Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Sermon from Last Sunday: Owning and Atoning the Wounds of Judgement
Owning
and Atoning the Wounds of Judgement
Delivered to First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh,
February 3, 2013
Well........ today is Superbowl Sunday. And I recently heard that 27% of Americans polled believed that God plays a part in how teams perform at sports. Now I know that our group here tends to be a big mix of theists, atheists, and agnostics. However, on behalf of this town's definitely very faithful fan-base, it crossed my mind to offer a prayer for a miracle. Namely, that today, the Steelers might be able to pull off their seventh Superbowl win.... though I think the odds are probably pretty low of seeing that today. Yet, if I recall correctly, there are things that we see at pretty much every football game. I haven't watched much football in the last decade, so please straighten me out if any of these things have changed. There's still a coin toss, followed by a kick-off, yes? Do coaches still make frustrated faces at the referee or quarterback, and go like this [hand motion, hit head, wave downfield]? And are there still people with giant John 3:16 signs in the section just behind the field goal?
I
want to talk to those folks. Ever since I read it growing up as a
Lutheran, I have felt that John 3:16 is entirely incomplete without
the important clarifications of the next verse. Many of you who are
come-outers from Christian religions – or those of you have been
frequently evangelized – likely know the gist of John 3:16, “For
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who
believes in him may have eternal life.” Now, John 3:17, printed at
the top of your bulletin, goes on to clarify that the reason for this
offering was not for the purpose of judgement, but rather for saving.
In
December from this pulpit, I offered my thoughts against
the theology of substitutional atonement in which one person may
expect to be saved by the distant actions of another. I also take
issue with the male-gendered language regarding God, and the way many
people interpret their salvation as coming exclusively from the
person known as Jesus of Nazareth, putting him on a pedestal,
separate and far-removed from everyone else. I imagine many people
in this room have their own thoughts and history around such a
theology, some perhaps painful. Today I hope to name some of the
pains, and to offer some balm for healing to begin.
The
important thing in my mind is that judgement was not Jesus' purpose
and should not be ours. “Judgment” here I see as similar to
condemnation, rather than judgement as discernment or
recognition. Condemnation says, “This is unworthy, or is
qualitatively lesser, and should be cast out,” whereas discernment
more neutrally says, “Things appear to be this way, or that way,
and perhaps these steps will work toward making the situation
better.”
A
problem I see is that in many of this world's cultures (including our
own), on several levels, we've gravitated toward an expectation of
judgment, of condemnation as the natural order of the day. This
expectation and acceptance of judgement has created a wound so
profound and pervasive that we are immersed in it. More often than
not, we do not recognize the omnipresence of condemnation.
Condemnation appears anywhere there there are situations reflecting
an attitude in which a person sees their agenda as more important
than the life or well-being of another person.
For many in the world, there is a theological understanding of a deity fit for meting out punishment. We may identify somebody else as evil-doers, and hope they get what's coming to them. Or we may condemn ourselves as somehow unfit, and expect that we will be individually punished for our nature, or our bad life choices. While indeed, bad choices sometimes lead to bad results, I don't view this punishment-and-guilt-based framework as healthy. When we see someone as the evil-doer, is it possible to meet them on common ground? When we feel unworthy somehow, are we then really capable of stepping up to meet others on common ground?
On
the social level, these condemnations can come from oppressive
prejudices – a word that means “early judging, before taking time
to check out assumptions.” This is often a result of categorical
thinking, in which a group of people are thought to deserve different
treatment. This can appear in the amount of pay different classes of
people should receive for their contributions to society; Prejudicial
condemnation appears in expectations about racial segregation by
neighborhoods – still
very much an
issue in 2013! – and a status quo many people continue to take
for granted. And of course, this condemnation appears as roadblocks
preventing marriage equality to same-sex partners. In a host of
other ways certain categories of people are condemned to second-class
status, because they do not conform to the dominant mono-culture's
narrow expectations. Here, of course, I'm speaking to the culture in
the USA, but also to the culture right here in Unitarian
Universalism.
“We
also underestimate the reality of resistance in our congregations, a
resistance rooted not so much in racism as in matters of class and
culture. We forget when we talk about cultural competence in
ministry, or cultural change in ministry, that it is not just those
other people who have a culture. Unitarian Universalist congregations
have a culture. Consider who many of us are, and who we are pretty
proud about being, no matter what our race or ethnicity. Many of us
are the people who brag about not owning televisions because there is
nothing worth watching, unless it is PBS. Many of us are the people
who refuse to listen to popular music because it is misogynistic and
violent, and more than a few of us regard rap music as nothing more
than noise and confusion. Many of us change the channel, and listen
to NPR and love Garrison Keillor and Prairie
Home Companion,
and laugh when Keillor makes fun of us.... Many
of us are unapologetic nature lovers, and the only thing we might
love more than hiking in the woods is building our congregations in
the woods, complete with tiny elegant signs that blend in well with
the natural environment but cannot possibly be seen by a seeker on
the highway.
Many of us eat locally, we shop at farmer’s markets, and we would
never be caught in Wal-Mart, unless it was a dire emergency. Many of
us do look ahead in our hymnal to see whether we agree with the
words, and forget that the person sitting next to us may need exactly
the words we are refusing to sing.”
*Gray
part is edited out. See this
link for her full lecture and here
for Paul Rasor's accompanying lecture.
When
we strongly identify expectations about the culture that McNatt names
(or whatever ours tends toward), who are we condemning to somehow
feel outside? In what ways are we advertising ourselves as
multicultural, only to have newcomers arrive, or members stay, trying
to make a good fit, but feeling the way I do when I try the
one-size-fits-all gloves at Home Depot? These extra-large hands
those gloves would not fit, but if my hands were cold, I'd see them
as the best thing going to keep my hands warm. I wonder how many
people are here not because Unitarian Universalism (or First
Unitarian) as it stands is a perfect fit, but because it's the best
thing going. AND I invite you, to make space, here, for your
authentic self. If you are willing, to do the work of transforming
our culture to be a bigger fit – to wear the not-quite-perfect
gloves until they're broken in to fit your (figuratively) knobby
hands, your long fingers, or your giant thumbs until they become
gloves finally comfortable – so that our culture (or more properly,
our cultures)
make a good and welcome fit for people like YOU.
In
institutions, mono-cultural ways of being find their ways into our
codified laws, bylaws and policies, which serve to favor the groups
with the loudest voices. It is likely not surprising that members of
these most vocal groups also tend to conform to cultural norms which
offer privileges. And that these in-group members are often among
the decision-makers who create the policies. In these cases, the
policies created and maintained may still reflect an agenda that
subverts the well-being of some categories of people, yet may not
even be consciously intended. Systems of privilege and oppression
can sometimes be very very difficult to discover
and root out.
There is perhaps no stronger evidence of an attitude of one person's agenda being more important than another's well-being – or their life – than the intentional use of violence. My choice for today's sermon on judgment came as a result of the recent spate of gun violence. Guns are tools useful both for coercion and for absolute judgement. There is a wound of judgment there, a wound that goes deep maybe in every one of us, and I believe it needs attending to. The Sandy Hook massacre brought upon me a moral doubt so deep, I asked the question, “What is the worth of our culture at all, if we cannot respond with a collective will to do what is necessary to safeguard our children, and dismantle this thing underneath our culture that keeps bringing this violence?” Then only a week later, during our time-for-all-ages, a child suggested shooting somebody as an answer to the problem in the story I had told. While I imagine the parents may have been mortified, I knew the same could happen from my own child. In fact, at Christmas when given a gift of a lovely and ornate cross made by an uncle, Henry's immediate response was quizzical (not being very familiar with crosses), followed by him grabbing one side of the cross and aiming it like a gun.
This
is after we have done so much to dissuade him from guns. What is
happening in our culture that young children think of guns so easily?
What pressures are built into our culture that young adult males
decide to pass judgement in such an indiscriminate way? The
solutions to this must be multi-faceted, and I believe they must move
away from the mindset of “punishment for perpetrators.”
Answering one type of condemnation with further condemnation does not
build a just society, but instead it serves to further undergird a
culture in which we pass judgement on each other.
There
is a better answer than punishment, one that would produce lasting
positive results, but it has heretofore been rejected. This better
way is restorative
justice. Whereas a system of punitive justice assumes that
“Penalizing this particular perpetrator will bring justice,” in
contrast, restorative justice asks “What must be done – what must
change – so this crime doesn't continue to happen?” This is a
radically different approach that calls upon us to be both mindful
and dutiful. We must be mindful to pay attention to the present
moment, without judging, without assigning a value to what is
happening or introducing non-observable interpretations. And our
call to duty then is to find the source of the injustice, or the
cause of the prevention of justice, and work to lessen the energy of
that source.
Because,
as Allan G.
Johnson tells us [in today's
reading], even though we should be able to find ways to
get along just fine, something powerful is keeping us from it.
I believe that something is inertia – participation within a
system that doesn't value life, a system that encourages us to
compete against each other, to value our agendas more than right
relationships and beloved community.
Black
History month has just begun, and Women
of Color Herstory month begins February 15th. In
recognition of that, I will share this quote from Harriet
Tubman, an African-American abolitionist and women's suffrage
advocate : “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a
thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” I do not know
for certain who these “thousand more” might be that she refers
to, but I interpret this as a broader all-encompassing statement
acknowledging the bondage we have to participating in systems that
does not allow us our full freedom, and acknowledging the difficulty
we have even recognizing that participation. But our duty to justice
asks us to find our way to freedom.
We find our way free when we recognize the truth within our theologies. That the judgment so many people expect upon the return of some great prophet is already laid bare in the crucified condemnation of Jesus of Nazareth and the various condemnations put upon countless other prophets and light-bringers, as recently as former CIA agent and whistleblower John Kiriakow, sentenced to prison while the torture crimes he brought to light remain un-investigated. We live in an upside down world where those who most loudly advocate for justice are often most quickly cast out.
If
and when the new great prophet comes, whether in the form of a
returned Zoroaster, Elijah, Jesus, or Mohammed, or somebody
unrecognizably new, they will not need to bring down fire, and their
message will not have to be anything special. It will be not much
different than before, saying to the people of the world, or the
people in their sphere of influence: “Look around you. The
cornerstone the builders rejected was one of love and justice! The
cornerstone they chose has a nature of avarice, and uneven privilege.
Look at what the building created from this cornerstone has
wrought.”
“LooOOK!”
would be fire-from-the-sky enough. But according to his gospel
biographers, Jesus' attitude was one of forgiveness. Somewhere
between harshness and mildness, he found the middle ground of mercy,
in which the gospels record him as saying, “Forgive them Father,
for they know not what they do....” Rather than the sword of
condemnation, which would have been understandable, he offered an
olive branch of hope for reconciliation, to which the powers of this
world have yet to respond in kind. The invitation remains: How can
we build each other up to create a world more heavenly, rather than
grind one another down as the world descends into something that
represents our values less and less? Restorative justice asks what
must change so that sibling is not set against sibling in an ongoing
state of adversity.
Restorative
justice asks what must we do to be in true equitable relationship, to
create the deepest form of solace in our hearts by reaching for
common ground? I believe we must not have a too-high or too-low
opinion of ourselves. We must recognize our equal inherent value –
not superior or inferior – to the person who drives the fanciest
car to the halls of great power, and to the person who walks in
ragged clothes to ask for spare change a half-block from the Market
District grocery. I believe that to achieve the destiny of authentic
common ground, we must include all voices as valid, and listen
non-judgmentally without feeling a need to interpret or immediately
respond.
Restorative justice
also asks “What must we do to keep our bodies and our communities
safe?” A start is to educate ourselves and our children of the
moral
injury brought on by living in a world where weapons of
condemnation are normative. I do believe that to respect each
others' dignity, we ought to minimize the energy that goes toward
creating, owning, and using weaponry that works to harm life, and we
must add to energies that uplift our connection to each other, which
in itself increases our safety.
I
will close with this quote from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King: “Power
at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice
at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”
I
advocate that we recognize the power we do
have. I advocate that we build
our love by committing
our
power to tear down any system that denies life, or impedes
flourishing, or quashes organic harmony. And may we at the same
time, build up new systems based on a cornerstone of love and
justice, with respect for harmony, individuality, and lives that may
flourish and bloom. Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 0th UU principle, 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, anti-racism, Community, freedom versus freedom, John 3:17, multiculturalism, peace, prophetic voices, racism, restorative justice, sermons
Monday, December 3, 2012
How to Legalize Successfully: Situations, Unintended Consequences, and Parameters
So...
At first glance, many of those who see the situation the way I do consider it good news that Washington and Colorado are planning to legalize cannabis/marijuana.
For many valid reasons, legalization *is* good news. However, I also think it's a minefield.
Here are some of the biggest problems with the present system(s) -- including total prohibition and the state medical marijuana systems -- and some of the biggest problems I foresee with legalization within the context of US culture. Note that I am not here directly listing much in the way of "upsides" to any of these legal systems, though they may be inferred by looking at the problems associated with the other positions of (il)legality.
At the end, I show a path/program through the upcoming mess.
Present Problems within Total Prohibition
Let's make sure to do this in good fashion with the best interests of everybody in mind.
pax hominibus,
At first glance, many of those who see the situation the way I do consider it good news that Washington and Colorado are planning to legalize cannabis/marijuana.
For many valid reasons, legalization *is* good news. However, I also think it's a minefield.
Here are some of the biggest problems with the present system(s) -- including total prohibition and the state medical marijuana systems -- and some of the biggest problems I foresee with legalization within the context of US culture. Note that I am not here directly listing much in the way of "upsides" to any of these legal systems, though they may be inferred by looking at the problems associated with the other positions of (il)legality.
At the end, I show a path/program through the upcoming mess.
Present Problems within Total Prohibition
- Our laws create criminals out of people who could also be seen as entrepreneurs, or simply party-goers. The results are that people are arrested and the criminal record has a good chance of destroying their lives and the lives of their families. As a result, our society ends up paying for the law enforcement process of finding and processing their arrest, paying for the incarceration period and ongoing monitoring post-release, and also may very well end up needing to provide social welfare for the family who has just lost a breadwinner.
- People who really benefit medically from the medicinal effects of marijuana, including children with cancer, face prosecution for trying to save/improve their lives, and face often insurmountable impediments and risk-to-wellbeing just to do so.
- Prohibition makes it easier for kids to get weed than to get alcohol.
- People who suffer from addiction or other health issues as a result of marijuana use are much more likely to stay underground, as it's a criminal matter.
- Marijuana is errantly considered by many to be just as dangerous as drugs such as heroin, crack, meth, and the like.
- Chemistry-types are marketing "bath salts" and "synthetic marijuana" that is actually very VERY dangerous for people's health in ways that natural weed strains (even high-THC varieties) are not. As a result of prohibition, kids and adults alike who are looking for an escape of some type will turn to other drugs, and may even try huffing gas, glue, or things under the sink to attempt getting high. These marijuana alternatives can that cause PERMANENT brain damage, whereas marijuana does not.
- Prohibition really does not get to the heart of the matter, but keeps addressing the problems at the symptom-level. What is going on in the US that such a preponderance of people want to escape through the use of drugs (whether weed, alcohol, or prescription abuse)?
- We can't have honest debate, because the constraints on the discourse are in the vicinity of enforcement, rather than education. Kids and young adults get absolutist education from unhelpful ideological programs such as DARE. On the other hand, they may get biased information in the other direction from peers, or from personal experience when they find marijuana is not the terrible drug they've been told, which could unnecessarily allow room for them to try something like meth that gets them fully hooked and frequently actually does destroy lives.
- The drug war is leading to actual military and paramilitary warfare with thousands of deaths in Mexico and elsewhere.
- The war on drugs is a convenient excuse for police to single out people of color.
- The war on drugs has become such a tail wagging the dog that now economic incentives provided to law enforcement agencies (including confiscating money and property of arrested persons) are becoming a regular part of the budget, boosting up the payroll of police departments.
- The war on marijuana and hemp is economic. Industries including pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco, corn/big-agriculture, oil, law enforcement, corrections, paramilitary equipment manufacturers, drug-testing companies, rehabilitation centers, plastic, timber, paper, and textiles all benefit from prohibition, and could suffer great losses if cannabis and hemp were allowed a fair shot on the free market.
- In terms of social costs, full prohibition produces a chilling effect on our culture, in which the extreme marginalization (threatening with arrest) of part of the free-spirited segment of the culture pushes the center of our discourse toward more conservative tones.
Present Problems within the Variety of Medical Marijuana Legal Systems
- Medical marijuana has been called "the camel's nose under the tent, with the aim of full legalization." And in a way, it is.
- Much of the medical use is opportunistic, in which mostly-healthy people get recommendations.
- Some people really do benefit from marijuana, and are either pooh-poohed in media discourse as being part of #2 above, or are not allowed legal access by overly-restrictive state laws that only allow for cancer, terminal diseases and such.
- Some states are so restrictive or slow in implementation that patients with demonstrable need cannot get safe access because of distance or other reasons.
- The obvious problems of diversion. People allowed to grow medical marijuana without strong oversight can pick off a percentage of their crop and sell it on the black market.
- On the flip-side to the above, the draconian big-brother approach in Colorado, and also in Mendocino county, where the sheriff's department handed over their growers list to federal law enforcement agencies.
- Some businesses make greater profits from the pseudo-legalization than they would from outright legalization.
- In less-regulated states/areas (i.e. Los Angeles), the doctor mills and store-fronts are indistinguishable from open market drug-dealing.
- At present, testing for quality (mold-free, pesticide-free, etc) of this "medication" is optional. Medication shouldn't introduce toxins, pesticides, or molds, and the user should have a fair idea of knowing how much THC and CBD is in a "dose" There is a big effectual difference between 4% and 20% THC content.
- The federal constraints are creating bonsai-regulations, a hodge-podge of laws from municipality to municipality, and have brought cynicism and unintended consequences at the state and local levels.
- The federal laws about taxes, and pressure against banks to keep them from doing business with dispensaries pushes dispensaries to store large amounts of cash (actually making them robbery targets), while at the same time requiring them to pay exorbitant taxes without the usual business write-offs.
- There are still frequent, sometimes deadly, raids taking place by militarized federal and local agents against state-legal growers and sellers.
Foreseeable Problems with Legalization
- Legalization may be heavily confined to only certain avenues. As with tobacco, it may be legal for certain entities to grow, manufacture and sell, but not for individuals to grow their own, in similar fashion to how one would do with home-brew of beer. This could produce a case where it's perfectly legal to smoke, vaporize, or eat an ungodly amount of cannabis, but only if you're willing to pay market rates and the corresponding taxes. This becomes problematic for people who want to eat unheated marijuana for the beneficial health-effects of non-psychoactive THCa, which could be eaten in salads half an ounce at a time. Does a $200 salad make sense when you could just grow it in your garden out back for FREE?
- How DO we keep cannabis out of the hands of teens if it becomes legal for anyone to grow in their garden? And if forced indoors, how do we deal with all of the unwanted effects (including fire-hazards and large electricity draws for lamps instead of simple sunlight)? Licenses?
- It won't necessarily bring in billions in tax revenue. If taxes are too high, a black market will emerge. With the small home-grower in mind, taxation and regulation of under-the-table transactions, or unmonetized transactions would be difficult (but not impossible). However, putting individual growers, or boutique small-quantity growers in prison for something that is legal for large corporations seems highly unethical.
- Without adding a stiff vice-tax, the price could plummet to such a degree that a pack of joints would be less than a pack of cigarettes. Lots of people who heretofore moderated their cannabis consumption due to financial constraints would find it easier to be immoderate.
- A prevalence of use could influence the labor force, making drug-testing (for employment reasons, not criminal reasons) important for certain mission-critical jobs, requiring high degrees of accuracy or high performance (this however could be subjectively at employers' discretion as some sober people are not capable at certain things, or do not have desires toward high performance). Much like alcohol, showing up to work too intoxicated to perform as required could lead to treatment, court proceedings, or dismissal. A problem here is that cannabis testing can detect up to 30 days, whereas breathalyzer and BAC tests only measure immediate amounts.
- With the corporatization of the cannabis industry, there is a danger cannabis will become a homogenized commodity, instead of the diverse options presently available through smaller boutique growers.
- Regarding health-effects and neuro-chemical effects, there are unmapped distinctions between a nimiety of combinations of THC to CBD, CBN, and other terpenes. These unresearched combinations could actually produce highly effective pain medications as viable options to NSAIDs and opiates; however, depending on legal restrictions, pharmaceutical production and research may be hampered.
- High-THC strains and extremely-high THC derivatives like hash, melts, and kief could cause unexpected problems for the uninitiated. It would be easier to accidentally get "too high" very quickly, in ways that parallel drinking beer-after-beer vs. drinking a salvo of 100-proof shots of distilled liquor. Fortunately, this "too high" can be rectified by sitting on the couch or laying on the floor for a couple hours, and does not generally involve the "puking into the toilet" and hangover situations that frequently accompany overconsumption of liquor.
- BIG PROBLEM: Advertising. If and when big business gets into producing legalized cannabis, they are going to market it any way they can. If the past is any indicator, it will be in their best economic interest to get to kids as young as possible, and to try to produce heavy users, because heavy users tend to be a bigger boon to business than occasional users. They will advertise through misleading lies, as ads almost always do, and will do what they can to make cannabis use seem not only within the realm of desirable behavior, but even "cool and hip". Without legislation to curb advertising, or real education to counteract it, we are looking at huge unintended consequences that nearly everyone in the legalization community and prohibition community alike do NOT want.
- There will definitely be big shake-ups in industry as hemp becomes a major player in its respective markets. Investors, be warned, and the transition isn't something they should find that difficult. Companies with existing infrastructure should be able to retrofit their operations without breaking the bank, and after recouping the change-over costs, will likely make money faster, while being green enough that they're not socializing the downsides while privatizing their profits.
- Objective and accurate DUI testing is difficult to do without being invasive (drawing blood samples from suspected drivers) and/or arbitrary (a first-time or infrequent cannabis user can be too intoxicated to drive at very low levels, and a heavy user may have high residual levels in the blood days after their last THC consumption.
Foreseeable Problems with Decriminalization
- It may be legal to possess, but not grow, sell, or distribute. This is nonsensical, and pushes the whole supply chain into a legal gray area, in which the government has the option to step in and arrest at will, or at random.
- In effect, the government is just looking away from the problems created by drug use and the drug trade. The government doesn't receive any taxes, and there are still no safeguards for production methods, or that the cannabis is pesticide-free and mold-free.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Do legalize, intelligently. Carte blanche legalization without restrictions would bring problems of its own. Someday many generations from now, we could have a culture allowing for THC plants growing openly in yards, terraces, and boulevards, but not anytime soon. While it would be great to create a culture where people could just completely do what they want around this issue, the fact is our educational, transit, and economic infrastructures are a long way away from that capacity at the moment. This is primarily due to the underlying context of the United States, in which we work so hard (often without recognizing the joy around us) that we have to escape, and we do not as a populace have an adequately solid understanding of how to proficiently build a culture that can integrate cannabis and other natural entheogens.
- Renegotiate international treaties. The USA could take the lead on this, and should have an interest, as a change toward greater freedom here could have advantages toward "Western" values of freedom.
- Who can grow? This intelligent legalization, at first, would mean anybody over the age of consent (21 years, or perhaps 25) could grow, possess, or distribute to others of legal age. However, they would need to do so in a controlled indoor environment (which actually works in favor of good marijuana, such that there isn't cross-cultivation with non-psychoactive hemp plants, watering down the quality of the strains). Ideally, this growing would happen in greenhouses with maximal usage of sunlight, augmented by grow-lights at night for the 24-hour-light growing cycle, along with some type of retractable canvas covering for controlling darkness during flowering phases. Gardens with insurmountable fencing would also be reasonable for outdoor purists.
- Educate! Allow for open discourse, and you will find many people who have tried will recount experiences that dissuade others from trying, while many who have tried will offer positive views. This mix of information will likely produce the result that anybody interested would proceed with caution in a safe environment, not knowing how they will experience cannabis. Yes, according to some scientific studies, kids and young adults with developing brains should be discouraged from using cannabis. They should also be given accurate information about cannabis and other drugs. Simple "just-say-no" abstinence education can be done by prudential parents, be they so inclined.
- Big Industry - Recreational vice-product manufacturers: Allow them to produce whatever cannabis-based products they wish, without allowing them to adulterate the products with nastiness, as they have for cigarettes. For large commercial growers (regional, national, or international), there must be potency caps, whereas boutique operations should have the latitude to produce higher-potency strains and derivatives. Advertising must be HIGHLY regulated -- informational, without hyperbole or "truth-stretching." Free speech is not as high of a priority as public health.
- Big Industry - Pharmaceuticals: First, remove cannabis from Schedule 1. There are potential benefits to combinations of cannabis components, which are at present unknown regarding how many benefits, and of what magnitude. Nearly everyone can understand this. Let pharmaceutical companies research freely among cannabinoid terpene combinations with the same processes as any other drug being researched for use in the market. Obviously, potency-caps for medical use would be regulated differently for medical use, and a major selling-point to the market is that the formula is always exactly the same. People, especially those with genuine medical issues, would be willing to pay a premium for this. Advertising for these new medications would take place within medical trade magazines, as should advertising for any prescription medications (ads on TV for drugs
should be disallowed). - Big Industry - Energy/Oil -- Repurpose. Hemp and algae offer much higher yields/acre than corn-based ethanol. As a general rule, however, until we get the C02 disaster under control, we should make every effort to limit the burning of hydrocarbon-based fuels, whether fossil-based, or derived from plants.
- Big Industry - Paper, Textiles, Timber -- Repurpose. Replant timber and do our best to avoid cutting it down. We can use hemp to create paper and natural fabrics in almost every case. Hemp may even be useful for creating woodlike composite boards.
- Big Industry - Plastic. Enough with the gyre of plastic nurdles in the middle of the Pacific already! Can we make more natural plastics out of hemp, potatoes, corn, etc? If they can break down in years or decades instead of centuries or millennia, that's a big plus. Only where necessary, should fossil fuels be used for plastic production, especially not for mass-quantity things like drinking vessels and food packaging. Circuit boards come to mind as likely uses for old-school plastics but then again maybe not even there.
- Big Industry - Law Enforcement, Corrections, Drug-testing, "mandatory" rehabilition centers. These will see diminishments of their sector. Of course they will all still have their places, but will be less often a solution in search of a problem.
- Mass transit is an important part of the equation. Drinking and driving, high driving, texting and driving, cell-phone driving, eating and driving, talking and driving, changing the radio and driving -- each of these increase the likelihood of accidents, and they all have a common factor. People who ride the train/bus while high/drunk/texting/eating/etc -- though they may be annoying to their fellow riders -- are not likely to cause fatal accidents to befall themselves or their neighbors.
- Holistic economics. As noted above, some economic sectors WILL lose jobs (notably: drug-testing, law enforcement, corrections, and their supporting industries, as well as drug cartels), or have them repurposed, while other sectors would gain jobs. We can and should support the displaced workforce however necessary, and this support should extend to the population as a whole, which includes many who are out of work, or underemployed.
Let's make sure to do this in good fashion with the best interests of everybody in mind.
pax hominibus,
agape, to all,
joel
Labels: drug war, freedom versus freedom, marijuana, politics, USA
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Nine (9) Important Keys to Real Democratic Elections in the US and Elsewhere
In time for 2016, I am convinced we need a National Election Amendment, including some semblance of the following. Multipartisan task forces should hash this out and negotiate the details for maximum democratic process.
1. Approval-voting instead of plurality-voting (allows everyone to vote with absolute sincerity, and dismisses the problem of "lesser-of-two-evils" and ALSO eliminates the need for "primaries" and all of the weird distortions caused by insincere voting at that stage);
2. Public money only -- no private donations, or privately-purchased advertisements (allows free speech to be equitable, and mitigates opportunities for candidates/representatives to be corporately-beholden);
3. Democratically-elected *media*, with ~20% of the FM spectrum dedicated to news and opinion from people we elected (bandwidth and time given according to proportion of popular vote -- allows all people to have their voice heard through representatives in the public media, rather than the overwhelming skew of voices only representing corporate media ownership, and narrowly defining the bounds of discourse);
4. Eliminate electoral college (we're not delivering vote-counts via pony express anymore, and direct voting makes every person's vote count);
5. End to gerrymandering. Set the congressional district boundaries and keep them as-is until it comes time to add or subtract. When that happens, each of the significant parties (define at whatever threshold) in the state should get to pick counties in a rotating draft, such that the Republicans get to pick one county for the district of their choosing, then the Dems, then the third party, then R then D, etc, until they're all spoken for. To simply have dominant state legislatures recreate district lines in ways that secures their continued dominance has an ossifying effect for democracy.
3. Democratically-elected *media*, with ~20% of the FM spectrum dedicated to news and opinion from people we elected (bandwidth and time given according to proportion of popular vote -- allows all people to have their voice heard through representatives in the public media, rather than the overwhelming skew of voices only representing corporate media ownership, and narrowly defining the bounds of discourse);
4. Eliminate electoral college (we're not delivering vote-counts via pony express anymore, and direct voting makes every person's vote count);
5. End to gerrymandering. Set the congressional district boundaries and keep them as-is until it comes time to add or subtract. When that happens, each of the significant parties (define at whatever threshold) in the state should get to pick counties in a rotating draft, such that the Republicans get to pick one county for the district of their choosing, then the Dems, then the third party, then R then D, etc, until they're all spoken for. To simply have dominant state legislatures recreate district lines in ways that secures their continued dominance has an ossifying effect for democracy.
6. Consensually-agreed-upon secure voting (either paper or transparent, secure machines with audited paper record) with sufficient resources at every precinct (It's not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.) The electronic voting systems frequently used do not in any way merit public trust.
7. Adequate resources for voting. Nobody should have to wait more than 2 hours to vote. Ever. A standardized system. The secure voting system should be standardized. Citizens in Florida shouldn't have remarkably different voting experiences than those in Iowa.
8. Penalties for intimidating, harassing, or intentionally misleading anybody about voting should be severe (e.g. 2+ years in prison), and should be enforced. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
7. Adequate resources for voting. Nobody should have to wait more than 2 hours to vote. Ever. A standardized system. The secure voting system should be standardized. Citizens in Florida shouldn't have remarkably different voting experiences than those in Iowa.
8. Penalties for intimidating, harassing, or intentionally misleading anybody about voting should be severe (e.g. 2+ years in prison), and should be enforced. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
9. No term-limits (if representatives are naturally popular, the constituency would suffer if they need to seek somebody else less qualified with less experience).
10. Everyone gets the day off for election day (this allows for people who work long hard hours to have their voice heard)!
10. Everyone gets the day off for election day (this allows for people who work long hard hours to have their voice heard)!
Please, get talking in social media, until this framework gets pushed into the mass media. Another quadrennial election cycle with this kind of ramped-up toxicity and inanity, and our nation is kaput.
In order: Approval-voting, no private money, elected media, eliminate electoral college, end gerrymandering, standardized secure equitable voting, term-changes, national holiday.
OR do we not have the political will to establish true democracy and overcome corporate oppression?
Please, get talking in social media, until this framework gets pushed into the mass media. Another quadrennial election cycle with this kind of ramped-up toxicity and inanity, and our nation is kaput.
In order: Approval-voting, no private money, elected media, eliminate electoral college, end gerrymandering, standardized secure equitable voting, term-changes, national holiday.
OR do we not have the political will to establish true democracy and overcome corporate oppression?
Labels: 2nd UU principle, 5th UU principle, 6th UU principle, anti-oppression, Community, equal rights, freedom versus freedom, multiculturalism, our mission, politics, religious community, USA
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Trenchant Commentary on Obama's Performance from Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Director Steph Shearer
Steph Shearer tells the story about the hope Obama gave for positive change on this front, and disappointment of drastic negative bait-and-switch changes so clearly.
Regarding Obama campaigning in 2008: "I went to sleep that night excited about a new direction for this country that would include me as a recognized medical cannabis patient."
Now in 2012: "In fewer than fours years of President Obama, we have seen more raids on dispensaries than during the Bush Administration's entire eight-year tenure. The Obama Administration has taken property from landlords, threatened local officials, forced the release of patient records, used the Internal Revenue Service to bankrupt legitimate dispensaries, told banks to purge medical cannabis clients, evicted patients from low-income housing and denied a petition to recognize the well-established medical value of cannabis."
This is perfidy of the first-order. The rallies, the political pressure, and the petitions he has either ignored or pooh-poohed. I'm not a one-issue voter and hate the prospect of Romney in the WH, but while bending the arc of the universe toward justice on many other issues, why did Obama choose to bend it backward in this case, and what are we who care about this issue supposed to do with our vote?
Some reserve hope that he will make changes once he gets a second term, but I think of Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football, and how the best indicator of future performance is past performance....
I like him in SO MANY WAYS, and just want him to do the right thing here. Instead he (and most democrats, actually) appears to be kowtowing again and again to corporate sponsors in the pharmaceuticals industry, in oil, in alcohol and tobacco, in law enforcement, and others, who give hundreds of millions to keep things as they are. The MMJ industry doesn't have that kind of money--they're not even allowed to put their money in banks!--and in today's post-Citizens-United decision, doesn't have access to their inner ear. In the meantime, Americans for Safe Access is losing access because of this perfidy.
Labels: 1st UU principle, 5th UU principle, drug war, freedom versus freedom, marijuana, politics, USA
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Why Talk about Cannabis?
A friend on Facebook recently questioned why I have a bug up my butt regarding President Obama's position on cannabis. Here is my initial response, which I am saving here for later honing toward a more succinct draft:
Regarding your comment, "Cannabis? really?" I am led to believe that it's not really an issue for you? Our president has also laughed it off several times as a non-issue. That is most marginalizing to a community of people already in danger of becoming lower than second-class citizens.
Regarding your comment, "Cannabis? really?" I am led to believe that it's not really an issue for you? Our president has also laughed it off several times as a non-issue. That is most marginalizing to a community of people already in danger of becoming lower than second-class citizens.
In case you consider cannabis to really not be an issue, consider these three things. First, among the wide diversity of cannabis strains, there is definitely legitimate medicine for many people suffering from MS, Crohn's/IBS, cancer, glaucoma, arthritis and epilepsy. It is arguably (although less so) medicine for some people with chronic pain/inflammation, anxiety, ADHD, Alzheimer's, and a host of other maladies. And everyone knows it has side effects, such as euphoria, paranoia (likely amplified by its illegality), lethargy, and short-term memory issues. Compare those side effects to the cautionary list at the end of your average pharmaceutical commercial, and you may be surprised at what some people consider 'acceptable' side effects. After giving states the green light in 2009, the Obama Administration has recently done a 170-degree turn on its states' rights policies, and has used the IRS, the DOJ and the DEA to force the businesses with the best practices and the best reputations--operating as model members of their communities, and within the state laws--out of business. These are not the thug-operations that are basically no better than drug dealers with a lease on a shanty. They were doing their best to follow state laws, turning people away with incorrect authorization, testing the products for potency and to make sure there are no fungus, mold, or pesticides, and labeling as accurately as possible. They were/are truly trying to serve those who need it medically. As the feds attempt to shove it all back underground, those people are running low on quality options.
The second important consideration is that the drug war is: a race war, a class war, and a culture war, all wrapped up into one. It is not a war on drugs. It is a selective war on people--our own people. A quick look around at the arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates can tell you which categories of people are most affected. People of color, stopped for DWB and a car search that finds a baggie of weed for example, become ensnared in a system that benefits from keeping them ensnared. The prison-industrial complex is alive and well, privatizing profits while taking our tax dollars, requesting the government to help keep their prisons full! For more on that, read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow." Our nation's young men of color (though probably anybody would do) are worth more to some segments of the investor class behind bars than anywhere else. Meanwhile, in richer, whiter neighborhoods, people have custom-made marijuana-infused cakes and pastries delivered to their parties. If caught, they can pay for a good lawyer and get off scot-free like Rush Limbaugh. That touches on the class and race war elements. Regarding the culture war, it's no coincidence that the war on drugs started in 1970 on Nixon's watch, directed against the countercultural elements who happened to not only like being intoxicated in this fashion, but were also against Vietnam. With the rise of the military-industrial complex, we've seen the militarization of the drug war as well. Not a coincidence. The poor, the people of color, and the people of the counterculture all have common cause here even if they're from different social locations. Meanwhile, those who perpetuate the drug war are interested in marginalizing the voices of all of these people.
The third issue is money. Five hundred leading economists, including Milton Friedman, have stated that it makes clear economic sense to legalize. Money spent incarcerating people for using a substance safer than alcohol and tobacco is wasted money. With federal support, however, drug programs are easy money to collect for local law enforcement looking to bolster their budgets. It's money that goes down the tubes, however. Putting a person needlessly in prison costs >$30k/year. Meanwhile, the person who comes out of a punitive prison system is not likely to be a better person, and with a felony on their record, will no longer be as employable to our economy simply because of that mar on their record, and we have another person either struggling at odd jobs, returning to the drug trade (which perhaps they didn't even do before, but now have scarce options), or living on the dole if they can. Instead of spending that $30k on prisons, it could be spent on educating our youth, or on really rehabilitating and restoring people with real drug problems. Obama has talked a good game on the benefits of treating the drug problem as a public health issue, but the proof is in the pudding. As a portion of budget outlay, police intervention is still the lion's share of the strategy. On the flip-side of the coin, there are arguments that with regulation and taxation, the government could earn a great new revenue stream. I think that while it could certainly bring in some money--enough to counteract the additional public health costs of legalization--it wouldn't be enough to make a dent in the federal debt, or even in the annual deficit: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/commentary/wastler/wastler/ But $10-20 billion isn't chump change either. The real money comes indirectly from productivity gains as we are no longer decimating lives, families, and communities with a drug war that has done far more damage domestically and abroad than the drugs themselves could have done.
Labels: 1st UU principle, 5th UU principle, anti-oppression, changing the prison paradigm, drug war, equal rights, freedom versus freedom, marijuana, racism, USA
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
A good retrospective of Politicians who have used or spoken out about Cannabis
Labels: freedom versus freedom, marijuana, politics, USA
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Illegalizing Hemp has contributed significantly to America's Downfall
So while the War On Drugs continues with no end in sight, did allowing this piece of [blanket illegalization] legislation to pass with no debate, actually lead to the down fall of America?
Consider for a moment what it has caused to happen;
• Pollution on a world wide scale, not just in America.
• Becoming dependent on a finite fuel source from mostly foreign imports.
• Inflation due to an inability to become self sufficient.
• Crime in our cities due to the criminalization of a natural resource.
• Farmers inability to raise a cash crop.
• The rise in health care mostly due to obesity and inflated drug prices.
• Deforestation from the need for trees in the manufacture of paper products.
• Millions of jobs lost due to the criminalization of one plant.
• Allowing the monopolies to continue to make policy in America.
• Cheaper more cost efficient products that actually biodegrade, cutting down on garbage.
• The rise in prices of pharmaceuticals.
Ask yourself, does anyone really know what is in those drugs? I know I don't, how many of your friends or family members takes some sort of pharmaceutical on a daily basis.
The bottom line is they want you to spend money on drugs, but just the ones they make and can control.
I include it here because that is one of the most comprehensive lists of simple economic injustices (not including the more obvious social injustices) created by illegalization of hemp and cannabis.
Labels: 7th UU principle, drug war, ecology, economics, freedom versus freedom, marijuana, renewable energy, USA
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Joe Gerstandt on flying your freak flag
Do you know who you are?
Do you know what you are here for? purpose, calling
Do you know what your gift is?
Wrestle with these if you want to live a life of truth.
Is there any evidence? If this is who I claim to be, am I acting accordingly? Am I doing something different? Am I downplaying playing it safe?
Freaks love to find other freaks. Others won't know how to respond. You'll scare some people by confronting them with your own freedom.
Difference is the genesis of conflict, and conflict is the genesis of change.
Be willing to be different. There is no progress without deviance.
Your odd piece of the puzzle will provoke the future that we want together.
You are now free to fly your freak flag.
Been so busy lately. Will post something more meaningful later in life.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: freak flag, freedom versus freedom, personal bookmarks, personal growth, personal religion
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Some quotes for Self-Study on "Surrender and Self"
A [person] should surrender the personal selfishness which binds him to this world. Giving up the false self is the true renunciation.
-Ramana Maharshi
God has put you in the world. What can you do about it? Resign everything to Him. Surrender yourself at His feet. Then there will be no more confusion. Then you will realize that it is God who does everything.
-Ramakrishna Paramhansa
The essential surrender happens within you, it has nothing to do with anybody outside you. The basic surrender is a relaxation, a trust — so don’t be misguided by the word. Linguistically, surrender means to surrender to somebody, but religiously, surrender simply means trust, relaxing. It is an attitude rather than an act: you live through trust.
-Osho
Drop the mind and the divine. God is not an object, it is a merger. The mind resists a merger, the mind is against surrender; the mind is very cunning and calculating.
-Osho
Complete surrender does require that you have no desire of your own. You must be satisfied with whatever God gives you and that means having no desires of your own.
-Ramana Maharshi
Surrender appears easy because people imagine that, once they say with their lips `I surrender' and put their burdens on their Lord, they can be free and do what they like. But the fact is that you can have no likes or dislikes after your surrender; your will should become completely non-existent, the Lord's will taking its place. The death of the ego in this way brings about a state which is not different from jnana. So by whatever path you may go, you must come to jnana or oneness.
-Ramana Maharshi
The Christian teaches surrender to God; God is just an excuse to surrender. It is a help, because it will be difficult for you to surrender without any object. The object is just an excuse so that in the name of God you can surrender. Buddhism says simply surrender — there is no God. You relax. It is not a question of some object, it is a question of your own subjectivity. Relax, don’t fight. Accept.
-Osho
Leave it to God. Surrender unreservedly. One of two things must be done. Either surrender because you admit your inability and require a higher power to help you, or investigate the cause of misery by going to the source and merging into the Self. Either way you will be free from misery. God never forsakes one who has surrendered.
-Ramana Maharshi
The name "Islam" simply means "Self-surrender to the Will of God." It is the way of life that all Prophets through out history have taught, from those known in the Western world such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus to those sent to other parts of the earth like Salih, Shu'ayb and Luqman, the African.
-Islam101.com
-Ramana Maharshi
God has put you in the world. What can you do about it? Resign everything to Him. Surrender yourself at His feet. Then there will be no more confusion. Then you will realize that it is God who does everything.
-Ramakrishna Paramhansa
The essential surrender happens within you, it has nothing to do with anybody outside you. The basic surrender is a relaxation, a trust — so don’t be misguided by the word. Linguistically, surrender means to surrender to somebody, but religiously, surrender simply means trust, relaxing. It is an attitude rather than an act: you live through trust.
-Osho
Drop the mind and the divine. God is not an object, it is a merger. The mind resists a merger, the mind is against surrender; the mind is very cunning and calculating.
-Osho
Complete surrender does require that you have no desire of your own. You must be satisfied with whatever God gives you and that means having no desires of your own.
-Ramana Maharshi
Surrender appears easy because people imagine that, once they say with their lips `I surrender' and put their burdens on their Lord, they can be free and do what they like. But the fact is that you can have no likes or dislikes after your surrender; your will should become completely non-existent, the Lord's will taking its place. The death of the ego in this way brings about a state which is not different from jnana. So by whatever path you may go, you must come to jnana or oneness.
-Ramana Maharshi
The Christian teaches surrender to God; God is just an excuse to surrender. It is a help, because it will be difficult for you to surrender without any object. The object is just an excuse so that in the name of God you can surrender. Buddhism says simply surrender — there is no God. You relax. It is not a question of some object, it is a question of your own subjectivity. Relax, don’t fight. Accept.
-Osho
Leave it to God. Surrender unreservedly. One of two things must be done. Either surrender because you admit your inability and require a higher power to help you, or investigate the cause of misery by going to the source and merging into the Self. Either way you will be free from misery. God never forsakes one who has surrendered.
-Ramana Maharshi
The name "Islam" simply means "Self-surrender to the Will of God." It is the way of life that all Prophets through out history have taught, from those known in the Western world such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus to those sent to other parts of the earth like Salih, Shu'ayb and Luqman, the African.
-Islam101.com
“The creative process is a process of surrender, not control.”
-Julia Cameron
“Love is a lot like dancing-you just surrender to the music.”
-Unknown
“Change is the essence of life.Be willing to surrender what you are for what you could become.”
-Unknown
“You're in the midst of a war: a battle between the limits of a crowd seeking the surrender of your dreams, and the power of your true vision to create and contribute. It is a fight between those who will tell you what you cannot do, and that part of you that knows / and has always known / that we are more than our environment; and that a dream, backed by an unrelenting will to attain it, is truly a reality with an imminent arrival.”
-Anthony Robbins
“Give up all bad qualities in you, banish the ego and develop the spirit of surrender. You will then experience Bliss.” -Sri Sathya Sai Baba
“Faith, as Paul saw it, was a living, flaming thing leading to surrender and obedience to the commandments of Christ.”
-A. W. Tozer
“The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender.”
-Vince Lombardi
“At fifteen life had taught me undeniably that surrender, in its place, was as honorable as resistance, especially if one had no choice.”
-Maya Angelou
“We can only learn to know ourselves and do what we can / namely, surrender our will and fulfill God's will in us.”
-St. Theresa of Avila
“If you surrender completely to the moments as they pass, you live more richly those moments.”
-Anne Morrow Lindbergh
“Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength.”
-Arnold Schwarzenegger
“If people as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery.”
-Albert Einstein
In trying to make meaning of this, I note that not all of these are talking about surrender in the same way, or from the same perspective. Some see it as a positive, and a form of relief and letting go, and some see it as giving up. There is a time and place for everything. For myself, I'm praying for a successful surrendering, and soon.
lyrics:
and
Let's dance in style, Let's dance for a while
Heaven can wait, we're only watching the skies
Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst
Are you going to drop the bomb or not?
from Forever Young, by Alphaville
colors: moon and sand
mood: resistive
chant/prayer/mantra: om namah shivaya gurave, saccidananda murtaye, nishpraprancaya shantaya, nirah lambaya tejase
pax hominibus, agape to all, joel
-Julia Cameron
“Love is a lot like dancing-you just surrender to the music.”
-Unknown
“Change is the essence of life.Be willing to surrender what you are for what you could become.”
-Unknown
“You're in the midst of a war: a battle between the limits of a crowd seeking the surrender of your dreams, and the power of your true vision to create and contribute. It is a fight between those who will tell you what you cannot do, and that part of you that knows / and has always known / that we are more than our environment; and that a dream, backed by an unrelenting will to attain it, is truly a reality with an imminent arrival.”
-Anthony Robbins
“Give up all bad qualities in you, banish the ego and develop the spirit of surrender. You will then experience Bliss.” -Sri Sathya Sai Baba
“Faith, as Paul saw it, was a living, flaming thing leading to surrender and obedience to the commandments of Christ.”
-A. W. Tozer
“The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender.”
-Vince Lombardi
“At fifteen life had taught me undeniably that surrender, in its place, was as honorable as resistance, especially if one had no choice.”
-Maya Angelou
“We can only learn to know ourselves and do what we can / namely, surrender our will and fulfill God's will in us.”
-St. Theresa of Avila
“If you surrender completely to the moments as they pass, you live more richly those moments.”
-Anne Morrow Lindbergh
“Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength.”
-Arnold Schwarzenegger
“If people as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery.”
-Albert Einstein
In trying to make meaning of this, I note that not all of these are talking about surrender in the same way, or from the same perspective. Some see it as a positive, and a form of relief and letting go, and some see it as giving up. There is a time and place for everything. For myself, I'm praying for a successful surrendering, and soon.
and
Let's dance in style, Let's dance for a while
Heaven can wait, we're only watching the skies
Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst
Are you going to drop the bomb or not?
from Forever Young, by Alphaville
pax hominibus, agape to all, joel
Labels: 4th UU principle, art, Christianity, freedom versus freedom, globalism, personal growth, prayer, salvation, war and peace
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
FDR's Second Bill of Rights
I support this.
Video here.
Text from here:
How I wish the US had pursued these with all its might. I wish it still would.
pax hominibus,agape to all,joel
Video here.
Text from here:
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
How I wish the US had pursued these with all its might. I wish it still would.
pax hominibus,agape to all,joel
Labels: anti-oppression, classism, economics, education, equal rights, freedom versus freedom, homelessness, personal bookmarks, politics, sacred texts, theological sources, universal health care, USA
Friday, January 22, 2010
Fascinating Deconstruction of the Social Construction of Sexual Orientation
.
Here is the link to the Prop 8 Trial in the Federal Appeals court. I think that's currently where it is in the process. Given the recent Supreme Court conservative bloc activist decision against campaign finance reform, I'm worried about what will happen if/when Prop 8 makes it to their door.
I won't comment on the trial right now, but this provides a valuable view into a sociological understanding of gayness. :)
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Here is the link to the Prop 8 Trial in the Federal Appeals court. I think that's currently where it is in the process. Given the recent Supreme Court conservative bloc activist decision against campaign finance reform, I'm worried about what will happen if/when Prop 8 makes it to their door.
I won't comment on the trial right now, but this provides a valuable view into a sociological understanding of gayness. :)
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: freedom versus freedom, LGBT, personal bookmarks
Sunday, June 14, 2009
New Biggest Yacht in the World, Complete with Missile Defense System
.
Here is a yacht costing 300 million pounds. It's owned by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, and an intentional display of wealth.
Go ahead, read about it.
I am keeping my eye on the world's largest private boats, because there's definitely a distributive justice issue here.
This is not to simply finger-point. This single example of a 40 year-old man throwing down hundreds of millions, probably billions, on boats for private use is just the superlative stereotype. In my previous post about the iGoogle photo themes, as I was writing how it would be nice to accommodate those with 1920 pixel wide screen resolutions, I realized that was indicative of my own luxury. I could perhaps get by with a smaller screen, and most people do, but at least I am using it. I have more guitars than I need, and we have a high-quality stroller for our baby, when many do just fine with a $50 umbrella stroller. For everything except the guitars, and even arguably the guitars, there is a rational reason:
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Here is a yacht costing 300 million pounds. It's owned by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, and an intentional display of wealth.
Go ahead, read about it.
I am keeping my eye on the world's largest private boats, because there's definitely a distributive justice issue here.
This is not to simply finger-point. This single example of a 40 year-old man throwing down hundreds of millions, probably billions, on boats for private use is just the superlative stereotype. In my previous post about the iGoogle photo themes, as I was writing how it would be nice to accommodate those with 1920 pixel wide screen resolutions, I realized that was indicative of my own luxury. I could perhaps get by with a smaller screen, and most people do, but at least I am using it. I have more guitars than I need, and we have a high-quality stroller for our baby, when many do just fine with a $50 umbrella stroller. For everything except the guitars, and even arguably the guitars, there is a rational reason:
- The guitars: each of them has a little different sound, different playability, and different personality. I also like to keep some of them in different tunings.
- The stroller: those cheap ones are not designed for tall people, and I'd have to stoop down almost a foot to push it, which is heck on my chest and back.
- The monitor: I can have two documents open at once, and can be more productive, plus I really enjoy being able to have a fuller view, instead of a cramped little keyhole.
- The boats: I won't assume to answer for them, but they probably have a reason that works for them.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: economics, freedom versus freedom, yachts
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Rolling Stone Article on the Truth Behind the Bank Bailouts
OMG, this article by Matt Taibbi just pushes me over the edge. I've been following all this stuff since I first heard of credit default swaps a couple years ago, but this article presents all the grisly details.
Here's two quotes that kind of sum up the situation (though they are not a summary of the article itself by any means) :
"...on the linear spectrum of capitalism to socialism, where exactly are we now? Is there a dictionary word that even describes what we are now? It would be funny, if it weren't such a nightmare."
"'Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?' But before you even finish saying that, they're rolling their eyes, because You Don't Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they're on par with crack addicts...."
Either we can kiss the US capitalist system goodbye, or all the common people will be wage slaves working (if they are lucky) for those who are now in the process of outright stealing trillions from the US treasury and the Federal Reserve through a non-transparent process.
It makes me think of Henry Potter, when I hear about the big banks getting access to the TARP loans and other loans, and all the regional and small banks that were much more judicious about their lending practices have not gotten any money yet? Shame on the federal reserve and the US treasury, and everyone who let it get this bad.
lyrics: "We feed the cats to the rats, and the rats to the cats, and get the cat skins for nothing!"
lyrics: "We feed the cats to the rats, and the rats to the cats, and get the cat skins for nothing!"
From How to Skin a Cat, by Husker Du
colors: Black and Red. Mostly red. Not sure whether blood red, or red ink. Or blood used as red ink.
mood: Nervous.
chant/prayer/mantra: For a return to humanity's wholeness, and not this separateness.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
colors: Black and Red. Mostly red. Not sure whether blood red, or red ink. Or blood used as red ink.
mood: Nervous.
chant/prayer/mantra: For a return to humanity's wholeness, and not this separateness.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: classism, economics, freedom versus freedom, indifferent corporations, oppression, theological sources, USA
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Indictment. Seriously.
I am hesitant to despoil my beautiful blog with the visage of this man who has caused so much calamity in the U.S. and in the world, but I feel that for the purposes of bringing the world back to just and right relationship, some very serious crimes need to be accounted for.
You can't just go and trump up a war, then commit war crimes, and loot hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, and then go hang out at your ranch. If you can do all that, and walk away free, what kind of precedent does that set? It means that for crimes where hundreds of thousands of people are killed, and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people's lives are adversely affected, there is nothing to be done on behalf of the perpetrator. The president of a country should be responsible to everyone, not the other way around. The president is given a lot of power (and freedom -- not to be confused with 'license', which is what Bush and company took), and to allow them to abuse that freedom in order to impose upon other peoples' freedoms is neglect of the first order.
I want to be clear that I am NOT asking for retributive justice, though I must admit that over the course of the last 8 years, the idea of some grisly form of capital punishment for their evils has crossed my mind. What I am asking for is restorative justice. Those who have made things wrong must fully recognize what they have done, and work to put things back to the way they ought to be, so this kind of injustice cannot be done again. I do wonder though, are these men entirely incorrigible? In that case, they should be removed from society as a form of safety for society, but not as a form of punishment.
This new case brought up by a Spanish court promises to be interesting, but doesn't go after Bush or Cheney, and is probably non-binding, since extradition will be difficult at best, unless any of those named in the suit happen to travel to a country that would apprehend them on behalf o Spain. Now, if other countries were to join suit, eventually the folks named would be trapped in the U.S. (which admittedly is still a pretty big place to travel in). I wonder what it would take to have charges actually pressed in the U.S. itself?
lyrics: "Indictment!"
From Indictment, by Antibalas
colors: The New Red, White, and Blue
mood: Time for restorative justice.
chant/prayer/mantra: Peace to all people.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
colors: The New Red, White, and Blue
mood: Time for restorative justice.
chant/prayer/mantra: Peace to all people.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: changing the prison paradigm, freedom versus freedom, globalism, politics, restorative justice, USA, war and peace
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tyranny of Freedom?
I have to go to bed soon, so can't develop this nearly as much as I'd like, but wonder how many readers of this little blog have had the opportunity to suffer freedom in the round. The few times where I've been in a situation where I had freedom to explore and do what I wanted were good for a while, but after an extended period, I needed to get a script, a plan, and some structure.
I came across an interesting article someone wrote about how the U.S. will move into tyranny, though I am hopeful that the Obama tyranny will be of a noticeably better variety than the Bush tyranny, with a different bent to it.
Essentially, according to Plato in his Republic, a true democracy breeds atomistic freedom units, individuals, and eventually that leads to the worship/glorification of freedom at the expense of communal actions. Then some people exercise their freedoms to develop tyrannies. That can take the form of corporate monopolies or government, or "free-market" advocates (I'm a fair-market advocate, BTW), NGO's, etc, that by way of having so much freedom that it turns to license, and it falls out of balance. I'm sure if you read the article, you'll get something different from it.
lyrics: "Bye bye baby. Baby bye bye" by the Bay City Rollers.
chant/prayer/mantra: which is most desirable: structured freedom, or freedomed structure? what do those look like?
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
I came across an interesting article someone wrote about how the U.S. will move into tyranny, though I am hopeful that the Obama tyranny will be of a noticeably better variety than the Bush tyranny, with a different bent to it.
Essentially, according to Plato in his Republic, a true democracy breeds atomistic freedom units, individuals, and eventually that leads to the worship/glorification of freedom at the expense of communal actions. Then some people exercise their freedoms to develop tyrannies. That can take the form of corporate monopolies or government, or "free-market" advocates (I'm a fair-market advocate, BTW), NGO's, etc, that by way of having so much freedom that it turns to license, and it falls out of balance. I'm sure if you read the article, you'll get something different from it.
lyrics: "Bye bye baby. Baby bye bye" by the Bay City Rollers.
chant/prayer/mantra: which is most desirable: structured freedom, or freedomed structure? what do those look like?
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: freedom versus freedom, personal bookmarks, personal religion, politics
Friday, February 6, 2009
Michael Phelps caught smoking from a bong
So uber-champion of swimming Michael Phelps had a picture of him smoking from a bong end up in a newspaper. And now lots of his sponsors are dropping his contract, including Kellogg's and Subway -- corporations which enjoy business from people who smoke marijuana. Perhaps they and the other folks trying to slap his wrist really are doing it because he should be a role model for kids, perhaps they're doing it because they don't want to be associated with marijuana because of family-goodness perceptions they want to keep alive.
There is a lot I would add to this discussion, but apparently, there are many professional journalists saying pretty much the same thing. Note a few of the headlines of the Related Blogs section from the page linked above (I will add my comments in []'s):
The simple way of saying this is that the context is being presented as if Michael Phelps spending some of his downtime in an altered state of consciousness cannot be allowed as a part of our worldview. For Christ's sake -- and I do mean that literally -- shaman and spiritual guides have been smoking and snorting herbs and such for thousands of years. When can we get real about drug policy, and get real about having a system of laws based on a deep and grounded ethical morality, and put people (and the planet) before ideologies?
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
There is a lot I would add to this discussion, but apparently, there are many professional journalists saying pretty much the same thing. Note a few of the headlines of the Related Blogs section from the page linked above (I will add my comments in []'s):
- "Why Are We Condemning Michael Phelps' Pot Use? Add decorated Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps to the growing list of successful Americans who happens to indulge in marijuana during his down time." [Or: they will be otherwise successful until they get found out.]
- "If Kellogg's Dumps Phelps, We Dump Kellogg's Tens of millions of Americans think that the public condemnation of Phelps is a farce. We're sick and tired of the public outings, and forced apologies and recantations, which perpetuate this shameless hypocrisy."
- " Michael Phelps, Hypocrisy, and American Drug Policy Today, public figures justify past drug use as "youthful indiscretions" and the matter is dropped. But the reality of drug arrests creates a justified perception economic and racial bias." [Let's face it, the drug laws are in place -- and unevenly enforced-- as a method of social control, to keep (groups of) people who are different, either in skin color, culture, or lifestyle choices on the defensive.]
- " Marijuana Blues: If All Americans Had Phelps' Press Experience, The Drug War Would Be Over Imagine how the economy would grind to (even more of!) a halt if we tried to arrest and incarcerate all of the people who had ever smoked pot." [Well, the privatized prison economy (complete with its sub-minimum-wage SLAVE labor) would continue to grow, until we can't find the tax money to pay for a dead-end prison system that destroys the lives of not only inmates, but also the guards/employees, and the towns they are in. Wackenhut is not hurting for earnings, however.]
- " Quit Crying Double-Standard Over Phelps America gives its marketable, talented and wealthy weed-smokers the Santonio Holmes treatment. We forgive and quickly forget." [This writer, Jason Whitlock, and I agree on my bracketed statement above: 'America's war on drugs is a scam to lock up poor people, a prop to advance political careers and an easy way for corrupt police and politicians to funnel millions of untraceable dollars into their own pockets.']
- " Petition to Boycott Kellogg's for Treatment of Michael Phelps Kellogg's has decided to end their relationship with Phelps after a photo of him surfaced doing exactly what most Kellogg's customers do right before enjoying a bowl of Rice Krispies with an Eggo on top." [LOL. But seriously, if there is an organized boycott of Kellogg's by all those who stand against our nation's drug policy and the continued insistence that the context of marijuana be one of criminality, it would be interesting to watch how deeply their margins are affected.]
- " Michael Phelps In Good Company According to a 2002 Time/CNN poll, 47% of Americans have smoked marijuana. Here's a list of famous users and advocates of the plant." [Includes Laura Bush, Donna Shalala, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sarah Palin, George Soros! President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, President James Madison, President John Kennedy, President Thomas Jefferson, President Andrew Jackson, President Franklin Pierce, Future California governor Brad Pitt (come on, if Reagan and Schwarzenegger can do it...), William F. Buckley, Jr, Jennifer Aniston, Utilitarian ethicist Jon Stuart Mill... Seriously, where have our values come to if we are willing to continue to use legislation and law enforcement to subjugate the lifestyles of large parts of our population?]
- " Excuses, Excuses: The Real Problem With Michael Phelps I flashed back to 2004 when Phelps was arrested for a DUI. He was 19, fresh off Athens and the magazine where I worked was honoring him for being a role model for young people." [Um... drinking and driving -- that IS a bad thing for which there should be negative repercussions, and which our society should find ways to make more difficult, and more unnecessary (more designated drivers, more taxis, better mass-transit...)]
- " Bong Hits for Phelps: No Apology Needed Phelps struck another blow to the myth that marijuana smokers are lazy. Successful and honorable people who have smoked some pot are all around us, from President Obama to Mayor Bloomberg." [True. When you start having more and more successful people stepping up being "exceptions to the rule," eventually it becomes clear that the rule is unsubstantiated.]
The simple way of saying this is that the context is being presented as if Michael Phelps spending some of his downtime in an altered state of consciousness cannot be allowed as a part of our worldview. For Christ's sake -- and I do mean that literally -- shaman and spiritual guides have been smoking and snorting herbs and such for thousands of years. When can we get real about drug policy, and get real about having a system of laws based on a deep and grounded ethical morality, and put people (and the planet) before ideologies?
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: anti-oppression, changing the prison paradigm, classism, drug war, equal rights, freedom versus freedom, personal religion, politics, theological sources
