Religious Freedom Is What's At Stake

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Mounting opposition to the proposed Muslim cultural center has thrust the building into the limelight of an already hostile electoral season. Those opposed to the cultural center, more often referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque," have cycled through a cadre of reasoning to be against construction of the center. The arguments have been made that the building will be a "terrorist training center;" others have drawn parallels of the cultural center's maiden name, "Cordoba House," to the takeover of a church in Spain in the 7th Century and its symbolism of hostile Islamic colonialism. And then there is the sensitivity argument, that for Muslims to build a mosque so near the worst terrorist attack on American soil is insincere to those who lost family members, friends, and loved ones. The focus has now shifted towards the funding of the cultural center, in whether the men and women funding it are terrorist sympathizers, or have dubious ties to any extremist group. Many proposing these reasons not to build the cultural center like to shy away from the "religious freedom" argument, the constitutional right provided by the First Amendment. But truly that is what this argument boils down to, as none of these other arguments stand up to any mindful scrutiny.

The argument over the cultural center's initial name has basically already been resolved. (I'll take this moment to say that I will not utter the continuance of "Ground Zero Mosque" from here on out because the term itself is laced with fear-mongering and jingoism. St. Paul's Chapel is not so uncharacteristically named the "Ground Zero Church." The proposed building is a place for all New Yorkers, and indeed for all people to visit. The inclusion of a prayer space on the top two floors should not advocate the use of the aforementioned name.) Initially, the cultural center was to be called "Cordoba House." But after the repetition of the origin of that name, a story meant only to ingrain fear into the minds of the population, the builders of the cultural center changed the name to Park51. I wonder if Adidas is next on Newt Gingrich's hit list?

Once the builders were pressured into altering the name, the arguments continued to mount against the cultural center. Sensitivity became a staunch bulwark against allowing the project to move forward, and is probably the biggest reason that most New Yorkers are against the building of the cultural center. The argument is simply: extremist Muslims attacked us so other Muslims should be sensitive to Americans' grief and not build near ground zero. There are just oh so many things wrong with this argument.

First, it is a fallacy to parallel the extremists, the terrorists, who attacked us on 9/11 with the Islamic religion as a whole. It is well known that all religions have their extremists: Hitler, McVeigh, Cruise; 19 men who hijacked 4 planes. If you want to talk insensitivity, then please do not miss the insensitivity of those Americans who cast blame on all Muslims for 9/11. "We fear what we do not understand." A common phrase uttered in so many ways, yet poignant as always even in this debate. Muslims were killed too that day; peaceful Americans who lived and worked beside the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. who also died in those towers.

Secondly, expounding on the above, do those who take their beliefs to the extremist level, or those who distort their beliefs to fit their own selfish worldview mirror an entire population? Are all Germans, Nazis? Hardly. Would we classify a Catholic man or woman we met on the street a pedophile? A certainly hope not. Have Americans been benevolently sensitive to Native Americans for the land we took from them by force? As our current sitting President pushed for Health Care Reform earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh compared the legislation to black reparations. In accordance with the logic that all Muslims must be "sensitive" to the placement of their cultural center then yes, white Americans must always be overly sensitive to the most inconsequential needs of black Americans, something I'm sure Mr. Limbaugh would wholeheartedly disagree with. Even this year, as the Catholic Church faced new swirling allegations of child molestation, Pope Benedict XVI barely raised a concern over the reports of a priest in Ireland found guilty of molestation and even his own involvement, as then a Cardinal of the church, in protecting a priest who molested over 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin in the 1970s. The Pope, and the Vatican itself, tried to spin the story into an attack on Catholicism, a "victimizer is the victim" rebuttal, instead of apologizing and making a strong push for increased punishments of the guilty. But clearly, since it is a christian institution, especially in this country and more especially from constituents on the political right, the same standards do not apply to a church, or a synagogue, as they would to a mosque.

Third, how far exactly would building a mosque in New York from Ground Zero no longer be "insensitive" to Americans, or Christians, or whoever? There is a Mosque currently in the Pentagon, just 80 feet from where that hijacked plane crashed, as well as an actual mosque just 4 blocks from Ground Zero.

While simultaneously questioning the sensitivity of Muslims to want to build a cultural center, that just so happens to contain a mosque, near ground zero, the opposition slid into the debate the question of who exactly was funding the mosque. If terrorists were found to be supplying the funds for the construction then surely it would seem the cultural center would be a breeding ground for extremists right under our own noses, right on the very soil of liberty for which we all stand. The argument, however, devolved quickly into a "guilt by association" game of finger-pointing and incredulity. But, as Jon Stewart pointed out, this is a dangerous game. (Seriously, watch this whole clip if you haven't seen it.) And now, Fox5 news in New York is running a story about a man, one of the projects funders, and a donation he made to what he thought was a charity, but turned out to be linked to Hamas, a known cell of extremists.

My mother was once duped into donating money to an unknown man or woman claiming to be a missionary stranded and in strife in some war-torn African nation. Turns out, the person was not displaced and through the naivety of my mother (she's new to the Internet), the person was able to get her social security number and ultimately her bank account information, extorting money from her. Luckily no long term damage was done, and my mom secured her accounts without loss. The point being, naivety or out-right trickery and deception by one party, does not apply guilt to the other. Because this person claimed to be a christian, should my mom apply mistrust to all Christians forever more? No. And what of those who make donations, or contributions to the Catholic Church? (Sorry Catholics. I do not mean to pick on you. I'm only drawing similarities to the church in order to shed light on the hypocrisy of opposing the cultural center.) If the man who made a contribution to what he thought was a Muslim charity, but in actuality was linked to terrorists is then labeled a terrorist, any contributor to the Catholic church is then linked to pedophilia, a pedophile themselves, or at least sympathetic to pedophiles. None of which is true, and the same over-reaching should not be applied to the cultural center. And should this man be found guilty of knowingly aiding a terrorist group, I presume the group trying to build this mosque would immediately sever ties with him and those associated with him, what the Catholic Church failed to do with the pedophile priest in Wisconsin.

Without any of these arguments, the controversy over the proposed cultural center near ground zero boils down to one of our most basic rights of freedom and liberty in this country. Even with any of these arguments, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion should be at the base of any argument. This debate is not about sensitivity, nor the name of the building, nor even the matter of who is funding it (I'd love to see an Op-Ed somewhere drawing the parallels of funding political campaigns via the Citizens United v. FEC case to funding this cultural center; alas, I have not the time right now to launch into it.). This debate is about upholding the pinnacle that is this country and maintaining the very values for which people of all faiths, of all ethnicities, of all races and colors have sought to assimilate, stewing in the broth of liberty.

Military Socialism

The below comes in response to Sarah Palin's "foreign policy manifesto" she posted on her Facebook profile on July 4th. There may be a series of posts here in the near future in response to much of what she said, but I wanted to start with this one since a couple members of the House, as well as Keith Olbermann have brought up responses to her proposed policies. Much of what I discuss below can be seen on "Countdown" for July 6th, #3, for further elaboration of the Paul/Frank proposal and Secretary Gates defense cuts. But I take the argument farther into the history of foreign policy and the philosophy of maintaining our presence around the world.

With Congress currently mired in a political firestorm over the growing national deficit and unable to significantly enact any real legislation to curb the nation's costs, Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have begun a push for cutting the deficit by a "novel" idea: reducing military spending. I put novel in quotations because the defense budget has been, for the past five decades or so, untouchable, a perceived notion that any cuts to defense are an automatic sign of being weak in the world's eyes, or un-American. The calls for defense cuts come after Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made repeated calls for paring down the military budget, sighting an unnecessary abundance of nuclear carriers, submarines, and other malapropos weapons in our fight against terrorism. Of course, Sarah Palin decided to offer her 1/2 a cent thoughts, as her remarks on the subject are vague at best, and idiotic at worst.

Ron Paul, a libertarian Congressman, has repeatedly spoken out for the government's need to cut spending, in all aspects of discretionary spending, and to lower taxes. Paul is a bit extreme in his view of taxes though, as he would like to abolish the income tax, which would ostensibly abolish millions of policemen, firemen, and teachers from their jobs. A total halt of federal taxes would drastically increase local and state taxes, as someone would need to pay the police, the construction workers to keep up the roads, and the sanitation depts. to recycle waste and provide clean drinking water. Luckily, since Paul has gained abundant national attention, it seems he has lessened his calls for total abolition of all federal taxes, but he still petitions for large cuts to federal taxes.

Representative Frank is a liberal Congressman from Massachusetts, highly in favor of federal income taxes to provide proper education, federal programs such as Medicare, and police and security for his district and the entire state, for example. Liberals, generally perceived as the spending party, have needed to show strong focus on the national debt; one, because of the public's sudden interest in the matter; and two, it really is a problem brought on by the last administration's deep tax cuts and false war with Iraq. President Clinton had balanced the budget; Dubyah and a Republican Congress sent us into unparalleled debt.

Defense Secretary Gates has called into question the overall abundance of military weaponry this country manufactures every year unuseful to modern warfare. He sighted numerous programs to be halted, and increased spending in areas that are more appropriate for the sporadic battles we fight against terrorists. His questioning of having battle-ready 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, while no other country has even one, seems not only cognoscente, but years too late. To paraphrase him: Do we really need this stuff? Most would answer no, especially in light of the current state of our country's finances. Sarah Palin admonished Gates' critique of military spending, but failed to offer anything remotely salient. "Well, my answer is pretty simple... yes, we do, because we must." Indeed, Ms. Palin, your answer is simple.

She then tried offering broader elaboration of why military spending is so important with the dribble reported here. "If we lose wars... we risk losing all that makes America great." The problem with Ms. Palin's suggestion that losing wars would diminish the grandeur of America is it holds no logical bearing on history, especially in the context of the birth of this nation. George Washington in his farewell address warned of foreign influence of American affairs, and "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." In fact, a large portion of his farewell address warns against foreign relations of any kind, and that the government should be interested in helping its own people. Of course, times have changed and America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It is a just cause in this growing global economy to extend aid to struggling nations, to spread our military wealth around the world, but it should not come at the expense of our own nation and people.  We have fallen behind in engineering, education, health care, and numerous other facets of modernity, pushing jobs overseas, widening the gap between upper class and the middle and lower classes (as I've written before). The appropriate thing to do when Americans begin to suffer is to pull back the olive branch from the world and extend it to our own citizens. Furthermore, Palin must hold a fairly favorable outcome, albeit against all standard viewpoints and general knowledge of the war, that we won in Vietnam. History shows that we by no means were outright victorious (but didn't necessarily lose either; a tie! everybody wins!) and that certainly did not "diminish" the country to any great extent.

While I applaud Secretary Gates for his reverent cuts to defense spending, I would like to see some of that money come back into rebuilding the American infrastructure. Sure, the money is being apportioned to other military endeavors, such as predator drones, which will help create some jobs in the States, but millions of Americans are out of work who do not have the special skills to build such aircraft, but are construction workers, teachers, policemen, social workers; all of which are needed to educate, to protect, to build right here at home, instead of fanning the flames of hatred in this "second Vietnam" we're hunkered-down in Afghanistan. We need to reinvest in education, to train the next generation of engineers to build smarter, more efficient weapons, not simply more of the outdated ones.

The longer we continue to increase the defense budget, to spread the military wealth around the world so other countries don't have to spend as much on their own defense, the longer we'll continue to short-change the American people. President Washington warned against mingling in the affairs of neighboring countries, especially at the expense of our own citizens. For Conservatives, for Sarah Palin (whatever she is), those who tout such a strong idolization of the Founding Fathers, have betrayed the very interests their champion politician preached. We have stretched our wealth and resources to "defend" other countries while our own is under attack, and rotting away from the inside, out. We are military socialists spreading the wealth and abundance of our military around the world to areas that do not need it to maintain an "empire" that might collapse momentarily.

Obama, Stop The Redistribution of Wealth

The election of Barack Obama to the White House sent a shivering jolt through the collective spine of not only the Republican Party, but any, it seemed, who leaned just a little to the political right. Almost immediately the election sent fear-mongering political "analysts," radio show hosts and commentators into a frenzy about the Administration's "socialist" agenda and how everything that America is and stands for will be brought to ruin under our first black president. It all rings of McCarthyism, this perceived ruination of the American way of life, and how Progressives are really just socialists aiming to distribute wealth equally among the citizens of the country. But for all their crying foul at the administration's supposed attempts to take money from the super rich and distribute to the poor, i.e. imposing higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, their criticism of wealth distribution never acknowledges the trend of wealth taken from the lower classes, and distributed more to the upper class over the past few decades. The widening gap between the poor and rich, the diminishing numbers of the middle class suggest this trend, yet why do none fight, let alone acknowledge, this extreme Anti-Socialist agenda, that bears little resemblance to true capitalism?

Just as the Great Depression hit, the wealthiest 1% of the population held nearly 50% of the total wealth of the country. Through the New Deal, Roosevelt looked to halt that imbalance by passing legislation which included such things as the Social Security Act, the FDIC, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938- the law which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most workers in the country to put an end to unfair, and unjust, workplace conditions. On the other side of the war, during the 50's and 60's, most middle class families were supported by one parent working a full-time job, while the other, most often the mother, stayed home with the children. Life was good; America prospered on the strength of the bourgeois. But steadily the gap has grown once again, starting in the 80's when Reagan drastically cut income taxes, a move which benefited the wealthiest Americans, purported by some as "trickle-down economics." And Reagan's term saw the only time where the federal minimum wage was not increased, inaction that hurt solely the middle and lower classes. Inflation remained low during the 1980s, but 8 years without a raise in the minimum wage left the lower class in the lurch. (To note: George W. Bush fails to make the list because a Democratic Congress managed to pass a minimum wage increase at the latter end of his second term.) Furthermore, the drastic cuts to income tax ballooned the national deficit during Reagan's two terms, and left unchecked until the fiscally conservative policies of President Clinton reigned it in- only to be undone yet again by upper class tax cuts and outlandish defense spending under the 2nd Bush. So today, the wealthiest 1% holds just under 40% of the nation's total wealth and that number is slowly creeping towards that magical 50% again. Could another full blow Depression await?

During the Great Recession following the economic collapse in 2008, millions of middle class families saw their savings and investments wiped out, and many had to postpone retirement to make up for those lost savings. Outraged, the population called for action, which very little has been done. The TARP bailout financed the TBTF banks, but did absolutely nothing to restore an individual's investments, or a small-business owner who was forced to shutter their doors as credit seized. Once again, the wealth was distributed into the upper echelons, and the middle and lower classes were left footing the bill. But where is the response from Congress, and especially from the Right, whose prime talking-points seem to stem from a supposed redistribution of wealth, the socialist agenda? It's currently underpinning the recently passed Health Care Reform because they fear that wealth will be redistributed unevenly, away from major corporations. And in this case with the Wall Street Bailout and Financial Reform, many will argue that these men and their companies deserved the record profits they garnered because they worked hard to get those positions. But it wasn't their own money invested that they hedged risky bets (and lost) without the capital to support those bets should they fail; it was investors' money, the ones who lost all due to carelessness and greed of the corporations, who got off scotfree with conservatives at their backs the entire time.

The middle class today is made up of families where both parents need to work full-time positions to be classified as such, and often that's still not enough. The US minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. A full-time worker in one year then makes only $15,080. Before this, the minimum wage was set at $5.15 per hour, comprising an average yearly income of $10,712. In 2008, before the rate increase, the US poverty level was $10,400. Based on our own standards, the minimum wage barely kept full-time workers out of poverty, and certainly did not classify them as middle class. Had the Democrats not passed the minimum wage increase (which Republicans fought tooth and nail), a full-time employee at minimum wage would today be below the US poverty level. A Republican controlled Congress did nothing for 8 years but cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, letting the middle class dissipate further into nonexistence.

And hope was supposed to come carried on the shoulders of our current President, who, backed by that Democratic Congress, would "change" the direction of the country and lead us down a brighter road and future. But Congress (with little or no support from the White House) has stalled and balked on all financial fixes that would stop the redistribution of wealth into the upper classes (Brown-Kaufman Amendment, the Merkley-Levin Amendment, the Volcker Rules) to create a more secure financial sector. And the President has managed to be simultaneously angry and offering encomium on these large institutions and the men who run them, which suggests to me that he's little worried of making any real change.

But, while Liberals have failed to act, this is mostly a consequence of Conservatives' unfailing support for large corporations and the upper class, and their obstruction of Congress, particularly in the Senate. Their deep-rooted philosophy of less government has been the primary reason why financial reform has been so watered-down, and even with our most recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, they side with the corporations (BP), not the individual fisherman, or other "small people" as BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, disingenuously referred to those affected by the oil spill. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas(R) even apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward at a Congressional hearing because he feels the company should not be liable to pay for the damage the spill has caused, that a private company should not be at the whim of government. As the President analogously pointed out in his address to the nation last week, this spill is an attack, not cold and calculated as the 9/11 terror, but a result of negligence, corner-cutting, lack of oversight and minimal accountability. Just as the previous president retaliated after 9/11, so too must the current administration. The government exists to protect the innocent, precisely what it is doing, Mr. Barton. As expected, Mr. Barton was forced to backpedal his statement, saying that he somehow misspoke and believes BP should be held accountable. But what his testimony in that hearing truly revealed was the underlying philosophy of the GOP's unwavering support for the upper class and big corporations, as Rahm Emanuel pointed out this morning on ABC's This Week. For so wholeheartedly believing in the Capitalist system, where a strong middle class is the sole backbone of a strong economy, the Right either willfully is in disregard of the middle class, or plainly blind to its slow, cancerous demise. Either outlook is truly scary.

Rand Paul Must Hate Education

Since Tuesday Rand Paul, the winner of the Kentucky republican primary has seen a lot of press. The son of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has had a bit of controversy flare up in response to some comments made about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its relation to the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause's requirement of the states to provide said protection under the law to all citizens of its jurisdiction. The primary winner stated ambiguously that he would have passed the Civil Rights Act "differently" because of "Title II" of the act, which prohibits private businesses from discriminating against people based on race. Rand tried to back his position by leaning against what has become, for some reason, an infallible, sacrosanct Bill of Rights. Rand's defense was to say we shouldn't trample freedom of speech and that basically should one want to discriminate against another, that's all well and good and we'll not say anything, or do anything cause it's their right to discriminate.

Surely this view will not, and did not, sit well with many in the media. Political analysts, serving congressmen and women, and bloggers erupted over his comments. (Hey, here's another one!) I want to focus my attention on something that I haven't seen much of however. There's been scores of articles, opinions on just how close to racism Dr. Paul is approaching with his comments, but I think there is something more missing. Dr. Paul is stating, by saying that it's okay to discriminate and that we should allow people to do so, that people do not change, and we (or government) ought not try to change them. In other words, Dr. Paul is making an argument against education and its ability to shine light in the darkest recesses of thought, reason, and prejudice. Education is supposed to change us, to show us right when we are wrong, and to strengthen our beliefs when it validates what we already know.

Rand Paul's view of humanity seems bleak to me, stated perfectly by his Democratic opponent Jack Conway: "cold and callous." Paul stated, in response to the uproar, that he "unequivocally" does not condone discrimination, nor discriminates himself, but that others do, and it's okay for them to do so. This is simply illogical. If Dr. Paul isn't discriminatory towards other races then somewhere throughout his life he has learned that all people are equal, and valuable to society and humanity. But allowing others to hold beliefs that say otherwise and purporting that that is okay is unequivocally stating that other people cannot learn the same as he did and is excusing their behavior. I wonder if Paul thinks God will sort out the righteous non-discriminators from the impious discriminators in the end, relieving him and others of moral judgment. Paul should know about religion and God; he's been attending the Presbyterian church in his town since his family moved there and calls himself a Christian. Must have slipped his mind, that oft repeated obscure passage about, jeez, what was it, oh right: Mark 12:31 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Too bad the Bible can't teach us how to be better people...

Dr. Paul does put a lot of faith in Christianity and its ability to teach humanity saying we do not need laws so long as everyone is Christian (I'd really like to pick his brain about The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecution of the Jews in World War II!). Though he must think, since it's okay to discriminate and others can't be taught not to be prejudice as he was taught, that missions and the missionary work being done in hundreds of countries across the globe, and indeed in our very own country, is a big waste of time. I mean, these non-Christian people "discriminate," or don't believe, in the Christian life so we might as well let them be and not worry because it's okay for them not to hold the same beliefs as everyone else. He must think missionaries trying to teach a Christian, moral code is pointless, and violates the non-believers' rights of opinion, and freedom of religion. I can't believe Rand Paul isn't standing up and saying "Hey, don't try to change them. They're individuals and have their own thoughts and we need to respect that and God forbid [pun intended] we try teaching them otherwise." I can't wait for Rand to come out in favor of gay rights (government shouldn't discriminate either, right Rand?), as this article opines the issue.

Dr. Paul, the Bill of Rights was the foundation of law for our country, but even our founding fathers knew the laws were not perfect, and that history, societies evolve, and with that evolution, the law should change as well. The allowance of amendments to the Constitution was a necessity to ensure we can fulfill the requirements of our present time, any present time, with the notion of liberty and justice for all men and women. The Bill of Rights, our initial Constitution, was the building block to a great society, but was utterly flawed from the outset (no person is 3/5 of a whole). Just as we no longer believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Civil Rights Movement and the laws associated with it should teach us that freedom is the inherent right of all citizens and none should infringe on the rights of another in a fully just society. Your draconian, antiquated ideals logically do not support the current world in which we live.

Boycott Weddings For Equal Rights

A state law in Arizona has unleashed a torrent of unexpected consequences upon the welfare of the state. The law, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, or Arizona SB 1070, was designed as a measure to greatly influence the problem of illegal immigration within the state. The law came amidst complaints to the Federal Government that they were not moving quickly enough on immigration reform, since immigration is by nature a federal liability, not the states'. It is a far-reaching law. Many agree it is a Constitutional violation. Many local law enforcement in Arizona have so far refused to obey the law, saying it puts them unequivocally in a sort of catch-22: obey the law by ostensibly profiling "illegal" immigrants by race, or be fined or reprimanded if other citizens do not think law enforcement officials are being strict enough when questioning "suspicious" people about their immigration status.


On top of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the state's law, other forms of protest have arisen. Now, I can't say for sure that these unintended consequences were unforeseen (as Arizona has had similar issues in the past), but the state legislature would have been wise to consider the possibility of backlash against enacting the law. Equal rights groups have called for boycotts of Arizona; high schools, notably one in Denver, cancelled school trips to the state; hotels in the state have reported troves of cancelled reservations; conferences cancelled; Major League Baseball has threatened to move its All-Star game from the state next year, etc. These various boycotts are feared to wreak havoc on the financial stability of the state and on local businesses. Even the Mexican President has urged travelers to steer clear of the state in fear they would be stopped, harassed, or even arrested due to the new law, which is especially troubling when 1/3 of the state's economy relies on revenue generated by tourists from Mexico. These actions prompted an almost immediate amendment to the law, said to dispel the notion that racial profiling would occur, but really not doing much of anything different.


I won't belabor the point further. Obviously, I disagree with the law. The purpose to this wide array of boycotts is to strike a chord of economic implications associated with the law. Initially people have concentrated their efforts and protests against racial implications of the law, but by boycotting the state, and businesses within the state, suddenly people who would not be directly affected by the law could feel the ramifications of it, and might reconsider their initial support of it. A similar move was reported after the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Anger over the reckless greed and gambling of our nation's wealth led to the "Move Your Money" campaign, a push for individuals, small and large businesses, and governments to move their money from the 6 major banks. Wall Street continues even today to hold a smug arrogance over the country, a "If we fail, you fail" superiority only strengthening without reform and punishment. The 'Move Your Money" campaign was a retort, well an attempted response, to say that "No, we don't need you;" and "We don't get burned when you play with fire," stand. It's tough to pinpoint why the movement didn't catch like wildfire: are we scared? lazy? do we only talk big, but when time comes to take a stand, are we unwilling? "Money talks." It sure does. And as we inch closer and closer to a "Corporatocracy" money will speak greater volumes. Luckily, the Arizona boycott carries a bit more weight.


Maybe that knowledge, of how much anger there is pointed at Wall Street right now and how people still failed to act, should make me just stop writing and not even attempt this crazy notion that a similar boycott could be used in response to the fight for equal rights of LGBT individuals. Politicians only react these days when it seems the free market is in jeopardy, and somebody (read: campaign donors) are losing, or will lose money. What if those who fought for the equal rights of gays and lesbians agreed to stop marrying until legislation was passed granting everyone the freedom to marry? That' s a big sacrifice, I know. But take this example: a bachelorette party, who instead of going to a normal club to celebrate go to a gay club because they know they'll be able to have fun without the entirety of the room looking to take them home for a one-night stand. Now put yourselves in the shoes of the homosexuals who frequent these clubs because of the acceptance and comfort afforded them there, and instead have the fact that they cannot legally marry rubbed in their faces all night by these women. I don't blame the women, of course. They would just like to have a good time without having to fend off the advances of horny, single men for an evening; and I don't want to single out this situation, as I'm sure at some time or place a bachelor party has gone to a strip club where a gay woman, or women worked, and the women have felt the same way. But this all speaks to a greater problem: that certain individuals in our country do not have the same luxury, no, the same basic rights as others.


So what would happen if suddenly the wedding registries at Bed, Bath, and Beyond, or Target Stores, Inc. diminished to nothing? What would happen if prime honeymoon destinations suddenly stopped procuring reservations? What would happen if the diamond district in New York saw sales plummet, or your local Fire Hall stopped earning money from weekend receptions? You'd have a lot more people suddenly give a damn about the equal rights of others, people that normally do not need to worry themselves over how many weddings they book because business is booming. (Weddings, on average, generate about $40 billion a year in revenue in the US.). It's a hell of a sacrifice, but if just some people start to put the needs of others ahead of themselves then maybe we can achieve the unprecedented. We can start a call that hopefully would strike where politicians listen, their campaign donations, to end the injustice of inequality.


Okay, I've gone on for quite some time here. So, maybe I'll just leave you with this: Sarah Silverman probably said it best, "How does anyone whose for equal rights get married right now? That's like joining a country club that doesn't accept blacks or Jews." Well said.

The Plastic Bottle Challenge

It's Earth Day. And in recognition, I extended a challenge to my Facebook friends on how many plastic bottles they use, and if they could go longer than myself without using another one. Since January of 2009, I have used 5 plastic bottles- total. That includes water bottles, Gatorade, Vitamin Water, etc. Many messaged me incredulously wondering how I could have used only 5 plastic bottles in over 16 months. I insist that it isn't as tough as some may think. A little willingness for personal sacrifice in lieu of broader reaching payoffs, I feel, is far more rewarding. And not too mention, these "personal sacrifices" I contend are actually part of a healthier lifestyle, so I don't consider them sacrifices at all. So, without further ado, here are some suggestions to reducing your carbon footprint and diminishing your waste.

1) Purchase an aluminum water bottle. Try not to buy plastic or one with a plastic drinking nozzle. My bottle has a plastic cap that screws on, but the rim is aluminum, so the liquid rarely touches any plastic. Plastic contains BPA which leaches into liquids, even the nozzle on your bottles will leach. BPA has been shown to cause a wide array of health problems from cancer, to obesity, to Thyroid dysfunction... There's a whole list of crap it can cause. Now, the aluminum can leach also, but there have been no conclusive studies illuminating serious health risks posed by the trace amounts of aluminum that leaches compared to the trace amounts of BPA that does. But it's also important to remember that you should never leave the water sitting in the bottle for long periods of time. If the liquid has been in there for, let's say, 5 days to a week (even while in the fridge), it's probably a good idea to dump it, rinse the bottle, and refill. This also prevents any bacteria from building up inside.

2) If you find yourself out on a Friday or Saturday night and in need of water after leaving the bar (which I find far more often than I'd like to admit), buy a drink in a glass bottle, or one of my personal favorites, the pints of Tropicana orange juice that come in the paper cartons. Both the glass and carton are far more easily recyclable. Plus, while the plastic water bottles are generally imported, using 100Ks of gallons of oil to produce and ship, Tropicana is processed right here in the US, without the needless use of so much oil for production and transportation. So, this is kind of a two-prong attack on fossil fuel consumption (not too mention directly benefiting an American company). Also, before leaving the bar, grab a glass of water to help avoid the urge to stop at the grocery or a bodega on the corner.

3) Ask for tap water at a restaurant. If they don't serve it, refuse water. New York City has the 13th best drinking water in the country. For my Upstate friends, Buffalo has the 15th. We're drinking some of the cleanest water in the country. And bottled water is not necessarily cleaner. Public drinking water is more regulated and tested than the water in plastic bottles. Also, the water in plastic bottles is about 40% tap water anyway. The lax regulation on bottled water leads to the allowance of BPA in the plastic. And for your home: by a water filter for your spigot if you're concerned your town, or city's drinking water is not clean enough.

4) This last one never really struck me until several people messaged me and asked, "What about soda?" First, I don't drink soda regularly. So, perhaps I'm at a more advantageous point than many who do drink soda with meals, or with snacks. But I do enjoy my Jack & Cokes, so I'll just say order them at the bar. Most bars have the fountains, where the soda is brought in in large canisters and carbonated on site, so no plastic bottles are generally used in this case. If you do enjoy mixing up some drinks at home, there probably isn't much of an alternative to buying a 2-liter of Coke other than finding a preferable drink without soda. Obviously, I refrain from doing this, sometimes much to my own displeasure, but I have started to enjoy screwdrivers so much more! Again, this is kind of a more personal sacrifice, but ultimately a more healthy one. We all know sodas are loaded with sugar, are fattening, cause too decay, can lead to diabetes, etc. Replace your soda with a glass of water at home.

Well, I guess that's about it. I hope these suggestions are helpful, or at least enlightening. If you want to take up the challenge, please feel free to comment occasionally on how you are doing. I will try as well, but more likely will post should temptation strike and my will power crack.
Happy Earth Day!

A "Prayer" to End War

Several months after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush told Palestinian leaders at a Palestinian-Israeli summit that God told him to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, and that he must end the tyranny in Iraq. The former president told them this statement in private, which was later disclosed for a BBC interview with one of the Palestinian leaders. This message was never overtly expressed in the reasoning leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Instead we were fed lies and mistruths of Iraq's possession of WMDs, despite all evidence proving there were none. Since the initial invasion, theories have swirled of whether these tales of WMDs were actually to paint legitimacy into a more sinister, totalitarian effort to secure oil fortunes, or that our deep theological differences was used as a prong to push the administration into conflict- a modern day Crusades. While one of these two reasons might be a better excuse for entering a conflict with the Middle East rather than lying about none existent weapons, neither justifies, in our modern world, military action. In fact, both are incredibly dangerous rationalizations. But the former president implicitly expressed such a sentiment to the Palestinians.

I'm not going to argue the case of criminal charges being brought against the former administration. President Obama has wrongly decided that no further inquiries into the invasion of Iraq will take place, and thus no accountability shouldered. But what I want to delve into here is the numerous "prayers" I see everywhere for an end to war. Don't freak out; I'm not about to start justifying or war-mongering in any sense, and will be first on line for a global peace treaty (I know, liberal idealism...). But what strikes me is that individuals reach out to God, a god, the God (I'm not sure) to end wars, while, as far as I can tell, it is God telling his followers to do the exact opposite. Deuteronomy 7:2: "and when the Lord your God delivers [seven nations greater and mightier] over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them." [Emphasis not added.] I'll avoid redundancy and just say the Bible offers a great many passages similar to this. The Torah: the same (obviously); the Quran: equally guilty of condoning violence as a means to an end.

And what is this end? Theological dominance; the utter destruction of competing religions (or simply competing beliefs) by the use of the sword. Why are we praying to God to end war? The only outcome is to wipe out all "non-believers," those who do not strictly follow one religion's beliefs. Praying for God to end war begets only more war, more bloodshed. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years. I imagine many military generals at the time praying for an end to the fighting, but relinquishing their attacks only after the deaths of their enemies to regain the "Holy Land." I could see similar rationalizations offered during the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of Jews during World War II, and rattling around in George Bush's head prior to the invasion of Iraq. Of course they don't want to fight, but if someone disagrees with their faith, they're left no choice. Right? "It's not my fault officer, she made me hit her..." If God is listening and responding to prayers, isn't the answer going to be "defeat and utterly destroy" whomever is opposed? Deuteronomy 7:2 is a passage at its core of intolerance, notably God's. It's this perspective of God, the one touted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which is often erroneously brought forward when a particular belief of the church finds opposition.

Is war a constant of the universe? Competing organisms ranging from animals to plants, to microscopic bacteria are pitted in a seemingly endless battle to survive. Is war and fighting ingrained in the very fabric of all living organisms? Each cell composing our bodies fight daily to live. We are a mass of striving cells overpowering weaker ones for sustainability. Does the collective of these tiny organisms signal hostility to our brains, a feeling of threat, and trigger a defense mechanism? Have we evolved into hopelessly bellicose beings? No. Can religion end war? Perhaps. But are prayers of peace really any good when the being we are praying too would just as soon see billions perish? Maybe those who pray should send a prayer to God of tolerance, in part for Himself, but more for the raging wave of intolerance rushing towards the sandy shores.

Prayer is the hope of intervention by some divine force capable of doing what we feel we cannot, or providing answers to the questions we feel elude us. The power of tolerance is not something that should elude any individual, nor by necessity need divine intervention to achieve. Tolerance is a power within each and every human to treat another with mutual respect; we all contain the capacity of kindness and love that is not granted by God, but is intrinsically, inherently part of our being. We've never needed a book to teach us this.

An Open Letter to Marvel Comics

The below is a letter I wrote to Marvel Comics (with some minor revisions and amendments, in hindsight) reacting to their apology to the Tea Party movement of words published in Captain America issue #602. I've been a bit bogged down this week, so sorry this is a little behind the times, although, I think the issue of possible racial discrimination within the Tea Party is still relevant. There has been a growing concern among Tea Party leaders towards the more extremist, incendiary individuals within the group, so it is a relief, somewhat, to see that they are not willingly blind to the possible consequences of some who align themselves with the movement. Ultimately it is the responsibility of these group leaders to admonish and quell any incentives to violence at their local gatherings, and to not allow extremists to bastardize their message once in public. One false move, one angry individual, aligned with the movement that commits an act of violence will forever brand the movement as terrorist. In light of the arrest of the Hutaree Group, in remembrance of the Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shootings, let us not adopt the bellicose, but keep our perspective that violence is not the answer in these trying times... Peace.

Dear Marvel Comics,

I was quite shocked to read today that you issued a formal apology, and are subsequently removing some "lettering" from future printings of Captain America #602 for referring to the national Tea Party movement and possible connections it may have with white supremacists. To be honest, I haven't read the issue, and probably still will not, although, I truly do enjoy, from what I have read, what Mr. Brubaker has done with the story since taking the helm on the book. But the apology comes as a shock to me for many reasons.

First, it is appropriate to put a little perspective into this. The panels in the comic in question, due to some lettering that was added in a rush prior to publication (Really?), seem to associate anti-tax protesters with a group called "The Watchdogs," who are white supremacists. The fictional anti-tax protesters carry signs with slogans seen on similar signs during real Tea Party protests. Hence, the Tea Party is in some way associated, or at least some members of the Tea Party, with white supremacy, or are simply just racist. Last weekend, at the first national Tea Party Convention, Tom Tancredo gave a speech in which he blamed ignorant people who "can't even spell the word 'vote,'" for electing President Obama to the White House, and thus the US should instate Literacy Tests to determine whether someone in this country can vote, harkening back to an idea established during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's. Most do not need reminding that Literacy Tests were championed by racists, notably white supremacists, to deter or completely deny blacks the ability to vote. Mr. Tancredo aligned the Tea Party this past weekend with sympathies similar to white supremacists, so for a writer or artist in your employ, or even your readers, to draw parallels between the Tea Party and white supremacy does not seem far-reaching, in fact, some would say it's rather pertinent. And not to mention that none in the Tea Party movement demanded an apology from Mr. Tancredo seems telling of their stance with what he said, and more broadly on civil rights in general. Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, in a Yahoo! news article did not seem to accept the apology of Joe Quesada, EIC at Marvel Comics. But why isn't Mr. Phillips demanding an apology from Tom Tancredo for touting racist ideals at the convention and tarnishing the Tea Party? To me this seems like blatant hypocrisy. Just because someone criticizes the movement should not beget an automatic apology. Surely, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Phillips are not about to apologize for their racism and hypocrisy. Marvel should not be apologizing for making a statement.

Mr. Brubaker, as well as other writers, has done an incredible job of taking super hero stories and grounding them in the real world. This isn't necessarily something new, as the Marvel Universe is set on Earth and many heroes have made our modern-day cities their home and ultimately their protectorate for decades. By referencing real-world issues and occurrences you draw the reader more reverently deeper into this fantastic world, creating a connection between the reader and the hero. And now you apologize for it. Why are you not standing up to this? Do you think some poor press by Fox News is going to really hurt your readership? Judson Phillips called the story part of a "political agenda." The Tea Party has a political agenda. When speakers aligning themselves with this political party make racially charged comments they are propagating a political agenda. And Mr. Phillips says nothing. One writer expresses his views on the group and suddenly there's uproar and you back away from your story. Why? You're trying not to make a political statement? Well, guess what? You've been doing it for nearly 50 years in X-Men. Beneath it all, X-Men is an allegory for racial prejudice and hatred since issue 1. And there are countless instances in almost every other comic you've published that deal with racial, ethical, and social issues. Why did you tuck-tail and run from this? Are we just supposed to buy watered-down stories from now on, lacking in substance and relevance to the changing world around us? The fact that you failed to stick up for the story is simply disheartening. It seems you're more worried about losing a couple readers than about telling a compelling story that means something to us, but more importantly, a story that means something to you.

And lastly, it's called the First Amendment! For starters, this Tea Party movement again shows pure and utter hypocrisy by demonizing free speech when they contend to stand up for the truest, purest American values established by our forefathers. Chastising Marvel for an opinion is beyond a double standard. But what's more outrageous is that you are not invoking your right to free speech. And furthermore, you're not standing up for your artists in lieu you may get some bad press. Based on what I know of Ed Brubaker, what I've read on his blog, or on Twitter, I know that he strongly believes what was intended in this story, so it leads me to assume his statement/apology to Fox News was forced. Mr. Quesada should not demand apologies from his employees, but should defend his writers and artists because without them there would be no Marvel Comics. Without Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, without Ditko, Steranko, and Romita, who put their ideals, their beliefs, to paper regardless of whether it was popular, or good politics, there would be no Marvel Comics. You should be standing firm for what you believe in because, I guarantee you, by not doing so you will offend far more of your readership. You've already offended one. Today, I don't know if I can ever buy a Marvel comic again and it saddens me. You have shown me, and maybe others, that you care more about how many people buy your book than the content beneath the glossy cover.

With great sorrow,

Jason Owen

The LGBT and Their God Given Right

A Pew Research poll conducted in 2009 found that about 70% of evangelicals, both black and white, are opposed to gay marriage. The Barna Group conducted a phone interview in 2009
to find roughly the same number of Americans believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. To me, the similarity in these two numbers isn't striking, but it got me thinking. We're in the midst of two very important moments in regards to equality for the LGBT community: the Armed Forces is currently reconsidering the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; and across the nation gay couples are fighting for their rights as individuals, as Americans- land of the free- to be able to marry legally under the law. Based on the numbers above, it's no wonder we see such staunch opposition to equal rights for LGBT individuals. But seeing these two beliefs side-by-side, it just doesn't make much sense to me how evangelicals can oppose gay marriage and hold the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing god.


Let's start with the premise that god is omnipotent and omniscient. His power is unsurpassed and he is eternal. He knows our everyday lives, sees our joys, our sorrows, our indiscretions, and our heroics. He is a god who has preordained our very lives, that leads us upon a path towards salvation, or enlightenment. We do not choose our path; the choices we make are in essence his bidding, his choice, written in the cosmic tablet long ago. Partly, we accept the deaths of friends and loved ones because we argue it was "all part of His plan," and that our loved ones are "with him now." If you strongly believe in the Christian God then you believe most of the above.


One argument evangelicals contend against LGBT individuals is that they chose to live that lifestyle. Not being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender, I'm sure these evangelicals have some divine insight into how LGBT people actually think and feel... Anyway, suppose this premise were also true, that yes, all homosexuals chose to be that way at some point in their lives. If that were true, can't we then say that god does not predetermine their lives? And if that were true then the next logical step is to say that god is indeed not all-powerful, nor all-knowing. And if god is not all-powerful and all-knowing then the Commandments, and when he "answers" a prayer, lose credibility and force. We look to the divine seeking enlightenment, but if we knew that even sometimes that encouragement was not in our best interests, would we unquestionably follow?


I'm sure there are several arguments one can make against the above, but I want to point to one of the most obvious: that god grants free-will to people, to allow them to make their own choices, in this case, commit the sin of homosexuality. To this, my response: whereas the Bible damns homosexuality through many courses in its' texts, it also condemns other, far more ridiculous things: working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2); women cannot teach, nor hold positions of authority (1 Timothy 2:11-15), etc. Both of these were common thoughts of practice in the 1st Century, but we've adapted to the changing times, progressed into modernity where these, and many other "sins" of the Bible are meaningless. Can we without doubt conclude homosexuality is a sin? No. Can we then chastise their choice, if it is actually a choice they make? I don't believe we can.


But let's get back to the argument. Conversely, if homosexuals do not chose to be gay then they must be born that way. The majority of homosexuals that I am glad to call friends have confided in me how they knew they were always gay, or lesbian, but fearfully held back their feelings whether because of familial, or societal pressures to be "normal." And I tend to hold their own personal diagnostics in higher regard than some evangelical because well, these people are inside their own minds and have a far better understanding of who they are, and what they feel than some Christian wing-nut out there. So, if they are born that way, and evangelicals want to retain that god is omnipotent, thus presuming god made everyone to be how they are, then homosexuals are created by god to be homosexuals. And since god is the unquestioned authority over the universe, evangelicals should not oppose homosexuality as something unnatural since god granted such freedom.


Now, some might argue that it's not that evangelicals do not accept homosexuals, but that the evangelicals do not want the institution of marriage corrupted. Again, let's look into the Bible. Hm... Couldn't find anything. Gay marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. When marriage is mentioned, it relates specifically to the union of a man and a woman (1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33 for example). But should the omission of any language specifically singling out gay marriage be enough to promulgate against it? I don't think so. The Bible doesn't mention anything about computers, or corporations. Yet we've had to establish our own laws and doctrines regarding these modern fixtures in our lives, so we should adopt our own modern laws for gay marriage, not based on centuries old dogma and assumptions based on omission.


John Rawls' theory of social justice, "the veil of ignorance," is the best tool to establish law that will have the most weight and be the most fair. "The veil of ignorance" is placed over each specific person, so that he or she does not know the color of their skin, their religion, their gender, or in our case, their sexual orientation. If you do not know, when the veil is lifted, if you are straight, gay, transgender, etc. then when choosing rules and laws you would want them to be altruistic, because if you establish law opposing gay marriage and you are gay when the veil is lifted, you've discriminated against yourself, you've limited your own individual freedom. By choosing a law that accounts for everyone, doesn't limit the individual freedoms of anyone, you've created a far better world for everyone and have taken steps to accept all for who they are. You've established a more peaceful world. You've established a world of love, not hate. You've done, in essence, what Jesus preached of you to do. Shouldn't that be reason enough?

Reconciling the Overreach of Government in the Finance Reform Debate

Health Care reform has passed. Every possible argument was made for and against the bill (with several outright fabrications conjured in the outset, too boot). But the country is in need of change, drastic change and progress in many facets of our society. Now, the next big debate is slated for discussion (hopefully with slightly less untruths this time around). Looking back those two weeks ago (it really does seem longer; and look, Armageddon has not struck despite some ridiculous assertions! I know, I took that one pretty much from the POTUS; so credit to him.), one legitimate argument from those opposed to Health Care reform was just how far the Government's reach would extend. While it was clear early on this bill was not a "government takeover," or some Socialist plot, still the Right-Wing media played up the fear perfectly and caused a major outcry in defiance of this supposed takeover, and even managed to spawn a little Tea Party movement, which has grown. Tea Partiers were taken-in by the ruse of a government invasion of their personal health care and they rallied ferociously to stop it, to stop the strong-arm of the government from interfering with their health, with their choice of coverage, or their choice of which doctor to see. The argument from the Right was less government involvement, less regulation, and the Health Care system would work itself out.


The thing is, just a couple years ago we saw the results of substantial deregulation, less oversight, less government imperil our financial sector, and, turns out, it wasn't the best thing for America. The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 severely limited the power of the government to oversee our largest financial institutions to assure that one, these institutions were running legitimate business transactions-- lawful business transactions-- and that two, they were not operating in a manner that would endanger the overall market. On both points the institutions failed, and failed miserably; regarding the first, it's still being investigated as to the legality of their dubious transactions. The overall consensus from top economists is that this strict deregulation of Wall Street allowed the abuses of the system that lead directly to the Great Recession. The simple answer to all of this should be: reinstate strict regulation and break up the "too big to fail" (TBTF) institutions, or megabanks. So why are we getting such push back from the Republicans in Congress on this issue?


John Boehner, the House Minority leader, recently stated to bankers that they should fight financial reform at all costs, that banks don't need added regulation, and that the morality and ethics of those in charge would prevail and lead to a prosperous time for all of America. Mr. Boehner is not a dumb man, I don't think, but to stand against leading economists, men and women who have made it their career to study the economy, and in essence, say they are wrong, is troubling. As Boehner so vehemently alluded to polls during the Health Care debate, he maintained the public was against Health Care reform (I won't delve into Boehner's choosiness of which polls to follow). So, naturally, you'd think he would take a gander at some new polls to find out if Americans wanted financial reform, and then base his decisions and leadership on that. Well, turns out Americans are decidedly for finance reform, and have an unfavorable viewpoint of our largest banks. If Boehner really wanted what was best for America, wouldn't he be fighting for finance reform, not against it? It seems to me that Boehner has no interest in the middle class, his constituents, and everyday Americans. Health Care reform is going to rein in the exorbitant profits and abuses of the Health Care industry; finance reform would do the same, helping the majority of Americans, not the fiscally elite minority, which Boehner seems far more interested in helping.


But I have to give credit to Mr. Boehner for at least being consistent on the issue of Big Government. It's obvious he wants nothing to do with it (barring when there is a Republican as Commander in Chief). But my question is to the high majority of people on the Right who want finance reform: how do you account for such a dynamic shift in demonizing overreach of government in Health Care to now wanting "overreach" of government in the financial sector? The financial sector is a far greater portion of our economy as a whole, so putting added government regulation on to it ostensibly means more government power, far more. Trying to maintain the position of less government involvement throughout all aspects of our society simply cannot be a consistent position, especially in light of our recent economic blunders.


I think this is why, so far, we have not seen an outcry over finance reform from the base of the Right, or the Tea Party movement. The majority of them view Wall Street as dishonest, greedy, self-serving, all at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They learned of the reckless betting of the TBTF institutions and how it directly caused the financial collapse, and the subsequent bailout of these institutions with little or absolutely no ramifications for those in charge of them. In fact, we've learned of the ridiculous, unworthy bonuses of its' CEOs and profits of the banks, all the while millions of people became unemployed, or lost their hard-earned retirement funds. Signs of protest: "Where is my bailout?" littered the airwaves. But our bailout never came. We've watched, as we near the 2 year anniversary of the recession, how nothing has changed on Wall Street, except the strengthening, stringent opposition to reform. Where are the Tea Party rallies? Where is the embrace of financial reform? It's lost in the over-aggressive opposition to more government. They cannot demand reform based on the simplistic, short-sighted notion of less government without seeming completely hypocritical in their beliefs. If the Tea Party, or every day Republicans do not push for reform then the chances of passing financial regulation will dwindle, which exponentially increases the possibility of another financial collapse.


This is my fear. The Right will begin to slowly spin finance reform into the same "Socialist plot" they pinned Health Reform as. The lobbyists will charge that more regulation means more government, play up the "takeover" of banks, and how the government will then have access to people's personal bank accounts, will directly tell people where they can and cannot spend their money. This will be coupled with the ridiculous notion that America needs megabanks to compete in the global economy, and that financial crises occur every 5-7 years, so "no biggie." The 2001 recession was a cause of the Internet boom hitting its peak, weeding out the unsustainable companies. The Great Recession was not your standard cyclical recession, as it teetered on the precipice of a far greater Depression of global proportions. To hold beliefs that our economy must accept recessions every 5-7 years is a dangerous notion to argue against financial reform. Of course Mr. Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, would love to have crises every few years when his company garners $2.5B in profit even during a recession. It's good for the banks, bad for the rest of the country.


So my challenge to those on the Right, to the Tea Party: first, abnegate, just a little, your hold on the notion that any government interference is a bad thing, that the government, our government, is not the tyrannical Republic we rebelled against more than 200 years ago. Ours' is a government "by the people, for the people" at its very core. The government is an aid, a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, the Founding Fathers established the federal government, because a central legislative body, when properly instated, can and does work for the people. If they didn't hold that government was a necessity would they have established our Democracy? No. Secondly, start the rally for Financial Reform. Tell your Congressmen and Senators, who have begun to be taken under the wing of Wall Street, you want reform, that the banks are not what is important, but it is the American people. Why should so few prosper while so many suffer and bear the costs of recklessness and greed?

Thoughts on Health Reform

Last week, the House passed H.R. 4872, the highly contested Health Insurance reform bill the country desperately needs. The provisions within the bill should help millions of Americans either already insured, or those uninsured combat the abuses and out of control insurance rate increases of the current health care system. Many of the projections for what the bill will do are not set in stone. They rely heavily on a step-by-step implementation process to curb the rising costs and increasing population of those who daily become uninsured. I will admit that some things may not align accordingly with all the projections set forth by the administration or economists, and future fixes are still needed, but this legislation, no matter how inchoate you may think it is, was a necessity. Reactions to the bill have been varied, ranging from the left's now complete crush on Obama (regardless of how he handles job creation and banking reform) to the despicable, unapologetic, and violent rhetoric and actions of the Tea Party movement. Perusing the blogosphere, I've come across some interesting arguments for why exactly this bill is so bad for our country, and will take this opportunity to offer counter arguments.

1. Health Care reform was not necessary.
The simplest of argument against the passage of the bill is plainly just ill-informed, or blind to the facts. Since 1980, the cost of health care, based on GDP, has nearly doubled. Over the next two decades (which would be right around the time my generation is reaching the critical age of 50), without reform the amount of money spent by the average American on health care would be right around 30% of their income. Imagine trying to save for retirement all the while dealing with some chronic, life-threatening illness and paying monthly, or even weekly, for prescription medication (which would of course be more expensive than it is today). Reform was something that could wait no longer. A Republican controlled House, Senate, and President did nothing to steer the industry from the precipice. The runaway train was hurtled at the Democratic party, who successfully laid their body out over the broken rails.

2. Now my premiums are going to go up.
This has been a humorous argument to see come up. In case you haven't been listening, insurance premiums were already rising at an astronomical level, far out-pacing inflation. Just weeks ago, some companies were reported to raise rates on individuals up to 39%, and on small businesses up to 75%! The Health Insurance reform looks to curb these arbitrary rate hikes by adding more people, and more competition into the market. Personally, I feel having some regulations in place so that insurance companies cannot raise rates without warning, or viable excuses, or denying coverage altogether is a plausible position. Liken this to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999 deregulated Wall Street and set us up for the Great Recession, allowing the financial giants to take risky bets for the possibility or enormous profits (They lost...). Millions of people are up-in-arms over arbitrary credit card rate increases, but many of these same people are against insurance regulation. Are you kidding me? No regulation on Wall Street was disastrous. The same can be said about "Health Street." Yes, premiums will continue to rise (at a far less inflated rate than previously), but legislation was set in place so that even though you may pay a little more in premiums your total personal health care costs ultimately go down (as well as the government's, reducing the federal deficit). That's an important distinction to make.

3. Forcing 32 million Americans to have health insurance is just a big gift to the insurance industry.
Strictly speaking, this seems like a no-brainer argument from the left. Yes, adding 32 million more people as customers to the insurance corporations numbers looks like it would undoubtedly raise their revenue stream, quite substantially too. But this complex system doesn't mean at all the insurance giants' profits will soar. Look at the numerous examples brought to national attention by the media of everyday Americans who after learning they were sick, spent months in the doctor's office, racking up hundreds of thousands in bills, thinking all the while their visits and treatments were covered, only to learn their insurance company will in fact not pay for treatment because the corporation either found some loophole to establish a preexisting condition, or the person reached their coverage limit and they were dropped. All over the country this was happening leading to the record profits the health care companies garnered in 2009, despite the recession. Under the new laws, this no longer happens. Which means that yes, they have more customers and more revenue generating into the system, but they are now required to cover all treatments, no matter the cost; they cannot arbitrarily drop coverage, and the coverage limits are no longer viable. Most likely, these changes will off-set any projections for insurmountable profits by the insurance companies without damaging the companies' bottom-line.

4. No abortion coverage for women?
Liberals are especially angry over this one with the President. And it's not even his fault. Of course he wanted the measures in the bill to include coverage for abortions, but it was the House wrangling that ultimately defeated any abortion coverage. The House passed the legislation with 220 votes, just 4 more than the needed 216. To get those votes, the House needed 12 votes from conservative Democrats called the "Stupak 12." The "12" threatened to vote against the Senate bill if there was any language preserving federal dollars for abortions. So, the President did what needed to be done; he signed an executive order. This tallied the final votes needed for passage. As Bill Clinton said during his own fight for Health Care reform, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Overall, the bill was needed. Not every provision could be included (see Public Option, also), but ultimately we've moved forward. Now, if you're angry about the abortion part: first, stop blaming the President. If it wasn't obvious, he wasn't happy about having to sign an executive order. Case and point: the totally unceremonious signing of said order the day after the bill passed the House. No cameras, no media allowed. Also, an executive order can be repealed by...an executive order. That simple. Further, if you want to see abortion rights progress in this country, go volunteer. Work to ensure Representatives like Bart Stupak are not reelected and replaced by more Pro-Choice Reps.

5. We have to wait until 2014 before so many provisions are enacted??
Yes. Part of the entire debate centered on the bill was the threat it would plummet our national deficit into unsustainable, and irreversible levels. "This bill will bankrupt us!" was the cry. As I mentioned in the introduction, the bill was written as a step-by-step implementation. First, the initial provisions occur to keep people insured: tax credits, the beginning of closing the 'donut hole' in Medicare, restrictions on denying coverage to children, or those with preexisting conditions, and dropping people arbitrarily. All these work to keep the amount of people already insured, insured, instead of having over 1400 people per day lose their insurance, as was the numbers prior to passage. Eventually this builds towards insurance for all. To cover 32 million extra Americans the government would have needed incredible capital to do that immediately (and in case you didn't know, we have a bit of a debt problem right about now). The only way to raise that kind of money quickly: taxes. And we all know how the majority feels about those. So enacting every provision immediately just was not fiscally possible, or responsible.
Furthermore, to contend that waiting until 2014 for these other provisions to kick in means John or Jane Doe, already on death's bed, will not see any benefits from the legislation is a terrible argument against any health reform. Would you rather we wait another 16 years before a Democratic majority attempts health care reform again? Would you rather not have the reformation process begin now so that Chris, or Sue, or Rosana, or anybody else who in the next 3 1/2 years will be diagnosed with some malicious, but curable disease, who without health care reform starting now, they would not have the coverage they need at that time to survive? It will happen, and most likely to someone you know. Now they have a far greater chance of survival and it boils down to simply giving people the coverage. This should have been done when Pres. Clinton was in office, and it hurts me to think of all those who suffered and ultimately died because reform was not achieved back then. But the past is gone, that bleak horizon of darkness. And standing here in the present as I am, the future, to me, just got a hell of a lot brighter.

The Preamble

For months I've struggled searching for a foundation to this blog (political, a Brooklyn journal of living, the environment, etc), delaying the necessity of having one because I could not conclude what it was I wanted this site to be about. Simply speaking, it was foolish to delay. A completed work is never a mirror of the work at commencement; nor is it just a hardened, fortified shell of its adolescent self. Yes, the completed work grows, blossoms and flourishes from its inception. And yes, the completed work resembles somewhat its infantile state. But the completed work is almost always a thing born of a single idea, which at the end represents many ideas, many ideals, various opinions, at times contradictions within itself, and many different people. In essence, it is a living, breathing thing spun from the lips of a living, breathing human.

Hi.

Our bodies decay and reconstruct on a daily basis. In a seven year time span, all the cells in your body will have died and been replaced by new ones. I'm 28. I've rotted and reconstructed four times entirely in my life. Am I the same person today as I was 28 years ago? I'm digressing, and there will be plenty of time to explore the existential and metaphysical elements of life as we progress forward. But my point is: I'm -we're all- constantly changing. This living, breathing thing that I have begun will be constantly changing (and hopefully constantly updated!). To try at the beginning to pigeonhole this work into one set niche I think would be a mistake.

But that is not to say certain themes will not run through the posts consistently. I, like all, have my own beliefs, and values, and certainly they will spring up often, if not always, whether consciously or not. And I will try to uphold the principles that I live by within the posts, and hope that should I get out of hand, or severely off course my readers will right my path, provide the beacon of light to bring this unsteady ship into shore. "When people lead, leaders follow." I hope to provide you sound arguments for a more peaceful world.

Hence the name. For those familiar with the Japanese Anime Trigun, the "Humanoid Typhoon" is the name branded on the protagonist, Vash the Stampede, from civilians on the planet. He has been given this moniker because it seems that everywhere he travels, through every city he steps a foot, he leaves only rubble and death in his wake. He is proclaimed a criminal with a bounty for his capture. But those who come to know Vash, what he is and what he believes in, know that it is not he who causes such destruction- for he a kind and gentle man- but those in pursuit of him, either due to the bounty on his head or the gang of ruthless mercenaries sent to kill him because of his beliefs and his values. You see, Vash beliefs all people have the basic right to life, that not even he (who, as revealed, wields far more power than any average person) has the right to take the life of another, even knowing they are criminals, or those malicious souls sent to kill him; even in retaliation to murder, Vash does not condone "eye-for-an-eye" ideology. He upholds two basic principles, sets his moral compass to them, and delineates from them never: "love and peace."

Regardless of topic or rhetoric, I hope each post posits one of these ideals at the forefront and moves readers towards them. I'm sure disagreements will be had, and misunderstandings of my methodology or logic pertaining to certain topics will exist, leading some to label me the "humanoid typhoon." But I will work to calm the winds of hatred, fear, and ignorance from where destruction truly is derived.