Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Sermon: A New American Dream
A New American Dream
Delivered to Napa Fellowship
Sunday, July 4, 2010 11:00 a.m.
I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me here. It is an honor to be here among this fellowship of Unitarian Universalists in such a beautiful part of the world to worship together this morning on such a wondrous yet complicated holiday. I feel truly blessed.
I recall back when I was a child--probably around kindergarten age-- my sisters and I would go out in our pajamas and sit on the curb of County Road B. We were joining many of the neighbor kids to watch the nightly fireworks display held at the Minnesota state fair grounds. Every Summer, for the week leading up to labor day, we did this faithfully every night that the Minnesota state fair was happening. And they also had fireworks on the 4th of July as well. I figured out that was just for the one night, though the fireworks display was markedly more impressive that night.
Until about a decade ago, my favorite of all the fireworks had been that one that stands out because it’s so different. Most of the fireworks explode into showers of beautiful patterns of glittering color. I enjoyed these as well, but my favorite was the one that just exploded as a big gray dot. Given that the fairgrounds were about 3 miles away, we’d see them and then it would be several seconds before we’d hear the sound, and I always looked forward to that one for it’s louder POOMPH! sound.
I miss those carefree innocent days sitting in my pajamas on the curb. Now when I experience the fireworks, I think not only of their glorification of war and war patriotism, but I think also about this country’s multitude of combat veterans with PTSD, for whom that loud POOMPH! sound brings dread and horror. And I am shocked that our country, even during times of ongoing wars, and shellshocked soldiers, continues this practice wholeheartedly. In my dream for America, I can see a place for fireworks, for people to remember the wars long-past. Such a commemoration could be a thing of beauty, but with our nation actively engaged in two major wars, it seems to me that this part of the American dream is in need of change.
At this year’s General Assembly, our delegates said YES to a statement of conscience committing ourselves to the path of creating peace. More than ever, I know that Unitarian Universalism is a good home for me, and I hope you do as well. In this mission, we truly are anointed by God to create peace.
This is about peace not just for our nation, but also in our lives. Peace in our lives is at the heart of my American dream.
War is an American way of life. Correction: War has been an American way of life, but it need not continue to be so. When war is firmly embedded in the greater culture, it affects each of us in the way we live our lives. This includes the foods we buy--when our nation went to war in 2001, the prices at the grocery store rose dramatically. A culture of war affects the transportation we use, especially when our wars are associated with national energy policy. It affects the housing we purchase (or are unable to purchase). A looming budget for war also greatly affects the budget available for education, social welfare programs, and energy research, just to name a few. With war as this nation’s top priority, I believe each of us struggle to keep warlike “us and them” thinking from finding a place in our own psyches.
War comes thundering for resources, garnering them for its own uses. When we think like war, we clutch our wallets tight when asked for money, look for the highest return on investment, and cling to individual bank accounts, even as the banks dream up ever more novel and insidious reasons for charging fees.
War operates on fear of retaliation, always seeking to have the upper hand. When we think like war, we want to be in control of whatever situation, lest we be wounded or taken down a notch.
War has a tendency to leave a trail of decimation in its wake. In our own lives, how often do we find ourselves unable to engage authentically with another person because of the economic decimation that has been visited upon them, often through no fault of their own.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can’t survive this way in the long term (even if some people might do well in the short term), so another way of life is necessary. A new vision is necessary, focused on a new center. I recommend that that center needs to be peace. One might imagine our world leaders and corporate leaders all coming to a decisive conclusion that “enough is enough” and declaring an end to this competitive system of resource acquisition, where billions of lives are on the line. While most definitely welcome, such a change would be a discontinuity of the first order.
No, that center needs to be peace in our own lives. The trickle-down theory didn’t work in economics, and indications are that it likely wouldn’t work for peace. Peace needs to follow the bubble-up method within each of us, and we need to share it. I believe it will start small.
Peace on the individual level begins when we realize that we can and must forgive ourselves. Whatever it is that we think we’ve done, or what we’re thinking or feeling, it starts with a big breath in and letting our shoulders release. It begins when we take our first principle to heart, for ourselves. The inherent worth and dignity of every person—that includes each of us here in this space.
Once we’ve done that, that basic level of inner peace can open us up to search for our path of personal peace. We can build our lives around that peace path. I feel that a good next step is a little reflection on where our lives are at and where our energy is directed. Reflection is always important, and often a critical step that gets skipped. Three important steps in discerning action are to:
- First, figure out what’s happening;
- Second, to reflect on the meaning of the event at hand.
- Third, decide what to do.
Many people skip that second step of reflection.
Upon reflecting on the fact that by some miracle I’m alive and have forgiven myself, I believe a high priority ought to be establishing sufficient dedicated time and space for quiet fellowship with our divine source. That source may be from the divinity within each of us, or it may mean the divinity between you and a friend, or the divinity that wends its way among you and your community of friends. Or it may be the divinity beyond what you’ve thus far known. Your seeking soul may want to know other cultures, or open up imaginatively to an infinitude of possibilities and understandings that exist in any moment. Or you may find your divine source in all of those places, or somewhere else entirely, or you may choose to call it something else entirely. Wherever it is, connecting with that source is essential.
Those divine connections take time to grow. As we invest time in that spiritual growth, our anxieties and insecurities diminish, and we will more deeply discover right-relationship with others in our lives.
A part of my American dream is for us to develop deep and engaged connection with each other. I have a note to myself to write a sermon one day about how “a strong interpersonal presence makes room for a rich sense of community.” Who am I including in that community? Obviously, all of the people in this congregation. Further, I’m referring to the people we meet on the street, and even the people whom we’ll never meet. Here, I mean giving deeply of our energy through taxes and labor into a commonwealth, a trust from which we all may draw in time of need. Earlier, during my rant about what war does to us, I said it garners resources to itself. With this culture’s tendency toward radical individuality, we each feel the pressure to fend for ourselves and hold our wallets tight. We squirrel away for our own individual retirement, or try to get away from living paycheck-to-paycheck, which creates a strong urge to not make our energy available to everyone else. When the commonwealth/trust of collected resources that we rely on is running on empty, there is a feeling of abandonment and being on our own. I get this feeling a lot when I hear about forces within government seeking to cut taxes, to borrow money from the future, and still spending mightily, but spending on things that do not support our common welfare and security. This undermines our trust and faith in one another, and in our leaders who we wish to be good stewards. In cases where a pool of resources has been built up, there is greater security, a stronger sense of community, and a deeper trust of one another and of our leaders.
When we develop these resource pools in small groups, and the groups become larger and the pools become larger, it will be the leaders who feel abandoned. Lately, those in control in America have shown us visions that amount to rubbish anyway. In a time of plenty—we still do have plenty, look at any grocery store, clothing store, or housing classifieds section and you’ll see there are more than enough resources to go around, but it’s a matter of deciding who gets use of the resources. In a time of plenty, these leaders seek mainly to serve their individual empires; and by turning a blind eye to the poor, or giving small charitable sums from mostly ill-gotten fortunes allowing only for basic subsistence—by treating others this way, they do not foster any sense of community and security for anyone. That American dream is thriving, but the way of life it represents is like a vampire, leeching blood and energy away from everyone else’s common dreams. But before we decide to drive a stake into the heart of this vampire, we may do well to do a little reflection. Lest we look into the mirror and find ourselves only a shadow. Perhaps since we’ve been going along with somebody else’s dreams for so long, grafting ours onto an unkind pattern of existence, the common dreams we were born with may seem distant and dim. At this point, I’ll drop my shoulders again and take another deep breath and say we need to forgive ourselves, because it’s a new day.
Eventually, all of this dreaming is for the purpose of creating some concrete reality. I’d like to share a bit of the things that I foresee us doing as a result of our commitment to peace. As a result of our commitment to peace within ourselves, to our neighbors, and to our spherical home, we will build a new world.
In this world, I see us making peace with the planet by choosing abundant renewable natural resources. I see us learning to share on deeper levels, with consensual co-housing where groups of families live together with private space for each family and shared public space. We would also share gardens, vehicles, friendship, and tools, recognizing our positions on the planet as that of temporary stewards, rather than as permanent owners. I see us building beautiful homes from the most natural materials available.
In this world, I see us adopting a mantra of “simple living is a good way of giving,” where we realize that when we own lots of stuff, that stuff begins to control us. Not only can we spread our own wealth around, we can make sure that everybody gets firsts before we go back for seconds and thirds. Then again, when we know that ours is a culture of plenty, we will unlearn old habits of hoarding.
In this world, I see a large pool of publicly-held resources, democratically controlled by responsible ethical stewards. This pool would go where our public need is greatest. With the end of inexpensive oil upon us shortly, we will need better mass transit systems. From this pool, we can create a multitude of jobs building trains that run on electricity. Trains for transporting people and supplies both within cities and between cities.
I see a world where we conserve energy by moving around a lot less. As much as possible, we will get our food and resources locally, or even from our own backyard gardens. And using current communication technology, we’ll be able to virtually visit anyone anytime we like without traveling, and we’ll be able to spend significant time at home.
In this world, I see every employable person actually employed. There is so much work to be done in this world, be it planting trees, picking up trash, cleaning beaches, or gardening. So to have even a single person instead devoting their energy full-time toward finding a job is a crime. Furthermore, instead of some people working huge hours and some unemployed, we could all be working 25-30 hours per week. Today’s unfortunate high level of unemployment is an artificial creation, caused partly by a lack of trust on the part of those in control of the resources necessary for production, and partly because when there is a surplus of workers available, it is easier for businesses to get cheap labor.
In this world, I see people earning a basic living wage regardless of their station in life, and nobody without a home or food. A simple 2-bedroom mud-brick home with electricity and running water can be built for $20,000. Doing the math, to house 2 million people would cost $20 billion. If we were to reallocate the US military budget toward housing, we could build new permanent housing for well over 60 million people every year. It’s a question of priorities. Of course we don’t need to build that many homes because there aren’t that many homeless people, and there actually are a lot of empty buildings already available.
All this talk doesn’t mean we have to “give everything up.” Much of the technological progress that has been made is remarkable and will be part of the solutions we arrive at. Humanity has always valued cheap labor, and has always tended toward greater efficiency. Our systems of automation have greatly increased worker productivity, and soon we will have non-sentient robots to do many of the most difficult, dangerous, or unwanted jobs. Since this is wine country, I will share a particular dream I have been pondering. In the not-too-distant future, we will be able to turn water into wine automatically, perhaps with only the aid of a vintner to get the mix right. Robots can tend and harvest the grapes, de-stem them, crush them, and mix them into the fermenter, bottle them, and perhaps even deliver them to your door.
When I think upon what we will do with that free time, I realize there is still so much to do before that happens. But one day with that time, we will build community gardens, we will play musical instruments for the simple joy of it, or horseshoes, or Frisbee golf. We will spend time in fellowship with our divine sources. We will write books, and we’ll continue to explore life’s mysteries. There will be time for all who want a full education to get one. We’ll sing songs together. We’ll make gifts for one another. We’ll give a present to this planet by working to restore and heal all that we can. And we’ll break bread together, often, in peace. Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: sermons
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
Friday, March 27, 2009
Obama on Marijuana Legalization and the Economy?
.
lyrics: "I think you missed the point! Arresting for a joint?"
So, today on the nation's first online question and answer session with President Obama, he took the time to address a question related to an issue that matters to many Americans.
His exact words were:
We took votes about which questions were going to be asked, and I think 3 million people voted, or 3.5 million voted.I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy [note: the live in-studio audience all starts chuckling at this point], and job creation, and ah -- I don't know what this says about the online audience, but I just want -- I don't want people to think that ah -- this was a fairly popular question -- and we want to make sure that it was answered.The answer is 'No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy.'
And here is a link to the actual questions,* and not Obama's paraphrasing of it. Wow, there is a lot that could be said regarding this. It's late, and I'm going to bed soon, so I'll only say about half of it, and I'm going to be sloppy about citing sources (sorry). If you want the information, it's out there at the few links I will be providing.
First, it is great that he is having online question and answer sessions, to address questions that a plurality of Americans want to know about. As evidenced by the Bush administration's method of hand-picking reporters allowed into the reporter room, and heavily penalizing those who don't ask appropriate slow-pitch softball style questions, Obama could get through the presidency without doing this.
Second, honestly there are much more important issues in the United States to deal with than marijuana reform. There are wars to end and peace to begin, there are homeless and hungry and unemployed people. There are civil rights to be won for those in the LGBT community, and civil rights to be secured for people of color, and for immigrants. There are environmental issues that need addressing, and medical care for all. The list goes on and on.
But, as was evidenced during that brief stint when John McCain wanted to pull out of the debates because of the "Emergency Bail Out" bill (that gave all that money to banks that had greedily overleveraged themselves out of any semblance of fiscal balance), a good president needs to be able to handle more than one thing at once. Therefore in addition to the things mentioned above, President Obama should devote some of his time in office ending the "drug war" and reforming national policy regarding marijuana. Despite the difficulty of his answer today, I still believe that a decriminalization of marijuana is one among many of the "change we can believe in."
Third, I believe the audience was laughing partially from their own lack of comfort with this now-apparently-taboo topic, and also because to those who have not been on the front lines of the drug war, there is no context in which marijuana legalization actually makes sense, because there is no conversation or thought about it. Therefore the idea of legalization or decriminalization in order to boost the economy sounds like a tricky joke or something. But that question was indeed asked in earnest. Because MILLIONS of American lives depend on it. There are now millions of Americans who have been arrested for drug possession, and it affects their employability and their family life, and if they go to jail or prison, is a major DRAIN on the economy. Especially when prison or jail is NOT even an ethical answer for non-violent behavior. Those people could be working and paying money into the tax pool, rather than having their lives ruined behind bars while the prison system takes money out of the tax pool.
So, fourth, yes, there would be billions of dollars saved by eliminating the war on drugs*, so our taxes could go towards other things, instead of going toward: DEA raids on licensed medical cannabis dispensaries; state and federal prison population of non-violent drug offenders multiplied by $30k per prisoner; and toward militarized anti-drug operations at home and abroad, which have a way of smudging the lines and becoming dangerously close to military operations. So the above money could go toward other things. After all, it's not as if THIRTY YEARS of the drug war has really made much of a difference in anything other than us having less money, more people in prison, more racial discrimination, and pretty much the same amount of people trying drugs.
*note that this link is to a petition created by Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman and signed by hundreds of economists
*note that this link is to a petition created by Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman and signed by hundreds of economists
Fifth, there would be billions of dollars earned by legalizing and taxing marijuana. There is no doubt in this. That money could go toward honest education programs, and toward drug (and alcohol) counseling. Instead of billions of dollars going toward armed drug cartels who are also bringing cocaine and heroin into our country, there would be a new sector of the economy. Compared to 700 billion dollars, it wouldn't be much, but then what does compare to 700 billion dollars, except for the entirety of the banking industry?
Sixth, even though it would help the economy, why should legalization/decriminalization be based on whether it would help grow the economy? Why make a decision such as this based on whether it would grow the economy when there are far more compelling reasons? For Christ's sake (and I do mean that literally), is the US now going to make ALL of its decisions based on whether there is money to be had? I DETEST that. I LOATHE that. I DESPISE that backward/myopic-principled way of thinking. It needs to be ushered to the exit door.
Seventh, here are some other reasons for decriminalization/legalization.
- There really are people who are finding a variety of medical benefits from marijuana, and reliable studies have even verified this.
- There are people whose lives are being destroyed, not by marijuana use directly, but by a penal system which follows biased and outdated ideologies, damning to jail those who use and distribute it.
- Marijuana has been shown to be far less harmful to people than alcohol or tobacco, but those are legal, regulated, and (heavily) taxed. Simply put, that is double-think.
- The drug war is class and race war -- blacks and latino/as are disproportionately represented among those who are put in prison (according to mandatory minimum sentences, even!) as a result of non-violent drug offenses.
- Marijuana plants produce a lot of oxygen -- the planet needs more oxygen NOW, and these can grow a lot faster than forests (of course I would also recommend reforestation ASAP as well).
- Finally, there is the issue of personal freedom to do as we choose. The United States has long been touted as "the land of the free." The war on drugs, coupled with peoples' continued desire to use them is a strong test against that notion -- because of prohibition, people are not free at all to use cannabis. Every argument I've heard from proponents for restriction on this freedom are either arbitrary or circular, frequently pointing to the illegality as the reason for itself.
Eighth, here are some things that hinder decriminalization/legalization, mainly corporate interests -- a few of which may have helped to get Obama into office. :(
- The pharmaceutical industry doesn't want people to be able to grow their own pain relief.
- If marijuana is legalized, there will be massive amounts of hemp fiber available for everything from clothing to rope, to sheets, to paper, to cooking oil, to insulation, to biodegradable plastics.
- The tobacco, alcohol, and coffee industries don't want to have to give up their corner on the recreational drug market.
- The prison and corrections industry has been enjoying a real boom lately, and the big box stores who hire prison labor at slavery wages also enjoy having locked-up non-violent drug offenders to help with their profit margins.** We, as shoppers, should take very careful heed of from where we buy our products.
- Drug traffickers and dealers, despite the possibilities of getting caught, enjoy the immense profit they can make when they sell plants at 100x their natural cost to produce.
- And V.P. Joe Biden and Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel have both been fairly well linked to -- and supportive of -- the war on drugs in the past.
My hope against hope, is that Obama, being the incredibly intelligent man that he is, is biding his time and waiting for the context to be ripe to introduce this. Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana is one of the many things that he needs to get done during his tenure in office. And if he is planning to wait until his second term to do this, it would certainly be a shame if he doesn't get re-elected, or ends up with a cantankerous Republican congress to deal in the future. The best time to do this is in the next two years.
*From http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions, it appears that in 4 different categories, the questions about marijuana legalization were in the top ten most voted for the following constructed categories (I copy them here because information on the Internet has a way of vanishing overnight):
Health Care Reform (2 of top 10)
"Why is marijuana still illegal? Cigarettes and alcohol are far more harmful, and with the taxes put on the legal distribution of marijuana the US could make millions" Ben R, Washington, DC
"As a person with Multiple Sclerosis, I have many other MS friends who use marijuana just to feel some relief from their bodies. When can pressure be placed to reclassify Cannabis from a Schedule 1 drug (no medical benefit) to Schedule 5?" Marcia, Texas
Green Jobs and Energy (the top 2!)
""Will you consider decriminalizing the recreational/medical use of marijuana(hemp) so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”" Green Machine, Winchester,VA
"Has your administration given any serious thought to how legalizing marijuana could help solve the economic crisis? We could tax this green product and create an influx of cash while reducing violence created by the war of drugs & illegal trafficking" Ashley, Brooklyn, NY
Financial Stability (the top 4!)
"Would you support the bill currently going through the California legislation to legalize and tax marijuana, boosting the economy and reducing drug cartel related violence?" Anthony, Warrington, PA
"Has the administration given any thought to legalizing marijuana, as a cash crop to fuel the economy? Why not make available, regulate, and tax something that that about 10 million Americans use regularly and is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol." Sarah, Atlanta, GA
"Growing up I have noticed many around me always talk about legalization of marijuana, and I always thought, why not put a tax stamp on it. If marijuana was legalized it could really change a lot of things. America had the same problem with Alcohol." Peter McNamara, Minneapolis, MN
"Could legalizing marijuana and laying a tax on it, given restriction allow the government make back some of the glaring debt considering it's inelasticity and the history of economics of prohibition?" Andy Drake, New Brunswick, NJ
Jobs (2 of the top ten)
"What are your plans for the failing, "War on Drugs", thats sucking money from tax payers and putting non-violent people in prison longer than the violent criminals?" Matt B, West Bend, WI
"President Obama, Do you plan on letting Science end the failed "War" on Marijuana for personal and medical use thus taking the strain of our prisons and police forces so that we no longer have to arrest over 800,000 non violent drug offenders?" Phill, Georgetown,MA
Budget (the top 7!)
"With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?" Ryan Palmer, Dallas, TX
"Mr. Obama, Thank you for allowing us to ask our questions to you, unfiltered. What is your stance on legalizing marijuana federally, taxing it and regulating much like alcohol and tobacco? I believe that the Drug War has failed, and needs overhaul." Brian, Minneapolis, MN
"I am not a marijuana user, but I do believe that making marijuana legal could provide some relief as to it could be heavily taxed and regulated. Legalization of marijuana will also be a detriment to the drug cartels in Latin America." Ryan McLaughlin, Rindge, NH / Quakertown, PA
"Have you considered legalizing marijuana and taxing/regulating it like alcohol? Marijuana is America's largest cash crop. The tax revenue from marijuana sales would provide a massive source of new revenue and cut the insane costs of the "Drug War."" Matt S, Huntsville, AL
"Mr. President, we the people continue to ask you this general question, please do not fail to respond: Will you allow science and common sense to reign and end this failed WAR ON DRUGS starting with the legalization and taxation of Marijuana?" Mark B, Sterling,VA
"Should the recreational use of marijuana be legalized and taxed if it will help California reduce its budget deficit? How will you and the federal government respond if such a law is passed by the California legislature?" JHawk, Santa Barbara, CA
"Are you willing to seriously consider the idea of curtailing the failed & expensive drug war in favor of a fair, responsible policy of decriminalization? With Mexican gangs, drug-related disease, & addicition going unchecked we need another solution." T.Kapanka, San Francisco, CA
That's a lot of questions (17 out of the top 110 questions), and I imagine that they got spread out across all of those categories because among the available categories, none of them seemed to jump out easily a social policy reform, or prison reform, or marijuana reform. Funny how lack of a category for something can be a form of inhibiting conversation about it, or making it seem awkwardly shoe-horned in. In retrospect, it's no wonder that the economic angle is where the question was built on that Obama chose to answer. After reading all these questions, I find it so sad that he ended up simply answering, "No," and it really is kind of infuriating that he was so cavalier and jocular about it.
**Here's an interesting/mortifying tidbit regarding humanity's propensity to enforce slave labor that I learned in a book I am reading for my Prisons and Punishment class (from page 39) -- "In the South, after the Civil War, former slaves were sentenced to prison and then leased out by the prison to work for local plantation owners."
-F***king Hostile, by Pantera
colors: Red, White, Blue, Green
mood: Sleepy
chant/prayer/mantra: May the world get back to nature one day. And not the hard way.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
colors: Red, White, Blue, Green
mood: Sleepy
chant/prayer/mantra: May the world get back to nature one day. And not the hard way.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Edit on March 29, 2009: Several people have stepped up and spoken out against Barack Obama's flippancy on the answer, including this heart-rending case study and this real-life case study about how serious marijuana legalization is as an issue, regarding medical treatment. In this post, the question is posed as to why Cannabis is still listed as a schedule one drug, when all indications are that it should be listed in a less dangerous class (in other words, it does not have a high potential for abuse, it is considered medically significant in several states, and 'safety for medical use' is not an issue), and recommends that the Attorney General could do so immediately.
And this question directed at Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, all three of whom have admitted to using drugs in the past and were not give the same treatment as the victims in the war on drugs. And there's this post by Dan Sweeney, where he makes some cogent arguments parallel to mine, but perhaps more focused and better worded.
And here is the Obama administration's earlier response to questions on the Internet about marijuana legalization: On 12/15/08, "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana." What exactly does that mean? It means that they crafted that answer specifically not to say that he is opposed to it. It also does not say that he is not in favor of the currently criminalized state of marijuana, and it also does not say whether or not he is in favor of decriminalization of marijuana. A subtle difference, but if we recall the context of Washington politics, one of our recent past presidents tried to redefine the meaning of "is," and another tried to redefine the meaning of "mission accomplished," so something like this wouldn't be out of the ken of possibility.
Also, Nirvana's Krist Novoselic weighed in on the co-op model used for cannabis clubs, and how a similar model could be used for health care. Good job thinking outside the box there.
It's interesting to note that in 1972, the editors for Consumer Reports magazine did a wide review of histories and effects of various drugs, including Cannabis.
And to close, here's a beauty from Italy. A lonesome shepherd should be allowed marijuana for personal use, because he's out in nature all alone with his sheep.
Labels: anti-oppression, changing the prison paradigm, coursework, drug war, economics, oppression, personal bookmarks, politics, USA
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Re: Fw: Go Cairo!!!
[hmmmmm..... seems the images are all stripped out. must be how they're embedded or linked in the email. joel does not like this trend.]
Hi Mom,
Thanks for tuning me in to that. I didn't know that the military had that many dogs trained for war like that. In my opinion, there's nothing laudable about it. And as to the ethics behind it, the premise of their conditional statement is false: "If it's ethical to send humans into combat, then why not dogs?"
In my lifetime, I have yet to see the US get into an ethically-justifiable war, according to my understanding of Christian, or even just human, ethics. If the ethical code is based on empire, then with the principles that guide an empire ethic, yes, send humans, dogs, and sharks with lasers attached to their fins.
In the meantime, we're spending $250,000,000 on dog armor, and I wonder how much on training, etc.
Many blessings,
Joel
http://revjd.blogspot.com/
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes
the existing model obsolete."
-Buckminster Fuller (Architect and Geometrist)
Hi Mom,
Thanks for tuning me in to that. I didn't know that the military had that many dogs trained for war like that. In my opinion, there's nothing laudable about it. And as to the ethics behind it, the premise of their conditional statement is false: "If it's ethical to send humans into combat, then why not dogs?"
In my lifetime, I have yet to see the US get into an ethically-justifiable war, according to my understanding of Christian, or even just human, ethics. If the ethical code is based on empire, then with the principles that guide an empire ethic, yes, send humans, dogs, and sharks with lasers attached to their fins.
In the meantime, we're spending $250,000,000 on dog armor, and I wonder how much on training, etc.
Many blessings,
Joel
http://revjd.blogspot.com/
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes
the existing model obsolete."
-Buckminster Fuller (Architect and Geometrist)
On 13 July 2011 15:17, wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Subject: FW: Go Cairo!!!
Labels: mailbot
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Officially called the "Active Denial System"
Here's some weird propaganda on 60 minutes about a non-lethal raygun called the Active Denial System by those who want to use i. The decisions regarding its use, and the settings in which it is shown and suggested for use shows how messed up the war machine really is. In the video, there are a couple things that are preposterous and stinky at the same time.
1. They present what they call a "realistic" scenario, in which marines dressed up as anti-war protesters, are attacking American soldiers by shouting at them and throwing rocks. From the video:
Its interesting that the raygun operator refers to the group as "individuals." I wonder how well that psychology actually works in the field. Its highly interesting that in this example, they are using it on war protesters, albeit those of the supposedly Iraqi variety. The danger is that there are people who would use it for domestic control. This device is only a tool. It could be used for awesome purposes. Imagine if the U.S. military (or better yet, the U.N.) marched into Myanmar (or Somalia in 1995, or other places where its difficult to supply humanitarian aid) with 20 of these, and telling the dictatorial warlords, "We ARE bringing food, shelter, and clothing to these disaster victims, we will not be killing anybody to do it, and you will be unable to stop us." That would be a potential Good use of this technology. But if its used to suppress freedom of speech or the freedom to peaceably congregate, or the freedom of protest, or to disperse protesters and quiet their voices, that's a Bad Thing.
2. Sue Payton, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, uses the statement, "We have war-fighters that are in harm's way..." War-fighters? Does she mean soldiers? Or does she mean people who fight against war, a.k.a. "peace protesters."
And here's the scary part that keeps my worries well-founded: In 2006, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne was quoted as saying that the device should be used first on Americans, because "if we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation.
WHAT???? Our military uses giant bombs and guns in wartime situations, and while I'd prefer they didn't, I'd like to further think that they would not be willing to use those first against our fellow citizens. AND using a non-lethal weapon like this in a combat zone could be a first step in drawing down the violence, instead of having to use live munitions.
At another point, as a reason for using it as a crowd-control device, the statement gets made "You never ever want something like this to be thought of as a torture weapon." A conspiracy-oriented person might think that the military/government would want to set a context up using certain frames and words that make it seem good, and then get (or give themselves) a bit more free license to do something less just with it.
Note here that the Air Force representative said "You can be sure that if they continue to come at you, they're not a tourist. They're probably a terrorist or an adversary who wants to do you harm." In this, she tacitly implies the right of the military to be chasing people off and scattering them from whatever it is they're doing that is dangerous, or deemed unlawful, inappropriate, unnecessary, or dissent-oriented.
This is really a freedom versus freedom issue, and is what the creation of the U.S. constitution and the bill of rights were designed to clarify. It really does go all the way back to the founding of our country. I believe it was Foucault who said the state is the one who has the authorized use of violence. But that authority wears pretty thin in some places, especially when its impinging on the freedoms of its own citizens. The bill of rights is designed to protect freedom of speech.
So what happens when the government declares certain areas off-limits to free speech, or designates certain areas as "free-speech zones" implying that other areas are not, at least temporarily? And more importantly, if a device like this is used as a weapon to control people (which it likely would be), who are its users going to be controlling, and in what ways? Will they be suppressing free speech? Or will they be clearing away truly dangerous people who would endanger a merit-worthy mission? That's a big difference. In either case, it's potentially better not to have to use lethal power against people, but again, using lethal or non-lethal power to coerce people's actions is a serious infringement on their freedom, so the reasons need to be clear and up-front.
Overall, this device may have some good uses, but its definitely got some bad uses as well.
OK time for bed, and sweet dreams, hopefully not about the A.D.S., or any of those scary "waiting tables all night long and not getting paid" dreams. Yeech.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
1. They present what they call a "realistic" scenario, in which marines dressed up as anti-war protesters, are attacking American soldiers by shouting at them and throwing rocks. From the video:
"The targets here are people. Military volunteers creating a scenario soldiers might encounter in Iraq. [Shouts from military actors of 'go home!' and 'no more war' and 'get out of my country' along with throwing rocks.] Angry protesters advancing on American troops, who have to choose between backing down and opening fire. Off in the distance, a half a mile away, the operator of the raygun has the crowd in his sights. [He says over the bullhorn, 'Individuals, this is your final warning -- leave this area now.' To which the protester actor military volunteers reply, 'We will not leave! You leave!]'
Its interesting that the raygun operator refers to the group as "individuals." I wonder how well that psychology actually works in the field. Its highly interesting that in this example, they are using it on war protesters, albeit those of the supposedly Iraqi variety. The danger is that there are people who would use it for domestic control. This device is only a tool. It could be used for awesome purposes. Imagine if the U.S. military (or better yet, the U.N.) marched into Myanmar (or Somalia in 1995, or other places where its difficult to supply humanitarian aid) with 20 of these, and telling the dictatorial warlords, "We ARE bringing food, shelter, and clothing to these disaster victims, we will not be killing anybody to do it, and you will be unable to stop us." That would be a potential Good use of this technology. But if its used to suppress freedom of speech or the freedom to peaceably congregate, or the freedom of protest, or to disperse protesters and quiet their voices, that's a Bad Thing.
2. Sue Payton, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, uses the statement, "We have war-fighters that are in harm's way..." War-fighters? Does she mean soldiers? Or does she mean people who fight against war, a.k.a. "peace protesters."
And here's the scary part that keeps my worries well-founded: In 2006, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne was quoted as saying that the device should be used first on Americans, because "if we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation.
WHAT???? Our military uses giant bombs and guns in wartime situations, and while I'd prefer they didn't, I'd like to further think that they would not be willing to use those first against our fellow citizens. AND using a non-lethal weapon like this in a combat zone could be a first step in drawing down the violence, instead of having to use live munitions.
At another point, as a reason for using it as a crowd-control device, the statement gets made "You never ever want something like this to be thought of as a torture weapon." A conspiracy-oriented person might think that the military/government would want to set a context up using certain frames and words that make it seem good, and then get (or give themselves) a bit more free license to do something less just with it.
Note here that the Air Force representative said "You can be sure that if they continue to come at you, they're not a tourist. They're probably a terrorist or an adversary who wants to do you harm." In this, she tacitly implies the right of the military to be chasing people off and scattering them from whatever it is they're doing that is dangerous, or deemed unlawful, inappropriate, unnecessary, or dissent-oriented.
This is really a freedom versus freedom issue, and is what the creation of the U.S. constitution and the bill of rights were designed to clarify. It really does go all the way back to the founding of our country. I believe it was Foucault who said the state is the one who has the authorized use of violence. But that authority wears pretty thin in some places, especially when its impinging on the freedoms of its own citizens. The bill of rights is designed to protect freedom of speech.
So what happens when the government declares certain areas off-limits to free speech, or designates certain areas as "free-speech zones" implying that other areas are not, at least temporarily? And more importantly, if a device like this is used as a weapon to control people (which it likely would be), who are its users going to be controlling, and in what ways? Will they be suppressing free speech? Or will they be clearing away truly dangerous people who would endanger a merit-worthy mission? That's a big difference. In either case, it's potentially better not to have to use lethal power against people, but again, using lethal or non-lethal power to coerce people's actions is a serious infringement on their freedom, so the reasons need to be clear and up-front.
Overall, this device may have some good uses, but its definitely got some bad uses as well.
OK time for bed, and sweet dreams, hopefully not about the A.D.S., or any of those scary "waiting tables all night long and not getting paid" dreams. Yeech.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: anti-oppression, economics, freedom versus freedom, oppression, peace, USA, war and peace
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Sermon: Atonement as Humanity's Present Purpose
Atonement as Humanity’s Present Purpose
Delivered to UUFLG August 1, 2010
Why are we here? Perhaps the easiest way to answer that question is to frame it within a context where “here” means “in this building at this time.” Why do we come to worship in this building? You may have your own answers to that question, and a few things come to mind for me as well.
We are here because we desire to be among a chosen community—not just family or work mates.
We are here because connecting with each other in this community energizes us.
We are here to dedicate ourselves toward a common purpose—a purpose that gives our lives meaning.
Having a purpose we feel good about is critical to happiness. Further, our purpose in this community need not be different than the purpose of humanity at large.
I began with the easy question of why we are here in this building. Regarding the question of why humanity is here, or even why this Earth is here, perhaps it’s just luck and there is no purpose, other than to live and to seek happiness. Perhaps there really is an ultimate purpose to this existence we find ourselves in, and we still have yet to discover it.
I do know that humanity has created a purpose for itself. Through the actions of the Homo Sapiens species, we have done immeasurable harm to the planet and to others in the same species—immeasurable harm, but hopefully not irreparable. I believe humanity’s present purpose is that of atonement for those harms. Of putting things right again, and returning into right relationship with the planet and each other.
For many people, atonement is one of those religiously tinged words, and some even call to mind the substitutional atonement, in which Jesus Christ died on the cross in order to atone for humanity’s sins. When I’ve asked people to explain how that works, almost invariably, the explanation requires a great leap of logic or faith. Unitarian Universalism doesn’t ask those giant leaps of us. We can see that Jesus (the man) died perhaps as a result of people’s sins—people in his present day, unwilling or unable to live up to the community he was trying to build. We can also see that today Christ (composed of the movement of people seeking to save humanity from its own disaster) is still dying as a result of unatoned sins, and harm brought on by powerful people and corporate forces.
I just mentioned “sin” and I realize that with our theology of people with inherent goodness, some may be uncomfortable with the word “sin,” so I want to define it clearly as “missing the mark.” And what is the mark that is being missed, again and again? Right relationship! With the Earth, and with each other.
Restoring right relationship is what atonement is about. Being “at one” with the Earth, and “at one” with the human community is the creation of harmony. The seventh UU principle upholds “respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” And our sixth principle is similar, except it’s about nurturing the interdependent web of human community, specifically “The goal of world community, with peace, liberty, and justice for all.”
Humanity is such an interesting beast. Humans have completely dominated the planet—scraping its surface for minerals, abusing its topsoil, and poking it full of holes to find fossil fuels, continually missing the mark of Earth’s Sacredness. But that’s only part of what’s interesting. The other part is that most of humanity does not consent to this. Many would choose far different courses of action, yet the power of our collective decision-making is far from democratic. Those who benefit from privilege and positions of power make decisions based on what will keep them in privilege and in power. In its desire to acquire this planet’s resources, that system of privilege and power also seeks to acquire the planet’s human resources as well.
In the process, it oppresses the rest of humanity according to class, race, gender, and other categories, while seeking to label them as workers and consumers, not as citizens and as humans. I will also note that there is complexity here. As an example: We, the good people of UU are sometimes complicit members of this privileged class, and at the same time, we may be among the oppressed.
Without a doubt, this way of life misses the mark and begs for restoration and atonement. So how do we atone? First, we certainly can’t do this alone. If all 200,000 UUs engage with our seven principles, and get into right relationship with humanity and the Earth, we do not have the critical mass to do the trick, especially since this all is interconnected. We need to invite everyone. We will do this by living our moral lives out loud, and by inviting others to do likewise—even sharing our faith as we find the occasion arises.
We must empower the part of humanity trying to save itself. This will require a concerted effort, because it means getting a strong voice in the public sphere. Often it seems that those who work to be a voice for the voiceless against the power of oppression find their voices squelched.
Three days ago, Unitarian Universalists in yellow “Standing on the Side of Love” shirts flocked to Arizona to protest the new profiling law SB1070. Twenty UU ministers and 63 others were arrested by the sheriff in Phoenix as a result of their intentional civil disobedience. These are people using the power of their voices and their bodies to serve justice. As Rev. Susan Frederick Gray said as she was being arrested, "Love is where our future is. Not fear, and not hate." And to help draw a clearer picture, this was not just a joyless protest of shouting at police dressed in riot gear. There was also a vigil for those arrested, including singing, salsa music, and dancing.
You may not be able to travel to Arizona or anywhere for events like this. To be sure, there are justice actions that we can and ought to make happen right here in the neighborhood Los Gatos. And we also must remember that efforts like these, to be sustainable, need economic power, also known as money. It cost these protesters quite a bit to travel to Phoenix, and also there is the question of bail money for those arrested.
Most important is that we engage, that we use our bodies, our hands, and our voices to do things that further impassion our lives. I do not know what actions can and ought to happen here in Los Gatos, nor do I know which actions are the best fit for you as individuals or for this congregation. I do not know which of you could become leaders, but I sincerely hope that none of you think, “I can’t be a leader. I’m not that extraordinary.” Leaders are often ordinary people who see a need and have a passion to fulfill that need. As Howard Thurman, an author, theologian, and long-time minister at the Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples says:
“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
Coming alive now is what we each must do, as it’s obvious that NOW is the time! That’s not just a handy phrase for the UUA fundraising campaign. In each of our lives, every day is a gift, and an opportunity to make the world better. Perhaps there is some longstanding unfinished conversation in your life that you’d like to have, which has been emotionally blocking you from moving forward. Perhaps there is something you’ve always wanted to try, but never have. Perhaps there’s something in your life you want to give up. Today is always the only day in which we can make changes. You can never do it yesterday or tomorrow.
I recall musician Warren ZEvon, living the last few months of his life with cancer, responding to David Letterman’s request for wisdom on life and death. He said simply, “Enjoy every sandwich.” That, to me, translates as, “Don’t waste a single heartbeat.” Uneventful days could become a habit, but we are called to make every day count, in some large or small way.
We need to be unafraid of the tremendous impact our religion can make on the world, and share it. Now is the time for us to have maximum impact. There is an angel at work here. A very large, deep, compassionate angel that spans the ages. As it arrives, the world is taking notice. The arrival of this messenger is an eschatological age-ending event, a game-changer, causing a paradigm-shift. As if it’s the rapture, but in theological terms to which we can relate, with no people magically disappearing.
More and more people are awakening to an understanding of what the leak in the Gulf of Mexico really means about our relationship to the Earth. With the end of easy petroleum resources upon us, humanity struggles to get enough oil to energize the world it’s made.
The book of Revelation, chapter 8 refers to 7 angels sounding their trumpets, and 1/3 of the Earth being despoiled and 1/3 of the sea being despoiled. I sense we are getting pretty close to that. Knowing UUs as I do, I realize many of you may be skeptical of the sacred texts of revealed religion—and perhaps rightly so—after all, we could deconstruct the text, equating angels with messengers, and the trumpets with the clarion call of what the Earth is trying to tell us. However, in our nation, there are many who live their lives based on a concrete understanding of the Bible, and they will be called on by somebody to act.
By whom? By us!—we can call on them! We are at that time, one-third of the Earth, one-third of the water. The Gulf of Mexico is just one of many oil spills, and raw sewage makes its way into our streams and oceans. Don’t forget the giant growing collection of plastic in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We are in a time of much needed change. We can either have the change happen to us, or we can shine our light and work in concert to make the necessary changes in a controlled fashion.
So what is the light we hold? Our theology of a loving God is one of real saving grace that can help people get past the guilt, shame, and anger, and onto serving the world as love and justice-bearers. We have a growing religious inclusivity that is learning to make way for the many theologies and worldviews people bring upon first entering our doors. We each carry our own copy of truth and meaning, and know to value each other’s spirituality. And we know that community and action are every bit as important as having right beliefs, if not moreso.
In fact, in religious terms, it’s safe to say that the light we share when our words and deeds are at their best is nothing less than an expression of the divine working from within us. I believe that the light of our reason is critical in our conversations, because it helps to orient and focus the lights of others like a Fresnel lens (the really bright amplifying one you find spinning slowly in lighthouses). If we hold back our light (or are unable to deliver) when it’s expected or needed, the absence of our voices will be like an inactive lighthouse, which is more dangerous than a reef. We do not need more ships running aground. We want them not to miss the mark of right relationship.
Our nation, and some of its religious bodies, tend to think in terms of war. There are the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government has declared a war on terror, a war on drugs (which is also a war on people of color), there was a war on poverty (and now it seems there is a war on the poor). Some Christians have labeled the penchant of merchants to say “happy holidays” as a war on Christmas, Fox News has been labeled a war on journalism, and the band Wilco has even declared a war on war. It’s rare for the US government or people to declare peace on something.
The peaceable people of this country have tried to declare peace many times, but it seems their overtures have been outright rejected. Last week, I mentioned Faithful Fools Bible Stud, part of a UU-affiliated community outreach ministry in downtown San Francisco. David, a regular at the Bible Study, introduced to me the concept of declaring LOVE on someone.
When you declare love on somebody and mean it, they can’t fight you as they may be in the habit of doing. It is love that comes from the heart level. Intellectual arguments and our search for truth have their place, but the way the light we carry is going to reach people is going to be when we complement it with a declaration of love. Perhaps that’s the key to our atonement
To the glory of light! Blessed be.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 6th UU principle, sermons
