The Case against Theocracy and Faith Based Civil Institutions

        

                      Evaluating the Case against Theocracy

  “No amount of belief makes something a fact.” -James Randi

“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so” - Mark Twain

     A simpler definition: “Pretending to know things you don’t 

know.”

     Faith is not hope. They are not synonymous and can’t really be 

used that way. Most religions do, but it’s a leap of illogic. As an

example: “One can hope for anything or place one’s trust in anyone

or anything. This is not the same as claiming to know something.

To hope for something admits there’s a possibility that what you

want may not be realized. For example, "If you hope your stock will

rise tomorrow, you are not claiming to know your stock will rise;

you want your stock to rise, but you recognize there’s a possibility

it may not. Desire is not certainty but the wish for an outcome.” –

Peter Boghassian

     The pretending-to-know-things-you-don’t-know pandemic hurts

us all as humans in a diverse world.  Believing things on the basis

of something other than evidence and reason causes people to

misconstrue what’s good for them and what’s good for their

communities. Those who believe on the basis of insufficient

evidence create external conditions based upon what they think is

in their best interest, but this is actually counterproductive. In the

United States, for example, public policies driven by people who

pretend to know things they don’t know continue to hurt people:

abstinence-only sex education, prohibitions against gay marriage,

bans on death with dignity, corporal punishment in schools,

failure to fund international family planning organizations, and

promoting the teaching of Creationism and other pseudosciences

are but a few of the many misguided conclusions wrought by

irrationality and inflicted in many cases upon those who don’t s

share the formulator’s  pretense to know things they don’t know.

     The less a society relies on reason and evidence to form

conclusions and policies, the more arbitrary the resultant policy.  In

many instances, conclusions that result from a lack of evidence can

have incredibly dangerous consequences. The Taliban, for

example, have rooted their vision of a good life on the Koran. By

acting on what they perceive to be divine injunctions revealed to

God’s Prophet, they think they’re creating a good life and a good

society. They are not.  Consequently, the conclusions they act

upon— covering women and beating, burning, stoning, or in a

recently noted case, shooting them in the face,  beheading people

who have rival interpretations of the Koran or who act in ways they

deem un-Islamic, perpetrating violence against females who seek

an education, denying citizens basic freedoms, executing people for

blasphemy—take them away from a good life. They’ve

misidentified the process that will allow their community to

flourish because they’ve identified and used faith, not evidence and

reason, as a guide.

       How do we know the society the Taliban created has not

benefitted those who live under their threat?  By examining 

 virtually every modern measure of societal success:  exports versus

imports, literacy, economic aid, public health, life expectancy,

infant mortality, household income, GDP, Happy Planet Index, etc.

Afghanistan under the Taliban was an unmitigated catastrophe. It is

not in anyone’s interest, particularly the people who live under their

tyranny, to have created a dysfunctional, premodern, misogynistic

theocratic atmosphere of fear and repression.

       If you don’t think they created a dystopia, or if you’re a

relativist and think they created a society that’s merely different,

not better or worse from, say for example Finland, then there’s

nothing I can say to you. Nothing written will persuade you

because you are incapable of critical thought. 

        The vast majority of people use faith to understand the world,

to guide their actions, and to define and delimit their institutions.

Nation-states like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Somalia,

Sudan, and Iran adhere to Islamic law (Sharia) as the basis for state

law. There is no civil law independent of religious law.  This is a

problem that would be unimaginable in its scope and severity were

it not for the fact that we’re currently witnesses to this epistemic

horror show, such as the beheading of homosexuals, blasphemers,

adulterers, and apostates and an even more egregiously  radically

disproportionate treatment of individuals based upon their gender.

      So the next time a Billy Graham or Pat Robertson tells anyone

who cares to listen that the United States is a “Christian nation” and

should return to whatever core values that statement implies,

remember, they are basing those statements on faith,( “Pretending

to know things you don’t know.”)  and reflect on how that has

worked elsewhere in the world.  Isn’t it amazing how smart

Jefferson, Adams and Madison still look 200 plus years later?

Republicans have short........memories.

Let’s play a quick game: who made this statement?  "This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches. My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches."    I know, I know, it’s one of those whining Democrats trying to gain some breathing space on the difficulties with the healthcare site, right?  No, Sarah, it wasn’t.  Actually, it was Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and he was referring to Medicare Part D in 2006!

     There are strikingly eerie similarities between the two health care programs, both of which were heralded as the signature domestic achievements of the presidents who signed them into law and both of which have been criticized by (surprise!) the drug and insurance lobbies as well as members of the opposition parties.  Supporters of the laws asked for time and promised a quick fix. Critics did not mince their words. Even the catch phrases  -- words like "glitches" -- have been recycled.

     Earlier this year, a report documenting the history of Medicare Part D was released by a panel of Healthy Policy experts  at the Center on Health Insurance Reform at Georgetown University. It highlighted several areas where Medicare Part D struggled in its implementation that sound extremely familiar.
     Like The Affordable Care Act, the Bush administration faced a difficult political battle to get the bill passed in 2003. That damaged public opinion of the law, making it a challenge to educate 43 million seniors on its nuances. A majority of seniors were very vocal about what they believed (having been fed a huge dose of bullshit by special interest groups. lobbyists and  media) would be a law detrimental to their (seniors') interests.  

     Enrollment in the law was set to begin in late 2005. In April of that year, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 27 percent of respondents understood the law, while only 21 percent favored it. (In a comparable Kaiser poll in April 2013, 35 percent viewed the Affordable Care Act favorably and less than half felt they were well-informed of its details.) You will, of course,  remember that Republicans in general and Tea Partiers in particular constantly touted those numbers while condemning the Affordable care Act, but had been strangely silent when “W’s”  drug plan (also a good plan, credit where due) had far lower popularity ratings.  

      The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’t go live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported at the time.

    "Visitors to the site could not access it for most of the first two hours. When it finally did come up around 5 p.m., it operated awfully slowly," the Post reported. (Sensing a pattern?)

          Once seniors began to try to enroll, problems persisted. According to the report, the online tools had "accuracy problems," and local organizations designated with assisting seniors "reported problems getting necessary and accurate information." Call centers provided by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services underestimated "the needed capacity to ensure that reliable answers could be provided" and "service representatives were not knowledgeable or failed to provide accurate information."

     The Georgetown experts anticipated similar hiccups with the Affordable Care Act, noting that the country’s experience with Medicare Part D suggested "the experience will be far from perfect" and "problems were not always addressed as quickly or as thoroughly as critics would have liked, but fixes were usually found."

        So; Medicare part D was a miserable failure, right? Hardly!  These days, nine in 10 seniors who utilize the program report they are satisfied. I defy you to find any other government mandated and run program with higher customer satisfaction.

     But there are still some important differences between Medicare Part D and the Affordable Care Act that make the challenges facing the exchanges different and even more daunting. Because it was aimed at seniors and e-commerce was still relatively young, Medicare.gov was not intended to be the main hub for people to purchase and review plans, said David Brailer, the first National Coordinator for Health Information Technology under Bush.

     "The issue with Medicare Part D is there were choices of 70 to 100 plans," Brailer said. "People were overwhelmed with the choices, with the options available and didn't know how to navigate and pick one.This was about how do you really navigate through all these choices. Also, prescription drugs are a relatively small and easy-to-understand part of health care. Shopping for an insurance plan is more complicated.  In the exchange world you have a full health care benefit to buy," Jack Hoadley of the Georgetown group pointed out, "Drug costs are relatively predictable, certainly a lot more predictable than overall health costs. The challenge for this website (healthcare.gov) was and is a lot greater, probably by a significant amount of magnitude."

       And don’t forget the  political climate. . When Medicare Part D passed, Democrats were not happy with the final bill and were critical of its botched rollout. But even then, they were generally supportive of its intended outcome and worked with constituents who had difficulty signing up or utilizing their new benefits. When Medicare Part D faced early troubles, many blue states came to its rescue. The New York Times reported in 2006 that "about 20 states, including California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and all of New England (almost all Democratic), have announced that they will help low-income people by paying drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program."

         In the starkest contrast, not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, and in the years since it passed, the party has made its repeal a top priority. In the states, many Republican governors have bucked the Medicaid expansion and rejected offers to build their own insurance marketplaces, putting greater pressure on the federal government.

Henry Aaron, a health policy expert at the Brookings Institute, said the opposition from Republicans has forced the Obama administration into a "two-front war" Bush did not have to fight.

"On the one hand, one must and should address the administrative problems that no one denies is plaguing the problem," he said. "But you’re also waging a war of public opinion against the hysterics of its critics."

       So, in summary, we have a much more complex program running via healthcare.gov with issues similar to the startup of the far less complex, yet even more unpopular Medicare part D.  Another similarity is that both laws are aimed at helping provide affordable healthcare for more Americans. Where they differ  radically is that while many Democrats opposed Medicare part D  (as did, many Republicans), Democrats set aside the partisan differences and even stepped up to cover drug expenses in several large Democratically controlled states until part D was up and running at the federal level.

     Compare that to the obstructionist carping of Republicans regarding the present similar problems with implementation of the Affordable care Act. Shame on them!  

Thanksgiving Tofurkey with a side of snotty smugness!!

                                Moral high ground?

 

      It’s been a while, but…. There are a couple of things I’ve read recently in various forums in which the writer, either consciously or more likely, subconsciously,  presents as coming from a position of moral and/or intellectual superiority when what they have really done is simply make a choice.  

Vegans: If one listens to the upper fringes of the VDC (Vegan delusional cadre), Vegans are morally superior, intellectually superior, and apparently, better looking than the rest of us. There is a certain snobbish, nose in the air aura about them which tends to grate on those of us who eat the diet our DNA specifies as correct.

Last I checked, herbivores have no incisors, because they don’t eat meat; they have large flat molars for grinding and many have several chambered stomachs to extract the maximum nutrition from what is by its nature, a low nutrition food source.

          Last I checked, humans are born with incisors because we, or most of us, anyway, eat meat. We also have molars to grind vegetable matter as well. Our ancestors came out of the trees and became the apex predator on the planet because, in addition to other factors, like bipedalism, we became omnivores and evolved larger cerebral cortexes.  Our larger forebrains are the  result of a diet higher in protein. Vegans have a much harder time getting sufficient protein, because they are abandoning what their DNA tells them is their natural  diet.  If you don’t believe there is proof of this elsewhere in nature, look at the omnivorous Brown (Grizzly) Bear, and his lifestyle and compare him to the Giant Panda, a consumer of only Bamboo, or the Koala, another herbivore.

I have read some vegan propaganda which asserts that vegans, as a group, average 5 IQ points higher, and from this they derive some sense of smug satisfaction. As Mark Twain (a man who loved a steak!) once sagely asserted, “There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics.”  The Vegan intelligence claim is of the third variety. That portion of society which might be prone to consider a Vegan lifestyle is, by the nature of the obsession, drawn from that group which has leisure time and is educated enough to jump on the Vegan “fanwagon.” Of course, this “parent group” tests higher than those whose minimum wage education and aspiration seems more concerned with making a living than with making a statement.

         There are certainly persons who feel better on a Vegan diet, because of allergies or animal protein based predispositions. That does not define the vast bulk of the adherents to this dietary lifestyle, however. If one desires to remove all animal products from their consumer profile, then start with shoes, since the glue used in the manufacture of almost every kind of footwear comes from dead animals – (Really? Yeah, no shit, rally!) Vegans have issues with obtaining sufficient minerals as well, since what they do eat tends to be lower in them than animal protein, especially milk. 

     A final contradiction to this contradictory pattern is that many Vegans have been seduced by the “organic”  and “all natural” frauds as well.  I have written extensively on the Organic circus elsewhere. It is interesting to me that the same cadre of pseudo elites who brag about their Vegan efforts are as snobbish about the organic produce they buy. If one studies the food supply objectively, it becomes apparent that organic, especially the phrase “certified organic” is largely a  sham. Almost all Chinese “organic” products are exported to the USA, where we allow them to use the phrase “certified organic” based, not on testing of random samples, but by taking their word that the paperwork they show is true and valid as claimed.  Remember these are the same Chinese whose dog food killed Fido because it had just a bit too much ethylene glycol in it!  Independent testing of Chinese “certified organic” produce (independent because the government won’t/doesn’t do it!) has shown about 25% of it to contain chemicals which are illegal for use in the US in any produce production!

     So, please, by all means, whip up that luscious Tofurkey, with the whole grain stuffing (no bread, remember, they make it with milk) and serve that bad boy with the bruised and over ripe (but “Organic”) side veggies and hope you get enough nutrition from your “all natural” vitamin supplements to avoid scurvy, rickets, hair loss and all the rest of the malnourishment suite .  Just don’t tell me you do all this because you’re a superior being.     

An Old, Sad, Story Retold

      
 

      The link below is to a news article highlighting yet another story of professional athletes behaving badly. This time it's bullying. Unfortunately, they have probably learned this infantile behavior all too well, starting at least as early as high school. The coach mentality seems to revolve around allowing infantile and frequently criminal behavior by their players as long as the players are winning. It isn't new. Ray Lewis had an entire career instead of hard time in jail because he was a star linebacker. Had he been some schlub "thug life" banger instead he'd have almost certainly bought an accessory to manslaughter conviction under exactly the same circumstances. Likewise, Urban ("myth") Myer covered for Aaron ("hitman")Hernandez' documented bad behavior while at Gainsville. Similarly, Cam Newton was allowed to transfer to Auburn vice facing theft charges incurred while a student at Florida (like Hernandez).

         Harassment and bullying of newbies led directly to the death of a Florida A & M band drum major two years ago, not to mention the scores of "frat boy" overindulgences that end up at the ER or the morgue due to forced alcohol poisoning as part of hazing. I applaud the actions of young Jonathan Martin for walking away from the Dolphins in protest of the scandalous abuses catalogued in this article. The fact that he is a stud lineman and not a second stringer is significant, as it shows the mindset of his tormentors, regardless of skill level of the victim. This young son of two Harvard grads has shown real courage in bucking the "good old boy" mentality of these self centered mental children in behemoth bodies.  It should be of little surprise that the person who was apparently (from reports inside the Dolphins organization) a primary tormenter is one Richie Incognito. Incognito allegedly sent a racially charged and threatening memo to Martin. Incognito has bounced from team to team in his NFL career, having had "anger control issues" while at St. Louis. He is routinely catalogued as one of the league's "dirtiest" players by peers and journalists. One can't help make the Nebraska connection to Ndomakong Suh, another former cornhusker with self control issues. Maybe it's in the water.  

Any Dolphin veteran player who countenanced and/or condoned this hazing and bullying is as guilty as if he had participated in it. It is probable that the Dolphin situation is a microcosm of a league wide issue. I seriously doubt that management and certainly not most coaches would interfere in such behavior even if aware of it. I mean, hell, if you'll cover up for a coach buggering adolescent boys  in the showers, what's a little bullying?

     Probably the only thing sicker than the actual deeds themselves is the reaction of those "fans" who will come to the defense of the Dolphins' players, citing their dismay over all the excitement this has generated because to their dwarfish intellects, this is "just part of the game." Recall that the word "fan" is simply an abridgement of "fanatic" which is what we also call suicide bombers.

 

 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jonathan-martin-richie-incognito-miami-dolphin-veterans-make-rookies-young-players-pay-30000-dollars-dinner-strip-club-110313