know that.

Some people are glad to pay rent with equity, even though they might live with a lot of rules and restrictions that make no sense, because they are paying for a lack of responsibility. What color, where to park, what flowers? It's out of their hands. And everyone else is doing the same thing. And we don't have to mow the lawn.

But it is an illusion of ownership. Be aware of what we are trading away.

Because religion gets you to buy something you already own.

And that's the greatest sell of all.

About Apple Pie

2006-11-23T09:23:00.000-05:00

As American as apple pie.

For decades, apple was the top-selling pie. But then bakeries scaled down the size. They offered an 8" pie.

And apple was no longer the most popular pie.

It turns out apple is America's most popular compromise pie. When you had to buy a big pie, everyone could agree on apple. But when it was possible to buy two smaller pies, other flavors edged out apple.

And thus it always is. People want choices. The complacent conclusion, "Apple is America's favorite pie," is now open to consideration of other factors. Did apple reach the peak because apples keep much better than other fruits? Thus allowing them to be accessible pie material more months of the year? Or was it just the compromise factor?

Before Bill O'Reilly gets wind of this and starts with the "War on Apple Pie," I must say apple is a fine pie. It is simply not my favorite. All it means is, after years of compromising, people want to enjoy other pies.

When they have the means, people make choices.

What I'm getting at is a celebration of diversity. Freedom is the ability to make choices. Yet, sadly, there are always elements in society who fear and reject choices. It arises out of a reluctance to actually take the responsibility for one's choices. What if no one likes your choice? And, so what?

There's no comfort in the fact that we are pretending.

The recent mid-term elections were a clear indication of how people act when given the choice. For years we have been told that "All Americans agree" on recent policies, and those who do not are a small minority who shouldn't be listened to. And so some Democratic strategists fell for that, and encouraged candidates to be more like the majority party. Which is stupid.

It's like giving people a choice between apple, apple crumb, and apple raisin. In this election, it was candidates who were clearly different that had the competitive advantage. Because people wanted a change in policy. If it isn't offered to them, they cannot choose it.

Because when you offer apple, apple crumb, apple raisin, and strawberry rhubarb, all the people who are tired of apple go for the strawberry rhubarb.

So on this Thanksgiving, let's be thankful we have choices. As you choose turkey breast or the drumstick, mashed potato or yams, or all of the above, remember:

It's not a feast if there's no choices.

Tipping: An Index to Character

2006-11-02T17:47:00.000-05:00

There are many shortcuts to ascertaning someone's character. My grandmother was a big fan of the "pinkie ring" school of man signals. (Hint: Men who wear jewelry are insecure and a little bit lavender, per Grandma.) Men tend to like the hard-to-get woman, according to folklore, because no man wants a woman who's "easy." But there's one I go by that applies to everyone.

How they treat people they don't have to be nice to.

"Nice" is a put upon word, often evoked by the bystander neighbors who have belately found out the "nice" young man next door has been stashing dismembered prostitutes in momma's basement. But "nice" is also a valuable word, no matter how many times a psychopath uses it to fool others. "Nice" is what we all should strive to be. Because without a generous helping of "nice," the world as we know it would cease to exist.

That's why I am such of fan of clear moral directives disseminated by every possible authoritarian source. When hate speech, such as so frequently spouted by Ann Coulter and her ilk, are allowed to become a winked-at source for behavior, we all lose. Because there is no end in sight. It's easy to hate our enemies, but that leads to atrocities. We have to be "nice."

We have to be good to those we have no reason to be good to.

Because that's the essence of humanity, isn't it? What makes a person human is debated roundly by many philosophers, but in daily life it comes down to knowing it when you see it. Letting the person with one item ahead of you who have more items. Acknowledging competing points of view and looking for common ground. Recognizing humanity even when it doesn't take a form exactly like you.

Empathy, in short. Maybe you've led a life of exceptional privilege and ease, or have come to that point from a different state. You don't have to be someone who is struggling with identity issues, or poverty, or just a pile of recent bad luck. No one is so privileged that they were not once behind the eight ball, no matter in how small a way that turned out to be. Empathy is the ability to imagine across gender, social, monetary, or circumstantial divides. To realize, "there but for the grace of God, go I." And then, in a great act of humanity, treat that person the way we would want to be treated.

It's the mark of being a good person.

It's the insecure person who takes advantage of a situation and takes more than they are entitled to, because they don't want to ever think that they would be in a positition where they must depend on the kindness of strangers. They don't trust the kindness of strangers because they know they would extend no kindness to anyone they don't have to.

Their world is raw power, and they enforce it.

And that is simply wrong. They are not acknowledging the kindnesses that got them where they are. They'd like to think there were none. That gives them a world where everything is under their control. And there is no such world.

So mark them out. Where ever you may be. Call them on it. Let them feel the withering heat of humanity's expression.

Because the dignity you save, may, one day, be your own.

Here's a tip for you.

2006-10-30T17:34:00.000-05:00

Be a good tipper.

As many people who wait tables in the world, you'd think the Word would be carved in stone by now. But here it is.

If you are waited on, you tip decently. Period. The End.

Maybe I'm a wee bit prejudiced, having been on the other side of the aisle myself. But I do think this: under-tipping your server is a vile act.

One of my movie-going joys is recalling the scene at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs wherein Steve Buscemi's character is called on his lousy tipping. (Don't remember it? See the movie. My nightmares {of Michael Madsen} have almost gone away.)

Sure, in Europe they just add in on the bill. And maybe servers should get paid decent wages instead of relying on tips. And maybe they declare their tips, or not. It's all excuses, aka bullshit.

You like the European plan? Eat out there. Servers don't get paid decent wages. And what they do with them is none of your business. Capiche?

It's the cost of eating out. If you can't handle the cost, you shouldn't be scamming the restaurant. You should go to a fast food place and eat in your car so no one can see what bad manners you have. That's the social contract. Don't like it? Then march in the streets, put out petitions, become a labor lobbyist. But don't take your whining bullshit excuses to the table where someone waits on you and then stiff them on the tip. It's baaaaad karma.

Because what is comes down to is this: the server is waiting on you. And depending on your largesse. There aren't any laws about it. So what it comes down to is the kind of person you are. Are you the kind of person who takes advantage? Who will take the work of serving you as a given and not pay for it?

Hmmmm. Let's see how you act when the chips are down. That's the measure of a person's character. How do you stack up?

Because some people do take advantage of the fact that servers are polite to everyone and are struggling to make everyone happy. There are some bad service people out there. But stiffing them on the tip is not the way to go. You call over the manager and politely explain the problem and leave it up to them. That's the way to handle it. Because, believe me, everyone knows when someone isn't cut out for the work, because they pile the work on everyone else and they are, one way or another, soon gone.

Many Visible Christians(TM) are terrible tippers, and have added a new, atrocious, wrinkle to this already un-Christ-like behavior: the practice of leaving tracts that look like money at the table instead of a tip.

Gee. How would you feel if you took a job and at the end of the week you got a tract instead of your paycheck? And what if you worked for someone who wasn't of your faith, and left you a tract for their faith in leiu of money? Uh huh. I know in my heart that Jesus not only tipped at least 18% after the Last Supper, he also said please and thank you.

Because that's the kind of guy he was.

So whatever your reason for thinking that you, precious YOU, is exempt from the social contract while dining out, let me be the first to inform you that you are not THAT special. The way it works is: the server waits on you and you tip for that service. The restaurant gets its money for the room, the decor, the cooks & their helpers, the meat & two veg, and all the other stuff you enjoy while dining out. That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't dine out.

Because it's really about the kind of person you are. When there aren't any laws about it. Get it?

The Stained Apron: Listen to the other side of the table.

Breaking the Unbelief

2006-10-04T17:51:00.000-04:00

I was laid up with a nasty case of flu today, and my usual pattern is to re-read good books and re-watch good movies. Given the short attention span that runs concurrent with feeling crappy, it's the most soothing thing I can do for my brain.

So I re-watched Fargo with as much delight as I have the uptyump other times I've watched it. And this time the scene where the wife gets kidnapped had a special resonance.

She's sitting on the couch, knitting and watching one of those cheerful morning shows. Through the patio doors, she can see a man in a ski mask, carrying a crowbar, climb onto her deck.

And she just watches him.

Because she is already a victim, a victim of Unbelief. She's a well-off housewife in an upscale Minneapolis suburb, and the figure of a masked man with a crowbar on her own deck does not compute. Her brain simply refuses to process it.

It isn't until he breaks the glass that she reacts.

And that's what I hope is happening now.

I, too, reacted with unbelief to the beginning salvos of the Republican Party vs. Everything Good & Decent. I remember how slowly it washed over me that these people didn't care. About security, about safety, about fiscal responsibility and the Armed Forces and the Constitution, about the elderly, about children, about morality.

Because it was hard to believe. It goes against everything we want to believe. But it was undeniably true.

I got over it relatively quickly. But a lot of the country was still mired in it. They couldn't believe it. While some were able to jump around and scream There's a masked man on the deck with a crowbar!, waaaaay too many were still making excuses for the Republicans.

But now the patio door has been broken.

That's the real impact of the Foley Scandal. The Republicans aren't acting any differently than they ever did; reflexively blaming Democrats while simultaneously claiming it just isn't that bad, everybody is getting all shrill about nothing.

But after Katrina, the whole Middle Eastern Mess, and seeing our President massaging the shoulders of the German chancellor like a tipsy salesman copping a feel at the Christmas party, I think those same people were starting to build up some water pressure behind that brain dam that keeps back Thoughts We Don't Want to Believe.

And once it goes, it goes. All the doubts flood in, from every corner they've been hiding. The cheated on spouse can keep denial up for quite a long time, but once the Unbelievable is Believed, all the pent up power is unleashed. That's what leads to running over one's husband several times with a Mercedes.

I think, I hope, I wish the Foley scandal is that dam buster, that denial cracker, that shocking revelation that just hits too hard for the dam to withstand.

Because most people don't know about Foreign Policy, airline safety, and Constitutional rights. They don't know how to make up their own minds, and are vulnerable to letting others make up their minds for them. Say the right things, and most people won't notice that they aren't doing the right things.

But there isn't a parent in America who doesn't know about Sexual Predators on the Internet. The Republicans have been hammering on it and whipping up legislation against it and the media has been running specials on it for years.

On this subject, people feel capable of making up their own minds.

And they will.

I'll take "Hypocrisy" for 8 Million, Alex

2006-10-01T15:33:00.000-04:00

Mark Foley (R, Florida), a former chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, used the Internet to solicit sex from teenaged male Congressional pages.

In an irony no novelist would dare try, he recently sponsored the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006, with increased penalties for adults who use the Internet to discuss or solicit sexual acts with "minors" (defined as an "individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.")

Freud is vindicated! I firmly believe there are few instances in the history of humankind that screams "Projection Defense Mechanism" as much as this one does.

Projection. Attributing to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions.

And wait! There's more! The Instant Messaging in question was released to the public! Thus dynamiting, with extreme prejudice, any possible hope of spinning this as friendly interest or "my mentoring attempts were misconstrued."

It's clear that Foley understands he was wrong, and, now caught, he is remorseful. (Probably about being caught.)

But the Republican Congressional Leadership is where the deliberate cluelessness lies. At a minimum, they knew about the three emails that were brought to their attention last year. And did, basically, nothing.

And all the spin in the world can't conceal the facts.

Either they are so negligent that they didn't care Foley was preying on pages, and thus should not be trusted with the running of the goverment,

OR

they are so stupid that they didn't know Foley was preying on pages, and thus should not be trusted with the running of the goverment.

I can't think of a third alternative.

The Chowing of America

2006-08-31T18:35:00.000-04:00

There's a downside to economies of scale. It's when you produce things people don't want. Small scale, you have a bunch of things people don't want. Big scale, you have a TON of things people don't want.

Theoretically, companies figure out what people want before they produce a ton of them. The drawback to this is that it is difficult and requires intelligent, capable people. The current corporate environment is such that they don't do difficult things well because they have trouble keeping intelligent, capable people.

What's a corporation to do? Why not just tell people what they want, which is what they happen to have a ton of!

And thus, the "Chowing" begins.

Look at what happened to Ben & Jerry's. The "cool" ice cream guys. Ben & Jerry's on Wikipedia: After a failed attempt by Ben Cohen to return the company to private ownership, Ben and Jerry's was purchased in August 2000 by the Unilever conglomerate...

What was told to me off the record was that Unilever muscled the company. They would buy the shelf space for their own brand, and crowd Ben & Jerry's off the shelves and into bankruptcy. To keep the company going, they sold it. And now what happens?

However, in 2002, the Center for Science in the Public Interest accused Ben and Jerry's of abusing the "All Natural" label for using artificial flavors, hydrogenated oils, and other factory-made substances in their products. Ben and Jerry's official response was that they used a different definition of "all natural" than the CSPI. In August 2006, Ben & Jerry's came under criticism from the Humane Society of the United States for using eggs in its ice cream that come from hens confined in battery cages.

I'm here to tell you, it just isn't the same. As much as we love Cherry Garcia, some weird stuff's been creeping in. Look at the most recent ingredient list, and I bolded what used to NOT be in there: Cream, Skim Milk, Liquid Sugar, Water, Cherries, Egg Yolks, Sugar, Corn Syrup, Coconut Oil, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Cocoa (Processed With Alkali), Cocoa, Natural Flavors, Concentrated Lemon Juice, Caramel And Red Cabbage Juice Extract (For Color), Guar Gum, Milkfat, Soya Lecithin, Carrageenan

It's a crying shame! "Natural flavors" are not. They are made in labs. Just FYI.

And that incredible, vast range of flavors? Shrinking since 2000. I was told that the shops get half the flavors they once had.

Thanks, Corporate America. Just another cool thing you've destroyed to make another penny per unit. Because that's the sick part, isn't it? That we would pay a nickel a unit to have the old Cherry Garcia back. I'd pay another five or ten bucks so my jeans would be sewn by a union worker in this country. Corporations are making it harder and harder to hunt down quality stuff. The kind of stuff I want, and am willing to forgo stuff I don't want, for.

But that is not the way it works for Corporate America. The plan is: drop the price per unit by decreasing quality. Then the Consumer has to buy more for the same level of satisfaction. The jeans wear out sooner. The coffeemaker breaks sooner. The ice cream does not satisfy.

Modern corporations would vastly prefer consumers without choice. This is why Neopolitan ice cream was invented in the first place. Produce was the first to fall into line. They won't offer a tasty tomato, when the tasteless ones ship better. Why do you think they used to load up baked goods with trans fats? So they can sit on the shelves longer.

Their goal is to remove all that different food from the supermarkets, and replace it with People Chow. Want music? We have Music Chow. Want to read? We have Book Chow.

We have more and more, and enjoy it less and less.

Aren't you excited? It's Chow Time.