Solving the Budget Crisis - Anywhere.

The first rule of budgeting is to look at your costs and priorities. It's as true for governments as it is for people. You look at the various things you spend time and money on and you decide if they actually bring the benefit you once thought.

This is one very dramatic example.



Watch the whole thing, and then realize the overwhelming truth. A positive budget shift of more than 2 billion dollars more or less immediately upon stopping the drug war. In California. Alone. 2 BILLION dollars.

I don't have to be an advocate of recreational drug use or medical marijuana to make that argument. I just have to point out that flushing two billion bucks down the crapper in return for no good outcome, much less anything like the intended outcomes (other than getting politicians elected) is really very stupid.

Let's look at a few other things going on in society. Currently, the majority of incomes are static or going down. This is due mostly to pressure from right wing groups (social and fiscal) who see the solution to everything to be cutting taxes and defunding "entitlement programs" like social services, medicare, etc.

On occasion, I do wonder if they ever think about consequences - at all. For some number of persons denied affordable health care for a loved one or a shot at a decent job will certainly cook methamphetamine to cover expenses. They will certainly consider stealing a BMW to pay the rent.  That is to say, you increase the statistical motivation for crime while at the same time decreasing the ability of  government to statistically decrease and prevent crime. Well-educated people, for instance, tend to have more lawful options, so are less likely to resort to violent crime. At the worst, they are less likely to blow their apartment building up because they couldn't read instructions for cooking  a drug.

Let us also remember that every usage of government comes at the price of something else it could be doing. This is a point Judge Grey makes above; that drug wars come at the price of investigating and prosecuting other crimes which, obviously, should take priority - basic things like murder, rape and robbery.

But it's also less obvious that many things government does are best done because they have diffuse, widespread benefits. Things like public health and welfare; universal, affordable heath care, vaccinations, sewage treatment, even direct welfare programs. These have many diffuse benefits that are obvious only in their absence; allowing ourselves to be ideologically blinded to the macro benefits because the "wrong people" will benefit on the micro level is breathtakingly stupid. Karl Smith illustrates this point.

If we want to build a model of what the government spends money on we would be best to start this way: ask people what social obligations do they believe “society” has. Look around for the cheapest – though not necessarily most efficient – programs that could credibly – though not necessarily effectively– address those obligations. Sum the cost of those programs. That will be government spending.

Contrary to Jonah Goldberg and others who see Canada and the United States as examples of two clashing ideologies, they are actually examples of two different ethic distributions.  The United States is not Canada because there is ethnic strife between Southern Blacks and Southern Whites. That strife reduces the sense of moral obligation on the part of the white majority and so reduces government spending.

I want to be very clear that I don’t say this to paint those against social spending as racists. From where I sit I am betting that most of the intellectuals lined up against expanding the welfare state are naively unaware that their support rests upon racial strife. Otherwise they would realize that as America integrates they are doomed. They are fighting as if they believe they have a chance of winning. Given the strong secular trend in racial harmony, they do not.

I point this out also to show why the major Republican strategy for limiting government was doomed from the start and why I am also not particularly worried about Americas fiscal future per se.

Now, it's becoming increasingly clear - to me at least - that people tend to discount the price they are willing to see other people pay to create the sort of society they would prefer to live in. I'd like you to try and look at this objectively - of course, I would be expecting rather a lot of you to do that. But try to look at the following and say, hm, supposing this actually was a sane idea that could arguably accomplish something positive, how much would it cost, and would it actually make more sense than, say, taking a third of that money and opening drug rehab beds, while blowing the rest on - oh, I dunno, something silly, like flood control?

Dick Morris calls Ron Paul ‘horrific’

If only Dick Morris would tell us how he really feels about libertarians.

During a radio interview with Peter Schiff, a former economic adviser to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, Dick Morris thought he’d be talking about his new book, and seemed annoyed when he found himself discussing trends within the Republican Party.

Schiff, who said he noticed that nearly a third of the people he met at CPAC came from the “Ron Paul/Gary Johnson wing” of the GOP, with the rest in the more traditional conservative camp of Mitt Romney, asked Morris how he thought this would play out in the presidential race.
“I strongly oppose Ron Paul,” Morris said. “I think he’s horrific. He wants us to end the War on Drugs. He wants us to end the War on Terror.”

“Do you think we’re winning the war on drugs?” Schiff interjected.
“No, because we’re not fighting it,” Morris replied.

“We’re not fighting it?” Schiff asked. “We don’t have enough laws against drugs?”

“No,” Morris replied. “We should drug test every high school student. We should drug test everybody that gets a student loan. Anybody that’s using drugs should not get a government student loan.”

Schiff argued that there was something vaguely socialist about the government giving out student loans in the first place, but Morris disagreed, and became increasingly annoyed.

“Peter, I’d like to talk about my book, which is ‘Revolt: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal his Socialist Programs,” Morris complained. “You know what, Peter? You talk to yourself for the next 15 minutes. That seems to be what you want to do.”

And with that, he hung up.

Morris’s feelings about Ron Paul are not a secret, as he called him “crazy” in a column in 2007. But the drug testing for all high school students is new, as far as I can tell. Morris did not respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE: Morris emails to clarify: "Yes, I support drug testing for all high school students with those who fail getting rehab. I support drug testing for all recipients of student loans and those that fail should be tested again and, if they fail, the loan should be terminated."

Let me get this straight here. Socialism is bad, because it presumes that some central planner, some "bureaucrat" has inappropriate power over you, and of course, the obvious objection and argument, that such immense, overreaching structures with their arbitrary rules and institutional mentalities are woefully inefficient at doing anything cheaply or well... but collecting pee in cups along with SAT tests is somehow an exception to that rule? Derisive laughter is the only possible response!

Government is best done when it's focused on what people actually do need and how they actually will behave. It makes a terrible nanny. It does well when it does what it absent-mindedly can to make resources, information and spaces available so that people can most effectively help themselves. Oh, and the best reason for it to do that is because people will help themselves and those who they approve of, regardless of what any particular government might think of that proposition, or who they feel has the "God-Given right" to determine the fate of the majority of people.

Evangalists of Moloch

I'm addressing this blog post to my fellow Canadians and to any Ugandans who may encounter it by accident. I'm going to be forwarding it to the Ugandan High Commission in Ottawa and to the attention of my member of Parlement, for there are a number of issues that they should be considering. 

I don't give a flying fig about the sin of homosexuality. I'm not convinced of the argument and for me it's moot. And if it is a sin, it's mentioned as being fairly much on the level of mixing flax and wool in one garment.


It's not mentioned at all in the big ten - but the bearing of false witness, that's right up there. So, if you must throw stones, you might consider starting there. And I assure you, all the things stated about gay people by those responsible for agitating you all to commit what is a legal and moral abomination are liars and are bearing false witness in the precise biblical sense. 

It's not difficult to find out that there is a great deal of evidence that these people are lying, and very, very, very little evidence to suggest that anything they say is true. Even their use of the Bible is... dubious. 

But I'll leave that to you. Because of one, overriding issue: "Thou Shall Not Commit Murder." That's what this is about. You are being encouraged to murder your neighbors. 

Because a "priest" tells you that is a good idea - claiming to speak for God. 


Any child may be born gay, and we don't really understand how that happens. But the direct advice to you by these people as to what to do with such children is directly equivalent to sacrifice of children to satisfy an angry pagan god.



The Bible is very direct about what should happen to people who sacrifice children to their god.

A government, encouraged by supposedly religious people people are saying God is in favor of murder. You should probably have a pretty damn good idea as to where this leads, given Africa's history over the last hundred-odd years. I'm not even going to bother making a religious argument against this idea. If your religion says it's good - than your religion is evil. Walk away. 

There's More

Keeping the Moral High Ground.

A little reminder on the tactical and strategic value of maintaining the moral high ground.

t r u t h o u t | The Moral Character of Our Country: "What the revisionists fail to understand is that morality is not a tool of advantage for the strong and/or the privileged to be used and appealed to when it is in their interest to do so, and when it is not, to be modified, ignored, or manipulated. Nor is morality a prop, a façade through which we may proclaim our superiority and/or condemn others. If morality is to have any meaning at all, it must recognize as a fundamental principle the dignity and the rights - the lives and well-being - of ALL human beings. If we do not value persons, all persons, not just members of our particular community, religious group, ethnic group, gender etc., and respect their dignity and their rights, then all other things, whether it is property, possessions, national boundaries, the flag etc., lose their meaning and their value as well. Like justice, morality is blind and requires universal and equal application, holding everyone to the same standard. It is the hypocrite, the rogue nation, that attempts to modify the tenets of morality, or argues that it be ignored, or rationalizes loopholes (collateral damage) through which to pursue their individual or national interest.

Further, the refutation of revisionism rests not on moral argument only but on sound war fighting science as well. Contrary to the view of the revisionists, knowledgeable military tacticians who understand the nature of asymmetrical/counterinsurgency warfare, realize that despite what may have been the perception in the past, morality and military science share common concerns. Consider, for example, the status of noncombatants. While much mental effort has been expended explaining ('rationalizing' is probably better) that innocent deaths, though regrettable, are necessary and justifiable as collateral damage, both the moralists and the military theorists such as Gen. Stanley McCrystal, the commanding officer of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, agree that killing noncombatants is not only immoral and illegal but counterproductive to achieving the military goals necessary for success (victory) in asymmetrical/counterinsurgency war, i.e., winning the hearts and minds of the people. It has become clear, therefore, that morality and military science are fundamentally compatible and the move to abandon or 'modify' the former indicates a lack of understanding of the latter. Collateral damage, then, is not only morally disingenuous, it is militarily unsound and those who advocate that we abandon or modify this particular moral (and legal) criterion are both morally and militarily misguided and lack expertise in both areas of study."

Emphasis mine.

This argument apples just as strongly domestically as internationally. It applies to the "war on drugs, the "war on terrorism" and the "culture war," particularly when we see these situations re-framed in such a way as to make our ethical principles "more flexible" to "fit the emergent nature of the situation."

The author was pointing out the moral dimension of health care reform, and reasoned their way to this observation. Ultimately, all actions are governed by ethics, simple, broad principles from which we draw our morals.

Warfare, far from being a "special case" in which the "ordinary rules" do not apply, is a case wherein the the cause and effect dynamics of human nature are painted in blood for all to see. The Karma of war has sharp teeth and moves swiftly indeed; actions that are unethical, unjust and stupid breed resistance from the enemy and demoralize those who are supposedly on "your side."

This is exactly the situation celebrated by chairman Mao's observation that "The revolutionary swims in a sea of peasants." And that very understanding is being illustrated with rocket grenades built, smuggled and even fired by ordinary Afghans and Iraqis of no particularly fixed religious or ideological orientation more complex than "get the HELL off my LAWN!"



You would think that Republicans would understand that most basic motivation. The fact that they do not indicates some moral and practical confusion as to who's lawn it actually is.

And so I draw the circle closed. When one group of people sees another group of people in terms of a problem that stands in the way of achieving their goals - problems that can, may or must be eliminated to achieve that goal - what we have are incompatible moral structures. It's not exactly a stretch to understand why people targeted for elimination will determine that to be an immoral act, one which entirely justifies a response. Obviously, there are no better placed people to understand the depth of delusion here than - in the alleged words of Boss Tweed - that half of the poor hired to kill the other half.

When morality becomes a means to rationalize expedient action, instead of a framework to define RIGHT action, it becomes, at best, an impediment. It's certainly not an argument that is persuasive to those who, in examining it's tenants, can easily see themselves as being "the next group up against the wall." C.F. The Solidarity Movement.

Ideology counts, but it counts with a sword. And in the other pan of the balance, we weigh the Politics of Personal Survival. That which weighs more, well... I suppose in pragmatic terms, it depends on where the sword cuts - and it's a persuasive argument against using it at all.

Ideological movements tend to create their own antithetical movements which in turn tend to be traduced by opportunistic bastards who see them as a horse to ride to immortality and damnation.

It's an environment that encourages the development of absolute moral systems that work from xenophobic first principles. To mention two, but hardly the only examples, the Dominionist theocratic movements within the Conservative Evangelical Protestant movement and of course the equally un-scriptural and immoral theocratic Islamic movement exemplified by Osama Bin Ladin.

Each show distinct similarities in rhetoric and rationalizations to the equally delusional religions of Communism, Fascism and "New World Order Neoconservativism."

For both groups, "right" is defined as actions that advance the group and "wrong" as things that disadvantage the group - as defined by their hierarchical leadership, of course.

Frankly, I attribute much of the growth of these groups to the breakdown of the concept of the rule of law and respect for the individual, much of which was sacrificed on the alter of the Cold War by all participants.

But ultimately, all individuals of any intelligence must come to the conclusion that if a nation or cause would not hesitate to sacrifice them in the name of "national interest" or "national security" or "for the good of the People" or for the "advance of the Cause," they understand that the most fundamental tenant of the social compact with them no longer exists.

That fundamental tenant is that they are as significant to the society as any other person, that their value does not flow from wealth or position or status; that these things are role and reward, a product of a complex interaction between fortune, necessity, opportunity and education, all of which depends upon those that the pathological narcissist would dismiss as being "Useless Mouths."

When you are somewhere within the top third of the pyramid, it makes very little sense, even in an hierarchical, patriarchal, disorderly authoritarian sense - to blow up the bottom third.

It makes the creation of a different pyramid an imperative, for it defines the leadership as being unworthy, having violated the social compact. Self-preservation is the strongest motivation of all, and there is no higher cause for creating a social order than mutual self-interest.

Therefore, violating that compact is a misdeed that is both grave and self-defeating.

When you have large numbers of people within a culture who see their interests as being in conflict with a much greater number of individual, lawful citizens, and who see no problem with acting unethically toward those people, who rationalize their unethical and unjust activities with exactly the same words and reasons as do incompetent generals who are quite willing to "destroy the village in order to save it," they have made a fateful choice. They have designated more enemies than they can possibly dispatch, and, short of a dignified redefinition of the terms of engagement, they are in a situation defined long ago by the Great Sage of War, Sun Tsu.

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:--

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

Note that the moral high ground is Sun Tsu's most important consideration. And here's another observation from him that is of immense importance to the current world situation.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

Your silence is deafening, Mr. Hannity...

I'd Rather Be Waterboarding... T-Shirt by webcarve

Hannity demonstrates a usage of the term "troll" I had previously been unaware of. (Credit to asgardshill on this digg thread)



Think Progress » Eight days of silence since Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded: Is he chickening out? (rorr.im|mi.rror)

Over a week ago — on Thurs., April 22 — Fox News’ torture enthusiast Sean Hannity agreed to be waterboarded for charity to prove that it is not torture. Though he dismissed waterboarding as simply taking someone’s head and “dunk[ing] it in water,” he has remained notably silent on his promise ever since, perhaps regretting that he volunteered to subject himself to the intensely terrifying suffocation experience. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann offered last week to donate $1,000 to military families for every second Hannity is waterboarded. In the face of Hannity’s silence, Olbermann repeated the offer this week:

OLBERMANN: Sean, my offer still stands, 1,000 dollars a second. This is not a stunt nor game. Prove to those families you are a man of your word. In fact, prove you are a man.

Hannity, we await your reply.

As they say at Gitmo - "Don't hold your breath, Keith." While I myself encouraged Mr. Hannity to live up to his own bluster, I can't say I ever expected it, and I doubt Kieth Olbermann did, either. Frankly, getting Hannity to wimp out, to fail to live up to his own "Machismo by Proxy" was the entire point of the exercise.

Hannity has acted exactly as bullies and cowards always do - run like hell when met with a serious, dedicated, determined opposing force. He also proves that his convictions only apply when they are applied to other people - which of course puts him squarely within the fold of modern US social conservatism.

You might find a visit to www.waterboardhannityforcharity.com amusing - though probably charities would find direct contributions less potentially ephemeral.

Of course one absolutely should consider the source and the outcome as definitive of the character, motivation and intents of the speaker. As an individual, Hannity is odious but insignificant. The real problem is the fact that he's permitted a public platform, is paid well, and is clearly influential among a section of the American people that are quite unashamed of demonstrating a very strong, attachment with the idea of torture - often going so far as to suggest that "squeamishness" about torturing one's enemies is "unmanly." My. What a very convenient cultural meme to foster - if you are Dick Cheney - good friend and political ally of Rupert Murdoch.

On digg, ami6htywind shares this nugget of wisdom.

"Why Do American Christians Approve Of Torture?"
Maybe it is because us Christians do not feel the need to offer our throats to these outworld savages, unlike moronic liberals.

I'd comment further - but really, if you can't get from the point established so viscerally above to where you need to be in order to be a functional, rational individual that deserves the maximum of liberty within the context of a functional, rational culture, I'm not sure there is a point.

But just let me state for the record that if you say things like that to a psycologist or psychiatrist, and they had the slightest suspicion that you had the occasion, inclination and desire to act on such beliefs, you might experience a 72 hour interruption in your ordinary life. It's an insane perspective - and when a blatantly insane perspective becomes shared by a very large number of people, little good can arise from pretending that it's merely a difference of opinion or disagreements between persons of concience. Not when conscientious and principled objections are rejected as unmanly, gutless and "liberal."


There are many illustrations available for what happens when the crazy people are permitted to run the asylum. Large swaths of the Middle East - and not omitting the state of Israel - are examples of various examples of toxic mindsets coming into conflict. Or you could have a look at North Korea. Gee, what a lovely place it is, to live under the loving protection of The Dear Leader.

Let us not forget the piles of skulls that are the memorial to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Let us not forget where a tolerance of such views can lead us. There is a line, it's been crossed, and the uncrossing of it will entail some degree of painful social rearrangement.

I see nothing inappropriate in stating that the greatest pain should be borne by those who most cheerfully chose to incur such great moral debt on your behalf. Sadly, things rarely seem to work out that way in practice, but my observation is that the greater the physical and social distance between you and those deserving of consequence, the less collateral consequence will fall your way.

The first step is simple. Change the channel, or just turn off the TV entirely. You can safely assume that anyone trying to gain a benefit of the doubt in favor of torture or an "aggressive foreign policy" has no intentions that benefit your interests - or the long-term interests of your family and children.

If you have the common sense required to enjoy a situation comedy - well, the phrase "Nothing good can come of this" should resonate with you. And you see, there's no ability to watch with detached amusement. Audience participation is integral to this particular comedy of errors and may yet influence the ultimate outcome of the play.

It should not need to be said: And then they came for me...

Welcome to Canada!
Do you have any fruit, firearms
or implements of torture
to declare today?

HT Digby: Please click the digg link.

"First they tortured in ticking time bomb cases but I didn't mind because it was a clear and imminent danger..."

An obvious observation ... or it should be.

This deserves to be email-chained to everyone who's ever annoyed you with some damn-fool paranoid massmail forwarding.

I cannot even fathom what combination of fear and moral failure has allowed US Citizens to tolerate this - much less entrench it into a political philosophy! Nonetheless, this very phenomenon is directly related to why I chose to return to Canada.

It's not the whole of it, or even a huge part - but at some point, as a citizen of a nation, you have to ask yourself whether, if push came to shove, could you suck up your gut and say "My country, right or wrong?" I found that I could not honestly say that.

To me, that commitment has always depended on the balance of right versus wrong being a positive one. Somewhere during the Bush administration, it became clear to me that Bush was not an historical anomaly, but rather, the logical product of a political movement that prospered because good people chose to do nothing to oppose it.

At some point just prior to the election, even before the economic meltdown, I became convinced that it was entirely possible to envision circumstances in which Canada and the US would come to some parting of the ways. The issue of torture is certainly one issue that could bring this about, and there are a number of others, sovereignty being a very significant one.

Torture is a powerful issue, both in terms of symbolism and as practical evidence of an intolerable degree of ethical and moral failure at the highest levels.

If this does not inform the decisions of other world powers, including Canada, that is also a problem. You see, it goes to the very fundamental issues as to whether the United States can be trusted to act as a lawful power, if it can and will honor it's treaties and international obligations. Actions speak far louder than words.

I was blessed by birth with a choice; citizenship in two nations with remarkable history, people and potential. But of the two nations, one sees history, people and potential as a responsibility to be maintained and fulfilled and the other, sadly, sees it as an entitlement.

I regret being forced to chose. But I am not uncomfortable with the choice I have made. I hope that you, dear reader, are able to come to some acceptable terms with your own citizenship in the merciless light of conscience.

Illustrations:
Canada Above the Fray Rondel by EhCanada
Waterboarding saves lives by walraven

If you don't like your faith being ridiculed - don't support ridiculous arguments that presume upon your faith.

H/t Pam Spaulding, whom I adore for her delightfully tactical irreverence.

Andy at Eleventh Avenue South reports that the local anti-gay organization rounded up a group of religious zealots who fear catastrophic end times will result if gay and lesbian couples are able to marry in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Family Council says it will introduce an amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in Minnesota in the next few days. The group announced the new amendment push at a press conference with fundamentalist religious leaders on Tuesday.

Those leaders put forward a multi-faith diatribe against gay and lesbian relationships stating that should gays marry, the world would end.

"If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in 10 years," said Ikram ul-Huq, the imam and religious director of the Muslim Community Center of Bloomington.

"Homosexual unions are forbidden and cannot be licensed with the term marriage," said Rabbi Moshe Feller, Shliach of the Rebbe to the Upper Midwest, a Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Hasidic Judaism.

"We see this as a pivotal issue to life, not just for our nation but the life we have known for 3,000 years," said Tom Parrish, administrative pastor of Hope Lutheran Church. Parrish represents Hope Lutheran Church, whose senior pastor, Tom Brock, raised some eyebrows in 2003 when he insisted the 9/11 attacks were God's wake up call.

"That's a lifestyle that God says is sinful," Brock said of homosexuality in 2003.

The reason their collective panties are in a bunch is that there a bill has been introduced (by Sen. John Marty and Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis), in both the Senate and House that if passed would make Minnesota's marriage laws gender neutral. According to the AP, it's unlikely the legislation will make it out of committee.

Digg Link for Pam's Post

The ridiculous part here is that a religion, properly speaking, teaches you how to live a better life. If, in order to achieve that, it must force other people to conform so that adherents can be unaware of workable counter-examples, it's not a religion - it's a sort of boutique government, a theocracy with neither sufficient power to produce good outcomes or the moral advantage needed to be genuinely persuasive.

That objection comes even before we address the merit of the proposition to be imposed from any more abstract angle, ethical, moral or scriptural.

Oh, and since all these fine religious leaders are using arguments from authority right out of the gate - you have every reason to be quite skeptical as to the merit of all moral and scriptural arguments. The utilitarian ones, I believe, are well disposed of already.

I'm perfectly capable of saying this while being a person with a strong preference against having sex with men. I'll go a step further - I'm an androphobe. I don't even want male friends. It takes me bad places in my head, places that I cannot help going when men are around, having to do with social dominance issues.

But, you see, this is MY issue. It colors MY relationships. It defines what sort of relationships will work for me and what ones cannot work, regardless of the quality of people involved. And it really doesn't matter whether I "should" be able to have this relationship or "shouldn't" be able to have that one. It makes far, FAR more sense to concentrate on the positive - a solid relationship built on the things that make me feel good and happy and make it possible to make someone else feel good about being in a relationship with me.

Having done that, and having that relationship prove it's mutual value every day in the face of being nothing like what people would assume, based as it is on mutual social needs and unfortunate experiences that to understand would require explanations of the TMI variety, it's perhaps somewhat simpler for me to see the unstated and deliberately unaccounted costs of forcing all human relationships into a few approved molds. It also tends to reveal to me the degree to which arguments against homosexual relationships are driven by outright phobic irrationality.

Now, phobic overreactions do not make those natural variations in affinity disappear. The irrational reaction forces them underground, where their manifestations will become unconscious or perverted to various degrees, which are then taken to be proof of inherent, rather than circumstantial depravity. To the degree homosexual unions are "sinful," (a mistake, in the Hebrew), it would be in large part due to the social and psychological costs imposed from outside and the difficulty, for most people, of living outside of cultural sanctions that guide and advantage most of us in our daily lives.

I could easily argue that the common, scriptural arguments against homosexuality and legal recognition of homosexual couples are at best tenuous, but that is to miss the more important point. Many religions do impose arbitrary restrictions upon the behavior of their adherents, and there is, arguable merit to making such voluntary sacrifices, if one can.

But whatever merit such voluntary sacrifice may have vanishes if they are imposed by fiat upon all, when an argued moral good becomes mere conformity imposed by law. Such moralisms inevitably and predictably lead to immoral actions in their imposition and outcomes, and inevitably also lead to a numbing of the moral and ethical sensibility of their advocates, for in order to argue the benefits of imposing them, they have to dissociate themselves from any responsibility for negative outcomes caused by their willful and unjust desire to interfere in the moral agency of others.

Violence is done - and not merely to those the religion decides to attack. Not even most significantly in this particular case, for regardless of the precise arrangement of laws, the recognition of committed homosexual marriage is a fact. That is to say, anyone who cares to investigate knows that it's as possible for homosexual couples to maintain a committed and stable relationship as it is for heterosexual couples - even in the significant absence of religious sanction and support.

A religion that finds itself in argument with both reality and the obvious human rights issues of deserves to be questioned in regards to it's actual substantive support OF human rights. It seems to me to be exceptionally questionable that one can support human rights in general while advocating particular exemptions.

And indeed, these moral absurdities long ago led me to question the reason and rationale of their justification, which in turn led me to study the foundations of the arguments for myself. And, as I've stated, I found the arguments to be, at best, questionable. When I raised that question - well, you may well imagine the answers I got.

Dismissive and disrespectful responses to questions of significant and personal moral uncertainty are not proper for any person claiming moral authority. Their authority must be founded in a clear mastery of the moral and ethical universe. They must be conversant with the full range of human nature, nor should their council tend toward the violent and abusive, for one can get that for free, simply by posing the same question to any randomly selected, culturally isolated ignoramus.

In other words - the arguments given by the "moral authorities" cited above are persuasive that they do not have any genuine, authoritative understanding of the moral and ethical dimensions of the foundation of their principles or the unsanitary and unsavory outcomes of their imposition over the last few hundred years.

You'd be better advised to read what text scriptures you like for your own benefit and come to your own conclusions than rely upon the advice of such fools as these. (allow me to commend unto your study the writings of St. Julian of Norwich.)

However, it's fair to state that these are exceptional fools, speaking to an issue that seems to provoke exceptional foolishness. There are fools in every profession. It's wise to cultivate the skills that make discernment between wisdom and foolishness possible, for all wise men are fools in spots.

Values Clarification and Update: The American Family Association has come out against a UN declaration condemning countries that put homosexuals to death, on the grounds that such a condemnation might cause a slippery slope toward tolerance.

Robert Wood, Acting Spokesman for the UN issued the following statement today:

The United States supports the UN Statement on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity,” and is pleased to join the other 66 UN member states who have declared their support of this Statement that condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity wherever they occur.

The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world. As such, we join with the other supporters of this Statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora.

And the anti-gay religious organization AFA responded with the following:

The Obama administration and other proponents of a United Nations statement that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality claim it merely targets the seven countries that put homosexuals to death. But one pro-family activist [that would be the AFA] warns the document elevates homosexual behavior to skin color and religious belief.

Yes, it's so very offensive to Christianity that one equate killing someone for their skin color or religion be compared to, say, beating a gay to death and claiming the right to celebrate it.

"Christians" like this bode fair to putting Hell into receivership, due to unfair competition.

AIDS Baby Proper Punishment for Promiscuity

Your tax dollars at work, Colorado:

Attention: Col. Senate Minority Leader

It's amazing what sorts of bottom-feeding idiots get sent to State Houses. Indeed, the best argument against the principle of State's Rights is the caliber of people tasked to exercise them. In particular, the election and continuance in office of Col. State Sen. Dave Schultheis makes me wonder if Colorado has a state legislature qualified to legislate.

Yes, it's also a problem here in Canada. We actually have States that work like States; US States are in practice Provinces of a strong central government. And clearly, that's a good thing.

It is wise to remember that this was the single dissenting voice against a perfectly reasonable law that mandated HIV testing for pregnant mothers. But it's important to note that this person voted in a way that would likely embarrass one of the fictional patriarchs from "A Handmaid's Tale."

State Sen. Dave Schultheis restated his opposition to a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women by claiming that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”

The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Yes, Schultheis really said he is “hoping” people “have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby …”

Here in canada, it would not be terribly surprising to have something equally idiotic said in public by someone too dim-witted to realize they were committing an act of conspicuous stupidity, something so stupid that it could be used as a club to beat his political party with. I mean, we don't have intelligence tests as a precondition for citizenship, either. Alas. Mark my words, these words WILL matter in the next election. Heck, I can see ways to use them against the Republican Party as a whole.

The question is, though, what happens next. In Canada, well, we don't like being made to feel conspicuous by idiots. We are a genuinely Conservative nation in the "no sudden moves and no loud noises" way. This is true even of our rabid socialists. One may be a radical without being, you know, rude about it...

So, while it is to be understood, I think, by all beings of ordinary intelligence possessing an uncompromised senes of moral higyne that such an utterance probably indicates a person incapable of being held properly accountable in a legal or even social sense, nonetheless it would be reflexive to ensure - here - that it could not be thought to be the position of the party, or the leadership.

(And counting the vote tally, we can assume this to be true - even in Colorado.)

However, it's a shame that the Republican Senate Leader is, clearly, infected with the sort of Liberalism that republicans accuse Democrats of, the sort that is "so open minded, he's let his brain fall out." His response to this scandalous statement is as follows:

“People are entitled to their opinions,” the Grand Junction Republican said. “It’s not my job to go around and censure people and tell them what to say.”

Funny, MY understanding of Republican party discipline would suggest that is EXACTLY the job of the Senate Minority Leader. And even if that sort of rigid party discipline would not be the ideal of a Conservative or Liberal intetellectual engaged in the hard work of practical democracy in a functional Republic, as envisioned in the Constitution, there absolutely must be some recognition that there ARE limits when speaking with an -D or an -R after the name. Hm.

The previous paragraph might be difficullt for an electable Republican to parse. Let me put it more succinctly:

The proper response to this sort of public cornholing, Sir, is not to pretend you are large enough to accomodate it without discomfort.

The proper response is to kick the fool from your caucus; for otherwise, people must assume that all your work is contaminated with "contributions" of equal, manifest, conspicous stupidity - and that you, sir, are incapable and unqualified to discern the difference between shit and shinola.

I do hope some motion of censure passes by acclimation. Although, frankly, a recall petition is probably the more appropriate response. Should there not be - well, I suppose we must all conclude that he does actually serve as a legitimate representative of his constuancy.

A constituancy that clearly has no moral right to the franchise. By the way - is it possible that I might have to explain why Schultheis' statement is deeply offensive and utterly immoral from first principles, Christian or otherwise?

It takes more than a chrome fish, pal Sticker by webcarve

Like tax cuts? Let's eliminate the Morality Tax.

I once boggled my somewhat socially conservative doctor that a "tax" could be defined as any cost that you were forced to bear that was an unavoidable cost of doing business.

It didn't matter if you paid it to the government or not, or if it was the result of law, regulation, or simply "common practice." Anything that was the unavoidable predicate of doing business - such as overhead costs of recovering from ten or fifteen different insurance programs, which for one family doctor, require a staff of five clerks - was a tax upon your resources, your time and your liberty.

Of course, all human societies are based on exchanges of this nature. We can, however, calculate the cost/benefit ratios with the application of computers and common sense and come up with an assessment as to whether a tax is fair.

Fair and reasonable taxation brings you as much or more benefit than you could otherwise get - or brings you benefits you could not reasonably get at any price as an individual. For instance, while rich people may complain that they are taxed at a higher rate than poor people, they benefit disproportionately from social stability and low crime rates. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he famously replied, "That's where the money is." So high levels of crime can be seen as a regressive tax upon wealth, and they are extorted in terms of direct insurance costs, security systems, the requirement for personal security and gated communities and other fairly direct costs. This is aside from the direct human impacts of having one's liberty very severely restricted. Regressive taxes are unfair, and need to be rationally addressed.

A fair tax is one that is as low as possible in order to achieve the desired effect with as few consequential costs as possible. So one of the first principles is to not simply throw money away on things that bring no concrete, provable, positive benefit. To the extent that tax dollars go to such efforts, those taxes ARE manifestly unfair.

Unfair taxes impose costs that negatively impact your life or restrict otherwise legal choices without proof of overriding benefit. The latter sort of tax is the sort that breeds resentment and evasion, generates contempt for the law, creates black markets where none existed and spreads cynicism and corruption throughout structures that absolutely rely on high levels of personal integrity in order to function; the offices of the court and law enforcement.

The problem becomes more complex when a tax is not even seen to be a tax, compounded when the benefit - or supposed benefit - advantages one group while imposing costs diffusely, or worse yet, disproportionately imposes costs on an entirely different group of people.

I was talking about single-payer health care to my doctor, who reflexively resisted the idea until I pointed out just how much it would simplify his life and reduce his overhead. I pointed out that doctors in Canada maintaining roughly the same level of patient traffic might have one person on staff, or perhaps at most two, and someone starting out could establish a practice with one person on a part-time basis. In many ways, an inflexible adherence to an ideological viewpoint blinds us to costs that a more pragmatic vision might well sharply reduce, or even eliminate.

The idea applies to drug policy as well, and the more you hate the idea of paying money to support people who "don't deserve it," the more outraged you should be.

One of the more rational arguments against marijuana is that people that use it "will never amount to anything." Now, this is an opinion based on not much at all - I mean, I think we all would like to have the slacker record sported by that notorious pothead, Willie Nelson. But even if the presumption were actually true, the outcome of throwing casual users - and even growers - into prison for long stretches interrupts their lives and gives them a criminal record - pretty much ensuring the exact outcome promised by anti-drug crusaders, at a cost several orders of magnitude greater than doing absolutely nothing about the problems associated with recreational drug use, or even wide-spread addiction.

Indeed, the costs being what they are, and the punitive attitudes toward addicts being what they are, the current culture of prohibition prevents us from doing anything significantly positive about the real problems associated with drug use - and what small initiatives as do exist, such as needle exchanges, which do have very real and measurable impacts on disease and death are met with horror and often federal interference.

Furthermore, that federal interference seems at times to be driven by assumptions that have no foundation in science, nor respect for trained and certified medical opinion. The record of the DEA in regard to physicians who specialize in pain management is particularly troubling; it speaks to some dogmatic or religious presumption that anyone seeking relief for pain is probably lying, and that any doctor who believes such a story is no doubt a willing co-conspirator. That's an insulting and dysfunctional presumption that, aside from anything else, directly interferes with the responsible provision of health care up to the standards defined by the Hippocratic oath. Why? Well, in order to escape being shut down entirely, doctors are forced to manage pain with drugs that are both less effective and more toxic than opioid drugs.

Underlying this fairly obvious abuse of process is an assumption that, at it's roots, is of purely religious origin, that anyone trying to avoid pain - much less seeking pleasure - is acting against the direct will of God, who metes out suffering to the deserving in order to "teach them a lesson," and that - in it's most pure and insistent form, ANY attempt to relieve suffering is against the will of God.

There is a large plurality of people - including deeply religious, conservative Christians - who would name that attitude as being obviously malicious if not evil, for if anything is, the sanctification of suffering as anything other than an individual decision must obviously lead to the insult of conscience.

It requires the suppression of empathy for others - and leads, more or less directly, for people who see no problem with putting persons using drugs for the relief of pain in prison, claiming "A Greater Good" that somehow would justify individuals perishing in utter agony as an acceptable price.

This then leads us to question what possible benefit might justify that cost, assuming for the moment that it was at all defensible to impose such an obviously unfair tax. Hell, let's say that you reflexively resent the idea of being "forced to pay for welfare" on just the bare assumption that most people on welfare will not be capable or willing to "work hard" and "deserve" your charity. Well, if that is your presumption - and note that I'm not agreeing with it, but if it is what you assume, how can you possibly justify the presumption that you impose what may well amount to a literal "death tax" on a small proportion of the population who happen to need certain drugs in order to alleviate pain? They tend to have much shorter lives, may become suicidal, often become reliant on street drugs - because they cannot alleviate their pain legally - and that in turn leads in statistically certain ways down the social toilet. And you pay for that. Every penny. One way or another. Do you really think that's fair?

Untreated, or under-treated pain interferes with life up to the point of shortening it in a solidly statistical sense. The positive effects of reliable pain management are equally measurable, and they have equally measurable positive economic effects. Now, all of these measurable negative effects, personal, social and economic are supposed to be balanced by - what?

It is a superstitious presumption that people who use certain drugs are evil by definition, that their use is somehow "sinful" and that they deserve to be punished. Social theories are like any other - they should have some proof to be taken seriously; and certainly they should never be implemented as policy before there IS such proof. This particular theory has had the better part of a century to prove itself - but the data is overwhelmingly in favor of the Government getting out of the morality business.

Because that's exactly what it is. Moralism. A presumption that a personal choice to use certain drugs is inherently immoral to such a degree that it's reasonable to simply ignore both evidence, personal experience, science, social costs and consequences in the name of a false and failed moralistic assertion. And by "false and failed," I mean that it is a morality that is obvioiously and provably wrong, that believing and living according to it's stictures does NOT bring any inherent benefit.

But wait, it's even worse. Moralism is a religious presumption, quite alien to the rule of law, it must be rooted out. While there is no one particular church that benefits, it does indeed serve only to increase the social comfort zone and underline with state-imposed sanctions the moral teachings of a wide variety of churches and organizations with moralistic viewpoints. It has much the same effect, in practice, of having established a church.

The proof of the morality pudding should be self-evident. The moral course will tend to have a better outcome than the immoral course IF that morality is founded in an ethical substructure that has contact with reality and human nature, if it's correctly, intelligently and humanely explained.

But social conservatives are utterly terrified at the "chaos" that would ensue if that actually occurred, that if they had the reins of government wrested from their hands, if they were unable to send their fanatical agents of propriety out against the "freaks" and "outliers" that prove that their generational lifestyle choices are not superior by definition, that society would collapse.

Perhaps their social structures would - but as they are the most arrogant of all "Welfare Queens," and as the consequences, even to them is simply the cost of having to cope with being proven wrong, I think a chorus of "tough noogies" is in order.

I very much resent being forced to pay taxes to support the establishment of an effective state religion that claims the right to punish me for disproving their assumptions by example.

Of course, a change of this magnitude will have costs of its own; social and monetary. But everything I know, both from an ethical and pragmatically economic view suggests that those costs will be lower in an absolute sense, while bringing significant economic benefits, so we will actually have the funds to deal with the problems that do arise in a much more effective way.

Balance this against the impact of having to abandon a moralistic world-view that makes predictions about consequences that can only be made to come true by the perversion of law and society. I, personally, think it a small price to pay.

I am unapologetic when I assert that nearly any human action with merely individual consequences that is opposed by a social conservative on principle is worth doing, and the more clearly that opposition comes out of either direct religious belief or negative assumptions about human nature, the more absolutely I feel those assumptions should be gleefully contested. Quite frankly, no human progress, no advance in civilization has ever been accomplished save over the objections - and occasionally, over ramparts of dead bodies - of people wishing to impose a more narrow, more authoritarian and usually religiously justified vision that happens to be immensely satisfying and profitable to them.

That's what's actually so hopeful about our current economic crisis. We literally cannot afford to continue to pay the overhead costs incurred by indulging social conservatives. We cannot afford the prisons, we cannot afford to be the world's training ground for torture techniques that will be used to oppress, deprive and interfere with people who would, on balance, be likely to mind their own business and generate wealth were their views and life-choices viewed with indifference by their governments.

So by all means - let us cut taxes. Radically. Let us restrict government to doing things that are of proven worth and benefit to it's citizens. Let us reject all costly and impertinent efforts toward social engineering, let us eliminate all taxes designed to coerce people to behave in ways that please other people without regard to the harm done to those those direct or indirect impositions impose.

It's time for grownups to behave like grownups and demand the sort of government grownups deserve. Those that cannot handle that degree of personal freedom - well, we have prisons and staff, armed forces and some obvious needs for regimented groups of people with shovels and backhoes. Regulated environments can be arranged for those persons that need them and it can be done in ways that truly does advantage everyone concerned - but only if it's done with the intent to benefit of those who really need it, and not because we think they "deserve" a restriction of their liberties due to dysfunctional behavior, faith, color or socio-economic status.

Sane people reject punitive authoritarianism. There's a good reason for this. It creates a large number of crazy people that sane people are forced to deal with, compensate for, care for, avoid or arm themselves against. And you need no better reason than the purely selfish to support this. The arguments are far more compelling for those who genuinely think human suffering, intolerance, institutional racism and the militarization of a society in service of a war against itself is an insupportable evil. It is. But it's not merely evil. It's also conspicuously stupid; and we cannot afford to pay for stupid.

The annoyingly correct Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is never so annoying as when he's gloating. This is a particularly long and pointed gloat, looking back to his career-stalling battle with the banks in a battle to privatize Cleveland's public power system. It's worth a read, but in a sense it merely underlines the two first paragraphs.

t r u t h o u t | My Battle With the Banks: "Once they were as gods, but the deities of the American banking system are now in ruins, plunged from their pedestals into the maw of taxpayer largesse. Congress voted to give the banks $700 billion, lifting them temporarily out of their sepulcher of debt, while revealing a deep truth about the condition of America's financial powers:

They never had the money they said they had as they constructed their debt-based monetary system which now lies in ruins. Their decisions on behalf of depositors, shareholders and investors were lacking in basic integrity and common sense. Green gods bailing out with their golden parachutes."

To me, the moral of the story is not Dennis' ultimate vindication, or the obvious other lesson - that had he behaved as his political contemporaries of the day on the Cleveland City Council, he would probably now be much better known. But he was unable to pay the price required to avoid the fate of a time in the political wilderness. Moreover, he knew that "the worst that could happen" was not as bad as those on the other side of the table thought.

Sometimes there are more important things at stake than an illusion of prosperity, success or influence, particularly if that illusion is bought with a betrayal of trust. And in this one instance, Dennis' narcissic tendency does serve us; Dennis found himself at a crossroads where he had to choose between an illusion in which "everyone who mattered" would think well of him and the ability to look in the mirror and see the man he wished to be.

Narcissic traits are not bad or good - it's a place, a way of being. It's how you behave in order to fulfill those needs that matter. Dennis likes to think well of himself - but is unwilling to delude himself about the face in the mirror.

An annoying, shrill little man with a track record of being correct on the facts and on the principles. Annoying enough to be shot at. Annoying enough to have made powerful enemies - and tasteless enough to do a public war dance upon their fiscal graves. Oh fortunate sin! It makes him human enough to be tolerable. Otherwise we'd have to found a religion around him.

At the end of the day, when the pennies are counted upon the kitchen tables of the world, money - even the hard money that Ron Paul and his followers swear by as the antidote for the current mess - is simply a symbol for value; of honest effort and honest reward. It is nothing more than a system of notation, and if that system has been corrupted, then the sensible thing to do is to stop using it. The collapse of a system does not mean that real value has evaporated; whatever that was real will still be real, and the people who make real things and do things of real value will still be making and doing.

Belive me; the US dollar is not the only means of accounting. Gold works. Man hours work. Kilowatt-hours work. Pork bellies, diamonds and Euros work. And - whatever we may think of it - bricks of opium, bales of tobacco, barrels of whiskey and kilos of cocaine are all commidies of enduring value; always have been, most likely always will be.

But the most fundamental currency of all is a handshake and the iron-clad-determination to live up to it. All things of real value derive from that, all artificial means of accounting for value are simply a means of allowing the arms to stretch further than they otherwise could.

That is the purpose to money and at the root of it, the reason why we have civilizations and laws and cultures and religions - to enhance, expand and enforce a network of trust. Those who hold power have the responsiblity and the duty to be especially trustworthy; not because of any higher calling, but because that is what the job is all about, and it is such an essential duty that humanity cannot long do without it.

When people start behaving as if they have an inherent right to power and have the inherent right to use it, defend it and expand it at the expense of those who donated it, it is inevitable that they will be replaced, because they become too expensive to be useful. They cost more than they are worth. Loyalty is withdrawn, alliegance evaporates, illusions vanish in the cold light of personal circumstances.

Now, hierarchical structures exist for the primary purpose of keeping the marks in line; keeping those on the bottom fed just enough to to work, without feeding them enough that they can afford the capacity to thin; to keep the donors donating whether they wish to or not, and of course to keep every level of the pyramid below the top bamboozled and ignorant in service to that end.

But that ship - all moral compasses aside for the moment - has sailed into the harbor and sunk with all hands. The genteel conspiracy between the great powers of media, religion, business and government has been exposed as a conscious fraud and a conspicuous failure.

Right or wrong, for good or for evil; they are doomed simply because ...oh, I hate to use such a term, but English is so limited ... because the "global consciousness" has evolved to a point where their tools and techniques can no longer work, and competing tools and techniques offer far more advantage to the vast majority of individuals who would never once be considered for membership in the "power structure." It's not just that they are corrupt failures - although that's the case here in North America - but that even if they were icons of integrety, they are still trying to do things in a way that is out of touch with the needs and capacities of the times.

That evolution is as much technological as spiritual, as much pragmatism as principle; it's certainly not driven by particularly enlightened motives - but as always, the cold laws of ethics define what will work and what will not work over time, regardless of how enthusiatically we wave our flags and incence.

Instead, we look at the choices made in our names by those who are wielding our power and, given the opportunity, start talking to one another about the matter, replicating on the Internet the exact same process that happened in Europe during the Enlightenment in coffee houses and taverns over pipes of "sauced" tobacco.

People are comparing notes. Ordinary people of ordinary means are capable of fact checking statements made today by their leaders against statements made last week and graphing in real time the return on investment of their donated power. Anyone who wants to can fire up a spreadsheet and plug in the numbers. And like all investors, they have every right to expect a positive return on investment. More to the point, right or wrong, wise or foolish - all of them do.

Alas, "western civilization" shows every sign of being a vast Ponzi scheme in the process of disintegration; and not just the one pillar of it - the construct we refer to as "money," but also the false Christianity it depends on to keep the sheep from reading their financial statements, the false politics that is arranged to prevent any real, meaningful positive change for individuals and the false culture created by a corrupt media that depends on very carefully not telling the most important stories of the day.

All these great powers have lost the trust of anyone who has honestly examined the available evidence - and the ability to disciver and evaluate has become pervasive. Increasingly, everyone that can has or will soon. What will happen then? Well, I cannot say for sure. But what I can say is that the consequences will be of far less importance to most people than the doom-sayers invested in the current "pyramid power" scheme would suggest.

Increasingly, the question of whether one should "go along to get along" will become more and more of an obvious choice; aside from the moral dimension, aside from the question of eventual ethical consequence compared with immediate necessity; the point is that there is now a vast array of real choices emerging for real people in real situations in the real world. The false illusion - "Maya," if you will - is falling away to reveal something that is not so much higher and more spiritual, though there is that aspect to it, but to reveal fundamentals.

"Before Enlightenment; hew wood, draw water. After Enlightenment, hew wood, draw water."

The hewers of wood and the drawers of water are those from whom all power flows and who ultimately support all that is civilization. They are the ones who buy the party boats and the Manhattan penthouses. They are the ones who create the real wealth. And they are the ones who can and increasingly will decide with whom and under what terms they will share it.

Our current system depends upon the vast majority of us toiling in some form of slavery; physical, mental, economic. We are held at gunpoint, by guilt, by ignorance, and all of this is due to the fact that our lords and masters are not very good at their jobs; know they are not, and know that if anyone drew aside the curtain to see the Great and Terrible Oz - they would be honestly unimpressed.

Certainly there's not much evidence that the current crop of Oz-wielders are very good at pressing buttons, much less understanding what those buttons actually do, unlike the fictional Great and Terrible Oz who was a master of using the art of humbug to inspire practical ends.

But in fact, whatever we think of those people who currently hold power, and whatever changes this new perception brings, there is something to remember here; we are all human beings, nothing much has changed on that end of things and nothing much can change. We hope we can become better human beings, but we won't become better people by trying to amputate or deny aspects of our humanity for "the greater good," or for any other reason. If there's any lesson to be taken from the last several millenia - I'm looking at YOU, "saints" Paul and Timothy - it's that.

If you are gay, you are gay. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply no longer reasonable to think of homosexual orientation as being a "choice." The only choices come in light of accepting one's orientation as a fact and then acting upon that fact in a way that allows one to sleep at night in good conscience. This is a particular example of a general principle; we all have various pediclictions with potential ethical consequences. If you need power to make your nipples hard, you are in exactly the same situation.

These orientations are basic, and they are either curses or blessings depending on what we do in order to get our needs met. Morality aside - because if our morality gets in the way of doing the right thing, much less understanding that we are doing viscerally wrong things - it must and it will be put aside.

What we need is an understanding that our lusts and needs must be informed; for those who's lusts are either frustrated or unfettered become monsters and parasites.

Our basic neurology defines us in unavoidable ways. Some of us are social. Some of us relate better to abstracts, others to the concrete. Some of us can grow things, others would starve in a garden. We all have sexual preferences - and these preferences vary far more than "conventional wisdom" would prefer. Some of us need power and authority, others of us cannot function without someone without someone capable of creating a context that makes our work meaningful and valuable.

Society is a matrix of trust and while it's possible to lie and cheat, to take advantage of power and position to gain benefits that are disproportionate, unearned and undeserved, there is no free lunch. Ultimately, such people undermine the trust their entire scam depends on and that leads to a general, cyclic housecleaning.

Yes. This has happened before. It will probably happen again. It's happening right now - and that's the important thing to remember here. The people who want to stampede you into supporting their schemes and dreams of staving off their personal disasters do not deserve your support. Nor is this a moral, political, conservative, liberal statement. It's a statement of fact.

They have fucked up. They are asking you to permit them to fuck up at your expense a little longer. They are saying that it's better, somehow, for them to fuck up in known ways rather than to risk the prospect of fucking up in different and potentially more informative ways. Most importantly, they wish to prevent anyone else having a chance to prove they might fuck up less at a lower price - in the face of overwhelming evidence that almost any randomly selected person could achieve that very minimal standard.

You are being asked to send good money after bad - and in every single aspect of our culture and economy; you are being asked to support a social system that has no problem with what happened to ordinary people (who happened to be black) in the aftermath of Katrina. You are being asked to support a petroleum economy that can no longer sustain itself or even replace it's rotting infrastructure. You are being asked to incur unsupportable debt in order to prop up a literally bankrupt monetary system. And you are being asked not to even ask why, much less what possible benefit might come to you or your family.

In terms of faith and religion, in terms of the dominant cultural themes, it's all Gays and Abortion, all the time, and not a damn thing about how, where and by what means spirituality might inform and improve the lives of people outside of the big boxes filled with rotting mutton.

From a pragmatic, moral perspective, I have come to the point where I wonder aloud if it would be such a bad thing if everyone who professes the sort of faith on display at such places as the Wasillia Assembly of God were to disappear. Let us take it as a thought experiment - let us ask ourselves if, were The Rapture they devoutly pray for to occur, would those who remain be better or worse off?

The answer is obvious to me; any religon that is founded on the idea that there are vast swaths of humanity they are doctrinally permitted to visualize writhing in the flames of a fictional hell, encouraged to visualize and celebrate pissing upon sinners from a great height would neither be recognized nor particularly missed by anyone trying to live as Jesus taught.

Anyone who would squander monies donated to a church to do good works upon such a mean-spirited and dishonest exercise as California's Proposition Eight is in no sense qualified to be a worthy steward of God in any way I can bring myself to accept. Any such religion asking for your support, much less demanding it, any leader of such a religion who will not accept the reality that their actions and choices are violations of some of the most basic principles upon which all religions have in common is undeserving of your support.

Religions have a place. They serve, when they serve at all, to inform people as to how to live better than they could on their own; they exist "in order to make good men better."

Should they instead decide to exist to excuse bad acts and encourage fools to act in concerted folly, they will pay a price. If you continue to be part of that group, you will be part of the pool from which that price is extracted.

Ask any Hugonaut. Or for that matter, any member of the Catholic Hierarchy in Quebec old enough to have lived though the Quiet Revolution. Ask them what happens when it becomes clear to the majority of people that they are actually better of seeking advice, guidance and and leadership from others who are more willing to accept the value of tolerance and the virtue of trying to be virtuous instead of merely asserting it while wearing a funny hat.

The thing to understand here is that there are inherent differences between human beings; our different needs and variations in ambitions are the things that make a society work, and wherever society starts to see such differences as a threat, making it impossible for certain sorts of people to live openly, honestly and ethically, to that extent that society will suffer. They will suffer the lack of their honest potential as well as paying the price of them meeting their needs in the way that circumstances demand.

Ultimately, if we meet our needs to the benefit of other people around us, we will be known as good people; if our existence is at the expense of the people around us, well, the "why" of it matters little. You see, there are times when society can tolerate a high parasite load. There are other times in which it cannot. And there are times when society realizes that it's time to shave themselves bald and burn the bedding.

This is a bad time in human history - from the perspective of bedbugs and crab lice. From the average human perspective, though, we can do without crab lice a lot better than crab lice can do without us.

A functioning civil society requires a functional morality that informs and empowers positive moral choices. There are several sorts of people that are particularly valuable and paradoxically, particularly dangerous to society. When society is about to collapse, you have only to look at your political and moral standard-bearers to discern why this has occurred and adjust your own understandings of what sorts of belief structures are ultimately cancerous to you and the people to whom you owe consideration and due regard.

And this brings us back to Dennis Kucinich. Dennis plays the "everyman" in our little morality play; the everyman placed in a position of authority, facing threats by those who think themselves more powerful and more deserving. Dennis is a person who grew up in hardscrabble circumstances; who knows poverty - and who thereby knows that being broke is nothing particularly to fear. Money is simply a means to an end, and if you allow the means to get in the way of the end - maintaining the essential social, family and economic relationships that make for a just, open and functional society, you will have failed.

And you will know that. You see, that's the ultimate price.

Knowing - in the moments of sobriety, between jolts of power, whiskey and religion - that your choices have led you to deep into the Place of Decision, and you, arrayed in all your pomp and your power are on the wrong side. That you have the starring role in your own personal production of Faust. That this IS hell, nor will you ever be allowed out of it. Not, at least, with the trappings and trinkets that dragged you to such depths of foolishness in the first place.