tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-559932701599275012024-02-20T17:35:23.518-06:00Spare Some Change?We can do better.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-21857662075403650392016-06-13T06:28:00.000-05:002016-06-13T16:41:48.377-05:00PRIDE - Something to CelebrateOver the years, I've heard many people question why there are Pride festivals, what LGBT people are "proud" of; why they need a festival and/or a parade to be "proud"; and especially in recent years, why we need to keep having it now that everything's better. ('Cause that's how it works; racism is all better, too.)<br />
<div>
<br />
First of all, you can google Stonewall. That's where "Gay Pride" started, a celebration of survival and solidarity and "pride" as a counter to shame, the latter being where too many have lived and continue to live their lives.</div>
<div>
<br />
That should be enough. But to go further, am I "proud" of being gay? Well no, not particularly. It's not something I "accomplished," after all, the "gayness" itself. It's just who - and what - I am, and it's just one of a host of characteristics I couldn't deny even if I wanted to. But it's a thing that other people have turned into a big freaking deal, and too often used as an insult, a joke, a denigration, or a weapon against me.</div>
<div>
<br />
But even knowing that, I have never lied about who I am. It took me a good long while to uncover it, to outgrow the small-town, childish insults and name-calling, the meaning of which I didn't even understand at the time. But once I did figure it out, I never lied. I never hid this characteristic from anyone. I have often been nicer to strangers than I felt like being, because I could feel prejudice flaking off of them as they moved through my space, and you do what you can to minimize harm to yourself, or risk of it. I consciously make myself as unthreatening as possible, in hopes that the truth of this characteristic is received smoothly, but I am always truthful. I have never hidden who I was dating from family or friends, changed pronouns, pretended or asked them to pretend they were less to me than they were, or even purposely maintained distance from people I wouldn't have otherwise because I was afraid of their reactions. </div>
<div>
<br />
I am proud of my self-awareness, and my long and continuing pursuit of more of it.<br />
I am proud of my honesty, even when it's really hard.<br />
I am proud of my willingness to live in the open.<br />
I am proud of my courage, and it does take some.<br />
I am proud of my ability to reassure the uncertain that I am not a threat, even though I should not have to.<br />
I am proud of my ability to remain kind and compassionate in my heart, even in moments of great anger, or at least return to it quickly when I slip.<br />
I am proud that I am also not a doormat, that I am unafraid of fully expressing what I'm feeling.<br />
I am proud of my resilience, my ability and willingness to remain all of these things even with so many people so motivated to hurt me for this one thing about me.<br />
I am proud of my fellow LGBT+ people who practice the above with me and demand respect for me and for themselves, even when they're rewarded with violence.</div>
<div>
<br />
This <i>Pride </i>is not an arrogant pride. It is a constant and a comfort, an emotional touchstone that lends strength in darker moments and reminds us of the solidarity we have with each other. It's community. It's hope and determination... and forgiveness. It is self-perpetuating and grows exponentially when embraced and practiced consistently. It makes me better, and it makes the world better, and it deserves to be celebrated. It deserves a parade.</div>
Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-67568674842492189572016-06-12T13:15:00.000-05:002017-05-12T09:41:39.146-05:00Our PULSE Beats OnCNN reports that his father says he was deeply upset by seeing two men kissing in front of his family a couple months ago.<br />
<br />
I do not care what religion or nationality the killer was (even if that's all the media and far too many anti-LGBT politicians can talk about). Those factors have nothing to do with this at all. Get that straight first. He was just as likely to be a white, 5th generation American, "christian" with stupidly poorly restricted access to stupidly unnecessary guns, especially at this point in our ignorant, violent, prejudice-driven history. And do NOT make this all about ISIS, because that would be a huge cop-out from admitting what good old American hate does to people all on its own, which still lacks some serious admitting." All Americans" are not feeling the effects of this attack. "All Americans" are not condemning it. "All Americans" are not "standing together" in the face of it. I guaranfuckingtee you that a whole lot of Americans are saying "'they' had it coming." And ignoring that is as cowardly as the act itself.<br />
<br />
For all the admonishments I've already seen to not let it matter not only who the killer was but who the victims were or his motive for killing THEM, sorry, you're just wrong. And if you're straight, you need to think really hard about that, because it's an insulting level of privilege. When 50 people are killed solely because they are who I AM, "why" matters. We don't just share hobbies or interests; we might share none. We share a single characteristic that we can do nothing about. It doesn't make us more likely to have cancer or freckles or some kind of allergy; it ONLY makes us more likely to be beaten and tied to a fencepost in rural Wyoming or shot in a nightclub in Orlando or subject to a million acts of violence in between... for nothing more than living our lives openly and honestly and with a modicum of self-esteem and self-respect. If I lived in Orlando and felt like going out, this is the kind of place I would go. If you know me and care about me, understand that, because it's not limited to a specific city or state or building. This attitude is rampant, especially right now, this ridiculous hatred of LGBT+ people.<br />
<br />
When you see this hate sanctioned in a hundred ways every day, by everybody from businesses to churches to states to friends and family, "why" absolutely matters. If you hate "gays" (or transgender or bisexual people) or go around saying stupid shit like "I don't hate anybody, but it's just wrong" or "I don't hate anybody but I don't want them in the bathroom with me" -- or you hate or fear BEing "gay" and let the people around you dictate to you whom it's "acceptable" for you to LOVE -- you fuel the environment that makes this more likely. You condone the hate and shame and the false, empty idea that there's any basis for it. It could happen anyway, but I guarantee you that the nasty attitude and gas thrown on it simply because more of us can get married anywhere now makes me feel a lot more at risk of being one of these victims than I would be if the bigots among us would all just quit being bigots.<br />
<br />
But it still doesn't make me wish I weren't gay, because there's not a fucking thing wrong with me. Get that through your heads, too. I will continue to be gay and happy and entirely at peace with myself and only because of that, able to live in a way that I can and will continue to be loving toward all other groups, since we insist on having "groups," including the groups of you who hate me for being me. My "gay" doesn't hurt anybody. Bias hurts everybody.<br />
<br />
I will be at a table at Twin Cities Pride the weekend after next (6/25-26), Loring Park. Feel free to stop by. I AM gay, couldn't change it for you if I wanted to and don't want to. For anybody who has wondered why LGBT+ people have "Pride" festivals -- THIS is exactly why, and Pulse will continue to beat in all of us. Some of you break my heart, but I will not let anybody's cowardly, ignorant, wasted hate shame me or scare me. See you there.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-64206928616902420822011-08-12T03:43:00.010-05:002011-08-12T05:23:13.749-05:00"Independent" Wealth? What a Load of Crap.<div>Gotta love Facebook. I saw this post earlier, and it set me off:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 14px; font-family:'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:11px;">"I think I found the solution to the US debt problem:
<br />
<br />Salary of retired US Presidents...$180,000 for life
<br />Salary of House/Senate...$174,000 for life
<br />Salary of Speaker of the House...$223,500 for life
<br /><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; ">Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders...$193,400 for life
<br />Average Salary of a teacher...$40,065 per year
<br />Average Salary of Soldier Deployed in Afghanistan...$38,000 per year
<br />
<br />I think we found where the cuts should be made!"</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 14px; font-family:'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; ">
<br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 14px; font-family:'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; ">
<br /></span></span></div><div>Actually, the president does get a decent percentage of his/her $400,000 salary for a pension (after running our COUNTRY, with none of the $15 million Wall Street bonuses), but most congress members don't get anywhere near their salaries for life. They DO pay into Social Security, and they ARE on the same retirement plans we were on in the postal service, except that they're required to contribute a bigger chunk of their salaries to them (per Senate website <i>et al</i>.). </div><div>
<br /></div><div>They also have to serve at least 5 years to be eligible for a partial pension, at least 20 years to be eligible for their full pension at age 50 (same as p.o. and other fed. jobs), or they have to be at least 62 or have served at least 25 years, to collect the money they contributed from their own salaries. There are other factors, too, like military advantage and which specific plans they choose, and whether or not they invest in other savings funds. They also voted overwhelmingly in both 2010 and 2011 to not accept federally mandated cost-of-living increases.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>(Lots of people continue to whine and cry for term limits, but that's just an excuse to not vote and get even lazier about it. We have always had term limits: They're called <i>elections</i>. If we legislate limits, even fewer people will give enough of a damn to get off their asses and vote than do now.)</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Now, as far as the president's salary goes, personally, I wouldn't take less than 5x that amount for <i>trying</i> to guide the lazy, selfish, ignorant, hateful babies that seem to take up a greater percentage of our potentially awesome country every day. We shouldn't be at war, and teachers are dreadfully underpaid, always have been. There's no mistaking those issues. But the <i>problem</i> is still mostly outside of government. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>Only 20% of our population make over 50% of our aggregate income, with the top 5% making over 20% of it themselves, and these aren't primarily people making a comparatively piddly $400K a year or less. These are also the people with the most tax breaks. "They made it, they should get to keep it," people like to argue. Well, who did they make it OFF of, so to speak? (Besides teachers and soldiers, for starters.) Well, if not the dime-an-hour victims of multiple American human rights violations worldwide, then likely off of the "lower" 80% of Americans who work in their factories and offices and drive their shit around the country. A whopping 80% of our people make<i> less than half</i> the aggregate income. 60% of our people take in around a <i>QUARTER</i> of our aggregate income. (This is all available on the Census site, per the 2010 census, numbers reported by people about themselves, not propagated by the mythical "liberal media.")</div><div>
<br /></div><div>In other words, say you buy a car from a group of ten people for $100. Two of the people, probably the two who made the deal, take $50, half the money. Two of them take another $25 to share. The other six people have to share the last $25 of the profits, even though they're probably the ones who dragged the car home from the junk shop, fixed it up, painted it, maybe lost a couple of fingers in the whole process, inhaled some lead, that kind of thing. Well, news flash, I'm one of those six. Bigger news flash, you're probably one of those six. The other four are the ones voting consistently and the top two are the ones paying for the elections that decide <i>your</i> fate. They're even willing to cut your six-way-shared $25 down even further, whatever it takes to avoid parting with one more cent of their $25 apiece.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>A few more numbers you <i>need</i> to consider... Between 1984 and 2009, the annual mean household income of the lowest-earning 20% of our good American people went from $5,436 to $11,552 (as of just 2 years ago, 20% of the people here are living - or trying to - on an average of just over $11K/year). In those same years, between 1984 and 2009, the mean income of the highest-earning 20% went from $62,121 to $170,844. The top 5% went from $93,774 to <i>$295,388</i>. And President Obama just wanted the top<i> 2%</i> to pay what they <i>owe</i>, without all the damn <i>loopholes</i>! Conservative or liberal, educated or not, it's not hard to see the formula here: the rich get richer by climbing up the backs of the poor, even while DENYING THEIR EXISTENCE and cutting the lifelines necessitated by their exploitation. And yet the ridiculously wealthy don't want to pay ALL of THEIR taxes???? OMG. I am so sick of the vitriolic rhetoric and blatant lies thrown around by that top 20% to protect their damn assets! The problem is NOT our government in practice (which is <i>us</i>, by the way). The problem is our GREED.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>The last time the market tanked, my wife and I scraped together a little money (literally) and bought some stocks. One of the companies I bought was Williams-Sonoma. You know why? Because I was betting that the people who shop there wouldn't feel as pinched, they'd still need their supplies, and they weren't about to start slumming and buying their base-model Teflon pans at Wal-Mart. Because I was right, our 13 shares have more than tripled in value, yep, even after this week. I wish it was enough to get us health insurance, or married in our home state. We're Americans, too, and the bullshit Tea Party version of "small government" is our worst enemy. If the other 60-80% of you were paying attention instead of just constantly whipping the ass of the rhetorical dragon to get more fire, you'd know they're <i>your</i> worst enemy, too.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>A few credits...if you want more, find them like I did.</div><div>http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf</div><div>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-press-secretary-hr-5146</div><div>http://factcheck.org/2010/05/another-zero-pay-increase-for-congress/</div><div>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html </div>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-36783956021299806002011-05-04T14:04:00.012-05:002011-05-04T17:51:07.703-05:00Osama bin Laden, Party Politics, and Death By HMD<div>There are some things that I would think can be counted on with a "covert operation." There are some odd elements to it. There are definite curiosities about some of the details. But I don't believe for a second that if the U.S. were gloating so about this and he weren't dead, that he'd miss the opportunity to tell us himself here directly. My reasons for not wanting the "death photos" released aren't limited to their gruesomeness and the fact that not only serious, rational adults would be viewing them (although that should suffice), it's that I don't want to listen to the <i>ongoing</i> skepticism, and it would definitely <i>go on</i>, and on, and on.</div><div><br /></div><div>The bottom line is that the only way I could be "<i>SURE</i>" is if I'd shot him myself. Beyond that, I have to make some choices at some point, based on thoughtful consideration and critical analysis of what information I can gather as to what's plausible, and the basic gist of the story is, to me, plenty plausible. Since I'm not deep in celebration and don't have <i>that</i> much invested <i><b>because</b> </i>I have <i>not</i> been<i> "living </i>under the cloud of terrorism for 10 years," another <i>choice</i> I made even before the 9/11/01 news had taken its first breath, I'm also not invested in knowing the finest details of the death of this one man.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>All of a sudden it makes a difference if he was unarmed? I don't believe that the dancing, cheering partiers care one bit, and if the rest of us do, perhaps it's the conditions we use to ever "justify" taking a life that are the problem. I would have infinitely preferred he be taken alive, tried, questioned, held to account, made to <i>face</i> his countless victims and their families, maybe even <i>learned from</i>...but he wasn't, and here we are. Since the bulk of the photographs I've ever seen of him as an adult, even at comparative leisure, show him not only armed, but very heavily armed, I'm not too inclined to believe reports that he, this one time, was not armed at all, at any point, and I also would never seek to jeopardize the members of the SEAL team and intelligence personnel and their families by demanding their identities and eyewitness accounts. Either way, it simply doesn't change anything about the gap in this situation between my ideal and my reality, armed or unarmed.</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't care where the intelligence came from, because it would still never make me a proponent of torture, and I would hate, hate, hate to find myself in the president's position going into this. (A) Finally apprehend the most notorious terrorist leader of our day using information built upon information that happened to have been gained years ago by waterboarding another terrorist, when torture was a method prioritized by <i>that</i> administration, or (B) let him walk rather than knowingly subject yourself to even more irrational criticism. And still today they call him conceited and selfish. The truth is that he didn't even have <i>access</i> to a <i>selfish</i> option.</div><div><br /></div><div>But what about <i>proof</i>? "We want proof!" Ah, yes..."proof"...surprisingly slippery little concept, as it turns out, since DNA's now apparently easier to manipulate than Photoshop. The only reason I was glad that President Obama released his long-form birth certificate is that it answered, in no uncertain terms, <i>nothing</i> about his only foolishly-challenged citizenship, but <i>everything</i> about the intent of the chronic skeptics. This lesson must not be underestimated: <i>there are no answers,</i> not for <i>those</i> "skeptics" (not the rationally critical but the ones who foam at the mouth with it). </div><div><br /></div><div>What drives the rabid should not even be called "skepticism" but just basic "true believer" bullshit efforts to get what they <i>really</i> want, which may not even be identifiable separate from the faces of their designated saviors. There will be no <i>progress</i> for them under President Barack Obama. Their leaders have very effectively made him their "devil," like Hitler made the Jews, and, again, nobody seems to have the courage to change their course, even if they have any nagging doubts. This is not just my subjective opinion, only my acceptance of <i>their</i> position declared and repeated <i>by them</i> with <i>their</i> behavior: if you GET something you WANT, you're satisfied; if you're NEVER satisfied with what you GET, it is clearly NOT what you WANT. </div><div><br /></div><div>I get it; I do not need them to tell me again. There were <i>never</i> any "<i>birthers</i>." There were only opportunists and their followers, and I will regard them accordingly from here on. </div><div><br /></div><div>Their having made that abundantly clear, I see absolutely no reason to release pictures of a bullet-riddled body, pictures that would further dehumanize not only bin Laden but us and everyone in between, pictures that could just as easily be faked as anything else, pictures that would no doubt further antagonize the enemies that are not unlikely holed up somewhere right this second plotting <i>en masse</i> their retaliation. The potential "benefits" don't even come close to the potential "costs" for me, especially when the majority of the complaints and demands will just immediately shape-shift into something else. This has become, at least domestically, an all-out <i>war,</i> being fought with HMD - [<i>red</i>] <i>Herrings of Mass Destruction</i> - and we are clearly suffocating beneath the weight of them. </div><div><br /></div><div>What <i>I</i> want and need, at the end of the day, is to be compassionate, conscious, heedful, engaged, ethical, and safe. I want the same for our military and intelligence personnel, and for our governing officials, and even for the opportunists and followers. This can be accomplished as effectively with the tools I have right now as with any pictures of dead men.</div>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-36171746913498979892011-04-01T00:29:00.004-05:002011-04-01T01:08:03.435-05:00God's AmericaIs America "Christian?" According to one woman quoted in the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/studentnews/03/24/unwelcome.muslims.next.door.guide/index.html">CNN special</a>,<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ttyjDvc68"> "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door,"</a> it is and was <i>founded on</i> the one true God our father and son the Lord Jesus Christ. (Whew...that is a mouthful.) Of course, she's wrong.<div><br /></div><div>This isn't opinion; it's written all over assorted <i>founding</i> documents (e.g. the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution). As often as it says "In God We Trust" on anything, there seem to be an equal number of statements about escaping the religious oppression of the British, the freedom to practice as we see fit, <i>tolerance</i> of diverse views, etc., etc. How can that part possibly be forgotten this easily?</div><div><br /></div><div>The arguments of the Murfreesboro mosque's opponents change with the winds, and none appear valid. First, the issue is the construction of a mosque, not the practice of Shari'a law. However, since they brought it up, every "legitimate" concern (I'm being generous) about Shari'a law is addressed in other legislation: domestic violence, kidnapping, human trafficking, terrorism, whatever. Islam IS a religion, which Joe Brandon damn well knows, despite his insistence that the negative "lawyer" stereotype is accurate. The 15,000 square feet can't be the problem when The People's Church (First Baptist, Franklin, TN) <a href="http://www.ctsaudio.com/installation-news/peoples-church-launches-spring-hill-campus">opened a campus</a> nearly four (4) times that size in nearby Spring Hill in November.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is nothing but hate, and it's sickening. Get out your Bill of Rights again, people. Amendment 1: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><i><b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</b></i>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><i>That's</i> what this country was founded on, not on Christianity or any other religion, and it will not serve any of us in the long-term if you get laws passed restricting <i>this</i> one. Get over yourselves. We are better than this crap.</span></span></span></div>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-4870744422687535422011-03-21T23:26:00.003-05:002011-03-21T23:45:10.895-05:00Death of an Experiment<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#CCCCFF;">Ultimately, the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brick-House-Democrats/118621781546179">Brick House Democrats</a> do welcome everyone. However, if we are to make any actual progress, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into the sensationalistic mire offered and apparently genuinely enjoyed by many conservatives, and particularly many who align themselves with the "Tea Party." We have more important things to do with our time. Some of us are gay and tired of being treated as second-class citizens. Some of us are straight and just not scared to death of everybody who's not. Some of us have kids who NEED to be educated so that they can hold their own when somebody tries to make them afraid of monsters that don't exist. Some of us don't have kids, or are simply no longer responsible for any, but are still invested in the future because we'll be part of it. We must hold as our compass these long-term issues, our long-term <i>potential</i>, but unfortunately, we also must, as responsible citizens, periodically address the aforementioned mire. We must at least keep our hand on that light switch, and flip it back on every time one of the hate-mongers runs by and swats it down. We are obligated to have that more unpleasant discussion as well, because if we do not, our long-term goals may simply disintegrate before our complacent eyes.</span></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#CCCCFF;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;color:#CCCCFF;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">A conversation with devout Tea Partier who taught me that no matter how "intelligent" a person is, no matter how much he or she WANTS to be the exception, no matter how capable a person is of seeing and understanding the truth...essentially no matter how much someone squeals about how badly they want out of the barrel, if their feet are planted against the side, they're not coming out. And if you continue to pull on their outstretched hands, you'll just end up in there, too. This is where I let go:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;color:#CCCCFF;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#CCCCFF;">If you're willing to lie (yes, LIE), purposely incite deep anger and misery in as many people as you can, and fixate on ANYTHING you can even distantly link to an individual against whom you have a personal grudge--to the exclusion of what </span></span></span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#CCCCFF;">would be even BETTER arguments, then your motivation is not something I'd ever be willing to support. Again, I let people tell me who they are. I don't HAVE to "make them out to be" anything, just take their word for it, not their opponents', not somebody else's, not even an endless mass of consistent media reports.<br /><br />Michele Bachmann has demonstrated as clearly as she possibly can, not just with the "breast pump" circus but repeatedly throughout her tenure in government, via overwhelmingly conservative sources but ESPECIALLY since being falsely and foolishly "validated" by the Tea Party just to get butts in chairs, that her single motivating principle is to get more power for Michele Bachmann. SHE has shown (all by herself, if reviewed "critically") that she has NO respect for the truth or the bigger problem of manipulating people's emotions and "critical thought" to perceive whatever monster SHE creates for them to fear and blame.<br /><br />And here we are back at the beginning. We can't even get PAST the conversation about breast pumps, because you and Michele Bachmann both blew right past what the First Lady actually said and did, just to add fuel to the make-believe fire, which consumes any possible constructive steps that may have come next. And that is NOT an accident. If you can be kept distracted by and arguing over the UNtruths, you won't notice where you're really headed. And you think THIS is EASIER?? You have no idea how wrong you are about that, and I guess won't until it's too late. It is truly tragic that as populated as human history is with instances of this exact process, found almost verbatim in at least 3 books I can see just from where I'm sitting right this second, that such an enormous group of people could be fooled into falling for it again, and yet, here we are. There are SO many smart, decent conservatives, Republicans, who even know better, who've stood up to these self-serving few, not because they're weak, but because they're the strongest of the lot, because they've bothered to LOOK UP and see what's ahead.<br /><br />Critical thinking based on fiction? That's not actually a very good idea, and even if it were, "critical thinking" demands an analysis of faults and merits, which would require....facts! It also requires aim at your own side, not just the other, and does not involve a knee-jerk "well, they do it, too!" as a response. Do you really think it's more intelligent to just write off every single source of fact obtainable in the civilized, literate world (not just the "mainstream media" to which I have NEVER limited my research, detailed in my posts and yet a fact you also completely disregard).<br /><br />And if it were "easier" to just look at Bachmann as a big meany, I wouldn't have bothered to look up the WI death threats. I would have just thought about it "critically," replied "well, both sides do it," pointed out how gullible it is to just blindly believe what you hear, and expected that to clear it all up.</span></span></span></span></div>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-82383307262757969942011-01-18T02:40:00.004-06:002011-01-18T03:02:06.266-06:00Words, Responsibility, Hypocrisy<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On January 16, 2011, in the “</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Communities</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">” section of The Washington Times online, which seems somewhat deceptive, </span><a href="http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jan/16/obama-palin-blood-libel-loughner-giffords/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Amanda Read</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> berated “liberal media” (and some other odds and ends that apparently made good distractions) for their insensitive and irrational criticism of Sarah Palin. If the piece is representative, I am disappointed to find another purportedly educated person delusional or simply as given to shamelessly fueling the fear-mongering bandwagon as those she seeks to defend. She criticizes criticism, mocks those who dare mock, interprets misinterpretations, judges the judges, spins the spin...all while apparently seeing her point of view as...different, smarter, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">right</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. By Read’s own report, President Obama seemed to follow the Tucson shootings with invitations to take better care of each other, while Sarah Palin took the opportunity to whine about being picked on, again pretending that she doesn’t (or forgetting she does) say about half of the ugly, negative crap she does.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Am I criticizing </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Amanda Read</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">? You bet I am. Is it unfair? Let’s see...she wrote an “article” intended for public consumption, purposely sought </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">this</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> stage, and in doing so declared herself a credible source, a voice worth listening to, in order to manipulate people’s opinions, the heinous sin with which she is charging others. In other words, much like with Sarah Palin, it’s not only </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">fair</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, but it would be downright </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">irresponsible</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of me </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> to respond in just this fashion, and far be it from me to shirk my “individual responsibility” as an American, as directed by the late President Reagan, a man for whom I actually had great admiration and respect. </span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For the most part, I simply shook my head as I read the “Not Your Average Read” (conjured, no doubt, in a fit of marketing genius), but there are a few points to which I was compelled to respond as follows:</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“As Loughner’s incoherent ramblings and love of conspiracy spiraled downward to senseless bloodshed, King Solomon’s warning proved true - ‘the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness’ (Ecclesiastes 10:12-13).”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So this is what we have to look forward to from Glenn Beck?</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“In response to the tragedy, President Obama’s January 12th speech in Tucson was a bit better than I expected.”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">What? You expected President Obama to fail? No! Really? To provide more fodder for your criticism? But you’re not part of the problem, right? Here’s the thing...on the rare occasion that I purposely listen to anything Sarah Palin says, it’s in the hope and full expectation that she will show a little more humanity, that she will have abandoned her mission of giving her audience somebody new to hate or fear every single time she opens her mouth, that just once, she’ll either say something nice, or not say anything at all. For real, I expect that; I </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">look</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> for it. Thank you for clearing up for me what exactly you and others like you are spending </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">your</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> energy looking for. It does shed some light, at least on your initial motivation, although it does further cloud how you can possibly find </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">so</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> much fault with whatever truly liberal journalists you could find for leaping so allegedly unfairly on Sarah Palin’s pleas of innocence. (Side note: as though this time were actually about </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">her</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.)</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“Why is it that some in the media find it so hard to blame the murderer alone for murder?”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Because he is not alone in the production. He alone is guilty of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">shooting</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> those people. But it is not as though his craziness was a secret kept hidden until that day or as though he showed up out of the blue and killed people with his bare hands.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“‘We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.’”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Damn straight, each and every individual. Every individual who insists that the 2nd amendment guarantees his/her right to tote around a Glock like it’s a pack of gum; every individual who runs for public office (or has a cable tv reality show) and makes a platform of turning people against each other, making somebody afraid of somebody else every time she speaks, and crying when she’s called on it; every "journalist" who wants to insist on individual responsibility while disregarding both individual and collective </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">influence</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“(By the way, Palin is now receiving an unprecedented number of death threats. W</span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">ill the media tell us which group of people is to blame for that?)”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Well, then, I guess she and the president have finally found something in common. Do I smell a beer summit? Surely death threats are not only a bad thing now that Sarah Palin’s getting more of them? Surely you’re not suggesting </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">now</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> that there’s a correlation between rhetoric and death threats...because if there wasn’t before, it certainly would seem to undermine your position to claim that there is now just because a new target’s been added.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“But for some nonreason her words can't just mean that - nothing that Palin says can possibly be taken rationally. There must be something perverse, something apocalyptic - something potentially devastating to humanity - in every slightest gesture Palin makes.”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">First of all, who exactly is it, if not Sarah Palin herself, that has worked to ensure that her every word and gesture is? She’s built a career, hell, an identity, out of her own rhetoric (or at least what’s written for her). She </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">alone</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> is soliciting credibility based on what she produces for the public. If Jared Loughner is to be held solely responsible for his actions (and this presumably means absent even mitigating circumstances), then surely Sarah Palin should be held equally responsible for the role in which she has </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">begged</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> to be cast.</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Second, if you want the things you say to be “</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">taken</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> rationally,” you should develop the habit of saying rational things, not charging people $500 each (pure profit--news flash, people, the “Tea Party” is not a “party,” just a bunch of people shopping for political offices) to listen to her read from her hand about things she can’t talk about otherwise. I could be wrong, but it seems like if you </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">do</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> understand something and you </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">can</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> talk about it, you would. Right? And it definitely can’t be a none-of-your-beeswax thing if you’re portraying yourself as serious political (</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">leadership</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">) potential.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“‘Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors.’”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It is completely absurd to even try to make the case that violent metaphors have identical weight and meaning coming from both sides of the gun rights debate. If I threaten to shoot you, I will bet my ass that you’ll feel a whole lot more uncomfortable with it if I’m holding a gun than if I’m not. These are factors you cannot ignore in this conversation, at least if you hope to make a valid point to anyone but your usual audience, and if that’s all you’re aiming for, you’re just sucking up.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“As Charles Krauthammer masterfully explained:” ... “The likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann...”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Charles Krauthammer? Michele Bachmann? Really?? This is the company you offer for Sarah Palin </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">in her defense</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">?</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span></span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Charles Krauthammer has never “masterfully” explained anything that I’ve ever heard. In fact, let’s just shut down his justification of torture right here: A. If you’re that sure that by torturing one, you’ll be able to save many, you must already have enough information to act on something. Get it? Again, if you’re </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">that sure</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of what information </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">that man</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> can provide to you, then you should have no reason to torture him. B. It’s never okay unless it’d be okay to do it to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">you</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Now, Michele Bachmann??? Do you really not understand that criticism of her need have nothing whatsoever to do with </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">rhetoric</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> or “</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">battle imagery</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">?” My favorite Michele Bachmann quote, from a 2009 interview with a Minnesota radio station: “And the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward....” For crying out loud, President Obama is </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> going to put our young people into </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">re-education camps</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. That is not “rhetorical,” much less harmless. That is nothing but self-serving, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">irresponsible</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> pandering to the most ignorant, paranoid, conservative-conditioned people she could possibly get to listen and then, of course, be afraid enough to run out and vote for her. There is nothing mistakable, or defensible, about those words, and they are typical of her, and of Sarah Palin. Individual responsibility, indeed. Please see your own Ecclesiastes quote above.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“What would be good to see less of is thoroughly nasty and disrespectful hate spewings that don't deserve to be called rhetoric.”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ya think??!!</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“Opponents of the Tea Party and conservative leaders would do well to focus on looking for facts instead of reading into rhetoric messages that just aren't there.”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Aren’t there??? MY WIFE received a piece of mail at our home from now-Governor Bill Haslam’s campaign vowing to “protect the traditional family.” It was addressed TO HER FAMILY, not “our neighbor,” not “current occupant,” but to “The Farr Household.”</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">First, “protect?” Again with this need to “</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">protect</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">” the "</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">traditional"</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> family? Seriously? The only time something needs “protecting” is if it’s being threatened, if it is in danger. This is not my biased, petty, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">liberal</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> little opinion; these are the meanings of words agreed upon long before I ever used them.</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Second, WE -- “The Farr Household” -- are </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> one of the “traditional” families you’re vowing to protect. By process of elimination, we must then be one of the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">non</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">-traditional families from whom the traditional families need to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">be</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> protected.</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">How dare anyone suggest that we have read </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">anything</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> into that “rhetoric message” that was not there? It’s there in bold freaking print, and how dare anyone talk about individual responsibility without being either willing or able to recognize where all it’s lacking?</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“Remember, a fear of subliminal conspiracy in words is part of what drove Jared Loughner insane.”</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Maybe...just maybe...</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">that’s the point</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">One</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> person was crazy and violent that morning in Tucson. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">One</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> person </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">directly</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> caused the deaths of several innocent people and devastated the lives of so many more. But there is more than enough laziness, ignorance, arrogance, self-absorption, unaccountability, and yes, blame, to go around, a few times; and Loughner’s own responsibility does </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> absolve anyone else of theirs. Look around. We're all still here together.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-46400274730983368492010-12-05T03:14:00.004-06:002010-12-05T04:35:06.650-06:00Lies, Hate, and Reality in Tennessee (and unfortunately, beyond)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Truth and identity, public and private, are key--for BOTH sides, and, sadly, the "Belmont College Crushes Queer Soccer Coach Like Bug" situation could just as easily have been avoided by a better tending of those things by <i>either</i> side. Make no mistake, people, <i><b>Truth</b></i> will never give up in its efforts to be present in your life, through one "opportunity" after another. Belmont's official "attitude" on this point absolutely sucks, no doubt about that, regardless of the details of its "policies," but did anybody <i>not know</i> that this is who they ARE? As a private, religion-based institution in a state seemingly growing more prejudiced by the second, did they really have anybody fooled into thinking they'd just do the "right" thing when push came to shove? Who lied about what, and to whom?</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><i>Do not misunderstand me</i>. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';">I HATE this ignorance, bigotry, blatant discrimination; I <i>hate</i> this <i>hate</i>. I am sick to death of this shit, of the absolute <i>absence</i> of tolerance or even minimal evolution on the subject by waaayyy too many of the Tennessee population. I want it to CHANGE, so we can get on with our lives and tending to some of the <i>REAL</i> problems we're facing in this world. My desperation for that change is why it is so <i>maddening</i> to me when the opportunities we get to achieve some measure of progress are significantly compromised by none other than the unfairly judged and oppressed party themselves.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">I hope the coach <i>was</i> fired, or that Belmont <i>has</i> seriously misrepresented the way it handled its end. I hope this coach actually <i>never</i> approached the administration <i>to ask "permission"</i> to <i>talk</i> <i>about</i> her "<i>baby</i>," because the existence of babies don't make people gay, and conversations can be had about babies, even about those babies had with same-sex partners, without any mention of "lifestyle" in <i>legally</i> limiting terms. The conversations needn't include <i>declarations</i> of gay-<i>ness</i> allegedly referred to by the discriminatory policies of the organization of which one may be part. <i>Implications</i> cannot be legislated; but the prohibition of an unprovable concept cannot be challenged if one preemptively "confesses" one's own perceived violation of the rules <i>BY </i>requesting <i>permission to circumvent</i> them. If she did <i>not</i> leave voluntarily, then hopefully she had executed her job more personally openly than is suggested by Belmont's reaction. Maybe then, it could be argued that any claimed "don't ask, don't tell" policy had been inconsistent at best and that forfeiture of its previous enforcement precluded its arbitrary and abrupt enforcement over an <i>implication</i> now. "Baby" does not equal "disclosure of homosexuality." If we are going to be forced to be this "<i>careful</i>," then <i>careful</i> is exactly what we should be, and a matching standard demanded in any argument regarding a lack of that <i>care</i>.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Could have been a good fight. Could have accomplished something. Unfortunately, when you sign a pre-nup before marrying someone known in the past to be a cheating, boozing wife-beater, and he cheats, boozes, and beats the hell out of you and you leave, you <i>are</i> going to get screwed, and you have <i>no</i> right to be surprised by it. Any there's <i>not only</i> not going to be a damn thing you can do about it, but your denial and compliance probably guarantee that the next one is going to get it <i>worse</i>.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Do not simply <i>give away</i> your power, to anybody, ever. Be yourself, even when it's hard. Be honest, even when it's hard. Be honest <i>with</i> yourself, before you ever have a conversation with anybody else about it. Don't expect anybody else in this world to treat you with respect when you can't manage it consistently with yourself. If you act ashamed, people will assume you have good reason to be. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">If you just hold up your end, hold your position, without hiding, lying, or apologizing when you haven't done a damn thing wrong, then <i>maybe</i> something can be done when somebody else breaks the "rules." Damn whoever made "spin" such an art. It's no way to live, it's no way to maintain a relationship, and it's no way to run a business. Honesty and transparency are, under <i>most</i> circumstances, the best way to avoid the inevitable betrayals and scars that come up living in <i>SPIN</i>. My wife and I have both learned this lesson. Many people have, more than enough to say with a fair amount of certainty that <i>anybody can</i> learn it.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Damn it, I <i>want</i> to be <i>wrong</i>, completely and utterly wrong, about every aspect of this case. Please, please, please, <i>somebody</i> prove me wrong. You have no idea how glad I'd be. If I'm wrong, then maybe things actually <i>change.</i> But <i>if</i> I'm <i>right</i>, then my immediate environment, in which I live with my beloved wife and the two children we're trying like hell to raise to act better than so many of the examples they see, will certainly be even uglier tomorrow than it was yesterday.</span></div>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-77101434798892544322010-04-01T01:35:00.005-05:002010-05-14T02:00:52.012-05:00A Matter of LiabilityThe part about all the uproar over the healthcare reform thing that troubles me is the confusion, the seeming <i>surprise</i>, that our government could possibly think they have any right to take control over such an <i>institution</i>. It's the same confusion and surprise that greeted new government regulation over Wall Street and the banking industry, much of which, by the way, has been thoroughly disregarded.<div><br /></div><div>What part don't you get?</div><div><br /></div><div>Is it not true that I might very well not be insured by my employer, choose not to maintain any kind of private policy (because there's no way in hell I could afford to), choose to smoke cigarettes (a fully informed decision in that I know full well the harm of which they're capable), get any number of afflictions as a direct result of that cancer, and then decide that I want to live badly enough and therefore pursue treatment enough that I readily accept any government assistance I can possibly get, and probably even feel like I <i>deserve</i> it? I'm not picking on smokers; it's just an example. I could use seatbelts, helmet laws, alcohol consumption (driving or not), ignored storm warnings, bad mortgages (given and received), mountain climbing, whatever.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whose responsibility are we, if not our own? And if that is our claim, then why do we not live our lives as though we have signed a waiver releasing the government and the rest of society from any such responsibility? But we do not. We want it both ways. We want to reject interference, "meddling," by our ruling authorities <i>until we need them</i>. People sit in the path of the storm swearing up and down that they'll be just fine, aren't going anywhere, until the water gets past five or six feet, and then they're not only on the phone calling 911, but complaining because there's some delay (like 90-mph winds, or that same six feet of water, or all the other equally dismissive people in line to be saved ahead of them). People climb mountains in inclement weather, knowing the risks and the outright statistical likelihood that they will not live through the experience, and yet when they're a few hours late, a search party is launched, at the full expectation of everybody with any knowledge that the fool went up the mountain to begin with. </div><div>People (like me) hate being made to wear their seatbelts, because, really, whose business is it? Right? But if we have an accident, and we're ejected from the vehicle and seriously injured (assuming we live), do we tell the paramedics to just leave us there, that it's our own fault? Do we say, "I didn't want the government meddling in my life, and I knew what I was getting myself into. It just wouldn't be right to take the help now." I actually might say exactly that, but I also wear my seatbelt, even though I hate it, because I don't know that in that situation, I'd have that kind of resolve, that my principles would hold up after I'd caused myself multiple broken bones and internal injuries and was facing a certain and painful death in some roadside ditch. People continue to smoke, drink, and use drugs, at all ages, all income levels, insured or not.</div><div><br /></div><div>Insurance costs continue to climb, we continue to smoke, and sue, and complain. We continue to blame others, refuse to fix the crisis ourselves, beg for help, and then reject the help when it's offered. We're like the families on "Super Nanny," at the beginning of the show, that immature and ignorant, that arrogant, and that helpless. And still, when Jo shows up, they usually spend the first quarter of the show arguing with her, saying they "caaaann't," trying to get around the rules they begged somebody to come set for them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why in the hell would you <i>not</i> be subject to regulation by somebody who gave you a loan? Why in the hell would whoever's funding your escapades not get in a say in whether or not you should continue having them in the same manner? When your parents are paying for all your needs, you're supposed to follow their rules. Why would it be different when the federal government is the parent, and, say, Merrill Lynch is the child? It's actually <i>not</i> any different <i>at all</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>This country was founded on the concept that certain "inalienable" rights are due every human being, and that it was, at least in part, the function of the federal government to guarantee these rights for us. Life, liberty, property. Life, in modern terms, equals healthcare, shelter, elderly care. This is what you demanded from the beginning. This is what you demand every time you're in a pinch. This is what you get as a very natural consequence for the irresponsible way you live.</div><div><br /></div><div>What part don't you get?</div>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-37518624253780700952010-04-01T01:22:00.003-05:002010-05-14T01:58:52.852-05:00Human Rights - Thoughts on Torture<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Anything you do could be the last thing you do. Anything you do implies permission to have the same thing done to you should someone <i>think</i> it equally necessary. Torture, in the most basic sense, is never just, in a way I can’t say I think war is never just. I can justify (at least to myself) a war in defense of someone clearly and openly attacked by someone else. The only two reasons you could ever have to torture somebody would be suspicion and retaliation. As human beings, we’re supposed to be above basic retaliation, and if responsive action is “required,” as human beings, we’re supposed to be able to come up with something...well, </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">humane</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">. As far as suspicion, just never a good thing, at least for me, to act on. If somebody has something to tell, great. What if there really is nothing else to tell? </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">I could be wrong</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">There are already obviously completely subjective and useless restrictions and regulations in place, which means, there are no and can be no useful restrictions or regulations over torture. When torture is “justified,” it’s always by assumptions, conjecture, speculation, suspicion, </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">never</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> a guarantee. When you have a guarantee, you don’t </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">need</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> to torture anybody. It reminded me what I said earlier about genocide, that if it’s not okay across the street, it’s not okay across the ocean. In the most basic sense, if it’s not okay to torture somebody who turns out to be innocent, then it can’t be okay to torture anybody. Period. Why, if we had a draft, would we exclude women? If you can make a case for preserving the life and well-being of a woman, for any reason, why in the hell would that not be a case for preserving the life and well-being of </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">anybody</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">? Is a life of inherent value or is it not??</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Nobody on this earth has the wisdom, experience, or anything else they'd need to be able to legitimately make the call on which life is worth more or less than others. <i>I</i> only <i>know</i> what's important to <i>me</i>, what's in <i>my</i> experience; <i>you</i> only <i>know</i> what's important to <i>you</i>. There are other ways to live, to respond, to fight. We are highly evolved creatures, and as such, we have a responsibility to make the effort to learn those other ways.</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Don’t get me wrong. There is a part of me, not even that small a part sometimes, the fearful part, that wants to torture the crap out of anybody who might be sitting on some information we could use to avoid another 9/11 or anything of that ilk. But what if they don’t have it? What if they lie just to get you to stop? What if whatever information they have is irrelevant, can’t be used to stop the attack anyway? If somebody kidnapped, say, my mother, and had her rigged up in some sort of situation where she would die if not found by a certain time, and the person were caught but wouldn’t tell where she was, I can’t say with any certainty that I wouldn’t do really unspeakable things to that person to get them to tell me. I have very human limits to my own sanity and my own self-control. <i>But</i> <i>I would be wrong</i>. Even though I might engage in it myself under only such unimaginably severe circumstances, it would not be <i>just</i>, by any argument; and I would be wrong, and would expect to be punished for my actions. There’s stuff where <i>any</i> "grey area" is just too dangerous, and this is one of them. The consequences are too great.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">You know how if the air is really dry, and somebody walks up to you and reaches out to touch your arm or something, and you get a shock? If they reach out again, don’t you flinch, don’t you anticipate the feeling and recoil from it, even just the tiniest bit, because it was a surprise and maybe genuinely hurt a little, and it’s right there, fresh in your mind? I cannot comprehend having all of my senses abused so severely, repeatedly, possibly for years, and having a shred of mental/emotional function left in me, if physical.</span></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">So many people, political prisoners, clear victims, are tortured in ways that everybody universally agrees are unjust, and if we’re to have recourse against that, we can’t do it to anybody else, because actions really are all that matter; their “reasons” are always going to be as “good” as ours, so the argument </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">has</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> to come from somewhere else.</span></span></span></p>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-42465741278174691492009-09-25T14:36:00.002-05:002009-09-25T14:41:41.256-05:00Tennessee Gun Permits and Thomas HobbesThis gun business has gone far enough. I’ve been waiting for common sense to kick in, or for someone with more time and energy to express more vigorous opposition, but my patience has been officially exhausted.<br /><br />The infamous legislative bill arming the general public has never been about anything but money. If it were genuinely about anybody’s <span style="font-style:italic;">rights</span>, the capitol would not be excluded from the growing list of gun-tolerant properties. In fact, I dare say that if it had anything whatsoever to do with the Constitution, any such committed and idealistic legislators would be fighting for the chance to be the first to share space with the newly armed. Why isn’t that the case? It’s something of a “health risk,” plain and simple, and they all know it.<br /><br />Legislators have shown repeated disregard not only for Tennessee voters’ opinions, but potentially for our lives and those of our families and children. Many have reportedly solicited contributions directly from pro-gun groups and individuals since this circus began. What that means, essentially, is that this legislation was a <span style="font-style:italic;">sale</span>, one big, greedy business decision, the direct investment of Tennesseans’ safety and well-being in a very lucrative interest, possibly to replace revenues lost due to the weakening of the tobacco lobby or the Bible belt disadvantage of the alcohol lobby.<br /><br />How much money can possibly be involved for <span style="font-style:italic;">elected </span>officials to threaten their constituents (their supposed livelihoods) with lawsuits for not complying with legislation that was unwanted by so many to begin with? Isn’t anybody curious? <br /><br />That’s just the stuff that should bother our <span style="font-style:italic;">heads</span>. As for our <span style="font-style:italic;">hearts</span>....<br /><br />Philosopher Thomas Hobbes proposed the theory of a “social contract” voluntarily, but <span style="font-style:italic;">necessarily</span>, adhered to by members of a society in order to avoid giving their existence over to chaos. In other words, if you don’t want everybody else doing whatever they please, especially in public, then you agree not to either.<br /><br />If I want to carry a gun, what is the worst that can happen if it’s <span style="font-style:italic;">not </span>"allowed," and I can pretty safely assume that most, if not all, the people in the room with me are unarmed as well? If I do <span style="font-style:italic;">not </span>want a gun anywhere near me, what’s the worst that can happen when it’s very possible that a great number of the people in the room with me are armed? The main reason I’ve heard given by the pro-carry people (besides “it’s my RIGHT, damn it”) is that if the bad guys are going to have guns, they want them, too. Following that logic, the more people there are who carry guns, the more people there are going to be who didn’t before but want to now. Statistically, the more people who adopt the practice, the better the chance that it was an impulse, that they’ve had minimal gun education or experience, that they’re more afraid, their judgment not as sharp, and so on.<br /><br />I support, albeit sometimes with great reservation, the second amendment. I don’t care if people own guns and in fact agree wholeheartedly that everyone has the right to protect themselves and their property. I simply think that once that desire for protection leaves an environment where my individual needs are quite reasonably the only priority (my home, my vehicle) and spreads out into an environment where many individuals’ needs must be balanced (our workplace, our restaurants, our parks, our movie theatres, our churches, or your workplace, your garage sale, etc.), and my need is one that, under certain circumstances, has the proven potential to do direct and grievous harm to others, then I should be willing to <span style="font-style:italic;">lay down <span style="font-weight:bold;">my </span>need</span>, to maintain order in the society in which I have <span style="font-style:italic;">chosen </span>to be a part.<br /><br />We actually have, in keeping with that same amendment, a militia formed for our defense—they’re called police officers. We could take care of ourselves, in whatever manner we find most reassuring, in our own homes and even in our cars and continue to trust our public protection to the properly trained, equipped, and legally informed force we already have in place. Even given the exceptions committed by the evil and desperate, I would prefer that to being at the mercy of what are potentially nothing more than a bunch of yahoos armed with guns and self-righteous ignorance.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-36083529541972982172009-09-25T14:21:00.001-05:002009-09-25T14:31:46.860-05:00The HPV RacketIf drug companies like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline can get their HPV vaccines mandated by the states, or even individual school systems, they sell tons more of it. Go to opensecrets.org, search for Merck (ahead of GSK in the HPV vaccine race) as an organization, and look at how much money they've contributed to campaigns, already almost a half million by their PAC for just the 2010 election cycle--meaning only congressional candidates! Communicate more with your legislators!! (AND your children-girls and boys!) Their mission is obviously to buy a government "contract" to make mass profits off of a drug/disease people know less about and will be less resistant to than, say, an AIDS vaccine (AIDS being 100% fatal). Now go to CDC.gov and read about HPV. In 90% of cases, the body clears it; there are several other cancers more frequently observed resulting from HPV than cervical cancer; the vaccines do not prevent ALL types of HPV (and don't prevent HIV at all); smoking is also a contributor; PAP tests will catch most precancers; and abstinence prevents all STDs 100%. The latter is just the better known and therefore more feared.<br /><br />It is mostly, if not entirely, propaganda for profit. Other resources: CDC.gov for the facts about HPV, related cancers (and worse diseases), & their causes, preventions, and treatments; followthemoney.org for trails between contributions and state-level legislators; attachmentparenting.org for advice on staying really connected to your kids, because that is the most important element here.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Do not be sheep</span>; the two most effective ways to help your children are to <span style="font-style:italic;">stay CONNECTED as parents</span>...and <span style="font-style:italic;">QUESTION EVERYTHING</span>!!<br /><br />As far as Merck’s “donation” of $500 million to other high-risk countries...<br />There are about 10 million girls age 10-14 in the U.S. This vaccine runs upwards of $300 per series. That's $3 BILLION potential profit in the U.S. alone, especially if they can bribe state and federal legislators (the actual function of most non-individual campaign contributions, not an exaggeration-see opensecrets.org, search for Merck and do the math yourselves) into mandating it, which would also ultimately save them millions in advertising. $500 million is a pretty affordable investment/gimmick when you stand to make 6x that in this country alone.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-17214692217035377542009-07-25T14:43:00.006-05:002009-07-25T15:45:49.964-05:00A Sinking ShipYou really can't outrun the truth. For years now, the conservative, mostly Republican, religious right anti-gay advocates have been raising seven different kinds of endless <span style="font-style:italic;">hell </span>(ironically) about gays, gays in relationships, gays raising children, gays and their alleged promiscuity and deviance, gays and their threat to "traditional" marriages and families and education and the world at large. Meanwhile, the scandals have been piling up, most of the subjects having been vocal proponents of and personally fueling, at some time and in some aspect, the anti-gay movement, under one or a combination of its aforementioned themes. Hmmmm....(scratching head, brow furrowed)<br /><br />It is a fact - not my opinion, not simply conjecture, but fact - that frequently the people who make the most noise have the most to hide. It's even a tactic of war: cause an enormous explosion on one side of the field (in this case, the right) so nobody notices all the sneaking around. Clearly, these people are skilled at the effective employment of this tactic, but so many have fallen - Mark Sanford, Paul Stanley, John Ensign, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard.... There are plenty who have known the truth all along and not been sucked into their loud and colorful displays, but others have doubted, and many swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.<br /><br />I would ask of the latter: Do you still believe it? And if so, why? Seriously, <span style="font-style:italic;">how</span>? Aren't you almost beginning to perceive the depth and volume of the declared convictions even as an indicator of the extent of the "deeply convicted's" <span style="font-style:italic;">own </span>sins? Don't you wonder why, if the bucket they sold to you was so solid and so impenetrable, so <span style="font-style:italic;">fault</span>-less, you've found yourself back at the house with no water and a big, wet trail leading all the way back to the well?<br /><br />To the true deviants, the cowards and liars whose main motivation is more and more clearly simply to get away with their own transgressions against all of the "institutions" they've claimed to hold so dear, I would say: Go ahead and scream with all the voice you have left. You must be so afraid, and I pity you.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-26157279089407792542009-07-25T14:08:00.005-05:002009-07-25T14:42:50.442-05:00Whose "Best Judgment" is Best?I've been thinking about the electoral college, the will of "the People," the out-of-control Tennessee legislature shoving guns down all of our throats, and the fact that, for all the bitching and moaning, the voters are the ones who put them there. Does anybody really not understand that, by the way? Why in the name of time do we need TERM LIMITS when they only get to stay if WE re-elect them? How far ahead of the horse can we possibly put the cart?! Good grief, people! This is not rocket science! Would we want to limit the terms of people we thought were doing a great job? Because we have had, <span style="font-style:italic;">all along</span>, the power to "limit the terms" of those we perceive to be making it worse, and we simply refuse to use it.<br /><br />Voters often complain of feeling like elected officials are too far removed from “real life." That’s absolutely true; voters do have valid reason to feel like that, but who do they think elected the people of whom they have this perception? They didn’t just wander into the offices off the streets. And how is it that “the people” can have this view and the reelection rate of incumbents be so high, like in the U.S. House (usually >95%)?<br /><br />We cannot (reasonably) hand somebody a solid gold, indestructible “mandate,” specifically to remove themselves from what you call “real life” and go make your decisions for you, keep reaffirming it for them, sometimes for decades, and simultaneously criticize them for doing it. And I’ve actually seen quite a few candidates over the years who were exactly what people keep saying they want, somebody from their own block, or could be, who’s maybe worked as a teacher or a bus driver or something, highly intelligent, knows exactly where to start to really turn some things around. Voters not only do not vote for those people, the people they claim to be their model legislators, in theory; they crucify them. “The people,” media, voters, other politicians, everybody, not only refuse to elect such candidates but mock them endlessly and mercilessly, for daring to even look at public office, for being nothing and nobody, even though nothing and nobody was the order they put in the day before.<br /><br />Ben Franklin once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Ben Franklin was a very smart man. I wonder if anybody would vote for him today.<br /><br />With all of this in mind, frankly, I’m not sure I want to give any more power to “the people.” I don’t know that they can be responsible with it. And I hate that, too, that we can’t all be trusted to focus on the <span style="font-style:italic;">greater </span>good, or, taking the subjective quality of "good" out of the equation, to support equality and <span style="font-style:italic;">fairness </span>according to our guiding legal principles and not succumb to our whims and prejudices and such. I'm hoping we get better at the accountability thing, but in the meantime, I don't mind it being tempered with some good, clean constitutional wisdom, even if it means that I don't get everything <span style="font-style:italic;">I</span> want all the time either (keeping the gun-funded Tennessee lawmakers out of the process as much as possible).<br /><br />We have free speech, and we have the right to elect our leaders, pray to whomever we want (or not), stand in the street and say the president sucks... How bad can it really be, and if it is, how can it <span style="font-style:italic;">not </span>have a whole lot to do with <span style="font-style:italic;">us</span>?<br /><br />I would like to see the presidential electoral process changed. After <span style="font-style:italic;">we </span>all change <span style="font-style:italic;">our </span>minds and get ourselves straightened out and either elect some of “us” or stop whining about who <span style="font-style:italic;">has </span>the jobs now, we can call some sort of special national constitutional convention and develop a new electoral system that allows for more competition, credits all Americans’ opinions equally (and dismisses them equally on some points), reins in the parties and closes loopholes in campaign finance regulation as a bonus, and write an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that details all of it, specifically enumerating and prohibiting powers as needed. That’d be fun.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-57586226553047853222009-07-25T14:04:00.000-05:002009-07-25T14:08:33.360-05:00Tennessee TaxesTennessee collects state income tax on dividends and interest and all sorts of taxes on businesses, and of course, a huge chunk of its revenue comes from sales tax and license fees. It has one of the lower gas and cigarette taxes and pretty low property taxes, too. According to the US Census, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia are the only states with a lower median income than Tennessee, 2006-2007. The median income here during that time was $41,521. That’s not a lot of money. That means people in Tennessee are not rich, as a population. (Remember that’s only the median because half of the households make less.)<br /><br />The problem with that is all the complaining about things like state healthcare, college tuition, and the like. Tennessee pays a lot in state employee wages and insurance benefits, and a ton on public welfare, one of their higher expenditures. To have that as a high expenditure in a state with one of the lowest median incomes, one of the highest sales taxes, and such a blindly immovable opposition to a state income tax doesn’t make a bit of sense. To have as a main revenue source something as dependent on the general state of the economy (or perception of it) as sales tax doesn’t make a bit of sense either. To live in a state with such close access to other states with lower sales taxes, when the people with the money can easily drive there to make large purchases (especially when the biggest Tennessee cities lack some really major, cool, high-priced stores you can find as close as Atlanta) doesn’t make a bit of sense. The people without the money, meanwhile, have to spend a huge chunk of their meager incomes on tax on food, clothing, and other general necessities, can’t afford to do enough shopping to really boost the revenue, and apparently frequently enough end up the recipients of the public welfare programs funded by what revenues the state does make.<br /><br />It’s easy to see the block to a state income tax. The people with the influence, the people who vote, basically, are the people with the money, who benefit the most by not having that tax and having so much control over their vulnerability to the other taxes. The people without the money are trapped here, make paltry little money, have to spend so much of it to survive, are typically less educated, less motivated, etc, don’t vote in as great numbers, therefore have little influence and are guaranteed to never have any. There is a tall, wide, and solid wall here between the haves and have-nots, and the people on the have side like it that way, until they want to bitch about roads and schools and other things they don’t realize they’re costing resources.<br /><br />I hate the sales tax, and I like balance, so I personally would like to see instituted a state income tax. The 2007 federal tax on that median $41,521 (taxable income, not even counting deductions and exemptions, filing single) was only $6725. That’s not exactly a killer. On the have-not side, say with a $20,000 taxable income, it’s only about $2700. No state income tax sounds great until you <span style="font-style:italic;">do </span>have to come up with college tuition; make a $1000 repair to your car that costs $1100; there’s a serious recession when nobody shops and your state still has to pay for stuff like hospitals and welfare and emergencies and education; or all the roads need work and they raise the gas tax, especially when gas is already $3 or $4 a gallon. Chew on it.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-19307528649556636992009-07-25T14:00:00.001-05:002009-07-25T14:04:06.739-05:00Drive Your BusI remember going to the Democratic picnics and such with my mom and stepdad when I was 10 or younger. I didn't have any idea what the importance of any of it was for awhile yet, although I also remember carrying around a piece of paper with "Carter" and "Ford" written at the top and asking people who they preferred and marking it on the paper. I was eight. (I don't think it was nearly so much a possible future as a pollster as simply a deep drive to organize and log and chart and list, that kind of thing.) Anyway, I know that things like the picnics in particular are why I <span style="font-style:italic;">was </span>a Democrat. It was just something we were, instead of being something else, the same as we lived in our house and answered to our names, even though they never made any effort to impress it upon me directly. If I am one now, it's because of my own experiences, although I'm completely uncommitted to the party as a whole and would vote for anybody else in a second whom I thought would do a better job, even if I didn't like them very much as a person, if they weren't much further off of my own philosophy than others; and there have been several people I liked but wouldn't ever want in charge of anything.<br /><br />I'm not most of the stuff I was "raised" to be (good and bad). I understand that it's basically unavoidable in most cases to avoid being imprinted with the beliefs of the major "forces" in your life, but I still don't ever understand the answer "it's just how I was raised" as a primary reason for one's practices and reflexes (as opposed to "beliefs" and "opinions," which require critical thinking and perspective at some point) that actually make an impact. I feel like at some point we all get our own buses, and if we're not driving them, who is? Buses with no drivers do a lot of damage. It frustrates me.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-38851530601779035812009-06-24T23:00:00.002-05:002009-06-24T23:21:14.688-05:00Who's "Defending" Marriage from the GOP?With the news today of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford's Argentinian affair, and his apologies to his wife and four (<span style="font-style:italic;">4</span>) sons (for whom this is <span style="font-style:italic;">truly </span>sad), I have to ask: How, again, are gays and lesbians a threat to our cherished "traditional" marriages??<br /><br />Now I am not even suggesting that Democrats don't cheat, too; of course they do. However, they're also not the party typically leading the charge in the defense of this oh-so-sacred institution (that's also still a church issue). Sanford, John Ensign, Vito Fossella, David Vitter... <span style="font-style:italic;">seriously</span>? You're afraid of what damage some committed, monogamous <span style="font-style:italic;">gays </span>are going to do to the franchise?Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-6332526053983097552009-06-20T12:07:00.002-05:002010-05-14T02:04:25.495-05:00Guns, Dogs, Gays, Voter Turnout & AccountabilityWho’s against more guns on the streets, as well as in bars and on playgrounds? Only the governor of the state, some sane and otherwise funded legislators, the Metro Nashville Police chief and force, and a large number of business owners themselves. What really troubles me is that so many states, Tennessee included, get to vote about something as irrelevant to anybody else's lives as the validity of another couple's relationship (even though I haven't gotten to vote on some I thought were pretty foolish), but we do not get to vote on whether we are comfortable walking around in public with more people armed. Or having dogs in restaurants. And as a sidenote, I personally love both guns and dogs, but I do not believe, as long as I live here with other people, that I should just have the run of the place with any guns or dogs I happen to have in my possession, especially when both potentially directly affect everybody around me at any given time and neither are almost ever necessary for survival. It's similar, in my perception, to cigarettes.<br /><br />People keep talking about dogs in relation to health codes. They also bite, usually when people least expect them to, because the very best ones in the world can be very territorial. Heck, people are unpredictable, but at least you can sit them down and explain the rules. Many, many people are also badly allergic to them. And why in the name of time, without even a vote, could just anybody take their guns and dogs to dinner with them whenever they please when we all got a say in deciding that I can't just sit here in my living room in any legally recognized commitment to my sweet baby whatsoever, which nobody would ever even know about unless we told them?<br /><br />Some possible reasons why people don't vote (besides the present electoral college system and the number of times "our" choice has actually not won the presidency): inconsistency and deep discrimination in the legislative offerings; pacification (my theory of letting the electorate decide emotional and subjective issues so they feel involved and less victimized by the sometimes far more regulatory legislature that just gets passed and defeated without us ever having a say); and our own profound lack of accountability and deeply codependent relationship with our government caused by constant preemption of natural consequences. This, again in my perception, and granted, I do spend too much time in my own head sometimes, is illustrated by things like the McDonald's lawsuits (both the coffee and the Super Size Me references), the endless "safety" features (like automatic shut-off electric blankets and car-backing cameras), and the rescues. Obviously, sometimes, as with Hurricane Katrina, when so many people literally did not have the resources to evacuate themselves, or when there is no warning, people don't choose their fate. But I know that I personally have heard over and over and over again about communities of perfectly capable people being warned by every government agency in operation about the devastation they will face if they remain where they are, and after they completely blow off every warning and every last speck of evidence and sometimes are in the middle of their "disaster party" when said disaster hits, the calls start coming, begging for help, pleading for every previously ignored government agency to spend their precious resources, risk the lives of their people when the danger is at its peak, to come save their arrogant asses.<br /><br />My point is that, as a society, we cry and cry about too much government interference, bad or no options, too much regulation, not enough freedom...we want to do what we want, until we get into trouble. Then, frankly, we squeal like pigs for some kind of "bailout." And government, for its part, keeps feeding us the rope until we inevitably hang ourselves, so they can swoop in and save us and then wag their fingers and show us the proof of how inept we are at managing our own lives. And we let them, because too many people don't really want the responsibility. I believe in my heart that that collective attitude is going to need to be the first thing to get adjusted for voter turnout to increase or anything else to change.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-17113702085733903562009-06-17T20:00:00.001-05:002009-06-17T20:02:22.612-05:00Darfuris Still WaitingWhile I truly appreciate the collection of plates that our government has spinning at the moment, I am compelled to offer another plea for assistance and a concrete plan for peace for the people of Darfur.<br /><br />The heinous Sudanese President Bashir remains free and has continued to persecute the citizens of this region – with no “fault” beyond being black and Christian - including expelling multiple aid organizations that have been the only source of relief and hope to this area’s millions of refugees.<br /><br />I vividly remember watching the Sudanese delegation at the United Nations meeting in which President Bush declared that the actions of Sudan’s government and their janjaweed hitmen would not be tolerated. They <em>laughed </em>at him, at us, at the international community, at the idea that anybody could or would do anything to stop the atrocities they had already been committing for several years. No small feat, a warrant was finally issued for Bashir's arrest months ago, an invitation for intervention by the global community like none before. Still, no action has been taken, and in fact, the situation has only deteriorated further.<br /><br />Make no mistake, I am no less deeply concerned about the plethora of domestic issues plaguing our country. But I believe in my heart that every second that we allow the continuance of the humanitarian crimes in Sudan (as crimes they are), we give up so much of <em>ourselves</em>, and so much of what we claim to have learned from our collective international genocidal history, that all measures to save ourselves will ultimately be irrelevant and pointless.<br /><br />It is long past time to stop this. We are running out of time, not only to help these people, but to seize this one of a long list of opportunities (the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc.) to change our pattern: letting it happen, condemning it afterward, and swearing, “Never again.” We are running out of time to say, as a <em>nation</em>, “Not on our watch,” and <em>mean </em>it.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-78021223360686457282009-06-11T13:42:00.004-05:002009-06-11T14:45:19.751-05:00Discrimination Never a "States' Right"I’ve been thinking about President Obama’s [at least partial] answer to Brian Williams’ question last Friday about whether or not gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House. I have to say that I agree that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and not government “business” to be redefining “marriage.” But it is absolutely necessary to begin the process of redefining whatever we are to call the lifetime legal contract between two people that it is government “business” to license and which guarantees those two people the rights heretofore associated with “marriage.” Let us finally begin to adhere to the First Amendment and allow churches to do what they want; but let us also begin to defend the Constitution against those same churches. This is not a religious issue, and it is not a state issue.<br /><br />I wholeheartedly support the Tenth Amendment as reserving to the states the powers not prohibited to them by the Constitution. However, the language of the Constitution very clearly does prohibit discrimination against any state's citizens by any other state. All citizens are one hundred percent equal in the eyes of the Constitution (at least more or less, since the Civil Rights movement), but government and the Constitution have proven many times to be two different animals. In application, it’s beginning to seem as though, to borrow from an old saying, nothing is <em>equal </em>but death and taxes. Church weddings aside, being a practice of the church and therefore out of the legal reach of government according to the First Amendment (along with their willingness or unwillingness to perform any such ceremonies), the actual legal contract binding two law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting, adult American citizens, whatever it's called, <em>cannot</em>, at least <em>Constitutionally</em>, be afforded to <em>these </em>two of the aforementioned citizens, and not <em>those </em>two. <br /><br />In that sense, and in the sense in which I guarantee it to be perceived, it is no different than being denied the right to vote, or drive, or <em>carry a gun</em>. And it is absolutely no different in subjective foundation from the laws forbidding interracial marriages only a few short decades ago, until <em>Loving v. Virginia </em>(1967). The original judge in that case convicted the Virginia couple after they married in Washington, DC (because it was illegal in Virginia) and suspended their sentence only if they agreed to get out of the state. On appeal, he upheld his original ruling, actually saying: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." That sounds to me <em>very </em>similar to the arguments flying around regarding today's marriage issues. The problem is that no one <em>belief </em>is ever going to be stronger than any other. That's just the nature of beliefs, and of opinions, but the <em>law </em>still has to be the <em>law</em>. <br /><br />The Lovings' sentence was eventually invalidated by the Virginia Supreme Court, but they upheld the state's Racial Integrity Act, which had been in place for over 40 years (along with the Sterilization Act (OMG), not even completely repealed until the 1970s, not only banning interracial marriages but ordering the <em>sterilization </em>of everyone classified as "insane, idiotic, imbecile, feebleminded, or <em>epileptic</em>," used on a sufficient number of minorities hospitalized for different reasons, a precursor to the Nazi practice about 10 years later).<br /><br />The U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the convictions and held that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.... To deny this fundamental freedom on ... classifications [then just skin color] so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens liberty without due process of law."<br /><br />Do we really want to start that far back? Can we afford to be this slow, again, in realizing that, in our attempts to <em>defend </em>God, we may actually be committing irrevocable <em>offense</em>? This is wrong. My beliefs, my opinions aside, the collection of principles governing this issue was written down and has been defended repeatedly for more than 200 years, 221 to be exact, as of this June 21. We should give it more credit.<br /><br /><br />Case facts from <em>Loving v. Virginia</em>, Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999), 1999.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-24654759001937876422009-05-15T09:47:00.008-05:002009-05-15T11:07:09.105-05:00"Marriage" DEBATE is UnconstitutionalThe absurdity of the stereotype(s) being perpetuated by the people and legislators of the state of Tennessee alone is its own blog, but let us begin with the bones of the overall issue.<br /><br />How many of you are actually familiar with the 1st Amendment, or any of the Supreme Court decisions further clarifying it over the last couple of hundred years? Since the main ongoing argument I hear about it is the one about the “unGodliness” of it all, I thought that I would try to address this again, because many people apparently remain deeply confused and/or deluded about it.<br /><br />There is plenty in the original text of the Constitution about equality. You probably know how it goes…that talk of life, liberty, property, “the pursuit of happiness,” etc. etc. Clearly, all of that is debatable, has been since it was written, and is never actually going to be afforded any minority group without a fight, even if they are American citizens and minus any Constitutional language suggesting only equality for the majority. Therefore, perhaps we ought not waste our time on that.<br /><br />What typically confounds me even more is the continued involvement and influence of the government in the issue of “marriage,” particularly when openly founded on at least the interpretation of Biblical principles, and that of religion in the making and passing of laws regarding legal partnership contracts between two consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults that have no tangible effect on another living soul outside that relationship. The 1st Amendment, in other words, the first thing on the minds of the founding fathers when generating a Bill of Rights protecting the American individual from the potential abuses of government, begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ….” That should cover it, frankly. If it is true that gay marriage is so reprehensible due to its violation of God’s law, that makes it a purely religious argument, and the government has no business being involved in any way, shape, or form.<br /><br />Presently, no law, no legislator, no advocacy group on either side of the argument, can legally force a church to marry or prevent a church from marrying anyone. First of all, do you really want to change that, and why? Why in the name of time would anyone open such a huge can of worms that will enable Congress to decide who a church, any church (listen up, Mormons), can or cannot marry? Presently, any couple wanting to marry must have a license, for a fee paid to their local government. If “marriage” is truly a religious issue, open to religious interference regardless of the practices of the marrying couple, how can we need a license we buy from the government? I was raised Catholic. I was baptized and received first communion and confirmation all without a license. And can anyone imagine the hell that would have been raised if the government had dared step into that and try to require one?<br />So, hypocrites, here’s the thing…either:<br /><br />A. “marriage” is truly a religious institution, dictated by the Bible and the church, presently being unconstitutionally licensed and taxed by the government, and the church and heterosexual “property” it is being claimed to be, in which case every non-church-based marriage performed in our history should be immediately annulled and every “marriage license” fee refunded to the unfairly taxed individuals or their descendents, that whole practice immediately discontinued, and an entirely different system (and vocabulary) instituted for all people wishing to be bound for life outside the church; OR<br /><br />B. “marriage” actually does not "belong" to the church; is, in fact, a legal covenant, guaranteeing certain legal rights and privileges to the two aforementioned consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults; is entirely outside the realm of religious influence, much less persecution; is exactly one of the certain, inalienable <strong><em>rights</em></strong> of <strong><em>every</em></strong> citizen of this country; and the church, and any such tightly pocketed legislators, need to just <strong><em>back off</em>.</strong>Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-11475369116806952672009-04-13T01:00:00.001-05:002009-04-13T01:02:08.975-05:00Baby Seal SlaughterI can't believe that the Canadian government still condones the brutal killings of baby seals. For my entire lifetime, I have railed against this horror, and still it goes on. Since fur is not even worth the energy of an argument, except to incredibly ignorant, greedy, and shallow people, the only "reason" I've ever heard is that it's the livelihood of the hunters. Obscene waste, greed, and complacency have become the livelihood of Detroit automakers and many bankers; that certainly doesn't mean it should go on unchecked.<br /><br />These are BABY animals, sometimes just born. They are helpless, in the most literal possible definition of the word. It can't even be called a "hunt." They just walk up and beat helpless, harmless infant animals to death, and that's if the seals are "lucky." Sometimes they just skin them alive. My God.<br /><br />Do you realize that these animals feel pain? Unimaginable fear? Surely, if you're among the policymakers, you've seen the practice with your own eyes, or at least plenty of footage of it, to have made any decision about it. Do you not hear the screams of the babies and their mothers, who fight to help their young and are sometimes killed for it as well? How can anyone with a soul let this continue. And yes, I meant that as a statement, not a question, because there really could never be an answer.<br /><br />Nothing, nothing, nothing should ever go on just because "that's the way it's always been." There has never, in the history of language, been a weaker, less valid, more cowardly, and frankly less intelligent, reason for any practice. This is simply a gross abuse of our role as stewards of this earth and everything in it. It is torture. It is murder. It is WRONG.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-42251031303128355582009-03-20T13:15:00.004-05:002010-05-14T08:26:57.713-05:00Suicide is Painless/The FallIt's a line in the <span style="font-style:italic;"></span>M*A*S*H<span style="font-style:italic;"></span> theme song. I'll bet a lot of people still didn't know that song had lyrics, but it does, and they're actually pretty good.<br /><br />Suicide, of course, isn't painless at all, to anybody, the victim, their friends, family, coworkers, anybody involved in it, even sometimes people who just happen to be passing by.<br /><br />Last Sunday, we went to church for the first time in months. We'd been to a prayer service there the Monday night before, to help focus people on finding solutions at this time in our country's economy and invite God to do what he can. We were reminded of how positive it was, how much it contributed to our lives. We'd just gotten out of the habit of it, taken for granted, I guess, the relationship, which is always easier to do than anybody realizes.<br /><br />That previous Monday night, a teenage boy spontaneously took the microphone at the end of the service and told about how on a September night in 2007, he had attempted to take his own life; how he believed that the body cannot survive if it's completely out of hope; and how he found out that deep within him, there was a flicker of hope he hadn't recognized, because he had survived, with God's help and love. It reminded me of how I felt so many years ago, all the time, and how important it is to have even the tiniest bit of hope to cling to.<br /><br />Sunday morning, after breakfast and an extraordinarily passionate delivery by Dave, our pastor, that suggested that he'd had our house bugged for the past several weeks, we waited for a fresh CD of the message (great idea) to take with us. It took a few minutes to get them copied, but we didn't mind. Then, only a couple miles down the road, a kestrel falcon sitting on a power line caught my eye. It's one of the things/animals/sights that's rare enough and special enough that it will stop me every time, no matter what. I made a u-turn and pulled onto the opposite shoulder, and we all admired (mostly me) the beautiful little bird, and I shot some film of him with the camera I'd brought along for no apparent reason. After several minutes, he flew away, and we made another u-turn and headed home. The kids started to bicker a little, and Christy wouldn't have it poison our wonderful morning, so she immediately initiated a gratitude exercise in which we went around the car, taking turns telling things we were grateful for, however small, until we each had at least five. I think we were up to four when we got to the bridge.<br /><br />Highway 96 between Franklin and Fairview runs under the Natchez Trace Pkwy bridge, a mammoth structure that seems to run through the clouds across the valley that cradles the highway below. As we approached it, we could see a few police cars on the left side of the road, and a van on the other side, a little up the road from them, with what looked like a surveyor standing in front of it, looking in the direction of the police cars. I believe the mind typically runs through the things it knows best first. I've seen car accidents, and I've seen surveyors, though never together. I've seen news crews, though never at small accidents in the country, and when I realized that it was a news van and a cameraman, and then that there was no wrecked car, I knew. Part of my mind knew sooner, and made me resist looking up at the bridge to finish the thought, because that thought was still too hard.<br /><br />As we passed the police cars, now obviously parked in a way that shielded something from passing cars as best they could, or shielded the people in the passing cars from something, I glanced briefly to my left. I don't know why. Maybe just to finish the thought for myself, as I've rarely benefited from leaving it open.<br /><br />I saw a bright yellow tarp that wasn't big enough, and legs wearing dark pants, white socks, and black shoes, the officers standing next to the <span style="font-style:italic;">person</span>, the cars, the flashing lights, all in a snapshot that I know will never fade, or at least not for many, many years, because that's the memory with which I am "blessed." It was not longer than a breath, and I felt a flash of what had happened, the pain someone has to feel to be there, what it meant in the world, in our day, in the day of the people who couldn't possibly have yet been notified that someone in their life was no longer in it...the fall. It was suffocating, even just to me in a glance, in the simple awareness of it. We only got about a hundred feet before I had to pull over and get out of the car, because the waves of it were incapacitating. Christy came and stood with me and hugged me while the sobs and gasps and shaking had their way with my soul for several minutes.<br /><br />After we got back in the car and had driven in silence for a couple minutes, I offered my fifth thing. I was grateful that we were all together in the car, safe and happy, and with hope. I explained that somewhere, right that second, there were people, maybe a family, maybe a group of friends, but definitely someone, because there always is, going about their day possibly much like we were, with no idea that this had taken place, that sometime soon, someone would come and tell them that this person they knew and possibly cared deeply about was not alive anymore, and that the only reason he was not alive anymore was that he was in more pain than he felt like he could carry any longer.<br /><br />I didn't realize until later that, judging from the scene and the fact that things weren't further along than they were, that it was possible that had it not been for Dave being so on fire and talking a little longer than usual and about things so personally relevant to us, and our compulsion to have the CD and its copying taking several minutes, and the rare sighting of the kestrel, that we might have come along much sooner than would be healthy for anyone in the car. I don't know what purpose brought our paths together at all, but I'm certain that there was one, maybe to show the alternate ending for the boy's story last Monday, maybe to illustrate our need for gratitude. Whatever the unknown details, I have continued to feel all of it a great deal. I pray for the others in that person's life, and for everyone who feels that bad, that they find whatever they need that gives them enough hope to find a living solution.<br /><br />I know how bad it feels. I have felt it. But it really is true that in the next second, around the next corner, could be the thing that lifts you up. And in the meantime, whether you can feel it or not, at the very, very least, God sees you and loves you and hurts with you, and wants you to wait around long enough to find out why he put you here, that you weren't a mistake or an accident, that you're part of something bigger than you or anyone around you could possibly know. Death isn't the escape it looks like. It doesn't make the hurt go away. It just cements it, writes it in stone, and is what makes peace truly unrecoverable.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55993270159927501.post-49094241603016206792009-02-21T20:57:00.000-06:002009-02-21T21:14:43.004-06:00Chris ButtarsSen. Chris Buttars' recent comments are only further evidence of what he had already openly displayed, that he is a man of great prejudice and hatred for anyone different than himself, much like that of Adolf Hitler. His hate grows with his perceived power to spread it, and it is time for his peers and superiors, if not his constituents, to demand his resignation, before he does any more damage.<br /><br />Words matter. As an elected official, Sen. Buttars' words set an example for the public. It is irresponsible in the extreme for him to spread lies using abusive language -- "they're the meanest buggers I've ever seen" -- that disparages people with whom he disagrees. Worth noting is that innocent people blindly attacked, finding themselves in the position of defending themselves against lies and bullying, are often viewed as what their attackers would call "mean."<br /><br />These remarks are especially troubling in light of the growing danger of hate violence against LGBT Americans. As one of Utah's leading public servants, you have a responsibility to the safety and well-being of your citizens. I strongly urge you to take punitive action against Sen. Buttars' mean-spirited rhetoric.<br /><br />I am gay. I have done nothing to anyone and obey both God and this country as solidly as anyone else, including Chris Buttars. I take this very, very personally.Kristin Mary Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17188991707230420727noreply@blogger.com