How can we be so forward?

Not my writing and, but something a friend forwarded:
This explains why we forward stuff:
 
An old cowboy was riding his trusty horse followed by his faithful dog along an unfamiliar road. The man was enjoying the new scenery, when he suddenly remembered dying, and realized that the dog beside him had been dead for years, as had his horse. Confused, he wondered what was happening, and where the trail was leading them.

After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall that looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch topped by a golden letter "H" that glowed in the sunlight.

Standing before it, he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like gold.

He rode toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side. Parched and tired out by his journey, he called out, 'Excuse me, where are we?'

'This is Heaven, sir,' the man answered.

'Wow! Would you happen to have some water?' the man asked.

'Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up.'

As the gate began to open, the cowboy asked, 'Can I bring my partners, too?'

'I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets.'

The cowboy thought for a moment, then turned back to the road and continued riding, his dog trotting by his side.

After another long ride, at the top of another hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a ranch gate that looked as if it had never been closed. As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book.

'Excuse me,' he called to the man. 'Do you have any water?'

'Sure, there's a pump right over there. Help yourself.'

'How about my friends here?' the traveler gestured to the dog and his horse.

'Of course! They look thirsty, too,' said the man.

The trio went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with buckets beside it. The traveler filled a cup and the buckets with wonderfully cool water and took a long drink, as did his horse and dog.

When they were full, he walked back to the man who was still standing by the tree. 'What do you call this place?' the traveler asked.

'This is Heaven,' he answered.

'That's confusing,' the traveler said. 'The man down the road said that was Heaven, too.'

'Oh, you mean the place with the glitzy, gold street and fake pearly gates? That's hell.'

'Doesn't it make you angry when they use your name like that?'

'Not at all. Actually, we're happy they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind.'


Sometimes, we wonder why friends forward things to us without writing a word. Maybe this explains it:

When you're busy, but still want to keep in touch, you can forward emails. When you have nothing to say, but still want to keep in contact, you can forward jokes. When you have something to say, but don't know exactly how, you can forward stuff.


A 'forward' lets you know that you're still remembered, still important, still cared about.

So the next time you get a 'forward', don't think of it as just another joke. Realize that you've been thought of today and that your friend on the other end just wanted to send you a smile.


PS: You're welcome at my watering hole anytime.

Ten Real Good Ways To Preserve and Protect Marriage

Thinking that citizens are better served by an insistence that gay marriage deserves more concern right now than any other national concern, The Republican Election Complex insults us. In a naively sober sanctimony, that gang – pretending to deep and profound thoughts – declares that we absolutely must defend that “sacred institution upon which this country is based.”

Really?

If God told me to fix the marriage problems in this country and gave me the power to accomplish it, I'd forget about state legislators and campaign promises. Let those who need the issue blow hard while I use divine power to achieve the miraculous:

1. I’d worry more about those couples already married than about those who want to get married. I’d be concerned and working toward seeing that they kept their jobs or, if unemployed, found good ones upon which they could economically stabilize their marriage.

2. I’d work intensely to stabilize marriage by doing everything in my power to achieve – not “work toward” – health coverage for every member of every family and every member-to-be of every family-to-be.

3. I’d work for increasing family incomes with minimum wage increases and expanding worker benefits. I wouldn’t  pretend that corporate tax cuts have created meaningful long term income opportunities for that sector of society where the largest number of marriages already exists.

4. I’d use understanding that the sacred institution of marriage is placed more at risk when it attempts to survive with inadequate housing, bottom-line cheapskate and/or corporate slumlords, and home ownership as an impossible dream.

5. I’d strengthen marriage by dropping the wide-eyed conservative clutter about increasing defense spending at the expense of social programs and remind the country that the Little Bush swagger and the “bring it on” rhetoric that started with Dubya now sounds like it spilled from the urinal in a junior high boys’ locker room. 

6. I’d take a long look and seek answers from those who truly know about failed marriages among our residents and stop thinking that unfettered capitalism includes within its framework some sort of naturally-occurring equal opportunity for every citizen to succeed in some idealized cookie-cutter manner.

7. I’d tell the amateur foreign policy conservatives shut the f*** up and give priority to our married soldiers and their spouses. I would not see world politics and economy as a giant game of RISK with our quite human single and married military population as mere wooden markers on a map. I would certainly not let theose political fools write out strategy and military checks that the children in military families – built on our sacred institution of marriage – will have to cash.

8. I’d focus on those military families and single soldiers in another significant way – I’d care about what happens when they come home and are no longer wooden markers on a map. I’d make sure that the VA is truly an effective and functioning VA – a boon to our society of veterans and something for which we as a nation can all be proud and not suspicious. I’d see to it that families and the marriages that build them are not hampered by a need for food stamps and other welfare.

9. I’d sustain our sacred institution by getting out of the business of trying to control one gender’s right to chose. If I  wanted to be seen as moral, wise and ethical, I would trust our processes of education and scientific study and encourage responsibility around human sexuality as a national concern and effort rather than a divisive argument based on polarized personal moralities.

10. I’d sustain and advocate for the sacredness of our marriage institution by educating and protecting our precious national resource of youth. Rather than prance around sounding pious and sober about gay couples, I’d march around obsessed with doing something about the factors that do greater harm to our families and their young members. I’d work to encourage the nation to turn against its domestic abusers and family abandoners in a major way.

In short I ever had the power to define marriage as “the sacred institution upon which this country is based,” I’d be ready to start encouraging an intervention in all those things that form the framework for failed marriages, failed families and ruined lives.

I’d stop pretending that the American people believe that banning gay marriages is the answer to solving the problem. I’d tell all those macho image-makers and self-serving patriarchal philosophers that marriage is incomplete without intellectual, spiritual and moral equality. I’d insist that earned income is a function of ability and has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

My ideas for this writing were originally inspired by an article by Cheryl Seal in 2004 at democrats.com: The Real Assault on American Marriage: 10 Top Ways Bush Republicans Have Undermined Marriage

When Prophets Speak, Critical Thinking has Ended

The two year anniversary of our current health care law is upon us. Though not as well one an comprehensive as it should have been, it is the law we are in truth stuck with and includes sufficient value to retain ... something that we should build upon.

At this time, out of my own personal disrespect, I wish to dishonor those "prophets" who - from their public pulpits - in the tradition of some sort of ancient Jeremiah, warned their gullible congregations of the doom an gloom of any non-Republican created or approved legislation.

As prophets they were either liars or just plain too dumb. To wit,

Flush Limbaugh:

It is well known -- authoritarians, totalitarians throughout history have known -- controlling the health care of a society is -- that's like the IV. You go in the hospital, they put an IV in your arm, it's there in case they need to get in, in an emergency to do something else, they've already got the pathway in. Health care is the IV to total state control over a population. Hitler knew it, the Nazis. It's one of the first things that they tried. That will be the Media Tweak of the Day. Although it's nothing new. We've said it before. [Premiere Radio Networks]

Squawk Hannity:

When government has to instill austerity measures, i.e. Greece, i.e. other places in Europe, what happens? The people rebel, they get angry. They feel like they have had the, you know, the floor pulled out from under them. "Where's my retirement?" They don't have the money, they overspent. "Where's my health care?" You have to wait six months for that X-ray. "Where's my - I'm sorry you're too old to get that hip replacement." All these things are happening in Europe. Why would they not happen here? "You're talking about death panels again, Hannity." Death panels are inevitable. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 1/11/12,]

Glenn Beck:

This Is The End Of Prosperity In America Forever ... The End Of America As You Know It." Telling his radio audience, "You must not allow this to pass," Glenn Beck stated in November 2009 that "they're going to get past that 60-vote barrier. And they'll get there by people like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman, who's a reasonable guy and has good intent. You'll get past it by people like that, who say, you know what? Look, we got to be reasonable; we have to have a debate. And then Harry Reid will go for the 51 count and he'll pass this thing. And it will be a nail in the coffin of America." Beck added: "You must -- must get on the phone in your districts. You must wake everybody up you know. This is the end of prosperity in America forever if this bill passes. This is the end of America as you know it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 11/19/09,]

And to give credit over as broad a panel of lying prophets as possible, I propose a list containing every Congress person who opposed this law principally because it came from the opposition party and our  president.

 

 

Monkeyin Around With Textbooks

Well, my sweet wife says that if I swear when I read somethin, I probably am dyin to say somethin too. So I better check in on them folks want our kids ta learn when they're sitting is school being confused cause they couldn't say a prayer before takin a test.

If our textbooks have got ta have stickers on them sayin such and such is only a theory, then by gum we need to apply the rule across the board startin with the 3 R's and includin the Bible.

Readin: Warning youngster - the words you're about to read are only the product of a theory and can only be proven by "faith". That means that you have to trust what you read is tellin you somethin useful. If you read a word you don't understand, look it up in the dictionary. But remember, what a dictionary says is only a theory too and it might not be true.

Writin: Warning youngster - writin is the way you make your own readin show up in words. That means that what you want to say will only be a theory and them who read what ya write are not supposed to believe your words. Instead they have to prove to themselves about what you say by "faith." 

Now faith is also only a theory that must be proven. So ya see, everything you read and write and say and do and think and feel are only theories which you must prove by faith - which is also a theory.

Gettin complicated for ya? Well that's what yer smart parents think is the best for you to grow up and be as smart as they think they are. By the way, that ain't the way they grew up to be as smart as they are.

Rithmatic: This is where it gets good. Any number you see is only a theory. So if I have two apples in my hand, that means that I'm holding two theoretical things that might or might not be apples. And an "apple" is a theory about a certain kind of "fruit" which - theoretically- is something that grew once before gettin killed by harvestin, but still tastes sweet - even if it is dead - and is good for ya ta eat. But then eatin only fer pleasure might be sinful which again is only a theory.

Anyway, I have two theoretical apples in my two hands which are theoretical products of evolution which is ... (you guessed it - a theory). Or them apples may be the procudct "intelligent design" - what some of yer parents says ain't a theory cause they read it in their not-a-theory Bible.

I don't know why the Bible isn't considered a theory but for many grown-ups it ain't. But fair is fair and if yer folks learned that the Bible isn't theory by exercisin their own faith then by gum what was good enough fer them'll be good enough fer you.

So New Rule: The Bible contains theories that must be proven by faith.

Now back to rithmatic: I have two (which may or may not be an accurate count) apples (which may or may not be apples.) And you ask me to give you one - theoretically. Now if I ain't theoretically selfish and you look theoretically needy or deservin, I might theoretically decide to "share" (a theoretical virtue) and give you one half of how many apples I'm holdin in my theoretical hands.

What's that you say? How do you know a half is really a half? You just have to take it on faith you uppity little whippersnapper.

See what I mean?

In order to make schoolin consistent and the same way all across the board, were gonna have to post a sticker on the Bible that says "Contains theories that can only be proven by faith."

Well, it's a start but I'd hate to be teachin a Sunday School class for kids or adults using these here criterias.

And what hell there'd be to pay tryin to teach kids about theoretical birds and bees whose lusty behavior has to be taken on faith.

Konservative MisKonceptions and Awakened Voter Wisdom

Poll Finds Americans Reject The Republican Assault On Unions

Why do we reject it?

Cause although we're easily distracted by fluff and loud angry noise, at heart we ain't so dumb ... especially when the message from the pretend smart guys ... those blow-hardian mind-slingers ... never changes.

It's like sitting in Sunday School 24/7 and hearing the same Fear-God-or- you'll-burn-forevey talk endlessly (a definition of what Hell must really be like.)

The Conceptual Guerilla on Cheap Labor Conservatism says it best.

"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".

 "Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable. 

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve". 

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel". 

• Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap. 

• Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap. 

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel". 

• Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices". 

• Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

I support Marriage Equality in Washington State

Having recently accepted baptism back into the Mormon Church which is the source of my cultural and heritage identity, I did so while remaining a political and philosophical liberal in outlook and spiritual practice.

On Facebook I have joined a group called Washington Mormons For Marriage, which describes itself as

Washington Mormons for Marriage is a resource for LDS members who support marriage equality in Washington

One of the characteristics of this group seems to be the desire to emphasize the social justice aspects of Jesus' teachings as something that can be aligned at least with the socially liberal views on compassion and acceptance among many members of the Mormon Church. This is particularly true among those of us who have a concern that the Church refrain from those previous involvements in this political issue that probably did more harm than good for both the members and the Church.

Although in LDS communities in this country the division between Democrats and Republicans as well as liberals versus conservatives is seriously skewed to the right, the attitude seems to be more partisan political conservatism as opposed to genuine social conservatism.

I make no pretense of speaking in any official capacity for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What follows is my own thinking regarding what I consider genuine religious concerns for social justice.


What would Jesus do ... really?

The classic logical next question to ask upon hearing the question “What would Jesus Do?” is, "Did the apostolic ancestors do what Jesus did when they burned heretics and falsely labeled women as witches and butchered them?"

They quoted the Bible, justifying torture and murder with Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:3-5 and other “inerrant” verses.

Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures but not those two verses and none by which he urged his followers and all believers to judge and condemn another human being. That, simply put, is not Christ-like nor godly.

If that is what is taught, does it make sense that the Divine, having insisted on Divine righteousness in the Sacrifice of his only Son, would be righteously satisfied?

... that with such evil small-minded and narrow judgmentalism all was again well with the flawed world?

Does it not serve to diminish the act of Jesus if, in fact, nothing was learned in his sacrifice except the erroneous assumption that there is a correct way to believe, that God is a nit-picking score-keeper and only in blind literalism may one be a correct Christian?

Is this not borne out in the historical persecutions of Christians against other Christians for a perceived incorrect or heretical view of the "sacred text?

Is it not true that it was the manner in which the correctness of scripture was dispensed that Jesus took exception to in his ministry in speaking against the Jewish priesthood and his willingness to die the torturous death to make his point?

Verse-citers can lick their fingers, flip back and forth and all over the scriptures, but at no point is there any scriptural verification for the notion that Jesus the Christ endorses a signature on a petition, a vote against any one person's desire to marry or the mangy efforts of self-righteous bigots to be mortal enforcers of a Divine and Willful rejection of all mortals who fall outside the born-again purview.

Nobody wants to see Christ and the sacred hung at the entrance hall of a 3 ring circus. But neither does anyone want to see Christ and the sacred hung at the entrance hall of a poorly-defined orthodoxy where the foundation of a “true faith” is based on the mind, intent and will of all the flawed self-proclaimed Christian spokes- persons?

We all seem to know where we disagree. What we don’t seem to know is whether we can learn from each other and grow from the experience.

Success in the attempt to exhort Christians to sign and vote based on faulty and inflammatory value judgments masquerading as the "Word" risks empowering the prospect for cultural regression to something uglier and far more carnal for the society as a whole then simple bedroom voyeurism.

The response I see for us is exactly what we all are doing here in this moment and for the next few months ... meet the Biblical God-talkers head on and challenge what they say and do.

Hold their feet to the fire in every way we can but in such a way as to move politics and religion further apart from each other.

Romney ... careening toward political obscurity

He's running out of truths about his philosophy which has been discredited in Europe. Posing as a successful capitalist and implying that love-making to corporations will fix the economy and bless the common man, Romney as a caring human being is proving to be a bogus image; one easily debunked.

But that corporate capitalism and his experience buying, selling and firing was the only talking point he really had. Every other aspect of himself as an able and wise president is not evident and hard to find.
Michigan could turn Mitt into a Republican also-ran and possibly the most unrespected politician in America .

Why Romney Is Collapsing: His economic arguments are failing, and he has nothing else. 

Fox News Killing off it's own Pet Party

the Republican Establishment all but ceded control of the party, or at least the public face of the party, to Fox News (and Rush Limbaugh) in January, 2009.

How Fox News is Destroying the Republican Party

Still, it's becoming increasingly clear that Fox's programming and the radical, fear-based agenda it's setting for Republicans is now doing lasting damage to the Grand Old Party.
That's because Fox News isn't simply offering a rightward take on the day's events, or innocently providing Republican-friendly commentary, of course.  It's leading an exhausting, day-in, day-out attack campaign against Obama, Democrats and all their liberal allies. (Real or imagined.) 

Its relentless, paranoid crusade falls well outside the mainstream of American politics, which is why the Republican primary season, so proudly sponsored by Fox News, is shaping up to be such an  embarrassment.

and this ...

With Fox News at the irresponsible helm, the conservative movement in America, including the emerging Tea Party, became first and foremost a media movement, and one that gleefully cut ties with common sense and decency.  (See: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh.) 

As blogger Andrew Sullivan noted this week: 

The Republican Establishment is Rush Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, and their mainfold products, from Hannity to Levin. They rule on the talk radio airwaves and on the GOP's own "news" channel, Fox.
With media outlets setting the conservative agenda, as well as raising campaign funds and boosting GOP candidates, it was Fox News that quickly transformed itself into the Opposition Party.  

My one recommended reading about when shallow politicians speak shallowly ... and shame all of us.

Speaking with a Palestinian-American Republican Who Confronted the GOP at the debate.

"It’s one thing to hate, and another thing to do so in such close proximity to the hated—especially when that person demands to be identified alongside you. Now what would you expect the candidates to say?"

I understand this is old stuff for folks better read than I. But for the rest of us, I think it quite timely, informative and maybe perhaps required reading.
The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Richard Hofstadter- 1964

the sugar lobby is the one lying about high fructose corn syrup in those TV ads.

Let's learn about where sugar comes from ... and while we're on that path ... remind ourselves that the sugar lobby is the one lying about high fructose corn syrup in those TV ads.

Sugar High: The Dark History and Nasty Methods Used to Feed Our Sweet Tooth

While I do not fool myself that sugar is "healthy," if I am going to satisfy my sweet tooth, I prefer cane sugar, maple syrup, agave nectar, or honey over the other choices: beet sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and artificial sweeteners. Of the bunch, most Americans can find only honey and perhaps maple syrup sustainably and locally produced, but cane sugar is often the most versatile product for baking. 

As a major consumer of cane sugar, I was disturbed to learn the realities of cane sugar production when I visited a sugarcane-producing area in Bolivia.