If a perfect storm refers to the simultaneous occurrence of weather events which, taken individually, would be far less powerful than the storm resulting of their chance combination. Such occurrences are rare by their very nature, so that even a slight change in any one event contributing to the perfect storm would lessen its overall impact. Taken out of a weather context, our modern world is as close as ever to seeing a perfect storm of social, political, and economic upheaval that all but guarantees that life as we know it will be no more. The combination of resource scarcity, over-population, climate change, and globalized economics has put our modern world in a precarious position.

The rise in standards of living, scientific advancement, and population explosion can almost all be attributed to one primary resource-oil. Since its discovery as a source of fuel, the world has enjoyed an unprecedented era of cheap global travel and exchange of goods, an increase in agricultural productivity and economic growth, and a formidable advance in scientific knowledge and application. Cheap and plentiful oil made crops grow faster and more bountiful, allowing for the ability to increase populations around the world. Cheap and plentiful oil created and sustained global tourism, increasing our interdependence on each other as whole economies became based on catering to visitors from abroad. Oil drove manufacturing capabilities to previously unknown levels, creating entire industries devoted to creating modern amenities to make our lives easier and more entertaining. Very nearly everything we have or relate to modern society is derived upon the notion of cheap and plentiful oil.

Yet our dependence on and enslavement to cheap and plentiful oil has also helped to create a natural world on the brink of radical change. Pollution, whether directly from oil-related emissions or as a by-product of oil created consumer goods has spoiled our air and soils and water around the world. Changes to our atmosphere caused by unremitting releases of carbon based emissions are combining with naturally occuring forces to dramatically shift our weather patterns and yearly climate conditions. Cheap oil has led governments to expand their societies and strive for continual economic growth, which in turn has led to mass deforestation and land degradation as we search for precious metals and raw materials to sustain the unsustainable growth explosion. And as we continue to encroach upon the natural world to sustain our own, whole species have become extinct, thus changing the local ecologies of entire regions, which in turn create more changes to the environment at large.

And our love affair with oil has blinded or eyes (as love affairs so often do) to the reality of a globalized economy that is suited not to make the lives of everyone more equal and fulfilling, but rather to help enrich more modern societies at the expense of less modernized ones. But by obscuring this reality, most all societies have taken steps to become as modernized as the next, and whole populations have increased with the expectation that our modern world will find a way to not only sustain an ever growing influx of new people, but will indeed lift them up from poverty and create a level playing field the world over.

And despite occasional warnings from forward thinking people throughout the decades, by and large, we’ve been witnessing this great expansion of human prosperity with the impression that the end would never come, that human ingenuity would supplant the more rational notion that says a finite source will eventually run out. We’ve been playing Nero’s fiddle en masse.

I try to be optimistic about things when I can, but I’m primarily a realist. For many though, realism is synonymous to pessimism, meaning that to point out the obvious, especially when the obvious predicts bad times ahead, makes one a doomsayer at best. Yet at the risk of being labeled such, I’m putting my own fiddle down. Because regardless of the ultimate level of devolution modern society is facing, the facts remain clear- the way we are living now can not be sustained indefinitely, and in fact is on the brink of radical change.

The end of cheap and plentiful oil is upon us. Whether or not we have reached the point of peak oil production is still being debated by a few, but most oil industry experts agree that if we have not already reached this point, it will be upon us in mere years. We are seeing and feeling the effects now. As oil and oil derivatives become even more expensive, economies may well stop growing altogether and begin to seriously contract if not collapse. Governments will have to decide what is the more valuable use of oil-transportation or the chemical derivatives from oil that supply things like plastics and petrochemicals and petroleum based fertilizers. If transportation gets the nod, say goodbye to whole industries that depend on oil byproducts for their livelihood. Say goodbye to medical advances and higher yield crops. Say goodbye to ubiquitous electricity too.

Even as we make small strides to shift off of an oil-dependent economy (a near impossibility now, but let’s pretend for a moment), the state of our natural world is becoming overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of humans living on the planet. Potable water resources are not infinite either. Nor is the ability to produce enough food to feed each person. And without oil for transportation or electric generation, large scale water purification and food sharing become near impossibilities. Coupled with our overpopulation problem is the real fact of global climate shifts that are changing local weather patterns and decreasing the likelihood of future increases in food production. Starvation that we’ve grown accustomed to seeing from afar may soon be at a city near you.

I’ve never put much stock in “end times” philosophies, largely because they are predominantly based on religious mythology and doctrine. To assume that an omnipotent being has preordained the time and path of humanity seems more than a little absurd to me. But “end times” are a human reality and have been over and over throughout the eras of human history. Yet where religious “end times” focus on a final battle between good and evil for the souls of mankind, in reality most “end times” come to societies because of the faults of human beings themselves, and are usually fomented by over-population of a particular region, over-extension of governmental dictates, or a lack of natural resources to sustain a society. Large nations become over-reaching in their desires and expectations and collapse under the weight of their inefficient bureaucracies. Societies degrade and lose cohesion. Unlike religious based “end times” where all mankind ultimately perishes to the lakes of hell or the promises of heaven, most real-life “end times” represent little more than drastic change from what came before them. “End times” signify a passing of the guard, as it were, from one type of human condition to another.

And so as we approach another potential “end time” in human history, I can’t help but wonder how people will react when it becomes only too obvious to the majority that their fiddles can’t play fast enough or loud enough to drown out the reality of the situation.

As our perfect storm of resource scarcity, continued population growth, and interdependent economies based on cheap and plentiful oil converge, how will humanity fare? Will those who remain rise from the ashes of our near past to replicate the errors, taking advantage of a smaller population to extend the fragile resources left today? Will we devolve into another Dark Age period, ruled by superstitious and supercilious religious leaders?

In the possible (and perhaps even probable) face of such looming societal breakdown, it sometimes becomes hard to focus on the minutiae of current political desires or societal problems. In the face of potential societal collapse, how important really are the political problems of the day? Yet we can’t completely give up either, because we are human. And the human condition is one of hopefulness, creativity, and reactionism. Even when we can see intellectually that things are going sideways fast, we resist the temptation to throw in the towel and hide our heads in the sand. We infuse ourselves with the notion that our ingenuity will save us, despite some evidence to the contrary. And even with such troubling times ahead, even with great changes in lifestyle all but guaranteed, we continue to collectively play our fiddles. But not because we don’t actually care about what is happening. Rather, we play in the face of what is happening, because we see no ready solution to the end of cheap and plentiful oil and no interconnection between how we drive and what we eat. As a whole, we not only don’t believe the end is near, we deny that it can ever come. And so we continue to live as if things will all work out fine. Because if we let ourselves believe otherwise, we’d have a lot of scared, crazy people to deal with on top of the rest. But ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away.

To the absolute deniers, I may be just another crock in the crazy world of internet doomsayers. But in all truth, I continue to play my fiddle too, albeit with less vigor than before and with only one eye on the sheet music. You see, I want society to figure things out. I want humanity to continue to exist, to improve, and to realize that as a species, we are not only intimately connected to each other, but to our planet as well. But I’m also taking small steps to prepare for economic collapse, making contingency plans, and looking at the evidence with eyes wide open. If really bad times do come to pass I don’t want to be caught completely uneprepared. And I don’t want you to be either.

I’m not trying to drive unsubstiantiated fear into your heart , dear reader. I’m not a Republican. I’m just calling it like it looks. And I’ve honestly never wanted to be more wrong about anything like I want to be wrong about this. So I continue to live from day to day, acting in one sense as if not much will really change. But I also am trying to make a plan because I just don’t see a way around it. And I don’t want the blinders on any more.

So go ahead and tell me I’m crazy-just give me the evidence to back it up. Like I said, I’d really like to be wrong.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Even more interesting is the fact that the largest number of “new gay couples” live in traditionally “conservative” bastions of the nation. The report, issued by The Williams Institute of the UCLA Law Center, shows the biggest increases of self-identified same-sex couples came in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippe, and Tennessee, with a combined increase of 863%. Traditionally conservative mountain states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah and Nevada) showed an increase of 698%.

Clearly the effects of gay bashing are not having the desired results for the Religious Wrong. In fact, those states that do have laws on the books banning legal acceptance of same-sex couples had larger increases than those states who already formally recognize such unions. From the report:

-From 2000 to 2006, states that banned same-sex marriage had increases in
same-sex couples of 37%, exceeding the national pace of 31%.
-Places that
actually had voter referendums had even larger increases of 41%.
-Places with
no bans had an increase of 27%, below the national average.
-Conversely,
states that created formal recognition of same-sex couples had the lowest
average percentage increases in same-sex couples of 23%.

Since it is unlikely that there has been an increase in the number of people born with a predisposition towards homosexuality, one can only assume that public and social acceptance of homosexuality is reaching the point where many gay couples feel confident that “coming out” will not lead to the same kinds of backlash they could have expected to receive not long ago. So despite the vocal noise raised by the hatemongers and religiously bigoted zealots, by and large, the public is embracing the fact that some people are gay and that being gay is no cause for discrimination and no cause for personal fear.

There was a time when being anything but white and male were grounds for discrimination in this country. As the years have progressed we have shed many of those attitudes. Finally, we are at the cusp of shedding one of our last barriers to true equality in America. Those who continue to deny justice to homosexuals are being exposed for what they really are- small-minded, freedom hating, dinosaurs. So while real equality has yet to be achieved, it is wonderful to see that homosexuals are no longer content to hide in the dark shadows. It is even more wonderful to see that many, many Americans are helping them come out by admitting to themselves that sexual orientation is pretty irrelevant after all.

(hat tip to Salem-News.com)

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

From our first footsteps as modern humans, our species has moved forward, stretching our potential as we improved our mortal condition, each new step taking thousands of years before its imprint could be seen. It took humanity about 190,000 years to move from the Stone Age to the first human civilizations. The modern era begans about 12,000 years ago and includes the present time. In those 12,000 years though, it is in the last few hundred, and especially in the last half century, that human kind has shown that it might be ready to make the next step forward. At least, I hope we are.

Consider for a minute the advances of humanity during the Stone Age, so called because of the technological breakthrough and refinement of making tools out of stone. These early folks also had crude language and social skills, but were largely hunter-gatherer, subsistance types. But their mastery of fire, and eventual knowledge about natural pharmacology and animal behavior, in addition to their other skills, proved that they had mastered most of what any creature needs to endure: they knew the “how” of living. By the end of the Stone Age, the advent of agriculture was the icing on the cake, and the launchpad from which human beings leaped towards the next big move forward, they “why” of living.

Enter the rise of civilization, both ancient and modern, for aside from the technology, the mechanics haven’t changed all that much. For about the last 12,000 years, population centers in Asia and India, today’s Middle East and Egypt, the Mediterranean, and the lower Americas spawned people of thought and enterprise. Some formed the political structures, other the religious teachings, while still others turned towards the arts or the natural sciences.
For the first six or seven thousand years, civilization was tribal in nature, for lack of a better term. But about six thousand years ago the first “states” arose in Egypt, the Middle East and Indus Valley. These early pre-nations developed complex religions and infused them into the political structure and general culture of their societies, and eventually gave rise to the geopolitical map we know today. Through religious teachings and political-social mandates, humanity had provided himself with an answer to the “why” of living, and has spent the last 2000 years fervently fighting about which version is the truth. But to our credit, we have also managed to increase our knowledge about the world and the universe and the subatomic universe that makes up all matter. We have gained insights into the depths of our world and the folds in our brains. On the whole however, humanity has not been able to reconcile the faith of religion with the precision of science. Especially when the tenets of the religion can’t stand up to the empirical evidence or the modern times. Still, our technological prowess continues to expand at exponential rates, outstripping the mores of traditional religion with it’s sheer speed and marvel and engendering an expectation of self-satisfaction or greed that drives change. That, and religion continue to be the prime drive for billions of people, but that very individual drive, or rather the manipulation of it, may be the thing keeping humanity from taking the next step in our species’ evolution- the “what” of living.

Some will say we already have the “what” of living, that our religious faiths tell us what we should do. From an individual perspective, I may say, “Great. Glad that works for you.” But that’s not really the “what” I mean. Consider the change that took place when homo sapiens transitioned from Stone Age to The Age of Civilization. If ever there was an apt use of the night and day metaphore this would be it. And the leap from a human species dominated by religion and greed to one committed to bettering the entire species as a whole would be as dramatic.

Mankind has some serious challenges in the not-so-distant future and how (or whether) we work together to solve these issues will define the future of our species- the “what” if you will. It took our species 190,000 years to move out of the caves and into the light. It was a slow move, but we had the time and we had a common goal- to move forward. We’ve spent the last 12,000 years moving away from each other and our natural world. We’ve still moved forward, but hardly in concert. And increasingly, it seems that our only common goal is to destroy each other while asserting a particular religious philosophy or exploiting a particular resource. It would be a shame to spend another 188,000 years doing that. And quite frankly, I doubt we have that much time left on the clock if we keep going like this.

It is time to put religious differences down. It is time to put cultural differences down. It is time to put national greed aside. It is time to end provocations of war and acts of terror, both physical and economic. It is time to take the next step. And the funny thing is, you don’t have to give up your beliefs or selfish desires. After all, we didn’t stop using fire did we? You only have to be willing to refuse to allow those things to stop human progress, whether that comes from spacial colonization or ecological rejuvenation.

I think humanity can take the next step. I think there is a minority out there who are ready to put that foot forward. I just wonder when the rest of the pack is going to jump on board.

KNOCK, KNOCK…TIME TO WAKE THE FUCK UP!

For those of you who missed the news last week, an international body of scientists issued a report that determined for the first time that global warming is no longer a question, but a certainty and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. That’s pretty damn clear to just about everyone who isn’t heavily vested in the fossil fuel business, heavy logging industry, mining industry, or corporate ranching. (Hell, these folks know it too, they just fall into the ‘don’t give a damn category.) The question isn’t now what is happening, but rather what to do about it. And their answers aren’t easy or pretty. Or cheap.

One would think that if presented with an equation such as this- change nothing and risk certain environmental breakdown and possibly species extinction or change as much as possible to ensure a hospitable planet for your progeny- the answer would be a no brainer. But the people who actually have the power to move our societies in the right direction, the direction that moves towards mitigating and reversing the damage we’ve done, are also the people who are most resistant to doing so. They are the people controlling billions upon billions of dollars that could be thrown at this problem but they hold tight the purse strings, because they are too invested in the status quo, too content to bring in every last dime from their obsolete technologies while they ignore the consequences of them. They are the people whispering into the ears of lawmakers and filling their campaign chests to assure that nothing too drastic takes place too quickly. They are putting their own personal wealth and comfort above that of the entire human population. (I bet these same bastards get real pissy about second hand smoke though.)

Sadly, if the projections regarding our degrading climate are even partially right, the changes in just the next 40 years will be significant, including everything from severe droughts to excessive flooding. Polar ice melts and higher sea levels. But there’s more to the picture than just having to duke it out with Mother Nature. The cataclysmic changes brought on by severe, but localized and faily short weather problems will be traumatic to say the least, but it is the endemic, longer-term climate changes that will wreak the most havoc on humanity.

Humans are creatures of habit, but also a creature of our environment. For tens of thousands of years, our species has evolved under fairly static environmental conditions. We have adapted to a variety of climes, to be sure, and even adapted to multi-year weather shifts. But by and large, our climate has not varied significantly. Our social systems, our governmental systems, even our religious systems to a degree, have been created around particular geographic and environmental locations. To some extent, who we are is based on where we are. So what happens when where you are changes so dramatically that who you are is no longer applicable?
Consider the drought in Indonesia in the late 1990’s. Lasting over a decade, this drought did more than just starve people and animals of drinking water. It led to social unrest, famine, and strife that toppled an entire government. I wonder how those folks at the top of that social food chain ended up? I wonder how their money helped them? Did they flee and set up shop somewhere else? The Indonesian drought is just one example of how an entire social system can fall due to harsh environmental conditions in one place.

Now imagine that kind of drought spanning half the globe, or more specifically, the great ‘bread basket’ regions of the globe. Think our country would stay afloat and intact very long if we not only couldn’t feed half the world, but couldn’t feed ourselves either?

Sure, we’re not Indonesia…we’re more civilized here in the Western World, right? Try living for a few days without water and see how civilized you feel.

At the other end of the spectrum will be the flooding. Half of the population of this country is clustered along the coastlines. What will rising ocean levels do to the economy if those places are lost? Think our country will stay civil if that occurs? Think we’ll still be a ‘super-power’ then?
The science says that we are at a point where it will get worse than it is now regardless of what we do. For some, that is enough to throw up their hands and say, “Screw it. I won’t be here anyway when the shit really gets bad.” It’s amazing how little regard these people have for their children and grandchildren. Real bastards, right?

The science also says that we can take steps to lessen the damage and hasten a reversal. We can’t fix it for ourselves maybe, but likely we can fix it for the next generation or the one after that. But only if we begin now.

This goes beyond filling our recycle bins at the curbside. It goes beyond carpooling to work. These are individual efforts, and they do help. But the will not be enough. We need to pressure government and business to quit dicking around now. The future is here, and quite frankly, their money will be useless in a lawless world filled with brutish humans fighting for a drop of water or a raft to stay afloat.

I’m not worried so much about the ability of mankind to adapt to climate change. Humans are very adaptable creatures. But I am worried about society being able to adapt. And the longer we wait to start changing, the worse we will be for it.

Along with bringing out new technologies rapidly, we need to plan for contingencies like flooding metropolises or waterless regions. We need a plan on all fronts, and we need it yesterday. It seems that the average person gets all this. It’s the ‘leadership’ that is in denial.

Conservatives and corporatists have only one choice if they want to cling to their mighty empires of wealth and power (or even imagined wealth and power)- join the fight today. For as society dies due to climate change, so does your power and money. Think of it as an investment in your own future, and as a gamble you can’t afford not to take.

(Oh- and for the naysayers still afloat-yes, global climate has shifted over the Earth’s 4 billion years. It is natural too. But not like this, not this fast. Could the sun play a part? Maybe, but again, not this drastic, not this fast. What about when the dino’s died? That was a weather shift too, right? So climate is out of man’s control! Sure, super-volcano or asteroid or too many farting dino’s. So what? That was then, this is now. We made the mess, we need to clean it up.)

So there it is- what is the future of mankind in light of this new scientific report? Will we slowly fade ourselves away or will we vigorously fight to fix our fuck-ups?

Or maybe Bush will just declare War on Iran, spark WWIII, light up the nukes, and we’ll be extinct before any of this nasty weather stuff comes up.

(originally posted at Bring It On! )

My neighborhood was built in the late 1970’s. It would have been a ‘development’ then, but now it’s just a nicely kept, diverse neighborhood where the houses don’t all look the same and the traffic is pretty tame. When it was new, the developers established a set of CCR’s that would regulate how people upgraded their homes and enforce certain ‘community standards’ like how long you could keep your garage door open or how often you cut your lawn or what color you painted your house. While not quite a complete HOA, it had all the earmarks of one. But over the years, the CCR’s were slowly abandoned, in part because there were now around 300 homes in the area, but more because the neighborhood had maintained, and even increased it’s appearance and value.

But it seems that some in the area decided that the CCR’s need to be revived and enforced and have taken it upon themselves to make it happen. But here’s the rub…they were trying to do it all in stealth mode. They tried to exclude the vast majority of homeowners from any kind of decision process. They obviously went to the Karl Rove School of Dirty Politics and Stealth Control.

This seems to have started when a couple of neighbors, who obviously couldn’t satisfy their controlling natures with their own families, couldn’t solve a beef or two through so-called official channels. So first, they went around to the places they felt to be trouble spots. They took pictures. Then they went to select neighbors of those homes and invited them to a meeting. Although they claim to have picked people at random to invite, they couldn’t have been too random if they only selected people near their target zones. This was clearly a group picked for maximum sympathy with their cause. Or at least they hoped. And they were mostly right. From that first, small, hand picked meeting, they decided to have a second meeting at which it seems they were going to elect officers and resurrect the CCR’s. Unfortunately for them, there was a secret dissenter in their midst. And this man told the entire community about this secret attempt to wrestle each homeowner’s freedom right out of their hands.

About 200 homeowners attended the second, not meant to be publicized meeting and really gave these guys hell. They were certainly surprised by the size of the crowd and were not prepared at all. They had only a dozen printed agendas, an indication that they thought they were in the clear and could proceed as planned. They had reserved the community room under the name of Sea Mesa Home Owners Association Election Committee. They were planning to take over.

But then we all showed up. And they had to pedal pretty fast. They made their case about property values, and trouble spots, but each point they made, at least five people could point to its fallacy. There were original owners who had only praise for the way the area has improved. There were newer owners who said they moved here because of the diversity and lack of an active HOA. Eventually, these guys said they just wanted to see if there was any interest and were trying to find out how to go about that. Want to know if there’s interest? Fine. At least ten times, the assembled audience suggested we take a vote. And every time these guys said there was nothing to vote on. Finally someone just asked who had no interest in reviving the CCR’s and over 90% raised their hands. Yet still these guys decided to press on.

They were roundly defeated by the will of the community, but were too stubborn to accept the facts. They seem determined to be the enforcers of standards that they will decide should exist. But they will fail because the rest of us won’t let it happen.

This event, this miniature play of democracy, was like looking into a microcosm of our current government and administration. Both had a small cabal of people who wanted to control the actions of the larger group. Both cabals seemed indifferent to the majority will of the group. Both cabals used deceit, subterfuge, and slippery language to achieve their goal. But that is where the comparison stops. Because unlike the bigger picture that is America, my neighborhood has the balls to stop petty wannabe’s before they get a chance to become tyrants. We’re tired of giving an inch and losing a mile.

I am hoping that this real life example of average people coming together to stop needless authoritarianism is spreading. I hope that people all over this country are finally opening their eyes and seeing what their hearts and minds have told them is wrong. And I hope that we can collectively find the balls to put an end to the destruction of America, her people, laws, and freedom. Because if there is any silver lining to the disaster that is George Bush, it will be that Americans will once again wake up, take charge, and put America back on a good and moral path.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

According to the FBI’s latest annual uniform crime report, the Bush Administration is doing a spectacular job in combating what is surely this nation’s number one problem- marijuana users. In fact, more people were arrested for marijuana offenses last year than at any time in this country’s history. Over 770,000 people were cited for marijuana related violations in 2004, but nearly 90% of them were charged only with possession. I don’t know about you, but I feel much safer knowing that the supply of sandwich baggies will now surely increase with these people off the streets.

When are Americans going to stand up and say enough already? According to those same reports, over 96 million Americans have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime. That represents nearly a third of all people in this country. Of the 19.1 million regular users of illegal drugs, over 75% of those users choose marijuana as their drug of choice. Medical marijuana users notwithstanding (but currently prime targets for the Bush Justice Department), it would seem that marijuana is the drug of choice for a vast majority of people who would rather not drink alcohol for their weekend high. The simple fact of such widespread acceptance of what is basically a harmless intoxicant flies in the face of governmental attempts to eliminate the drug, which have been only marginally successful at best. In fact, studies show only a small decrease in usage among high school students since the beginning of the “Just Say No” and D.A.R.E. programs.

I have previously written about the drug war, its lunacy and wastefulness of people and tax dollars in my essay Ending the War on Drugs, but it bears repeating again. The War on Drugs is nothing more than a War on the American People, and not just those who use pot, but on all of us. Much of this increased enforcement is being done at the behest of the White House. It seems that tracking down pot smokers is of higher importance than tracking down terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

In study after study, marijuana has been shown to be less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and even many legal prescription drugs. In fact, the FDA has approved prescription medication that has as its main ingredients a simulated form of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The obvious hypocrisy of allowing those things to be legal while outlawing marijuana itself isn’t lost on most Americans either, who would rather see use decriminalized and treated than have smokers locked up. This war on pot serves only to create a criminal class where none should exist. It ties up precious tax dollars. It destroys honest, hard working people.

Legislators, for their part, are nothing more than cowards to allow this to continue unchecked. I have yet to hear of a single elected federal official even broach the subject of decriminalizing marijuana. Instead, they skirt the issue or march lockstep with the propaganda, claiming to fight for and protect Americans while allowing the feds to hunt down and lock up average, otherwise law abiding citizens.

The War on Drugs, especially the wrath against marijuana is a waste at so many levels it boggles the mind. Is this really the biggest problem we face today? If it isn’t, why are we wasting so much time and money to eradicate it? Decriminalization would save money and save lives. It would eliminate the black market trade, the gang turf wars, the illegal smuggling, overcrowded prisons; the list goes on and on.

Pro-Life or Pro-Birth?

It’s time to stop allowing the opponents of abortion to label themselves as pro-life. What they really are is pro-birth. They spend their time fighting over the rights of the unborn, the frozen embryo, and the sanctity of life inside the womb, yet turn around and gut social programs that would actually improve the lives of the very people they say they are fighting for. Talk about another case of speaking out of ones rear end.

Pro-birth advocates use religion as the main basis in their arguments against abortion, but when religion is turned back on them regarding the social responsibilities of society in general, they balk at the chance to be consistent in their beliefs. Pro-birth advocates are less about saving and improving the quality of life than they are interested in controlling the behavior of everyone with a penis or vagina. Their aim is not to protect and increase the quality of life, something that the term “Pro-Life” alludes to, but instead they seek to force a religious point of view, specifically their own, on to the rest of the world around them. Curiously enough, abortion statistics show that those of faith are just a likely to have an abortion as those without faith, and Catholics, who are staunchly anti-abortion (at least according to official doctrine) receive over 30% of abortions in a given year.

A true Pro-Life stance would include promoting a social atmosphere that provided accurate information about the cause of pregnancy without all the scare tactics of abstinence only programs. A Pro-Life stance would seek to make access to health care and education more important than punishing a poor, single woman and an unborn child to a lifetime of poverty for an error in judgment or poor planning. Pro-Life should mean working to improve quality of life for the living, defending the freedom of the living, and promoting the welfare of the living. Pro-Birth, on the other hand, cares only about making sure people are born and cares nothing for the circumstances they may be born into.

How many conservative “Pro-Lifers” are taking in the children who would otherwise be aborted? How many abortion protestors are offering to adopt and pay for the pre-natal care of young pregnant women? The answer is few, very few. Instead, these Pro-Birth advocates seek to make it more difficult for people to prevent pregnancy in the first place, as is evidenced by the this administrations refusal to let the FDA pass the Plan B morning after pill that could preclude any need for abortions at all. They go so far as to bemoan the recently discovered vaccine that prevents cervical cancer at a rate of 100% because it will diminish their arsenal in their abstinence only endeavors. (Abstinence only classes are quite the joke anyhow. Telling people with raging hormones not to have sex at any cost while they live in a society that is agog with sexual innuendo and imagery is like throwing a dead horse in a hungry lion’s cage and telling him not to eat. Guess what happens?)

For all their talk of activist judges and the rule of law, the conservative anti-abortion foes can’t accept the fact the abortion freedom IS the law of the land and has been for over 25 years. The fact that they continually seek to have these laws overturned shows again their own hypocrisy, since it is now them who seek to install activist judges who would re-legislate from the bench. For more thoughts on this, read my previous post, The Abortion Debate.

Like the War on Drugs, the abortion debate is nothing more than a smokescreen devised to demonize portions of the population while distracting the American people from the fact the their government is corrupt, uncaring, and unequal to the promise of freedom and democracy.

On the face of it, Zero Tolerance policies seem to make sense, especially in a society that is portrayed as increasingly dangerous and hostile. It is, in a sense, a natural backlash from a society that feels battered by crime and hatred. Kids going into schools and shooting up the place; little league coaches molesting children; gang bangers causing all kinds of havoc; we see these things and hear about them every day on the TV or in the papers and we want to protect ourselves. Zero Tolerance policies provide tough consequences for those who go beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior, hoping to reduce or eliminate those who would do so. Whether our communities are actually dangerous places or we want to prevent them from becoming so, Zero Tolerance policies look great on paper but actually provide a false sense of security while destroying the freedoms of ordinary people. The truth of the matter is not so much that Zero Tolerance policies can’t be effectively used, but rather we are using them against the wrong people.

Zero Tolerance policies are as much a part of our education system now as pencils and paper. But are they really making our schools safer for our children? Does expelling a kindergarten student for throwing a temper tantrum and throwing a crayon at the teacher make the rest of the kids safer? Was the child really a monster or just having a bad day? With Zero Tolerance we may not have a chance to find out since the first infraction results in expulsion. What about expelling a junior high school girl who brought a butter knife to school for the Home Economics class she was in, but instead of taking it right to the classroom like she was instructed, got sidetracked with some friends and discovered her mistake during the lunch break. Someone sees the knife in her backpack and next thing she knows, she’s being sent home indefinitely for carrying a concealed weapon. No matter the reason for the knife’s presence. With Zero Tolerance, no excuse is good enough. What about the high school sophomore who chooses to wear his “I Love Jesus” t-shirt to school? Do the children of atheist parents faint in his presence or go into convulsions? Does sending him home to change or face suspension really make the rest of the school safer? The problem with Zero Tolerance in our schools is that they lack any effort to use Common Sense and employ every effort to maintain a façade of impartiality and fairness, all the while destroying the academic careers of otherwise trouble-free kids for expressing an opinion that isn’t hate filled or inciting violence or for making an innocent mistake, which, by the way, is what growing up is all about. Rather than promoting a safe learning environment, these policies have only succeeded in making our schools more like the prisons we hope our children never visit as adults. Is this how we foster freedom and democracy in our children today?

Kids may be the most affected by the Zero Tolerance society, but adults encounter their fair share too. A classic example is our new and improved airport security policies. Aimed at giving the appearance of safety in aviation, the actual practices and enforcement of security policies are widely viewed as nonsensical, in large part because they seem to take every chance to avoid actually increasing security. At the security checkpoint, people are prohibited from carrying nail clippers, cigarette lighters, small letter openers, or other ordinary items beyond the metal detectors and x-ray machines. You can, however, have matchbooks or pilfer a butter knife from the lounge near your gate. Your shoes must be examined thoroughly, to ensure that they aren’t really bombs. But what if someone just started hitting someone else with his or her shoe really hard? Zero Tolerance would soon prohibit all shoes on flights. More extensive searches are made of old ladies walkers or infant carriers, especially those of Caucasian women despite the fact that the last people to hijack and use planes as weapons fit an entirely different profile.

And that is where the government applies it’s own version of Zero Tolerance. From a political perspective, Zero Tolerance policies are aimed not at reducing harmful behaviors, but at getting and keeping votes and power. Such policies include a ban on racial profiling in the case of suspected terrorism, a policy that completely disregards everything we know about the Islamic militant radicals who wish for an end of western civilization. This is not to say that all Middle Easterners are terrorists or that all terrorists are Middle Easterners, but at this point the preponderance of the evidence shows that focusing on these kinds of folks will likely yield higher safety quotients than harassing Granny at the subway station will. Politicians have also created an all-encompassing Zero Tolerance attitude with respect to opposing political parties and ideologies, following the example set for them by their religious or special interest or corporate benefactors. In this case, there can be little or no dissent within the ranks. Any disconnect between the party line results in censorship at best, marginalization or expulsion at worst. That’s hardly an inspiring atmosphere for national political discourse that affects all our lives. Nothing says freedom like stifling opposition opinions.

Strangely enough, that segment of society truly deserving of a Zero Tolerance policy is the one we seem to give Unlimited Tolerance to, namely the heinous criminals who murder our friends, rape our children, destroy our financial lives, and erode the public trust. To these people, society (through the politicians and PC idiots) has a seemingly unending supply of tolerance. It shows in the way we release them from prison early (or at all) despite their horrific crimes. It shows in the way juries defy all Common Sense and free obviously guilty people. It shows in the way that the courts toss out evidence that proves guilt or innocence because of insignificant technicalities. If ever a portion of society earned a reputation for needing a Zero Tolerance policy, it is the people who commit the worst acts on other people. Yet somehow, their behavior gets excused.

Zero Tolerance fails because it assumes that all people think the same, act the same, and are equally dangerous. It focuses only on the perceived infraction, establishing that an infraction actually occurred, and then proceeds directly to the harsh punishment attached to that act. It cares nothing for rational explanations or opportunities for learning and growth; it cares only about punishing and setting an example. It slowly drives away individuality and replaces it with a wariness of each other and an expectation of privacy invasion. Zero Tolerance is a forced trade off between the public and the government. We give up some autonomy and you give us security. Instead, we give up our ability to teach our kids and identify real problems for the mere appearance of security.

Perhaps most troubling of all though, is the fact that Zero Tolerance naturally embraces conformity and punishes individuality. This is a great benefit to the power brokers in the capitols across the country, but it spells doom for the average person. As we continue to indoctrinate our children and ourselves with the notion that Zero Tolerance is the only sure way to security, and as we perpetuate an environment of distrust, we will eventually become a parody of ourselves, screaming for freedom as we build walls around ourselves.

At the heart of most religious thought is a concept of God as either an actual entity or natural force that is responsible for the creation, proliferation, and continuation of all life on this planet. (Further references to “God” should be viewed as referring to either version of god without regard to which one is chosen.) God is benevolent, omniscient, and the only true source of pure love or harmony. God is also unpredictable. Humans, according to religious theory, exist to serve God through reverence to the wonders of life and through acts of peace towards each other. Simply put, God is good and giving. God loves peace and kindness. God wants people to be good and kind too. We also need to please God because God is unpredictable. If we are not good or kind or peaceful, if we are not good stewards of the planet and its life, then God may punish us. Therefore, we should be good and kind and peaceful in order to please God. If this represents a kind of universal definition of god, then any arguments between schools of religious thought must necessarily be less substantial than would appear at first glance, focusing not so much on the concept or substance of religion itself, but rather on the human qualities of it; the rituals, the rules of worship, the mythology or history of each particular sect.

If religion is what you get when man and god commune, organized religion is what you get when men commune about god, and then decide that their ideas are the only right ideas, at least as far as God is concerned. In truth, organized religion is nothing more than another form of politics. By seeking to control not only the image of God, but also the method of communing with God, organized religion seeks to control humanity by closing the door to individual interaction and replacing that with a “gatekeeper” mentality. By establishing a human theological hierarchy, organized religion asserts that humans can have a relationship with God only by adhering to specific ritualistic actions that are designed to keep believers attached to the church (or mosque, temple, shrine, etc.) Further, specific religious doctrine relating to the characteristics of God as well as proper human behavior were developed to differentiate belief systems from each other, serving to establish human rivalries regarding religion. By insisting that only through the constructs of organized religion will people be able to find a relationship with their god, religious leaders are able to consolidate their power and influence over the lives of individuals who need the concepts of religion to complete their own journey through life, but were convinced that they could not realize that goal outside the larger umbrella of organized religion. (Strangely enough, the original religious prophets of many major religions actually did just that- they set out to find their own version of God for themselves. I wonder how the adherents of the faiths they helped organize would perceive their actions today?)

Organized religion teaches people that there is only one path to god and all other ways are false. Organized religion often offers ways to make amends for transgressions in our lives, either through some form of penance or payment, thereby excusing us from our negative behavior without serious consequence or remorse. But organized religion is not a construct of a god, it is a construct of mankind, and therefore is filled with all the negative character flaws inherent in mankind. By insisting that one’s brand of organized religion is the only true way, it is a short step to determine that all other religious thought is false at best, or just plain dangerous. In truth, the only real danger lies in the loss of power for those who seek to lead their respective religions and societies.

Organized religion is the conformation of the masses under one religious ideology for the consolidation of power over public behavior. Organized religion is about reinforcing religious theory through continual repetition, acceptance over substance, and absolution over actions. Organized religion is a contract between the rulers and the ruled, allowing the rulers to maintain the reins of power while the ruled can maintain their human existence without losing a chance at eternal joy. Organized religion is not really about promoting religion at all. Organized religion is about keeping people in the fold.

In the three main monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, no new major revelations from God have been received for centuries, if not millennia (with the exception of the Christian offshoot, The Mormons, who ascribe prophet status to their founder, Joseph Smith.) Therefore, all changes or reinterpretations of the original words of those long-ago prophets, be they Moses, Jesus, or Mohammad, are not changes from God, but adaptations made by man. One wonders if the words of God can be so easily adapted without changing the underlying concept of God then perhaps the words were never really those of God at all, but just of men trying to establish organized religions. But if all three prophets did receive “the word” directly from God, why would the message be different to each of them? Especially when they all share a common concept of whom or what god really is?

If we get back to the concept of religion being an individual journey, the need for organized religion becomes moot. Even the concept of needing a “house of God” for worship and reflection is one borne not from the religious concept, but from the desires of man to congregate with others of similar belief systems. Organized religion seldom achieves what it professes to achieve. It does not offer freedom of religious thought or enlightenment. It does not offer a barrier free path to commune with God. It does not provide assistance to the downtrodden with “no strings attached.” In all cases, organized religion seeks to use the concept of a higher power to control humanity. In most cases, organized religion succeeds in convincing humanity that different religions are not only wrong, but are dangerous. The desire of man to consolidate power through the use of religion has caused more pain and suffering that any other human institution, from the Inquisitions to the Intifadas, from the Holy War to the Holocaust. In essence, these and other conflicts merely used religion as a way to consolidate power and wealth into the hands of a few while keeping the many appeased and at bay.

The hypocrisy of organized religion is probably the most troubling aspect of all. While religious doctrine describes expectations for human behavior, organized religion creates exceptions to all of those rules. No killing, except for infidels. No stealing, except from the public coffers. No idolatry, unless you worship power or money. The list could go on, but the point is clear.

Perhaps it is time for organized religion to release its grip on humanity and allow a return to individual religious experiences. After all, the rituals and specific allegories of the prominent religions of the day serve not so much to answer the burning questions of life and death, nor do they seek to connect people to each other or to God. Perhaps it is time for less emphasis to be placed on particular religious theories and more on a universal concept of God and behavior, a concept that embraces many different paths to a higher force and that not only espouses the concepts of peace, compassion, and connectivity to each other and the world, but that actively pursues those lofty ideals.

Yet in an increasingly expensive society, where trips to the museum or sporting event or theme park can set families back a hundred bucks or more, movies, television, music, and video games are becoming the cheapest source of entertainment for many families. And with parents most likely spending more time working than with their kids, children are increasingly being nurtured by the glowing boxes in our living rooms and bedrooms. We are easily into our second, if not our third television generation, and the effects on our society could only be described as dismal. Children become desensitized to violence before they even know what violence really is. They become entranced with physical appearance and relationships before they can even properly bathe themselves without help. They become obsessively materialistic before they can appreciate the value of money. And they have a difficult time differentiating between reality and fantasy. Today’s children grow up in a world full of promise and technological advancement, yet all we seem to be offering them is the same kind of entertainment enjoyed by ancient civilizations: gladiator-like violence, rapacious sexual play acting, and extreme caricatures acting in stereotypical, but unrealistic, manners.

Art, they say, is just a reflection of life. But what happens when the reflection is turned back upon itself? What then? Entertainment executives, when pressed about “family entertainment” often exclaim that there are plenty of options for parents and kids, and that no one is forcing people to watch, listen, or play with their products. And to some degree they are exactly right. But they also say that they only give the public what the public wants, and this is where their disingenuousness shows through clearly. In reality, the public gets what they executives think will get them the most return on their investment, either through commercial advertising, merchandising efforts, or direct sales. And the public, for the most part, reinforces this perception by continuing to consume all that they have to offer. But, again, if all that is offered is of the same ilk, what real choice does a consumer have?

Unlike most denouncements of the entertainment industry though, this is not a call for government regulation or censorship. This is a call for Common Sense. And it is a call to parents and entertainment executives alike. For though it is hard to evidence with hard facts, it seems obvious that there must be a direct correlation between the attitudes and actions of our society and the things we see or do for entertainment. It is easiest to perceive in children, and unchecked or unseen, the things we learn as kids shape who we become as adults. Children are mimickers, it is how they learn what is and what is not acceptable. They see someone act a certain way and they emulate that behavior. They have no innate concept of right or wrong until we teach them. Yet the insidiousness of today’s mass entertainment is that it reinforces socially negative behavior through its subtleties. Seemingly innocuous programs for kids often depict parents and adults as aloof providers who offer little real guidance and nary a scrap of discipline while the kids are know-it-all super heroes, capable of solving any problem in just under 30 minutes. After weeks and weeks of ingesting this kind of fantasy, children unconsciously adopt the behaviors of their television role models, creating havoc in the home and school and disrespecting their parents and teachers. And these are the least harmful attitudes they adopt.

So what should be done? After all, we don’t want entertainment to be exactly like reality since the whole point of entertainment is to forget for a while our own complicated lives. And certainly, we shouldn’t prevent adults from viewing or enjoying violent or sexy cinema if that is their choice. In truth, I enjoy a good war film, suspense mystery, or lusty love story from time to time. I listen to rock and roll music as well as love songs. But as an adult, I have both the life experience to understand what I am seeing or hearing and the established sense of behavior to know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable actions. As a parent, I have to recognize that my child does not have these same attributes, yet, and it is my job, not mass media’s, to teach them.

I am a big proponent in turning off the television. As parents, we need to engage our kids more often than our busy lives sometimes seem to allow. If there needs to be censorship of modern mass media, it is first and foremost our jobs to be the censors for our families. Parents need to remember that children will not raise themselves, at least not in a socially responsible manner, and that the decision to become a parent means that life does not carry on as before. Sacrifice of our own personal desires are a necessary element of raising children, which sometimes means missing our favorite sit-com and reading to our kids. Or playing a board game. Or taking walks around the neighborhood. Or staring up at the stars. If you don’t feel comfortable listening to sex jokes and fart noises with a four year old, turn off the TV and do something else. If you don’t want your ten-year-old thinking that girls must be thin, blond, and sexy to be beautiful, turn off the TV and talk to your kids about individual self worth. If your 13 year old seems obsessed with war and weaponry, don’t buy the newest shoot-em up video game and then leave him in his room for all hours to master the skills of street killing. Use some Common Sense.

This is the only effective means of getting mass media to change the menu of offerings. By turning off the television, by not buying the games, by going to the park instead of the movie theater, parents can send a more effective message to the entertainment industry. By not supporting what they have to offer, they will be forced to give us something else or go out of business. PBS is perhaps the last bastion of quality children’s television, yet the politicians and the corporate broadcasters want to kill it off. This should tell us something about their true motives, since PBS is also non-commercial and tax exempt.

The industry has proven to be ineffective at controlling themselves. Government has no role in legislating entertainment, except when it crosses the line into illegality. Therefore, it is up to us to call for change. It is not a push to eliminate the violence or sex from entertainment altogether. It is a call for industry movers and shakers to dedicate themselves to creating family movies and programs that are both fun and responsible. It is a call for parents to be more parental and more involved with their kid’s entertainment choices. And it is a call for families to spend more time doing things together and relying less on mass media to teach and entertain us.

Philanthropy is just a fancy word for giving without expecting something in return. Americans in general are a generous people. When natural disasters strike, we pull out our checkbooks to help our neighbors or strangers half way around the world. We donate hard goods by the truckload, devote our time to help others, and give blood so others can live. We give to our favorite charities to save the forests or feed shelter pets or fight cancer or give vaccinations. Most of the time we seek nothing in return, except maybe an occasional “thank you,” because the good feelings that charity generates are often reward enough.

Businesses and governments engage in philanthropy for entirely different reasons. Since they are not people they can’t feel, and thus get no actual fulfillment from their philanthropic efforts. Most often, donations of cash or goods from businesses to schools or hospitals (among others) are done for financial reasons, either to increase “charitable” tax deductions or to unload excess stock that can be written off the tax forms as well. The more they give the less they owe. But businesses get a fringe benefit when they engage in donations by way of consumer gratitude that may translate into consumer purchases, giving the donating company an increased profit margin on top of the lower tax liability. Clearly, although their donations are helping others, their motives aren’t as pure as those of private individuals who give because they care about people.

The role of philanthropy in government is one of diplomatic bargaining, and thus it becomes a stretch to call it philanthropy at all. Every “gift” a government offers comes with strings attached, in the form of strategic concessions or financial openings or secret deals. The bureaucracies designed to oversee the dispensing of this aid are bloated with waste and graft so that by the time the actual aid has made it to the people it was meant to help, only a fraction of the original amount remains. Some estimates put the figure at 40 cents of each dollar. Further government restrictions on aid (often ideological in nature) even keep approved aid resources away from the people who need help because of ego battles between government officials. It would seem then that government giving is the least altruistic of all the types of philanthropy.

Boiled down into simple terms, you might say that people give to help others, corporations give to increase profits, and governments give for political gain. Still, they are all giving, and to the extent that their gifts reach the intended recipients, they are all helping people who need it. As the richest country in the world today, the United States government, American companies, and individual American citizens could be considered the most philanthropic society in history, each sector giving hundreds of billions of dollars to charities and aid programs each year. But even though this outpouring of generosity is the key ingredient to philanthropic works, equally important is the level of gratitude from those who are receiving the help, and this often depends on the motives of the giver.

It would seem that our spirit of giving would bring us many friends and allies in the world, but too often that doesn’t seem to be the result of our efforts. American charity is tainted by the profit motives of companies who exploit the labor forces of poor countries under the guise of economic assistance. And our governmental aid policies are designed not so much to help actual people but to use as a carrot and stick approach to international dealings with other governments. To the people who need the assistance, these political games are often the difference between life and death, and with each unfulfilled promise of help because of minor ideological differences, their attitudes become ever more jaded. American generosity becomes not a welcome gift from friends, but a gift only the very desperate or very wary will accept. But private organizations funded with private donations from average Americans still enjoy some semblance of thanks, perhaps because they go more directly to the people with their help and not through the mazes of bureaucracy.

It has always been human nature to be envious of those who have a great deal more that you do. This is the position Americans find themselves in today. Billions envy our freedoms to speak and worship. They envy our material wealth. They envy our health and our homes and our opportunities. And even though we give out the most money in real dollars, the United States ranks near the end of the “wealthier” nations in percentage of gross national product that is given in aid. So not only is much of our aid given with strings attached, and our political desires pressed with vigor, we’re seen as miserly too.

Philanthropy is defined as the effort to increase the well being of humanity and promote human welfare by charitable aid or donations. But it does nothing to increase the welfare of humanity if it can’t also increase the compatibility of cultures. Giving aid to another should tighten the bonds between people, not drive them farther apart. After all, what good does it do to help save or improve the life of another if they only grow up despising you and wanting you dead? Our governments must work harder at getting food and medical aid to the people who need it by eliminating much of the red tape and egocentric negotiations. It’s time to stop looking the other way at regimes that take our aid dollars and keep it for themselves. It’s time to stop trying to convert cultures to our own in exchange for infrastructure investments or educational assistance. It’s time for businesses to extend the same working conditions we expect here to their foreign workforces, as well as increasing their own “no strings attached” monetary contributions.

Giving shouldn’t be about political gain or strategic advantage or increased brand loyalty. It shouldn’t be about personal recognition or individual profit. Giving should come from the heart, expecting nothing more than an honestly felt thank you and hoping for a chance to expand peace, freedom, and prosperity.