Saturday, October 27, 2012

Is anybody out there?

Hey you guys out there in the etherworld. I see that over 40 of you read the blog from time to time. Who are you? I'd love to know more about the audience. If you'd care to do so, drop me an e-mail at bubblehead1026@gmail.com and let me know who you are.

                                              Mike

Friday, October 26, 2012

The Name Game

  • I've discovered a new occupation. I wanna be the guy who makes up names for new developers to call their "zero lot line, small lot, bulldoze everything over 4 feet tall, sand pit" housing developments, which they call communities, desperately seeking respect. I've noticed that while there are actually some residential developments whose names are accurate descriptors, there are many more which are simply the same alliterative gobbledy gook which characterizes Asian auto manufacturer's offerings. I guess the exact moment stealthily crept by when instead of a name actually making sense, it now has to be a tasty soundbite. I blame several industries' ad agencies for this turn of events: drug companies, developers and the auto industry.

    Harken back to a time when the extent of drug advertising in media was pretty much Alka- Seltzer (whose name actually described its function as acid reducing bubbly stuff) and Vicks (which was, I suppose someone's name) Vaporub (which you rubbed in, and God knows it produced vapor!). In the naiveté of youth I actually believed there were two brothers named Smith, who made great cough drops in cherry and "original licorice" flavor, which, by the way, ( be honest about it), we ate like candy, not because of coughs, usually. I suppose the fact that the package showed their first names as "Trade" and "Mark" would have been a tipoff to a more perceptive kid! Now we have Omeprazole, which no one actually knows by that name, because Prilosec is catchier. In the same vein, is Humera funny? There are several versions of statins, but we know them by the catchy trade names, Lipitor, Zocor, Mevacor, Altocor and others, all of which sound like alien planets from an episode of Dr. Who. My fave in the statin naming frenzy, though has to be Crestor, which sounds to me like it'll clean your arteries and your teeth in one simple pill. It's difficult to believe that patients actually used to see a physician , let him diagnose their symptoms and take the resultant prescription to a pharmacy for filling. Now many walk in, having self diagnosed from a TV ad, and ask for a drug by brand name. Scary! As a postscript to this, do you ever wonder if they really listen to the rapidly delivered list of possible negative side effects? Has anyone actually said, "Yes, Janet, I want to lose weight and damn the anal leakage, full speed ahead" or, "Yes, George, I'd like to pee less frequently, and blindness is just a risk I gotta take"!

    Auto makers have sought ever catchier names from the early post war years, but the entry of Asians, who judged salability by the sound regardless of the meaning, injected an insidious "naming bug" into the system and it threatens the entire industry. Once upon a time, a man named Ford built a car and called it "Model T," which name stuck for more than a decade, then he radicalized it to "Model A."  Early on, English language names of cars (usually high end models in the line) were meant to invoke images of social status, swiftness or beauty. All these are/were actual aspects or goals of vehicle ownership. It should be noted that this descriptive approach passed right by the pick-up truck market where a number was usually sufficient to describe a work vehicle. Chevrolet's top end was the Impala, named for a fleet, graceful animal and Studebaker had the Golden Hawk . Ford had the Crown Victoria and Lincoln the Continental, nondescriptive, but evocative of royalty, and the Thunderbird (evocative of "not as good as a Corvette!" lol). Many models were named for places you might wish to visit in your vehicle (Bel Air, Monterrey, Riviera) or characteristics of speed and comfort (Zephyr, Dart, Clipper, Corvette). There was the occasional screw up, as in the Chevy Nova, since Nova means new in Latin (a desirable quality in a car) but "no va" in Spanish implies "it won't go", a somewhat less desirable quality. It should also be noted that Europeans, excluding the generally excessively verbose Italians, held out the longest and tended to ignore the hype and just use model numbers like Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and others. Then the Asians entered the market. From the earliest days, Asian auto manufacturers realized that, generally speaking, actual Japanese or Korean descriptive names weren't going to sell cars. The answer was having their ad agencies (mostly American) follow the path of the drug companies and simply pick catchy sounds, regardless of meaning. The result has been a spate of non-words used as car model names. A sampling includes Sephia, Azera, Alera, Sentra, Nubira, Mirada, Achieva, Ciera, A
    mante, Fiero, Alero, Solara, Sentra, Miata, Arnage,, Zagato, Leganza, Impreza, Prizm, Xterra, Aztek, Forenza and Boxter. Some names are apparently chosen for the cryptic hint of mystery as well: Spyder, Prius, Equus and Tibaron exude mystery, but are devoid of meaning in any language. Japanese and other Asian auto manufacturers seem to have one source of market seizing names for many of their models. Ichi Otomaka, "the sage of Osaka" is renowned for his knowledge of primeval Japanese languages and his marketing savvy ( he coined the nonsense word Camry, for Toyota's best seller) while most American and European auto-makers employ various well paid market consultants and focus group techniques to suggest new model names.

    With what has to be a diminishing supply of nonsense words that sound good, it is probably inevitable that Auto manufacturers world wide will eventually turn to other sources for attention grabbing titles. So what will the industry turn to next for inspiring new names for the models to come over the next decade? Marketing experts are reportedly turning to Gray's Anatomy, the Merck Medical Manual, and the Physician's Desk Reference as sources for naming new and exciting models. Human body parts and their conditions and functions sound mysterious and/or foreign and, in consonance with the phony drug naming frenzy, seem like a perfect fit. In this refreshing departure, we will be inundated with a new spectrum of real word names that sound very much like today's fake ones.

    According to Industry sources, some of the new models in production for 2013 and 2014 include the Cadillac Aorta, the Chevy Patella, the Dodge Placenta, the Volvo Pudenda, and Mitsubishi's Aureola. The requisite need for he-man names will be satisfied by gas guzzling monster SUVs in the offing: Toyota Thorax, Lincoln Larynx, Mercury Maxilla, Subaru Plexus and the anxiously awaited three-ton Chevy Scrotum. Vying for attention in the mini-car, runabout, and hybrid car market will be the Cooper Wart, Toyota's Tic, the Subaru Zit, MG Barf, and the Cooper Flatulator.

    For sports cars, expect the Plymouth Plasma, the Ford Cornea, Toyota's Tibia , the Porsche Vulva, Volvo Viagra, and a few super-sports vehicles such as the swift and sleek Ferrari Sphincter and the Aston Martin Seizure. Top of the line luxury cars will include Rolls-Royce's Silver Mandible, Bentley's exclusive Testes II, the Lincoln Grand Mal, Cadillac's Thalmus, the Lexus EKG and the Mercedes Penis Maximus. The ultimate ride will still be the Lamborghini, whose gull winged Coitus Interruptus is expected to come (eventually) to well over $100K and be very fast.
    By the year 2010, we are told that the automakers and their consultants probably will turn to erotica for new model nomenclature. As one marketing specialist observed, "If we have had a streetcar named Desire for the past century, isn't it time to have a Citroen named the "French Kiss" or a Mercury named Missionary?"

    Closing out this piece, I will end with where I started, names of housing developments. I used to live near a sleepy little Florida town named Windermere. After the nouveau (and in truth, the not so nouveau) riche found it, it was soon filled to overflowing and other areas nearby and some not so nearby hijacked the name. We now pass Windermere Wylde, Winderlakes Estates, Winwood (not Stevie), Windermere Downs, Winderwoods and others yet to be named. Likewise, Arnold Palmer could have little suspected that the christening of his "Bay Hill" development and Country Club would spawn Butler Bay, Bay Lakes, North Bay, South Bay, Bay Lagoon Bay Springs and others having one thing in common with the original - the absolute lack of a "Bay" of any sort. A real favorite is the word "acres" added to imply wide open spaces, while the lots in many of these are more like 1/8 of an acre. We have seen a cloudburst of add-ons to development names which bear no real world resemblance to the place they describe. "Downs" is the Celtic word for "Hill Fort", none of which exist anywhere anymore, least of all in the USA, but the name abounds. "Pointe" with the gratuitous "e" is just snooty and snotty. The name "Deer _____" is a favorite, as is "_____ Park," although most places with Deer in the name haven't seen any wild life since the trees were cut down to make way for houses, consequently no Park either! Then we have the "aristocratic" irrelevant made up names , which like the auto names sound good and signify nothing. A sampling would include Emerson Park Estates, Treviso, Brynley Park, Wyndham lakes, Calloway Bay, Millennia, Monterey Bay (no Monterrey, no Bay), Hunter's Run, etc. Another favorite tactic is the use of names implying exclusivity, the sole exclusion being money, of course. "Reserve" implies status, isolation from "them" and other monetary benefits. The Reserve at Berkshire Park is truly isolated from anything which could be legitimately named Berkshire; Shingle Creek Reserve likewise. Prairie Lakes Reserve is even more of an oddity, since the advertised price range of $129K to $139K hardly promises the exclusivity implied by the "reserve" cachet. Eventually, however, even the namers of housing developments will have to emulate the auto manufacturers and drug companies and find other sources for catchy names for mundane things like most of their cookie cutter homes. Again, physical descriptors might work. Would you be tempted to buy in "Nipple Notch", or perhaps" Luscious Lips Lagoon?" "Diverticulum Downs" has a ring, I think, or maybe "Outhouse Run?" "Fecundity Falls" - sounds like a good place for kids, huh? "Colon Corners?" - would you want to go there? My fave would probably be "The Grand Select Reserve at Serenity Place, Pointe, Park, Acres, Downs, Chase, Run, Hills, Woods, Grove Estates." The only problem is that addressing an envelope might be a bitch.

    And I do believe that's all I have to say about that .

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Voo Doo Science, Then and Now


 

I realized today that even though I'm approaching (too rapidly) the end of my seventh decade on this planet, I am no closer to understanding some aspects of human nature than I was at twelve.  Then upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that some people and things make just as little sense and are just as screwed up now as I thought  they were when I was twelve.  Over the next as of yet undetermined period, I will occasionally look closer at some of these issues. I guess it's sort of channeling my inner Andy Rooney, and since he has passed, maybe the mantle of curmudgeonry(?)  has fallen to me.  I will probably publish these in FaceBook as a series of monographs and in my blog as well.

1.            When I was a kid, cigarettes were jokingly referred to as "coffin nails" and we smoked them anyway, as did our fathers before us. If we had some sense of cigarettes being harmful in some manner, why did so many bright people start and/or continue smoking? A recent short film I saw sheds some light on what I already knew to be the history of Tobacco.  During WWII American tobacco companies (and to be fair, the Coca Cola Corporation) seized on GIs being away from home and overseas to cloak their mercenary zeal in patriotism. "Lucky Strike Goes to War" was a popular print ad, showing  two smokes, packed  in a small khaki cardboard box,  that were actually put in every pack of rations sent overseas.  Citing a patriotic motive, R.J. Reynolds and others used the opportunity to get a generation of Americans (my dad's generation) addicted to cigarettes  and it worked!

                My father and others,  either pipe smokers or nonsmokers, came home to a post war advertising frenzy aimed at selling newly available consumer goods as well as,  now in more demand than ever, cigarettes.  Cigarettes were ubiquitous, in film, print media, radio, and very soon in the new advertisers' midnight  fantasy -  television.  Any legitimate attempts  to focus  on  health issues  related to tobacco were blunted by the psuedo- science Marshall Institute, retained by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the real hard truths emerging from the emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease spikes seen in post war America. The Marshall institute's agenda was not to disprove the harmful effects of tobacco, as that is impossible.  Instead, men in white lab coats and movie stars, John Wayne, who lost a lung to cancer among them,  shilled for Big Tobacco, ballyhooing tobacco as a nerve calmer, which would help you concentrate, and declaring that "Four out of five doctors smoke Camels."  What the Marshall Institute was paid huge bucks to do was not to disprove real health claims, but to just cast doubt on the hard science emerging in the 1960s and 70s regarding the real costs of smoking. It must have worked, since I remember my dad sending me to the store for a pack of Winstons and with the change left from the quarter, I could buy myself a popsicle! Hell, if it was ok for dad, why not. I became a smoker at 12, as did many baby boomers. Of course I smoked Winstons, just like Dad.  (I quit at 30) For a brief period, The Marshall Institute was also retained by big chemical companies in a losing cause trying to keep DDT afloat as the wonder insecticide.

As we know now,  the smoke and mirrors only worked for so long, and the image of the sophisticated smoker in films, print and TV  is essentially gone today, and curiously the bulk of the smoking population in America is now made up of lower economic classes (who will now spend $300 per month or more on their habit) and those hard case addicts who will smoke until the last raspy breath is gone. Tobacco companies now are primarily pushers, servicing a seedy market. Likewise Rachel Carson fought the good fight and DDT is no longer sprayed over entire neighborhoods like sunscreen.

                Why, you say, am I rehashing this information? Well, the Marshall Institute is still at work, now hired by America's giant energy companies, and their mandate is still the same. Cast doubt in any way possible to blunt the thrust of the mass of real scientific data on global warming. Their philosophy is the same, as well "we don't have to disprove or prove anything, that's for real scientists, we just have to plant the seeds of doubt."  This approach also manifests itself in such bizarre areas as "Creation Science and "Intelligent Design," neither of which is scientific  or intelligent.  As long as we remain a nation where superstition trumps data, we are hindered in our efforts to become an educated and aware society.  It's bad enough that China, a major polluter, is aware but apparently doesn't care, but at least they aren't in a religion induced coma of denial.        

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Support Your Local Pharisee


 

I Wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, published Sunday, regarding the lack of real mention (except  Leviticus) of either Homosexuality and abortion in the Bible, as a way of addressing the "Christian Voter Guides" being handed out at some churches. Two letters were printed this am attacking my point of view. The expanded text of my original letter has already been posted on my blog here previously and this expanded today:
                        

My response to these (which I am sure will not be printed) is below.

        Letters to the Daily Sun of 10/16/2012 exemplify  exactly that of which I  was critical in my letter of 10/16/.  None of the abjurations against "murder" in the Old Testament  can be linked to abortion except by implication on the part of the biased reader.  This is a modern interpretation to suit one's predetermined point of view, which is the same procedure by which slavery was "justified by scripture" in the antebellum period, while others used scripture to condemn it. By the same leap of illogic, these same persons assume that if someone points out lack of specific  writing against a point of view, they must favor that point of view, again an error of illogic.

      No ethnologist  or cultural anthropologist would argue that pregnancies have not been intentionally terminated by various means from the beginning of time.  My point was that if this was a moral issue for the Hebrews, it seems  it should be  specifically addressed in scripture, since  every other aspect of human existence is.  It is not.

    Similarly, I correctly stated that references to homosexuality were absent from most of the Bible- a true statement. Where the "death penalty" is referenced in Leviticus, there are numerous other prohibitions,  which modern Christians ignore (killing those who work on the Sabbath, selling daughters into slavery, for example). This "pick and choose" approach implies other reasons which the reader is trying desperately to justify, using religion to legitimize the prejudice. The one writer who mentions homosexuality in the New Testament, as I made clear, was the  Apostle Paul and he refers negatively to "homosexual prostitution" using  an archaic Greek  word, but in the same letter condemns prostitution generally.  At  no time did I  imply that the Bible  is pro homosexuality, since I write factually.  I said it was mostly silent on the subject, which indicated the same lack of real concern on the matter as is the case with abortion.

            As to my original comments regarding the lack of concern shown for the poor and disadvantaged in these voter guides. One writer actually included two verses which, according to him, imply that it's ok to help the poor, but only if you want to.

     This is a prime example of the "have it both ways" approach to the Bible as practiced by the Evangelical Right. I find it ludicrous that an obscure passing reference in Levitcus should become law in the eyes of these people while  topics which receive  much more textual consideration should be ignored. I wait for the day when James Dobson, Donald Wildmon, Fred Phelps and the rest of the lunatic right command the true believers to follow Hebrew dietary law, stone adulteresses, sell their daughters, sacrifice goats, and all the rest of the law, which by the way, if you are a Christian, you should probably believe was superseded by Jesus' teachings anyway. I leave the literalists with these:

1 John 3:17 But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him--how can God's love be within him ?

 1 John 3:18 Little children, let us stop just saying we love people; let us really love them, and show it by our actions.

 1 John 3:19 Then we will know for sure, by our actions, that we are on God's side, and our consciences will be clear, even when we stand before the Lord.

And especially for the zealots who eschew all others, believing  that Paul is the real voice of Christianity check these out:

1 Tim. 6:17 Tell those who are rich not to be proud and not to trust in their money, which will soon be gone, but their pride and trust should be in the living God who always richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment.

 1 Tim. 6:18 Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and should give happily to those in need, always being ready to share with others whatever God has given them.

 1 Tim. 6:19 By doing this they will be storing up real treasure for themselves in heaven--it is the only safe investment for eternity! And they will be living a fruitful Christian life down here as well.

And finally, quoted from Jesus:

Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Luke 11:39-42 Then the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God.
So take the voter guides and support your local Pharisees.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Religious (in) tolerance and other lies.


                In a column in Thursday's Daily Sun ("Americans are Losing Religious Freedom") Kathryn Lopez resurrects and incorrectly interprets what is perhaps the most misstated aspect of the Affordable Health Care Act. Her premise is that requiring an employer who,  as a condition of employment,  provides health insurance to pay for contraceptives somehow infringes freedom of religion. This is a leap of illogic. If, as most agree, freedom of religion is really freedom of conscience, Ms. Lopez couldn't be more wrong.  If an employer, whatever their belief system,  is allowed to impose their set of beliefs on the employee, then Ms. Lopez is correct. That a worker  (especially if they suffer from any of the numerous conditions which might make pregnancy life threatening ) could be denied birth control because of someone else's religious belief - now THAT's loss of religious freedom.  As one simple example:  Women who are placed on an Isotretinoin (Accutane)  regimen for severe  acne by a dermatologist are required to take birth control pills, due to grave birth defects that are associated with the medication.  So in Ms. Lopez' scenario, even though the Dermatologist prescribes it, and the patient, regardless of her religious affiliation, needs and wants it, the employer is justified in denying coverage because of their (the employer's) religious conviction.  If someone forces you  to do something proscribed by your religion, then indeed, your religious rights have been infringed upon. If an organization forces you to do (or not do) what their religious beliefs dictate,  we have a word for that too - Taliban.

                What is it about the lunatic Right that makes them so avid to protect rights they deem important yet so willing to trample on the rights of those they despise or would prefer to ignore. The list is seemingly endless:

  Assaults on early voting by Republican controlled legislatures in many states -why? Well, as it turns out, many of the working poor (most of the 47% by the way) have a hard time just leaving work to vote, while more affluent voters have no such limitations.

 Statements by Rick Santorum that we "need to rethink birth control in America." Really, Rick?  Of course this wouldn't be linked to your militant Opus Dei/Mel Gibson style of Catholicism, would it?

Requiring photo Government IDs for voting, another Red State ploy, has the same aspect, we rich folks have driver's licenses, passports, etc. so we are fine, but you "less rich" don't.

Proposals to greatly reduce student loans since, as Romney says "you can borrow from your parents," and sure enough if you're a Romney, you can. The average family simply can't afford current out of state (or even many instate) rates.

Antonin Scalia public proposing that some acts between consenting adults (there's that conscience thingy again) be made illegal. You'd think that at his age and with his demeanor, Scalia would be grateful for any and all sort of human contact!

Anti-abortion zealots, who, not content with living their lives in accordance with their own (Constitutionally protected) belief system, wish to impose it on others (again, can you say Taliban?)

Far Righters who want the government off their backs, unless it's in someone else's bedroom

                The gun lobby who foster the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from (The government??), while allowing schizophrenics and mentally defective "militia members"  to amass  arsenals  and, every so often , go on shooting sprees.  They don't need protection, we do!

                Spending millions (and failing) to oust an elected government in Nicaragua, and violating acts of Congress in doing it.

                Using the FBI and IRS to harass "enemies"  (like, on NIxon's famous list, Joe Namath, Barbra Streisand and Paul Newman) whose offense is political disagreement.

                Pouring Trillions of dollars into an Iraqi war to massage the ego of a president and suck up to the Saudis, whose Wahabi Islamic  sect is the sworn enemy of religious tolerance.

                Trampling the economic rights of gasoline consumers (which the vast majority of us are) by banning Brazilian sugar cane Ethanol imports to benefit domestic corn producers (which the vast majority of us aren't!)

The above is admittedly only a partial list,  incomplete and not in the least all inclusive, but disgust forces me to end this and get another cup of coffee.

         And I do believe that's all I have to say about that!

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Evangelical Hypocrisy


In a letter in Tuesday's Villages Daily Sun, a writer offers the opinion that handing out "Voter Guides  for Christians"  shouldn't be considered  unconstitutional.  The issue here should be, "Do 'Voter Guides for Christians'  really encouraging voting in accordance with Christian precepts? I would submit that they do not.  

            Christian believers who consider the New Testament as  lifestyle guidance might want to examine the operator's manual closer. The focus by the extreme Right against  gay rights and a woman's right to her own reproductive choices  is simply not supported by Biblical teaching.

            The sole specific Biblical reference to abortion  is Numbers 5: 12-28 which specifies that if a man's wife is pregnant by another he shall take he to the priest who shall provide her with the "bitter waters"  to terminate the pregnancy. This, the  only specific reference in the Bible, implies that abortion was known to the Hebrews and there was  no prohibition against it in the Laws of Moses which cover almost every conceivable aspect of life.  It is interesting to note that the Bible defines in detail many types of both justifiable (self-defense, executions, wartime) and criminal killing (various types of homicides and relationships to those killed -- strangers, neighbors, Israelites, family members, etc.) are discussed, along with any applicable penalties. Even when the subject of the fetus' existence or death comes up, it still does not prohibit the well-known practice of abortion. So, obviously it was not an oversight, either in the original pronouncements or the failure of the later prophets, Jesus or the apostles to clarify.  The Bible neither promotes nor discourages abortion. Period. The intentional omission of prohibitions against abortion obviously mean they intended that to be left to personal choice, unless you believe God made a mistake. The New Testament is mute on the point.  Regardless of the Missouri Congressman's opinion, abortion in cases of rape, however is not prohibited, it is Biblically mandated!

            Homosexuality, similarly is remarkably absent from most of the Bible, including totally absent from the Gospels, and referred to by Paul only in the context of homosexual  prostitution (as he also does with heterosexual prostitution) and even this reference is disputed by real scriptural analysts because of  contextual ambivalence.  There is not a single Greek word or phrase in the entire New Testament that should be translated into English as “homosexual” or “homosexuality.” In fact, the very notion of “homosexuality”—like that of “heterosexuality,” “bisexuality,” and even “sexual orientation”—is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers.  None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that, so far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, and we simply have no way of determining what his attitude toward it might have been. Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Only Paul mentions it, and then in doubtful context; strange in light of Paul's misogyny and criticism of women and marriage. In this writer's humble opinion Paul should have written one more letter: "How Tight was my Closet." Seems to me that if Jesus had problem with Gays, there would be some reference, since he consorted with a group of men most of his adult life.

            Similarly, tithing, a mainstay of far right Christians is not original with Judaism or Christianity, but extends back in to early Mesopotamian cultures. Examples of early references include :  "...(the sun-god) Shamash demands the tithe...", "four minas of silver, the tithe of [the gods] Bel, Nabu, and Nergal...", "...he has paid, in addition to the tithe for Ninurta, the tax of the gardiner" "...the tithe of the chief accountant, he has delivered it to [the sun-god] Shamash" "...why do you not pay the tithe to the Lady-of-Uruk?"  So why adopt these pagan customs? -Money! Just as the priests of Bel, Nabu, Ninurtna, Shamash, Baal, et al benefitted from the concept of being supported by mandatory contributions from the populace, so did the scribes, Pharisees etc. of the Hebrews. In fact if there was one area where Jesus was pretty damned specific, it was his view of the money flowing into the temple and those who benefitted from it, and yet....!  

            The early church leaders (after those first few poorly organized local groups had been hijacked by Priests, Elders, Bishops, and ultimately a Pope)  simply realized the benefits of holding believers' eternal souls hostage to force mandatory contributions in support of what has become an obscenely bloated lifestyle at the top of the Ecclesiastical food chain. as an aside, Conservatives, such as  Ann Coulter, are fond of pointing out that,  as a group, statistically they make larger contributions to "charity." The problem here is that they include church contributions as charity, which only a small percentage (single digits, in most cases) actually benefit.   

            Conversely, references to Christians' obligations  regarding caring for the poor, the  downtrodden, and the alien are voluminous throughout both Old and New Testament. at least 75 OT and over 20  NT verses directly refer to helping the poor as an article of faith (and in some cases harshly condemning those who don't!  Examples include:

            "He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich — both come to poverty." Proverbs 22:16

            "The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice." Ezekiel 22:29

            "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

            "Beware of the teachers of the law . . . They devour your widows' houses . . . Such men will be punished severely." Luke 20:46-47

             Where these  concerns for the poor, the alien and the underprivileged  are missing is in the "Christian"  Voter Guides!

 

 

Monday, October 1, 2012

Swiftboat Scumbags - part deux


                                               

            Recently a group calling itself  "OPSEC,"  hijacking a standard military acronym for their political purposes, has  attacked President Barack Obama in a political ad using heavily edited video from the briefing the President gave following the successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden (may he rot in hell).  This group, characterizing themselves as a "social action group" is stealing a page from the playbook of the equally heinous  "swiftboaters" who  attacked John Kerry's war record in Vietnam. Although later proved to be a political hatchet job and nothing more, the Swiftboat charges  were virtually unanswerable, since proving  something didn't happen is much more difficult that alleging that it did.  Like the "Swiftboaters" - Republican hardcore well funded right wingers  with no compunction about lying, OPSEC has no obligation to identify the deep pockets of their funding either, but the source is obviously similar to the Swiftboaters, as is the method.  Character assassination by innuendo seems to be more and more the exclusive purview of the radical right.

            The following is a quote regarding the reality of the Bin Laden episode ." The head of U.S. Special Operations Command sees it differently. "Make no mistake about it, it was the President of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions," the leader of the raid, Adm. Bill McRaven, said at this summer's Aspen Security Forum." Secretary of  Defense Robert Gates, in an unsolicited comment, called it the  "gutsiest call he'd ever seen a President make"  It is worthy of note that Gates served as SecDef to  former President Bush, Director of the CIA, member of the NSA and as an Air Force Officer. So who ya gonna believe?

            I  don't take these folks too seriously," President Barack Obama told the newspaper The Virginian-Pilot on Monday. "One of their members is a birther who denies I was born here, despite evidence to the contrary." Special Ops OPSEC member ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who appears in the group's film, has publicly questioned Obama's birth in Hawaii. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., compared the group's campaign to the "Swift Boat" attacks that questioned his service during the Vietnam War. Though later discredited, the claims were partially blamed for unseating his 2004 presidential campaign.

            What is truly troubling is that apparently these people were fine with the actual liar, George W. Bush who staged his landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln even though it was just off San Diego, stood in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner and made a self congratulatory speech in a flight suit. Why is that a lie? As it turns out, 97% of US deaths in Iraq occurred after the speech, and the war should never have never been fought, (in this writer's humble opinion, supported by many far better informed than I) even Bush SecState Powell later admitting he'd been conned.

            Of course it must be remembered that all the sham reasons thrown at the President are just flak, obscuring the real problem many have with him. I have become truly disgusted at how willing many white Americans are to believe any scurrilous rumor or  lie about the President, no matter how ludicrous or outrageous. Examples ("He took the oath of office on the Koran " - lie, "He doesn't have the US Flag on Air Force One" - lie, "He wasn't born in the US" -lie, "He and Michelle's law licenses were suspended for cause" - lie. Yet many rush to believe because any excuse is good enough for bigots to hate. It would almost be refreshing to hear one of these chromosomally challenged inbreds actually say something like, "Yeah, I know Congress passes all laws, Yeah I know his original birth certificate says he was born in Hawaya, yeah, I know all this, I just hate the fact that he's Black.
 
One could just puke!