When We Die

One of these days you will be on your death bed.  When that time comes, you will have to look back on your life and see whether or not you are ashamed of who you were and what you did.  Did you spend your life spreading goodwill, generosity, and kindness?  Did you spend that time trying to build up treasure for yourself you won't be able to bring with you?  What sort of unethical things might you have done to build up those riches? 

If you invent a cure for a disease and make money while making the world a better place, then you deserve  it.  But if you spent your life deceiving and manipulating others to gain wealth, or simply acted as a parasite on the system, then shame on you.  The horror of horrors is the privilege of looking back and seeing that your life was wasted.

Studies have shown time and again that the rich believe themselves more entitled than others.  As a group, they give less to charity and report more willingness to lie and cheat to maintain their riches.  No wonder the Bible says "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."  Matthew 19:23-24.

Our society celebrates the life of Steve Jobs, a man who used his genius to build a company which restricts its customers, manipulates people, and treats its overseas workers poorly.  Most people have never heard of Richard Stallman, the man who invented the GNU operating license, which gave us free and open source software.  This is the type of open and free software which is used in Android mobile phones, NASA satellites, Internet servers, and many other applications.  Stallman was considered a computer genius who instead of focusing on profits, spent his life giving back and trying to make the world a better place.  Jobs spent his life building walls to enslave people while Stallman spent his trying to tear down these walls.

American society is still infested with the stench of the Protestant work ethic and the insane notion that people who are rich are better people who deserve what they have.  While many rich people are deserving, there are some rich people who have become so by swindling others--think of Wall Street bankers who orchestrated the prime loan meltdown, corrupt executives, and politicians who enrich themselves through greed and corruption. 

America hates its poor.  If you are poor, the notion is that it is your fault because you are either lazy or stupid.  This means you deserve to be subject to all sorts of indignities to make sure you feel even more useless just for surviving--these include drug tests for welfare recipients, making children who receive free lunches work after school, and the like.  Corporate executives who received bailouts for the companies they bankrupted were spared such indignities.  The bonuses went out like usual. 

The system is set up to be diseased and incentivize the wrong things.  But individuals have their choices as well.  If you are extremely talented and you use your talent to do something harmful, even if you are well paid for it, you are better off never having used that talent.  Adolf Eichmann may have been an efficiency and planning virtuoso, but his use of these skills to organize the murder of millions on an industrial scale is no excuse.  He would have been better off being a janitor.  At least then he would have do no harm.  Those who are blessed with the most talent are expected to have more responsibility.  Privilege brings responsibility.

The trick is not entangling yourself with burdens you must meet.  Debt for luxury items is one example.  Once the credit card companies have their teeth stuck in you, you become a slave to your paymaster.  That means fudging ethics when necessary.  Live simply.  Need little so little can be expected of you by those with the purse strings.  Move through life trying to do as little harm as possible.  If you have gifts, use them for good, not evil.  If the world has never heard of you and thinks you are a loser, that means you are probably on the right track.

We Make God In Our Own Image

It has been said that we are made in the image of God.  This may be objectively true, but it is not true subjectively.  The truth is that we make God in our own image.  If we are fearful, hateful, ignorant, obsessed with control, and filled with anger, then our image of God will have those qualities.  If we are filled with love, kindness, generosity and compassion, then our God will look like that.

Our notion of God has nothing to do with any real qualities God may possess.  God's qualities are quite apart from our imaginative projections.  The danger comes in when people create a golden calf like version of God and then use it to bludgeon others. 

God cannot do whatever He wants and still remain a being worthy of worship.  If God really does commit atrocities, he doesn't get a pass just because he has the power to condemn someone to hell.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  If God does evil, he is no longer the ultimate being worthy of worship.  As such, God doing evil is a logical impossibility.  For the same reason, it is absurd to imagine God acting like a spiteful dickhead as described in many of the Old Testament stories. 

If you worship God because you fear hell, then you are only acting out of selfish interest.  True principals are not conditioned upon one using strength and intimidation to control another.  The truly righteous man would thus have no choice but to give God the middle finger and happily depart to hell.  For these reasons, I reject the image of God described as an almighty tyrant, demanding supplication and using fear to control people.  If God is not one of love, compassion, and persuasion instead of coercion, I have no use for Him and gladly open my arms to eternal hellfire.

Thankfully we see an image of God best represented in the life and death of Jesus Christ.  Jesus brought a fuller picture of God, one who suffers for us and who offers himself in sacrifice for others.  He was one of healing and compassion for the most sick and vulnerable.  Jesus made demands that were principled and required much.  Jesus shows us an image of God worthy of worship, one who goes beyond what humanity ordinarily offers.  It moves beyond our feeble projections to show an image of God that really matters.

True love drives out fear. 

Hide Your Wallet

Whenever someone starts to appeal to fear--whether it be your plumber, exterminator, pastor, or politician--hide your wallet, because a swindle is coming.  It's no secret that fear is an incredible motivator.  It can overcome our more rational brain and cause us to make irrational decisions which can quickly separate us from our money. 

The appeal to fear is the foundation of the "War on Terrorism," which is nothing more than a way for politicians to make a mad grab for power at the expense of everyone's privacy and freedom.  The statistical probability of actually being killed by a terrorist attack is miniscule compared with real dangers, such as heart disease, cancer, and smoking cigarettes.  Yet compared to the risk, the money and cost of freedom and privacy spent to attack terrorism is totally out of proportion.

Politicians like to use fear to get us to vote for them.  Instead of discussing issues, it is easier to rely on mudslinging.  Better to make us fear the other candidate than to state our positions rationally.  The sad thing is that this works.

It takes work to counter our more primitive, fearful natures.  But in a world of atomic weapons, industrial grade weapons, and chemical warfare, we cannot afford to continue being tribalistic and seeing the world as divided into us, "the good guys" and them, "the bad guys."  The world is more complex than that.  The issues aren't always so black and white.  Our very future depends upon looking past fear and embracing the virtues of openness and understanding.

The GOP's New Attempts to Attack the Affordable Care Act

Turn on the television and you hear nothing but a litany of false cries from the GOP about how Obama "lied" because he promised prior to the passing of the ACA that folks would be able to keep their current policies if they wished but now insurance companies are cancelling individual policies.  The reason for this is because such policies do not comply with the minimum requirements of the new health care law.  These policies were cheap, high deductible policies which covered very little.  The ACA requires that a baseline of health care services are covered by health insurance policies.  The reason for this is to ensure that all people receive preventative health care services and that a minimum standard of care is guaranteed for all citizens.  The ACA protects against individual policies which formerly cost little but provided little and were essentially worthless.  These policies needed to be abolished anyway because they were essentially ripping consumers off.

But instead of sharing this information in a truthful manner, opponents of the new law are using it as an opportunity to attack the president and the new law.  This is just as much of a lie as anything the president has told, however, because they are failing to mention that the cancellation of these policies will essentially be good for consumers because they will be able to get new policies through the health care exchanges which cover more and are a better value anyway.

Turn on the Obama Hate Channel (aka Fox News), and you hear nothing but how the healthcare.gov website has been a debacle and how Kathleen Sebelius must resign.  While the roll out of the website has been flawed, the attempt to get Sebelius to resign is designed to help derail the ACA by then causing several months of contentious confirmation hearings and attempts to delay implementation of the law.

It is unbelievable how stingy and backward this nation is compared with other industrialized nations.  The current GOP opposition is exactly the same nonsense they pulled when Social Security was passed during the Roosevelt Administration and during the Great Society legislation passed by LBJ.  The notion that as a society we must all contribute a little bit and share so that all people can receive life sustaining medical care isn't complicated.  It's patently obvious.  As I mentioned in prior articles, the real issue is the fear of uptight whites that blacks, immigrants, and "lazy" whites might get something for nothing.  They'd rather watch this country burn then see that happen.  If a few million innocent children, disabled, elderly, or very sick people die in the process, so be it. 

As a society, we cannot afford to have people continuing to use the emergency room as their primary care provider.  This is terribly expensive, inefficient, and harmful to people who have real medical emergencies.  Demanding that all people buy health insurance or pay a penalty is a way to avoid mooching by those who might otherwise go to the ER where they cannot be turned away for financial reasons.  If you don't want to buy health insurance, too bad.  You always run the risk of getting hurt in a car crash or having a heart attack.  These events will cause you to use the medical system and you won't be able to afford the cost of paying the hospital and doctor bills yourself.  This means everyone else must pay your way.  This is the true injustice that naysayers of the ACA refuse to acknowledge.

Despite the pathetic attempts of the GOP to derail the ACA, it is going to be implemented, whether they like it or not.  I just hope that during the next election, voters hammer their asses for being so obstructionist.  The sooner there are less members of the Tea Party in Congress, the better.

Good riddens.

Why the GOP Wants to Defund Obamacare

Despite being passed into law and surviving a Supreme Court challenge, the Affordable Care Act, sarcastically called "Obamacare" by the GOP, is still facing challenges from Tea Party enthusiasts and other members of the House GOP.  Tonight the federal government will shut down as the House refuses to allow the debt limit to be raised without Obamacare being delayed.

It's hard to believe that a group of people can be so contemptuous of a bill that allows everyone to have health insurance and helps reduce the long term costs of health care.  They would rather tank the economy than allow those whom they believe to be undeserving to receive health care subsidies.  This smug, self-righteous attitude is what fobs itself off as modern day "conservativism."  If this means fucking over the elderly and disabled who won't receive their Social Security money, or troops serving overseas, then so be it.  

You would think that most Americans would be tired of the brinksmanship and game playing.  But because the Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to suit Republicans, they will keep getting elected and holding this nation hostage.  It's embarrassing.  Other nations see these antics as ridiculous and backward.  America looks like a puritanical wasteland, filled with uptight whites who can't stand the notion of a bunch of blacks, Mexicans, and white rednecks whom they see as being lazy trying to get "free stuff."  They would rather be damned than allow that to happen.

I do blame some of this on America's excessive whiteness.  It is terribly uptight when it comes to sex and work--the two areas that show America's puritanical beginnings.  We love to get upset when Miley Cyrus twerks on TV or when Ronald Reagan tells his stories about welfare queens driving Cadillacs.  Your average uptight suburban white has a heart attack if you don't mow your lawn once a week.  Uptight whites are obsessed with nosing into the business of their neighbors and telling them how to live.  When they aren't doing this, they are busy supporting politicians who support intruding on other countries, forcing them to follow the "American Way."  This is the basis of American Exceptionalism--we are righteous white Christians who have the truth and we are going to impose it on others whether they like it or not.

The good news is that America is changing.  The uptight white stranglehold is being loosened.  Whites aren't multiplying fast enough to keep up with those of other races, which will hurt them at election time.  Many of these rising minorities grew up with different values, and these values rarely reflect those of white, suburban and rural America.  The day of reckoning for the GOP is coming.  

The sooner the better, I say.

Should We Bomb Syria?

Despite attempts at obfuscation, it is clear that the chemical attacks in Syria killing 1400 men, women and children were performed by the Syrian government run by Bashar Al Assad.  Medical personnel treating the victims described the attacks--victims had blisters in their lungs which caused them to drown in their own fluids.  Rows of body bags with dead children bearing glassy eyes is not something you forget soon.  Any person who would order such attacks has lost his or her humanity.  From a moral perspective, such behavior cannot go unpunished because it sets a precedent that such attacks are okay.  War is gruesome enough.  But there needs to be lines which cannot be crossed.  Members of the global community have to draw lines and say that as human beings, there are certain forms of violence we simply won't accept, and gassing human innocent people like you are exterminating cockroaches or rats is totally unacceptable.

In his op-ed in the New York Times, Vladimir Putin makes the argument that if the U.S. decides to attack Syria on its own, against the wishes of the U.N. Security Council, then this promotes future lawlessness which will ultimately result in increased global violence.  As a general notion this is true.  However, there are some occasions on which we have to look beyond the letter of the law.  What if we were back during WWII and we knew that the Germans were killing millions on an industrial scale but the Security Council voted to do nothing about it?  While it would technically be a violation of international law to act unilaterally, from a moral perspective a strike which would end the mass killing would be required.  The only caveat to this would be if doing something unilaterally wasn't likely to work or if it might make things worse.  As it stands now, limited strikes by the U.S. to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles and strikes to damage Assad's ability to use them in the future is limited and not a means of widening the conflict.  The Obama administration had no plans to put American boots on the ground.  The plan was not for an Iraq style invasion.

There have been many criticisms of the Obama administration over his handling of this crisis.  While some may argue that Obama's turning over of the decision to attack Syria to Congress was a means of political coverage by leaving the fault with Congress, in fact this decision was, from a practical point of view, correct.  This set a precedent for future presidents to allow Congress to weigh in before military power is used.  For American democracy, this is a good thing given the last 30 years of unchecked presidential power.  Further, the debate is good for the country.  Now some are criticizing Obama by saying he appears weak by going along with Russian plans to have Syria turn over its chemical stockpiles and avoid a strike.  Innocent lives are at stake here.  An attack on Syria would involve the death of at least some innocent people.  At the end of the day, if this solution leads to Syria being chemically disarmed, this is a good outcome for everyone.  Worrying about "saving face" should not be the primary goal of U.S. military policy.  We don't live in feudal Japan.

In his op-ed piece, Vladimir Putin criticizes the notion of American Exceptionalism, the concept that America is some sort of unique country among all others.  He is right about this.  America, like any other country, has its strengths and its weaknesses.  It is one of the freest countries in the world with respect to free speech and religious freedoms.  Unlike Russia, you don't go to jail for criticizing the government.  But America is also one of the most harsh when it comes to criminal punishment.  It has more people incarcerated and for longer periods than any other modern industrial nation.  It has some of the worst health outcomes and most inefficient health care systems.  Other nations also believed they were special--Ancient Rome and the former British Empire also believed the same thing.  It is called ethnocentrism.  Religious folks call it "pride."  The danger of American Exceptionalism is that it leads to self-righteous and predatory behavior.  If you are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guy, then you can do anything and be justified.

While Putin is right about the dangers of American Exceptionalism, he is wrong about whether the U.S. would be justified in attacking Syria or not.  We must look beyond pure legalism as embodied in U.N. law.  An attack by the U.S. would not be American Exceptionalism, but the equivalent of the police sending in the SWAT team to stop a crazed madman from continuing a shooting spree.  Putin's ad hominem attack against the U.S. is a diversion.  The truth of the matter is that beyond his arguments is a strategic alliance to Syria that serves the economic interests of the Russian Federation.  He will say anything to protect that alliance.  If he can find moral grounds to make this defense, then so be it.

While Bashar Al Assad is a bastard and evil, the rebels fighting against him are the same or worse.  Many of them are members of Al Quaeda.  They have been known to commit atrocities themselves.  Some of them  have brutally murdered priests and other religious.  The moron John McCain is hell bent on arming them.  If the rebels win the war in Syria, things could be worse than they are now.  History shows that arming the Taliban when they opposed the Soviets in Afghanistan was a terrible idea.  It caused blowback and terrible consequences for the U.S.  In the long run, it would be better for everyone if Assad remains in power.  Giving the rebels weapons which will later be used against us is not a good idea.  Further, by giving them weapons, we change the balance of power and cause the conflict to continue longer than if we just let Assad win and restore a sense of order.  But this does not mean that if he refuses to disarm his chemical weapons, we shouldn't strike at these capabilities.

Obama has played this one out just fine.  There are many reasons to bust his balls, but his handling of this matter is not one of them.  

On Miley Cyrus and Her Twerk

"As long as Miley Cyrus is a slut I don't care...about anything"

--Troy Seman


Once again, America is shocked by another VMA show.  This year, the flavor du jour was little Hannah Montana twerking on Robin Thicke while he performed "Blurred Lines."  I guess she's "all grows up."  The performance by Miley Cyrus shouldn't have been a surprise.  History never fails to repeat itself:  female child stars attempting to make the transition to adult pop star generally follow a predictable path:

1.  As a child star, cultivate a wholesome image.  You probably worked for Disney.  Sell a ton of albums and remain cute looking.  You got the job because you are cute looking and somewhat talented.

2.  In the later teen years, start to do some solo work apart from Disney.  This material is usually popish and light.  Keep the wholesome image thing going.

3.  Around the age of 18 or so, cut off your hair, swear, get caught using drugs, drink heavily, and perform racy lyrics and songs.  Garner as much media attention and shock for yourself as possible.  The more sexually suggestive, the better.  Tattoos are a bonus but not required.

4.  After a few years of getting shock attention and putting out racy albums, you have the option of calming down a bit.  Either way, in your late 20's and early 30's, the world isn't going to be shocked by your behavior anymore.

This formula has worked for Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.  Failing to follow the formula risks you falling into irrelevance as you move away from being a child star to an adult performer.

As for Miley's performance at the 2013 VMA Award Show, even Robin Thicke himself said the entire thing was no surprise--his wife wasn't angered because the entire thing had been rehearsed for weeks before.  Like everything else, it was carefully scripted.  Television producers don't like surprises.

America is shocked by these things because of its puritanical roots.  We aren't shocked by extreme violence on television or the images of drone strikes.  Parents let their children see violent movies way before they are allowed to see sexually explicit material.  This is part of the cultural ethos of America and performers like Miley Cyrus know to to take this ethos all the way to the bank.

What shocked me about the performance was how incredibly ridiculous it was.  There were dancing teddy bears with giant asses.  Cyrus wore a skin tight, see through outfit with a teddy bear on it.  Ever since she decided to emulate Pink and go for the punk rock hairstyle, her hair looks like shit.  She kept sticking out her tongue to add to the shock value.  The entire thing was totally banal.  Unlike sexually suggestive performances by Lady GaGa that are at least somewhat artistic, this one just sucked.

Miley Cyrus can do whatever she wants, but I refuse to be shocked when I already know the formula.  It's just too canned to be believable.  My wallet is staying closed.