We are All French Today. We Cannot Allow the Terrorists to Win

The terrorist attacks in France demonstrate that we are still very primitive as a species, although we're not all on the same page or even time. Of course, we can disagree about everything, but we should be conducting ourselves in a more civilized manner by now. Alas, we have a long way to go before we eliminate violent conflict and improve the condition of life for humanity. But, what are those chains holding us back?

Exploitation, competition for resources, and a long history of conflict, make it harder to achieve peace and prosperity. Primitive ideas and religion make matters worse. This has to be acknowledged. Certain myths and belief systems must be given up if we are to progress; such beliefs our clearly outdated. Perhaps there was a need some time ago that the world, the universe was explained through myths and superstitions. It doesn't have to be today in the 21st century! 

The Paris terror attack has several causes. One is the religious faith of people who see western secular societies as the devil's playground. Such faith fuels their hatred and makes it easier to kill others and themselves. Another is the economic and political conditions in places where western imperial powers occupied lands and exploited the local populations. Wars--either started by the West or perpetually being fought on the ground in the Middle East--traumatize people and thus makes it easier to be radicalized. However, radicalism includes indoctrination and certain cultural traditions makes it easier to capture adherents. Despondent youth are prime recipients of such indoctrination. 

Rational thinking and a calm approach to problems isn't the norm in crisis situations. A prolonged crisis creates scars, harsh memories, and emotions of revenge as in the case of places that have been experiencing wars, famine, violence, and instability for generations after generations. Peace and prosperity, and feelings that life is getting better aren't created overnight. It takes time. Cultures and personal attitudes change when there's stability, affluence, and improving conditions for at least a generation or two.

At this point, though, we have to evaluate the situation without rushing to extremes and let anger--which is understandable after such a horror--dictate our reaction. Obviously, we want to maintain our open tolerant and diverse societies, but we have to be careful who we admit. This is not xenophobia, but I think a country has the right to limit entrance to those who don't share the established political and cultural values.

So, is this different than,say, what Saudi Arabia is doing? Absolutely! In Saudi, free expression is not allowed. Any critical remark earn you lashing and the death penalty as this barbaric regime employs totalitarian control over its sheepish people. In our world, however, free expression is encouraged even if it means criticizing everything and everybody. As long as it is peaceful and there's no incitement to violence. But, those who see membership in this society must accept these rules of conduct.

My thoughts (not prayers) are with the terror victims' families, their friends, and to the whole French nation.  I understand what they mean when people say, my prayers are with you, but we should not encourage this religious nonsense, because it impedes progress and peace.  

  . . 

A Landmark Supreme Court Decision on Same-sex Marriage Moves the Country in a Progressive Direction. Conservatives Fear Sodom & Gomorrah..

What a month it has been for progressive causes in the US; the latest is that people have a right to marry a person of their choice--a right that should have been recognized long time ago. It's definitely a victory for human rights as our country is inching to the 21st century while the conservatives are kicking and screaming.

A divided supreme court (5-4) finally took the reasonable path to expanding on a couple previous decisions and making same-sex marriage legal in the whole country. In the 1960s, the Loving v. Virginia case the high court established the right to interracial marriage. Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 had tried to preserve racial purity, as many states, primarily in the deep south, forbade interracial marriages.


There have been instances of horrible treatment of homosexuals in the US, but slowly a movement began to form and push on many fronts within America society. Look, LGBT people have been in every society throughout our human history; often they were oppressed into silence and denial of who they were. Societies have benefited, because such individuals contributed to arts, sciences, culture, politics, and every other domain you can think of. It was criminal to punish them for their nature and deny them their constitutional rights.

Almost to the day, 40 years ago, a police raid on a gay bar--the Stonewall Inn in the Village section of New York City--touched off days of violent clashes and riots, events that galvanized the gay community and it became clear to all progressives that this kind of treatment of the LGBT community had to change. In the 1960s and early 1970s, it was a time of rapid change when important questions about the nature of American society were seen as a big challenge. Too much too soon--beginning with women arriving in the marketplace, civil rights for blacks, sexual revolution, political instability--usually triggers a counter-reaction. And, it did. It was the conservatives who pushed back and eventually dominated the highest levels of our political system for at least 25 years, from 1980 to the dawn of the 21st century.

A Long Arduous Road

But, even if progress can be slow, painful, and challenging, it usually marches on.

In 2003, the court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas v. Lawrence. Justice Kennedy--a Republican-nominated judge, but with a centrist (swing vote) flair--wrong both that majority opinions, then and last Friday.  In 2012, the same court struck down the DOMA, which had passed by Congress and signed into law by president Clinton in 1996, not so long ago as far as important laws go.

So, what happened? Well, one thing is that once Hawaii and Massachusetts passed laws allowing same-sex marriage, then it became apparent--in the eyes of the conservatives, which include Democrats and traditionalists--that giving rights to those who are entitled to but denied because of religious superstition, nothing bad happens! These two states and a couple dozen more than followed created more happiness and, surprise surprise, God didn't destroy them like Sodom and Gomorrah. Who knew, right?...

But, let's not forget what happened in 2008 and 2012, that is, the election of a Democratic president. We would not have had two liberal judges, Kagan and Sotomayor on the court today if it hadn't been for president Obama! You see presidents nominate judges to the supreme court and these judges aren't all the same in that they have a particular judicial philosophy. The conservatives--Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts--voted against giving people the right to marry a spouse of their choice. The liberals--Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer--and the centrist Kennedy decided that it is a constitutional right in the US for adults to marry any person of their choice, and that every state not only has to recognize marriages from other states but every state must allow same-sex marriage!

A present for the conservatives

The conservatives, including the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts in their dissent proposed laughable arguments. It's incredible that Scalia and Roberts are considered intellectuals. If you look at their arguments they sound sophisticated bullshit, ignorant of historical framework, and the constitutional liberal democracy we're supposed to have here. 

For example, they say unelected judges shouldn't be undone the work of legislatures, referring to the state legislatures that had passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. But, a liberal democracy that has enshrined rights in the federal constitution is not a pure democracy, whereas the majority can take rights from the minority. That was the old south, keeping slaves because, guess what, the majority thought it was fine and dandy! Rights are meaningful when they're given to the minority. 

Or, that activist judges [yes, them liberals.... because when conservative judges do the same activism (remember Bush v. Gore?) it's ..legal!] destroy what society wants in defining marriage! What kind of ridiculous argument is this? We've always redefined the institution of marriage. The cases listed above did just that. Oh, you mean the Biblical definition? [You didn't think religion had nothing to do with this argument, did you?] Well, the Bible sanctioned marriage between a man and several women, plus many more concubines (sex servants). Oh, and underage girls given as brides to usually much older men. We call such practice today rape and it's illegal.

In Obergefell v. Hodges [check this out, how Jim Obergefell became the face of the in front of the supreme court] the majority of the court agreed that the US constitution is a living document, applied to contemporary circumstances within the greater framework of its liberal democratic principles. The strict constructionists, like Scalia, believe it's a dead document, thus accusing activist judges of inventing stuff not explicitly stated in the constitution. This is, of course, a stinking bullcrap pile of an argument...

Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the US constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...".   Hmm, so then who should be in charge of the US Air Force then?


Let's salute this important moment in our history for civil rights and liberties. In the words of president Obama,

“This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are truly treated as equal, we are more free.”

However, we still have a presidential race developing. This decision will further expose the bigotry and backwardness of the Republicans. Already their candidates (and not only) are talking about how to reverse this ruling. Unfortunately for them, the country has moved while their party has regressed further into the dark ages. Let's not stop pointing this out, because quality of life issues aren't only based on economics but on law and culture are well.  
 

 The Supreme Court's Opinion as Written by Justice Anthony Kennedy

"Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations."

The swinger on the high court, justice Anthony Kennedy. His vote proved crucial in the 5-4 decision

"As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. ... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. 

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."
"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. 

The Constitution grants them that right."

Stop the Militarization of Law Enforcement and the Brutalization of Our Society! [Yes, in the USA]

There's a saying, the treatment or medicine should not be worse than the disease. We don't have to go to extremes to find safety and establish a decent, pluralistic, open, democratic society. We don't need to carry guns everywhere to guard against someone who's armed with bad intent. We don't need to be locked up, or locked down to be secure. The safety of the solitary confinement is undesirable. 

America the home of the brave should not be a militarized zone. America the land of the free should allow free speech even if it's part of a demonstration. Yes, liberal democracy can be inconvenient at times. It's the price we pay for such. Same with free speech--you will be offended; you will be exposed to stuff you don't like, you don't agree with, or even to hate speech. But, there are huge advantages to a liberal society...

>>>The following video contains graphic violence. The police shot dead a man who's apparently distraught. What makes it appalling is that the police first lied about what actually happened, and secondly they were very trigger happy. This is what I call very excessive violence that many police are prone to. This must change. We should not allow our society to be militarized and brutalized!<<<
 

As far as the recent events whereas the police have shot or mistreated people that led to protests, there's a justified outrage. I want to believe that most police are decent human beings, but there are many who are just tools; many that need lots of training--in sensitivity and skills. These law enforcement tools need to be taught that their job is protecting the public, our institutions, people's liberties, and our civil rights. They're hired to do a job that does not include combat duty. They should be dressed for the job they have not the job they may want. What's up with the military camo outfits? This is not the jungle or the desert! This is not warfare. Isolate the violent elements and deal with them appropriately, like police do in any country that wants to be civil and democratic.

What's up with the tanks, mine-resistant vehicles, machine guns, snipers, and use of brutal often lethal force? It's abhorrent. I resent going to a block party, a county fair, 4th of July fireworks, and other public event only to be greeted by military police with all sorts of heavy equipment. Why small peaceful towns all over the country that have a few dozen police officers need SWAT teams and military equipment? The Homeland Security Dpt [by the way, what an awful name this is] was the creation of a hysterical nation, a belligerent neocon administration and a immature Congress. I doubt more than a handful of people actually read the Patriot Act which was voted and signed summarily into law.

When a person is being watched and loses a sense of privacy, he is changed; he does not behave as a free person. When people demonstrate and are treated like criminals by law enforcement, democracy suffers. When the whole society is militarized and brutalized civil liberties/rights wither.

I was asked by a reporter recently to comment on the events in St Luis. I reiterated the points I'm making here in this post, plus I added that many people don't seem to separate events. Robbing a store is a thuggish act, a criminal behavior, but as long as it's no life-threatening there is not need to use lethal force to a) protect or recover property and b) to stop the perp by killing them.  Apparently the idiotic leaders in MO thought that by releasing a video of a person stealing stuff from a convenience store makes it easier to pull the trigger! Watch the video above, from another recent incident, and tell me why the trigger-happy police had to kill that person.

I also don't approve of the looting. Undoubtedly there are some individuals who thrive in mayhem and exhibit unlawful if not violent behavior. Some find the opportunity to personally profit. But, I can understand the rage when confronted by military force or brutalized by the police. I've seen it and experienced it first hand during the Occupy movement. There's no shortage of tools, poorly trained, and/or psychologically unfit law enforcement that sadly are allowed to do what they want not what their job is. This has to stop now.

 

"The Problem We All Live With" Some Thoughts on Martin Luther King Day, 2014

Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With"

On the occasion of the MLK day, I've read and heard several speeches of the slain civil rights leader and, of course, most of us today wonder why American society was so opposed to equal rights, or more specifically to blacks having equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity like anybody else.

It's conservatism! Being conservative is a disposition--an attitude towards change and something new. Conservatives exist in all political parties. This was particularly true in the 1950s and 1960s in the Democratic party. Many of the opponents to the Civil Rights acts, most from the old South, left the party and joined became Dixiecrat Republicans. President Lyndon Johnson said that the South would be lost for his party after he signed the CRA. It's been certainly true, but a couple states like Virginia and North Carolina may be trending the other way now.

There's a difference in disposition between conservatives and liberal-progressives. I think we have a better imagination and we are more confident over all. Why is imagination necessary? To evaluate abstract scenarios, to imagine change, whereas a conservative prefers the "tried and true," tradition, familiarity and can't imagine a different world. Blacks having same rights as whites? Oh, goodness, traditional society would collapse, a way of live (which included either slavery or later discrimination and separation of the races) of the old was preferable to a new order.

PBS's documentary, Slavery By Another Name, is a must-watch *

Confidence? Well, sameness is comforting. Confirmation bias, solidarity of thought and action is soothing to a conservative.  We all have this trait to some extent. We like to see our choices, thoughts, beliefs, customs, etc, confirmed; it validates our life...   Yet, some of us are willing to accept correction; we're open to revision, and seek the truth even if it's uncomfortable. Confidence doesn't mean stubbornness of a closed mind, but it means that the new, the different doesn't necessarily make us uncomfortable. And we can image a world with all races, creeds, and sexual orientation.

Isn't the same approach and the also the difference between the conservatives and liberals when it comes to same-sex marriage? My heterosexual makeup isn't threatened by homosexuality. My heterosexual marriage or relationship isn't threatened by homosexual unions or marriages. The right to marry a person of your choosing is having equal opportunity and treatment under the law. End of story (for a liberal).

Speaking the Tongue of the Natives

MLK was a great leader and even a better orator and thus motivated lots of people to meaningful action for civil rights. He spoke like a preacher, which, for me, isn't my favorite elocution. I don't want to be preached at. I don't want to be told that a certain action is good because it has the blessings of a god, or the God.  However, MLK spoke the language of religion in a deeply religious land, whereas both sides had used religious language to justify their positions.

But, many people on both sides were practicing confirmation bias--using the Bible to justify their positions. Guess what? The Bible has a little for every one. Am I glad that MLK's Bible quoting and religious messaging worked to help bring about change? Certainly! Because, this was a much-needed change. 

However, it should be noted that the Bible condones slavery! [source]  I would expect a messiah to preach against the evils of slavery, but Jesus didn't. The Gospels in the New Testament don't advocate for a slave-free world. On the contrary. Women's status? Subservient. We're talking about divine morality here. The word of God, good then, good today, and unalterable in the future!

Anyway, we have a long way to go despite our advances, many of which have been forcefully opposed by conservatives of all types. We're still very primitive in how act, think, and often treat each other. 


 * This PBS documentary examines the conditions of servitude that existed until the second part of the 20th century in the US. It's definitely worth a watch.

Of Course We Need to Know What Our Government Is Doing In Our Name and On Our Behalf

It's fascinating that many liberally-minded people I know aren't bothered by our government's snooping and are more upset at Snowden for revealing the "state's secrets."  I fully understand that in order for us to enjoy our lives and freedoms we have to be safe, but at which point Big Brother-like government actions are not appropriate?

What did Edward Snowden reveal? Something that should not be secret anyway! We should know what and how our government invades our privacy. Do they follow proper constitutional procedure? When somebody collects information about me, I have to know about it, how they do it, and how they'll use this information. As consumers (never mind as citizens), we have to know. And, if we don't think it's appropriate, then we should be able to change that. This is what an advanced, liberal-social-democratic country should be.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Therefore, our government has to, "by oath or affirmation," obtain permission, and thus create a record that can be reviewed for abuses or even whether the act was necessary. We now know the snooping into many people's private affairs in the past was improper, wasteful, and not what an accountable government should be doing to its free citizens.

Not all leakers of government secrets are the same. When the government breaks the law, or lies to its people, or is corrupt, or wasteful, etc, the public's interest is at stake. We need to know! The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Abu Graib, torture and rendition program, and so many other cases--revealed by conscientious people--served our country. 

This is not a banana republic where Big Brother knows best. Are we mature adults who care to know?

You Are Going to Be Offended. Now, Grow Up and Deal With It Without Resorting to Violence!

With technology news travels faster and there are many more ways for ideas, events, and whatever else to spread everywhere. It's getting increasingly impossible to remain in isolation any more. Guess what? The world is not made to please us all the time! All the religious fanatics, the ultranationalists, and whomever has a oversensitive disposition should take a deep breath and deal with this fact: they are going to be offended!  

Not all ideas are good or make any contribution except to waste our time and energy, but so it's the deep-entrenched belief that certain revealed knowledge should be unassailable. It is through free exchange, trading, and thinking that we have advanced in the face of the reactionaries who are more comfortable with repetition, ignorance, and mental isolation.

The US ambassador to Libya and others were killed because some idiot in the US, plus idiots in the Middle East showed a video defaming the prophet Mohamed. Same story with the Danish cartoons several years ago. Along the line of the Biblical moral value of punishing someone for the sins of someone else, innocent people are injured, tortured, and killed. Mohamed, Jesus, Apollo, Odin, Buddha, etc, must be happy when the mortals kill each other defending the true prophet's reputation. Otherwise the heavens should have another clear and universally-accessed message of which version is correct and whether the killings should stop.

 A Matter of Confidence

People who have confidence and are mature don't need to use violence to defend their beliefs when offended. We, men, while growing up forming an identity were very sensitive to, say, having our masculinity challenged. Most of us remember getting into fights because someone said something to our face. Most of us adults don't do this anymore, because we are confident, don't need to prove something through violence, and our identity is not invalidated by some idiot's remarks. Right? Yes!

Freedom of expression includes the free circulation of ideas, good and bad, without the fear of punishment. Societies who have experimented with tolerance and free exchange have been more successful, creative, and happier. Ancient Athens gave a lot to western civilization, and not only, while the playwrights made fun of the gods, while the scientists were discovering the world without having to please the secular and religious authorities. 

It's a safer, more rewarding, more practical & beneficial to our lives that we seek to understand the world instead the mind of God. Since the latter has given contradictory messages to different peoples throughout the continents and through millennia, while he is not willing to speak to all of us without intermediaries, in a clear indisputable way, let's just say we can live with offending each other. 

Yes, it would take maturity, confidence, and a rational mind to stop behaving like primitive primates, but we can make a better world for all of us. Unfortunately, keeping humans in a primitive state maintains servility--of body and most importantly of spirit. Who benefits from this? Who benefits when ignorance rules? Who benefits when people live in fear?  I know who is least served by such conditions: the poor, the middle class, the oppressed. 

I understand that once an idea, a practice, or a belief system is raised to the level of identity, amendments are hard to come by. But, we should promote the rational mind instead of the irrational, the prejudicial, and the uneducated. A better world depends on this. 

I'm Offended! Richard Dawkins is Disrespecting Zeus!

 

We are not advancing our collective civilization the more we stoke the fears and the worst primal instincts of people. We are not advancing if we are forced to respect--under the threat of the death penalty--the attributes of man-made gods who, according to the holly books, are jealous, vindictive, megalomaniac, capricious, dictatorial, genocidal, ethnic cleansers, and insecure when challenged by other gods or humans lacking faith.

Let's just all agree that we're all going to hell--that's what religions say about the other religions--but in the meanwhile we can make it a better world by respecting each other and a person's right to free expression. Ideas don't need rights, people do!

Perspective...

 This is all we've got, and we've been wasting our little spec of time fighting each other about whose illusions are more correct...

Celebrating Mother's Day By Uplifting the Status and Rights of Women

This Sunday, we're celebrating Mother's Day. Everywhere in the world a mother is giving birth right now, some by choice, some by the fact of being kept as chattel. Women have attained the highest status in liberal democracies, even though, say, in Norway they fare a lot better than in our own country over all. 


If you want to know a whole lot about a country ask one question: what is the status of women? From the answer, you'll most safely ascertain the level of development, affluence, access to opportunity, legal treatment, economic participation, choices, political regime, and civil freedoms! A great society, a happy society, a more stable society, a healthier society, a nicer society is possible by elevating the status of women to parity with men. This is threatening to traditional societies, primitive cultures, and the American conservatives.

In some places in Africa there's a good chance the mother is infected with HIV/AIDS. It's not here fault, because it's her husband that most likely infected her. And, she's told by her religious leaders that condoms are worst than disease itself.

In Niger, a mother has an average of 8 children, and in much in the poorest countries women spend most of their lives being pregnant and/or caring for little children. In parts of Alabama and Mississippi infant mortality is higher than in Iran. More than one million little children go to bed hungry every night in the US.

Celebrating motherhood has to be more than the activities of one day in the year. We all had mothers, so  it would be nice if we could make their lives better. Take a look at the UN Millennium Development Goals and you'll see that every step we take to fulfilling those goals is a meaningful improvement in the lives of mothers--poverty & hunger, education, gender equality, combat HIV/AIDS, maternal health, etc.

Honoring motherhood begins with treating women better.

The following is from my last year's post, but I think it's worth repeating:

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.
• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.
• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.
• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.
• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.
• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.
• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.
• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.
• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.
• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.
• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.
• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.
• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.
• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.
• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

Meanwhile in the good ol' USA

And in our country, the conservatives want to conserve anachronistic views which include discriminating against women. The GOP has insisted on fighting against women's health and choice. It's amazing what these conservatives have been pushing for.. [link]

On the surface someone might think that the recent debate about same-sex marriage is not related to anything else, but indeed, it's an illustration of how a conservative prefers the status quo instead of being open, accepting progressive change. 

While we've waited so long for Obama to ..evolve in his views about the rights people should have, it's becoming clearer by the day that there's a big difference between the progressives and the conservatives in this country and it's getting wider. It's good to see the president finally saying the obvious instead of pandering to those whose vote he would never get. 

Leadership matters in order to change people's views, but most importantly leaders, like FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln, may have to push for changes a conservative society would take so much longer to accept. But, once the benefits of the New Deal, the Great Society, Emancipation, etc, take hold, people accept the new reality and adopt it as their own.  

In 2004, I was working for John Kerry's presidential campaign in Cleveland, OH, and the conservatives had an initiative on the ballot to strictly prohibit same-sex unions. I spoke with many conservative Democrats who simply told me that their marriage would lose value if homosexuals were given legal sanctions! Well, such views were also common in states that were among the first to grand same rights to the LGTB community. Once people saw that MA didn't disappear into the Atlantic ocean and things aren't any different, they accepted the new reality. It's not even an issue anymore in most of the states that have been leaders in this regard.


Wasn't the same for the rights of women back then?...

Slavery By Another Name is Unknown History

People want to believe in something. What makes them feel better is preferred to that that makes them uncomfortable, so sometimes reality is not preferable. 

As Black History Month draws to a close, I wanted to help promote this program, aired on PBS recently. It's painful to think that these conditions existed in our country not so long ago, as recently as in 1950s, and it's a history that many Americans don't know or want to know about.
 

If one is to understand politics in the US since the colonial times, the issue of race and slavery is of fundamental importance. Even since WW2, elections, the law, and the trajectory of the political parties, all have been influenced by this reality. The Democratic Party used to be the party of slavery and segregation until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s when it traded place with the Republican Party. The latter, through its Southern strategy made the South a fortress and a solid base for electoral victories. 

This, however, has been changing, as Obama proved that a Democrat who's not from the South can win. Furthermore, the Southern states aren't as "red" as they used to be, like North Carolina, northern Virginia, etc. With other western states turning into swingers, the road to the White House doesn't have to go via the South at all nowadays.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is beholden to a shrinking base that is also out of the mainstream America. Add to this the activism of another extreme element--the Tea parties and even the libertarians--and you have a recipe for disaster. Did I mention immigration and how Hispanics have been trending Democratic?...

Again, the PBS program, Slavery By Another Name, is worth a watch. In the video above there's the promo of this program, plus earlier discussions with Bill Moyers and the author of the book upon which the PBS program was based. 

Iran: A Revolution Goes Awry

It has often been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case these few pictures speak volumes about the ruthless Iranian regime and its henchmen. There can be no better indictment of the current power structure than the attached and in particular when the gruesome circumstances are kept in mind. This poor innocent girl was standing by watching a demonstration when she was shot literally in the heart by a Basij sharpshooter from a roof top. Enough said. What the world is witnessing is nothing short of a revolution that is devouring its own children and that has no respect for human rights , democracy or the dissent. The challenge is to be able to watch these 40 seconds without crying.





Editor's warning: this video depicts graphic violence.

US-liberated Afhanistan: Blasphemy and Women's Rights are Punishable by Death!

What do You Mean Religion Can Breed Violence? You Deserve to Die for Saying this!


I've discussed the issue of blasphemy in several of my classes, and most students seem to agree that the UN General Assembly's attempt to ban criticism of religion is a bad thing. We then talked about the illiberal regimes--which include some democracies (more like mob rule) that don't afford individual conscience & expression. Invariably, however,most students are apt to criticize foreign people and countries without even thinking about the US or western democracies. In the previous post, the illiberal practice by Germany is cited as an example of censorship and violation of individual rights to free speech.

When I press the students a little harder on the question whether we should criticize, even offend, our own political & religious institutions, many reply in the negative! We have free speech, they tell me, so some limits are OK! Thankfully, many students seem willing to allow for maximum free expression, including blasphemy.What to you think about political blasphemy? As in burning the US flag for political protest?

Remember that Afghani student who was sentenced to death last year for promoting women's rights--a blasphemous act in Afghanistan--by distributing an essay questioning passages in the Koran? This past week and appeals court (more like a "cangaroo" court) converted the death sentence to 20 years in prison. If this decision stands, Pervez Kambaksh, will not survive, because the Taliban want him killed. Even if he's pardoned by the president of Afghanistan, there are thousands of others who have been killed, tortured, and sentenced to long prison terms for blasphemy or for promoting a more civil society--including women's rights!


PS. By clicking on the picture (Jesus & Mo), you can open it bigger; the picture on the right is that of Kambaksh being led out of the kangaroo court in Kabul. Clicking on his name in the post connects to the article by The Independent.

An Argument in Defense of Blasphemy

There are many things that offend me. High on my list is obligatory superstition and ignorance forced upon us, as well as violations of human rights & fundamental freedoms! On the other hand, I admit, I do like the occasional blasphemy routine (who doesn’t?), because it has a liberating effect on me. That’s right, it feels good to have the right to free expression! Even though, many things offend me, I support the conditions that ultimately make me happy. Such conditions allow others who disagree with my views and life style to pursue their own self-defined bliss. I can deal with offensive expressions by maintaining my personal choices and taste.

Boycotting, choosing not to, or ignoring something is not the same as legally banning it. I prefer not to be offended, but if it happens, I shouldn’t have the legal right to remain non-offended. This is easy to understand why: there’s isn’t anything under the sun that can’t be offensive to someone somewhere.

Morality, in its most basic application, is how we treat others in a civil society where a plurality exists. The conditions that support civil rights & constitutional liberal democracy are the most suited for enlightened, progressive human beings. A personal definition of fulfillment & purpose is appropriate for every thinking, mature individual. Free expression is in the core of such definition.

If you are a confident person you probably don't think that ideas (or expressions) are toxic, because you can handle them. Correct? Bad taste, stupidity, purposeful ignorance, prejudice, etc, can all be dismissed by the rational and confident mind. You probably worry that it is your fellow citizens who aren't equipped to handle such expression, and therefore you want to protect them by banning offensive material. Right?

Wrong! People have to grow up and deal with life and the real world--even if this means being offended here and there. Keeping people insulated in a web of mind control is not good. It results in ignorance, extremism, lack of confidence to deal with a crisis, and, obviously, authoritarian practices by small elites--benevolent dictators. We are better than that.

Besides, who is the best judge of what's offensive to me? Should I say, I don't want to be offended.. Should I elevate this to a legal right? What do you think?

When I was very young, I saw the American flag being burnt in protest by veterans of the Vietnam war. I was offended. I hadn't separated the material of the flag with what the flag represents. Just as I was offended when my religion was being attacked as a myth. Yes, once I believed in Zeus, Santa Claus, Superman, and the Tooth Fairy. I grew up since. Today, I'm offended mainly by actions that attempt to limit the conditions of freedom--including banning free speech. Being challenged on my core beliefs back then resulted in re-examining those long-held beliefs. I'm better for it. This has been another liberating experience for me. I mean, it's a relief not to have to worry about offending the big man in the sky. My dress code, eating patterns, sex, and how I relate to others, all improved after this discovery.

I do support blasphemy. I support it because I want to offend those who don't want free-thinkers around. And, I want to fight for liberty, including the liberty of those who oppose free expression; though I oppose their plans to gag the rest of us into submission.

By now you've probably heard about the UN General Assembly's resolution to ban "defamatory" speech against Islam and religion in general. If that action is not a defamation of liberty & free expression I don't know what it is! The Islamic countries that are only ones pushing this, mind you. They have many Christian sympathizers, because most of the Church hierarchy does not care to defend free thought & expression; it wants more religion! Liberal democracies (and modernity) has a habit of challenging religious views that have originated in primitive society. I bet many western Churches dream longingly of the European theocracies of the past! The Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, favors Sharia law in the Muslim communities in Britain!!! Sharia law in a constitutional liberal democracy??!! Well, that's really offensive!

Germany shares a big slice of the blame here. It's illegal in that country to deny the Jewish holocaust--an offense that can land you 3 years in jail. Obviously, only ignorant persons or Nazi-sympathizers deny the holocaust, but those bigots should have a right to their own propaganda and indoctrination, even if they're 100% wrong and offensive to the rest of us. As others have the right to make up and believe in their own myths, like winged horses, virgin births, walking through walls, warlords from outer space, and the earth resting on a giant tortoise.

After all, there are many types of deniers out there, like those who deny the notion that Zeus is the God of all gods. I suppose this is fine, because only a handful of people follow the ancient Hellenic religion today, right? There are others, though, who make extraordinary claims without offering any proof while their claims could not stand against rudimentary logic. What's really crazy it's the view that irrational & superstitious beliefs deserve an absolute protection from blasphemy. I'd say, {it is precisely those beliefs that we must offend}, and offend with impunity!

Maybe this way, sometime soon, we can reclaim our humanity from those who want to impede our species' intellectual progress and self-fulfillment.
[Here's an older post written at the time of the Danish cartoon controversy. Who's afraid of offensive speech?]




PS>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by most UN members, should be re-read by those who seek to limit free expression. From the UDHR:

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The Democratic Ideal as Taught and Practiced Locally

It Feels Good (Doesn't it?) to be Protected from the Troublemakers

We teach about the democratic ideal, how much better we are as a society because we allow diversity of people, preferences, views, etc; that we like the marketplace of ideas and keeping the dialogue going benefits our society and makes it stronger! Well, that's in the classroom, because when it comes to practicing a little democracy--you know, a peaceful protest--on campus, the imperial palace doesn't tolerate dissent. Caesar and his cohorts like the language of democracy, just as many rulers do; they use Newspeak to say one thing but mean another. Of course, they ..listen to your suggestions, and they "appreciate all constructive criticism." But, hey, if the rules say you must get a permit to speak up, then get in line buddy and wait for the stamp of approval. It may speed up the process if you ask permission for the specific language you'll use in your protest... And, you have to give your name to those who you intent to criticize!


Now, if a handful of students decide to peacefully let the powers that be hear their concerns the rulers take this opportunity to ..teach a civics lesson! Oh, yeah, we have rules here! You can't demonstrate without a permit! And, for good measure, you must register your ..party with the bureaucracy; this way it'll be easier to know who's speaking up!


The other lesson those perps received was to learn, first hand, how an arrest is made, and what happens when a citizen is put in a jail cell for the night. Hey, what's a little discomfort in learning more about the system? Now, comes the next lesson: being a student you have certain rights (like where to eat your lunch and what music you listen to in your dorm), but you also have responsibilities! What's a better way to teach you that your actions have consequences than by having those arrested brought up for further punishment (including expulsion) by the university?..

OK, those of you who are bleeding heart-liberals should wake up and leave your dreamworld. These are grave times, and we can't allow willy-nilly any form of dissent, because if we don't stick together we'll hang separately! Rules exist for a reason--so what if, on occasion, a little too much force is used to quell the troublemakers... If we don't nip the problem in its infancy, it'll get out of control. So, control we must have. Of course, it's obvious that this control better be left with the experts who know how to use it!

I wonder who said that it's those who are insecure in their beliefs and ideas that want to stiffle dissent by any means necessary....


Editor's Note: This post was inspired after reading of the recent developments at a local university [click here to learn more].The author only teaches Poli.Sci. in the classroom and had nothing to do with whatever lessons the students learn outside the classroom. After all, he's not paid to teach outside the classroom.