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!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
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.
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
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)