Two Africas

Speaking of ancient North Africa, haven’t there always been Two Africas,” at least throughout recorded history - a Northern part in contact with Europe and the Middle East, and a Southern part not so much?  This isn’t “race” or genetics or class or wealth, just the intersection of geography and cultures.  Certainly Northern Africa itself was in more touch with southerly peoples than Europe and Western Asia were.

I’m somewhat familiar, but not enough to know where exactly to draw the line.  Mauritania / Sahel / Ethiopia / Horn of Africa?

And it’s not like one was “better” than the other, any more than ancient Western Europe’s “barbarians” were “better” than Eastern Europe’s, or Iroquois were “better” than Salish, or whatever.  Africans had empires all over the continent - if that’s a good thing(!).  Remember the original Zimbabwe?  “Recorded history” has known about the more-northerly ones longer because writing AFAWK started around there, the Near East and all.  Before “the winners wrote the histories,” the writers wrote them!

It’s a big continent, and it’s definitely not a single country, no continent can be.  (Australia is the exception that proves the rule … or something … because the English settlers did that, without consulting the Aboriginal Australians.)  Does stereotyping it do anybody good?

Just wondering.

Ethical GOP Supremes?

Credit where credit’s due: Roberts and Alito stood down when required by judicial ethics, something their Republican colleagues have sometimes failed to do in celebrated cases when their Party or vested interests really needed them.

“With Islam there is no coercion in religion”

Not to be unduly provocative, but North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor used to be pretty much all Christian.  Where are they all now?  I’m not talking the last couple generations, but basically since the 7th century AD!  The Arabs burst out of Saudi asking them if they were saved?!!!  I don’t think so.  If the Pope of Rome could apologize, why not others?

This isn’t bigotry, just historic facts.

Voter Fraud Fraud = Election Fraud

Classic racism, classism, bashing even of legal immigrants, etc etc etc.  How big a problem is this really?  They are totally insincere.  Is it any wonder the illegals keep voting Democratic?!!!  ;)

Casey Wilson from SNL; Normal is HOT!

Sorry, Tina Fey, you snooze, you lose!  My latest SNL crush is new “Featuring” lady Casey Wilson!  Love your curvy-girl-next-door looks, and you make “sincere” look both sweet and hot, kind of like Drew Barrymore does.

Here’s to the new Brunette Clown-Princess of Late Night!  And that’s a good thing!

PS: You’re not “fat,” you’re normal.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  Normal is hot!

IBS Paregoric update

In August ‘03 my GP put me on Paregoric for my Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome (aka Spastic Colon).  I started out on just one teaspoon (5 milliliters/cc’s) per day, and it worked for some months - I forget how long exactly - although it took a while to stop doing the job too well, as I’ve said!  But eventually its efficacy declined so much I needed two teaspoons (10 ml, mL, or cc’s).  And around the end of 2007 I had to increase to 3.  I’m starting to wonder, because I’ve read that the medical community doesn’t like to Rx more than 4 a day because of the risk of side-effects, including dangerous respiratory depression.

I may look into other things, non-opiates.  I hear lots of good things about this hypnotherapy program….

(Oh, and the Naltrexone researchers stopped their research.  Seems they couldn’t reproduce the initial seemingly-miraculous results.  That happens sometimes in drug trials.  Too bad.)

McCain has TWO preacher problems!

This from bravenewfilms.org:

You may have heard of Rev. John Hagee, the McCain supporter who said God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its homosexual “sins.” Well now meet Rev. Rod Parsley, the televangelist megachurch pastor from Ohio who hates Islam. According to David Corn of Mother Jones, Parsley has called on Christians to wage war against Islam, which he considers to be a “false religion.” In the past, Parsley has also railed against the separation of church and state, homosexuals, and abortion rights….

John McCain actively sought and received Parsley’s endorsement in the presidential race. McCain has called Parsley “a spiritual guide,” and he hasn’t said whether he shares Parsley’s vicious anti-Islam views. That’s because the mainstream media refuses to ask. And so, we’ve taken matters into our own hands, joining Mother Jones to present the truth about McCain’s pastor:

Watch the video: http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/27395636/38133?utm_source=rgemail

Since the media won’t question McCain about his deeply bigoted pastor, it’s up to you to call attention to this issue. Make McCain’s pastor problem a major story by forwarding this video to your family, friends, and colleagues. Digg it! Anything to spread the word.

We can’t let McCain get away with aligning himself with a religious leader who’s called for an all-out war on Islam, someone who draws no distinctions between Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. Now is the crucial time to act.

What’s Mrs. McCain hiding?

This couple are not new to politics.  She has to know she has to let us know about her money and especially her vested interests.  If a rich person or a Republican refuses to disclose, we have to conclude it’s for some reason they don’t want us to know about.  If she wanted “privacy issues,” she should’ve divorced John long ago!  But rich Republicans, actually rich people in general, are usually not squeaky-clean.  Like the old mustard commercial said, “How do you think they got so rich?!”  Not by winning the lottery!!!

UUs for Islam

Speaking of Unitarian Universalists, I recommend any liberal or moderate Muslims out there to consider a new home, as the UUs open their doors to you.  They don’t require you to become a Christian or anything else … but you might find it more comfortable than a conservative mosque.

(Of course, I personally commend Orthodox Christianity to all.  But if all aren’t ready for that, UUs are nice folks at least.)

Protestant America not quite dead yet

The Pew Religious Landscape survey that came out recently trumpeted that America, originally overwhelmingly Protestant, is about to become half or less so.  Well, maybe, but not as fast as they say, IMHO.

Here’s the quickie data.  When they say only 51.3 pct. of U.S. adults are now Protestant, they leave out Mormons (1.7 pct), Jehovah’s Witnesses (0.7 pct), Unity and “Other Christian: Metaphysical” (0.3 pct), members of the denomination formally known until recently as the Unitarian Universalist Association of Churches and other “Liberal faith” (>0.3 pct - my redaction of their numbers) - who I think most people would consider Protestant, a total of approx. 54.4 pct.  Also, let’s be honest, significant numbers of the “Nothing in particulars,” atheists, agnostics, Don’t knows, and Refuseds are essentially Protestant, pushing us back up in the neighbourhood of 60 pct., closer to two-thirds than to half after all.

For sociology to be useful, it has to be applicable across decades and generations.  Modern sensitivities to folks who claim not to be Protestant anymore, or who claim others aren’t Protestant anymore, isn’t helpful to the science of the thing.

Long story short, the overall numbers aren’t that much different from those historically after all.

In a related story, White Evangelical denominations are gaining on Mainline denominations, but not because of conservative Mainliners ‘voting with their feet’ as commonly believed, but mostly because of Evangelical women’s later adoption of artificial contraception.  (Who knew?  I figured that since the Pope hates it, they’d embrace it enthusiastically.  Shows what I know!)  Sociologists Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout believe that Evangelical relative growth is about exhausted, barring the unforeseen.  But the country’s adults are still overwhelmingly some sort of Christian: 78.9 pct. once you add-in Catholics and Orthodox … not counting those “Nothing in particulars,” atheists, agnostics, Don’t knows, and Refuseds, many of whom I said above are essentially Protestant.

Only 4-5 pct. non-Christian, plus some percentage of the “Nothing in particulars,” atheists, agnostics, Don’t knows, and Refuseds.  Frankly, I expected more!

One other caveat: extrapolating national percentages for small groups - as many of the ones they mention are - is hazardous to your health, so there has to be some margin of error; it’s not a census after all.  For example, there are none, to 4 million Orthodox adults here, but one is talking to you right now, so, so much for that!

House Repugs running scared

Maybe.  Frankly I don’t trust a thing they say, even like this.  Certainly their Big Business Buddies will bail them out in time … or their e-voting hackers.

Wright = Lewinsky. Move on!

Yes, this Rev. Wright thing has been too long a distraction in the most important election in ages.  Media-driven, racist, religious persecution.  Or should we put all candidates’ preachers under the microscope?  They’re Protestants, so they’ve probably said a thing or two to pee-off half the country or more (PDF)!

There’s a reason why the Constitution outlaws “religious tests” for public office….

Is Hillary stealing votes?

See here.  Has she made a deal with the devils who put Putsch / Chicanery in the White House?  Furthermore, would this be a good thing or a bad thing?  After all, if anymore in America as back in the USSR, “It’s not the votes that count. It’s who counts the votes,” is this the only way to “win”?  Does Obama need to hire himself some hackers???

It’d make one hell of a movie, leadership of the world decided by competing campaign hackers, something like the climactic scene in WarGames…!  Parallel plots: the real-world election campaign and the hacker intrigue.  “Sex, sex, must get sex into it…!

Remember, in d/Democratic primaries it’s not just winner-take-all, you need to run-up the score to get as many delegates as you can in each state.  Preferably d/Democratically, though….

F*CK YOU, SCALIA!

And the horse you rode in on!

He tells 60 Minutes (CNN video package preceded by commercial) America should “Get over it” for him and his four GOP partisan buddies on the Supreme Court illegally giving the 2000 Presidential Election not to Al Gore who won it, but to the real Sore W. Loserman and his cronies/handlers, who have basically flushed the country and the planet down the toilet, just like they planned.

Scalia should be brought up on charges of judicial misconduct for his political and inflammatory comments in and outside the court since joining it in the ’80s; he should even be disbarred.  He treats the highest judicial office in the land and one of the most important in the world like he’s some village traffic court judge, shooting off his mouth, ruling however he wishes with no real regard for the law or the Constitution.  I can even say personally that he is one of the most ingracious, even impolitic, public figures I have ever had the displeasure to encounter - and I’ve known a few doozies!  And he’s the biggest Fascist and Theocrat on the Court, giving Catholic lawyers and judges a bad name.

Finally, now we REALLY have to seat the Florida delegates at the Democratic Convention, and might as well the Michigan ones too for good measure.  Hillary won both, so she’d gain some delegates, but since Obama didn’t run in Michigan, it should either be rerun or else let their non-Hillary delegates vote their consciences - you know 40 pct. Uncommitted was a shadow vote for Barack!

Though why the CNN correspondent says not seating Florida would hurt US in November, when Floridians clearly can expect no justice or consideration from the Repugs that doesn’t go their way, beats the heck out of me.  You know those old Jews ain’t gonna vote for Hitler twice!!!  (How can Al Franken* [from 7 years ago no less] and I be the only people who remember that?!!!)

What this interview does do for me is raise the specter of another high court coup d’etat … if the GOP thieves don’t do their job right at the ballot box, er, computer, of course … and their pollster / Mainstream Media backers forget to fudge the exit polls again.  Scalia hasn’t quite retired yet….

(*–BTW he needs your help!)

Confirm your email address

Why on forms online are we always asked to type in our email address twice?  It’s not usually encoded like a password usually is, so it’s not like we can’t see it as we’re typing the first time.  If we screw up, we go and fix it, that simple!

I think at some point in the early evolution of Web commerce, someone got in the habit of thinking of email addresses similarly to passwords.  I guess these are the guys who gave us the Y2K bug … or the Y2K scare, one or the other … or both, more likely!

Religious Establishment conundra II

What if we funded ALL primary and secondary schools, those of all religions and none?  Then it wouldn’t be “an establishment of religion,” just universal funding of education.  Might not even need a Constitutional Amendment!

I would imagine schools would retain their existing governance structures, just requiring public fiscal accountability, ’strongly encouraging’ economies-of-scale, and retaining a minimum of educational expectations like now for reading, math, science, etc.

This might result in a reduction in, though not elimination of, the need for non-elitist, nonsectarian schools, ie, the remnants of today’s “public” schools, governed by the same local Boards of Education or whatever.  But then, ALL schools would be public schools, so to speak!

I also don’t envision parsing the money so it doesn’t pay for religion-class-hours, chapels, etc., as sometimes happens now with nonsectarian aid to sectarian schools.  Most of that is driven by the (mistaken) Constitutional issue anyway.  Education is for educators and parents to decide, broadly speaking.

Could we bar aid to White Supremacist schools?  Muslim-Fundamentalist Madrasas?  Schools that teach against “race-mixing”?  “Afri-centric” schools?  Gay-affirming schools?  Atheist schools?  Polytheist schools?  Satanist schools?  Conspiracy-theory schools?  Legal, constitutional ways might be found to approach such questions rationally….

One thing this might do is spread “the most segregated hour of the week” - Sunday morning - to Monday-through-Friday, 8-to-3.  Then again, forming children really is a religious / moral / ethical task, is it not?  ALL education is religious in one way or another, even ostensibly non-religious education.  And national surveys say although Catholic parochial school alumni/ae have attended rather White schools (in this country), at-large they turn out among the most progressive, tolerant adults in America … so that way may lie hope after all!

And just as now, all these “public” schools should certainly be free to raise additional funds on their own voluntarily.

IOTM that all the non-public-school-aid Supreme Court cases I’ve ever heard of involved a single denomination or at most two at a time, namely America’s (despised) Catholics and Jews.  Has any State or school district or city ever proposed to fund ALL primary and secondary ed. in its borders???

All this education is being paid for already.  My proposal would merely spread the burden over the entire society that benefits - the whole country or State - and at the same time solve the old School Choice conundrum, the religion-in-school conundrum, the at-the-same-time-great-and-miniscule-expectations-of-public-schools paradox, maybe even much of the youth-sex-and-violence problem and the Melting Pot ideal (though this last indirectly, as I said above) … with all their unnecessary costs to everyone….

Of course, funded schools would have to be nonpartisan and not involve themselves in campaigns for or against candidates.

Viva Viagra

How come when the commercials say to ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex, I philosophize, “Whose heart truly is healthy enough for sex?!”

Boobs

Looks like it was female exposure week on Late Night with Conan O’Brien!  (Is it Sweeps again already?!!!)  It concluded last night with the Rennaissance Faire “tavern wenches,” then Tina Fey plugging her new movie Baby Mama … and, well, BABY, MAMA!!!  If things don’t work out with What’s-His-Name, *I’m* a nice Orthodox boy who always loved you on Update with those glasses…!

It seems today we have not just cleavage, but various kinds of actual breast exposure: ‘top breast meat,’ ’side breast meat,’ even ‘bottom breast meat.’  If you know what I mean!  At 1am it’s OK, but “not ready for prime time” IMHO.

A way out of Religious Establishment conundra?

Back in 1989 someone suggested the following:

Nor does the Constitution seek to create a secular public sphere. Religious pluralism and diversity — not secularism — are the animating principles of the First Amendment. [Emphasis Tiernan's.]

The article provides a piercing analysis of conflicts over the First Amendment’s clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Are we ‘excessively entangled’ in “excessive entanglement” concerns?!  I’m not 100 pct. certain about this approach, but I think it raises necessary questions.

Elitists II

I’ve got news for ya.  America’s been in the hands of “elitists” since they wrested it out of the hands of King George III!  OTOH, is the Queen an elitist?!

The Disability system is broken

For a very good description of the farce that is the Social Security Administration’s disability determination system (for both Social Security Disability and SSI/Disability), see here, both the article and the comments.  And my idea a year ago for a great fix!

Freckles are not “imperfections”

Even if mannequins like Paris Hilton don’t have any!

Lindsay Lohan was most attractive before she started covering up hers, or as someone said, “hiding all signs of her ethnic background” or words to that effect.  Makeup for a TV, movie, or stage appearance is one thing, but out from under the bright lights too???

Freckles are God’s makeup!

“Business” in America’s roots

The Kings of Great Britain should’ve expected trouble when they colonized the Atlantic coast with “proprietors” and “corporations”!  Was this any improvement over feudalism, granting colonies to worthy nobles in fief to help preserve the nature of British society like ‘at home’?  These corporations - like all originally - were a way for the Crown to pool wealth it didn’t have or wish to expend on the project, but still wished the project to go forward.  But as even Tom Jefferson knew, corporations suck-in power like a Black Hole - and so now we have them basically ruling the planet over and above the sovereign powers that created them and theoretically keep them alive by mere sovereign prerogative.

Of course, promoting an economic model for colonization, rather than a more ‘wholistic,’ cultural, multifaceted, inclusive, realistic one - I’m sure other models were possible besides feudalism (even a ‘modernized’ version) if that offends you - meant it was only a matter of time before enough ignoble wealthy perpetrated a “hostile takeover” - read coup d’etat - of the colonies.  Today we’re still “plantations” - Plantation America - if seemingly better taken-care-of than their ones elsewhere in the world - better-deluded, better-bribed, better-pacified, whatever.  Ironically, the late Marc Chaitlin claimed even the branches of the federal government, and the (small-R) republican “states,” were themselves fake “corporations,” especially in his collection of essays, The Constitution Papers - corporations designed to oppress us and exploit the land.

Just like the original ones, only far, far worse, and unchecked.  Talk about “absolutism.”

Elitists

Where the well-paid, snooty, right-wing, corporate shills at Faux News Channel get off putting down anybody else as “elitists,” I’ll never guess!  And shame on Hillary Clinton for taking their talking points!

Proof: Obama’s right: They’re “bitter”

According to the Wall Street Journal of all sources!  This link will probably break soon unless you give them money (figures…), but they did a feature this weekend in and around the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in the runup to the PA Democratic Primary on Tuesday - not exactly small-town, but alot smaller than Philly, Pittsburgh, etc.  Front page headline, above the fold, full-color photo: “Trapped in the Middle: The incomes of most Americans have stalled; Tackling voter angst in Pennsylvania.”  (”Angst” is just philosophical-German for “bitter” worry!)  And this is just the middle-middle-class; as we know, most Americans’ wages haven’t just “stalled,” they’ve been falling in constant dollars for decades!

Sociologists Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout uncovered this (slightly-) indirectly two years ago in their book The Truth about Conservative ChristiansAs it happens, Obama has a rural/farm plan along with his general economic plan.

Dust mites win

It seems we’re unable to get rid of enough of them - or their ‘leavings’ - to make a difference for allergies, allergic asthma, etc.

@#%&*!

The older we get…

the happier we get?  Or more content, at least.  Though with Boomers it seems questionable.  Sad.

Channel Island abandoning Feudalism?

That’s what media are saying (this news link will go stale), but I don’t believe they are correct to say so.  The heart of feudalism, or manorialism if you like, is the combination of holding land from and closely regulated by, the feudal lord (in this case, the Seigneur of the Isle of Sark) … and the obligation of service to him or her by those who hold their property from him or her.  The reforms will replace a legislative body made up mostly of the 40 main “tenants” ex officio (out of a current permanent population of 600) with one of 28 totally elected councilmembers.  But land tenure will be unchanged, and apparently the 40 main tenants will still be obligated to keep “muskets” to provide the first line of defense of the Isle, not unlike Switzerland’s requirement (not “right” as claimed in the U.S.) to keep and bear arms [for civilian defense, not revolution!]

One of the lesser-known “services” also required of feudal tenants was Counsel, advice.  So whether that counsel is provided by ex officio landholders or elected representatives of *all* the landholders doesn’t change the feudal system.  (As the sources say, there are two kinds of landholdings on Sark, the 40 main original and largest ones, and a number of smaller, newer ones, with traditionally fewer rights and obligations.)  Actually, electing hereditary representatives is not unprecedented in ‘the British system’: after suborning the Irish (Protestant) Parliament to merge itself into the British Parliament in the 1800s, Irish Protestant noblemen elected “representative peers” to the House of Lords, rather than theoretically admitting all of them to that House; and since Tony Blair’s “reforms” in the 1990s *all* United Kingdom hereditary peers elect 90-some of their number to the House of Lords for the time being (though the “ruling” Labour Party anticipates abolishing a hereditary right to sit in that House before long, though allowing those who also have Life Peerages to sit there, and others to run and vote for the powerful House of Commons like they traditionally could not - because they are not Commoners).

So democracy is no more incompatible with “feudalism” as it remains on Sark, than it is with certain forms of Monarchy itself, as in many First World countries.  In fact, think of Sark as a tiny subordinate monarchy: the Seigneur holds the whole Isle on loan from the Queen, conditioned upon annual rent of something like five dollars U.S. (the rate hasn’t been inflated since Queen Elizabeth I originally made the grant over 400 years ago) and maintenance of a first-line defense arrangement - the guys with the “muskets.”  The only way Sark’s “feudalism” could be abolished under Her Majesty’s Monarchy as currently constituted there would be if the Queen revoked the Seigneur’s tenancy of the Isle, or abolished the Seigneurship as it were.

Although, remember that the Queen is considered to legally own nearly all of the land in her Realms.  *All* “landowners” merely hold their property from her; hence the Sovereign right of Eminent Domain, which of course is asserted by all sovereign States, including the American States, not only Monarchies.*  This is a worldwide remnant of feudalism, although under Rule of Law, the sovereign power should only be used according to previously-publicly-passed and written-down laws or well-known/attested custom, and property’s ostensible “owners” actually own real rights in respect of the land, which the sovereign power is considered required to honor.  So the situation on Sark is not different in genus, only in species, so to speak, from that elsewhere in the UK or even in the US.

Why do I care?  The coverage of the Sark reforms is yet another manifestation of the historical and constitutional ignorance that plagues much of the English-speaking world, within and outside the Commonwealth, imperiling not only the Monarchy there but the legal tradition itself, everywhere.  If law becomes merely what ignorant or partisan judges or politicians say it is, they will ride roughshod right over the rest of us, just like has been happening in the U.S. since 12/12/00 (PDF).  And if WE are ignorant, or successfully fed propaganda by the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Sky News/Fox News, or his Sarkese comrades the Barclay brothers, we will let them.  And the biggest threat to our freedoms will have come not from abroad, but from right here at home - right inside each of our countries.

And now for something completely different … if you’ve gotten this far, you’ve earned it. ;)

(*–In America the “sovereign” is considered to be the people of the State … though as I always say, If everybody’s sovereign, nobody’s sovereign - or the sovereignty is being usurped by one or a few, known or unknown!)

We must go with Obama

I urge everybody who still has a chance - primary or caucus voters, delegates, superdelegates - to vote for Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.

If the Repugs don’t steal another one, Obama has the best chance of keeping them out of the White House.  He’s bringing all kinds of new people into the Democratic Party and the political / electoral process.  If Clinton’s nominated, she’ll just hyper-activate all the Hillary-haters and Clinton-haters out there in the electorate, AM radio, Fox News Channel, etc., and some of the new Obama supporters certainly won’t vote Republican, but are sure to stay home.  This election, more than any other in a long, long time, must not be a spectator sport!  The only risk is whether enough people will be able to set aside their race or bigotry issues and vote for a man who had a lapsed Muslim father from Africa* and a White mother.  Maybe I’m the one out of touch, but I think it’s likelier than Hillary winning the White House.

In international affairs, what Obama lacks in explicit experience, he’ll more than make up for in the good will he generates around the world; plus, community-organizing experience is a plus in international affairs!  Domestically, his pledge to investigate Bush lawbreaking is necessary.  I can accept him.

(*–Didn’t I tell you they’d start hammering on his middle name?  As if King Hussein was a bad man!)

McCain, torture, revenge?

Might McCain allow torture as revenge for the torture he suffered in Vietnam?  Something to think about before voting for him for President.

More Torturegate

I approved.”

–George Walker Bush, de facto 43rd President of the United States of America

How many confessed (non-sexual) “high crimes and misdemeanors” does it take to get impeached in this country?  Do we really have to get him an intern?!!!

Torturegate

The torture ball rolls on and the administration unravels.  At least ABC News didn’t sit on this one like the supposedly-liberal NY Times on Spygate!  Way to go, Charlie!  Condi must go, and they all must go before The Hague!

What shocks me almost more is that this isn’t having signed-off on a general memo a few years previous, this is pre-choreographing specific torture sessions with specific individual “suspects,” probably mere hours before the specific torture acts occurred.  Bush and the other “Principals” were basically puppetmasters, all but going to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan or Poland or wherever and doing the torturing themselves!  Not that the actual torturers bear no responsibility for following unlawful, unconstitutional orders, but that these civilian officials BEAR MORE!  Even the Nazis weren’t this dumb!  No “plausible deniability” here!

Tsars, Serfs, and the West

One of the worst charges laid at the feet of the Tsars (Emperors) of Russia by Western and Western-influenced critics is considered to be possibly the largest, harshest, and latest-ending system of serfdom the world has ever seen.  What these Westerners don’t tell us is that making Ukraine and vicinity “the breadbasket of Europe” came at a price to most of the Russian people.  As this Wikipedia article points out, Eastern Europe was Western Europe’s first source of cash crops, a practice which of course the West later exported over much of the Earth because it worked so well … for the West!

Serfdom declined in Western Europe because of peasant rebellions, the Plague, Enclosure of the Commons (a great Crime Against Humanity), industrialization, the growth of wage labor even in agriculture (you win some, you lose some!), urbanization, etc.  So they effectively transferred it to Eastern Europe!  They off-shored it!  Eastern landowners, nobles, and monarchs shamefully turned to the profits available in exporting cash crops to the West, and so had to hold on to their own peasantry, in some cases well into the 19th century.

The Banana Republic Phenomenon gives us an idea what they would’ve faced if they’d balked at such abjection.  So do, more recently, it is alleged by many, the current Oil Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But the West blames the Tsars, Orthodoxy, Eastern “backwardness,” “need / desire for strong leaders,” and all that other claptrap, when it needs to paint the system from which it benefited so much - which probably saved its life, since without food you die - as bad.  This is not different from the Western Powers blaming “Balkanization” on the Balkans, after the West has spent over 200 years trying to dissolve that region into smaller and smaller statelets.  (The newest, Kosovo, is “slightly larger than Delaware,” for crying out loud!)  Or blaming Indian Tribes for behavior akin to Banana Republics after setting them up on the worst land on the continent, eviscerating their cultures, imposing non-traditional (small-R) republican governments on them, then reinvading them for mineral resources when these are discovered, just like the Third World!!!!!

What’s the definition of a legal mind?: the ability to think about something intimately related to something else, without thinking about the thing to which it’s related!  IOW, Compartmental Thinking, that great gift of Western Christianity to the world, which has allowed the West to basically rape the planet and commit the worst crimes, absolve itself of blame, and in fact turn the blame onto its victims!!!!!

Fox Attacks Iran

Fox News Channel beats the drums for war against Iran, just like they did against Iraq a few years back, and with as little justification.  See this short video and sign a MoveOn petition to the real networks not to be bullied by Fox this time around!

(I wonder if the Republican National Committee and McCain campaign report as donations, all the air time they receive from FNC, AM radio, etc etc etc.?  Surely it’d put them way over the top: after all, it’s basically 24/7 free advertising!)

Violent Demonstrations

When did they start using the word violence to refer to demonstrations, rallies, etc., where nobody is hurt, just property is damaged?

Lessee now, corporations and property are people, but unborn babies aren’t, including embryonic stem cells that are called that because they basically are embryos?  And immigrants and the poor and workers and people of color aren’t much of people either?

WHO’S behind this Strange New World?!!!

MRS. McCAIN DEALS COKE

Maybe Pepsi too.

That is, if the big beer distributorship she’s heir to also includes soda pop among their supplies, as they sometimes do!!! ;)

Superdelegate mystery

What’s with all this “mystery” some are trying to whip up or allege around Democratic Superdelegates?  All they are is ex officio Convention delegates, not committed by a primary or caucus or State convention to any Presidential candidate.  There are hundreds of them: How can you call them all “insiders” or “elites” or “party bosses”?  They’re mostly elected officials, in either government office or party posts such as elected committeemen/women.  They are the elected leadership of the Party officially or unofficially, and they are authorized by the current rules, adopted democratically a generation ago, to exercise free choice in hopefully helping guide all of us together, the Party and the American people, to victory in November.  Many Democrats you can actually name are the Superdelegates, they just usually carry other titles, such as Congresswoman, Senator, Governor, Mayor, Chairperson, Committeeman, etc.

The consensus of the Party’s voters so far, or of the other candidates they voted for who are now endorsing one or the other surviving candidate, seems to be that we have two very good candidates left at this point in the process.  This is a good thing!  (The Repugs are stuck with McCain because they had only losers running!)  If the nomination comes down to the Superdelegates, the rules allow us to trust them to add their judgment to our own in putting forward the best candidate in November, because we all want to win, we all need to win, now more than ever, for America and the world, for now and the future.  There is way too much at stake here for each side within the Party to destroy the other, because we’re going to need each other to do our best together to keep the Republicans from stealing a third consecutive Presidency, and Congress also again!  It’s a campaign, but winning must not be a pyrrhic victory, where one campaign destroys half the Party and the Christo-Fascists walk all over all of us and all of the American people, right back into the White House and the Capitol Building!

If it goes to the Convention, is that necessarily a bad thing?  Imagine, a Convention that means something!  Face-to-face democracy they dare to call “a brokered convention” and a “smoke-filled room”!  In New England they call it a Town Meeting, and business-as-usual, not a “brokered town meeting” or a “smoke-filled town meeting”!  They’re not really supposed to be meaningless week-long TV commercials after all, but Conventions – democratic, rule-of-law decision-making bodies of Our Party!  Imagine, a political campaign as an ongoing civics lesson, not just devolving into one long fundraising-moneybegging commercial from now till Labor Day!

Who’s afraid of a little democracy?  The Republicans?  The Mainstream Media?  Big Business?  AM radio?  The Christo-Fascists?  Faux News Channel?

They oughta be!!!

Nashville monarchists

The former website of their “Royalist Party of America” is of interest.  IIRC so was the site of their Joseph Crisp was too, but the Wayback Machine seems currently down.

This looks like a GREAT monarchy blog

A governmental experiment in class harmony

The Senate of Ireland.  Inspired by a papal encyclical, no less!  If only it were open to actual members of the “vocational panels,” instead of their self-appointed (or party-appointed) representatives using it as a stepping stone to the far more powerful lower house of parliament, the Dail (pronounced DALL, sort of).  I thought I’d read about something similar on the Continent during the Middle Ages, like maybe the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire (so-called), but maybe not.

Intriguing is the “University panel,” anybody with a degree from the two big Universities in the Republic.  Though since college education is becoming more common, maybe it’d make sense to raise the qualification to holders of advanced degrees like Master’s and Doctorates.  Certainly it shouldn’t be abolished like some want: it’s ancient Gaelic tradition, going way back in Scotland; plus their expertise and study could be useful to a Republic, since Republics are normally so beholden to passions of the moment.

What about the equally-ancient tradition of senior churchmen - or women nowadays perhaps! - in upper houses, such as the leading ones in the four biggest religious groups in the land - Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, and mainline Presbyterian - who are lifelong or very-long-time citizens of the Republic?  What about minority religions in modern, multicultural Ireland?: Quakers, Hindus, Jews, Muslims?  A lay Orthodox Christian?  (Orthodoxy traditionally bars clergy from government, preferring a “symphonic” relationship with the State, counseling its leaders privately [usually], from its perspective of Faith and Truth.)  I know some Irish religious leaders have big mouths, but where else can they be debated with, publicly and in-person, politely, as I’m sure Seanad Eireann requires?

I’m intrigued about suggestions of Diaspora representation in the Seanad, but not sure how they’d work this out, with over 70 million of us worldwide….

There’s one other significant ethno-cultural interest among Irish at home and abroad that seems to cry out for representation, what are commonly called the Clans - a term borrowed from the Scots - or sometimes more technically the Septs, one of which is a collection of people (apparently) descended from the same original hereditary surname and place and/or instance* - IOW the same (apparent) extended family - or sometimes a collection of such with the same surname but differing places of origin or of instance within the Island of Ireland.  Who represents a Clan has sometimes been a matter of controversy, even involving the Irish government itself, understandings of different legal systems and traditions that claim to have been followed in Ireland and elsewhere, competing claimants to Clan Chieftainries or organizational legitimacy, alleged outright fraud in this regard, etc.  But Clans are often a means of aiding reconnecting with Ireland for Diaspora Irish, emotionally and not infrequently physically, with Clan Gatherings there promoting localized and broader tourism.  But I think it’s fair to say that the leading undisputed representative of any Clan is The O’Brien, Prince of Thomond, Baron Inchiquin, descendant of the best-known Irish High King Brian Boru (d. AD 1014), and a predecessor of whom was considered for restoring the Gaelic Monarchy in Ireland in the 1930s-40s.  I believe he’s Anglican also, so in Seanad Eireann he could wear three hats at once, covering Clans, Diaspora, and Protestants!

(*–I say instance to cover families who have come to definitely identify and be considered as Irish down through the centuries but originated outside Ireland, such as the Scottish Gallowglas families, the “Old English,”  Norman Irish “more Irish than the Irish themselves,” etc.  Although often these too must be identified or distinguished with the help of varying Irish geography.)

A New Mother England Taking Over

As in “John Cleese Letter to U.S. Citizens.”  Yes, apparently it’s fake, but I just had to read through this whole thing so now you do too!  Actually the longest, the version I only first saw today here,* is the funniest and most enjoyable (apparently some Yanks - or fake Yanks? - haven’t done enough traffic circles to appreciate Brit humour!); fortunately it’s near the top of the Snopes column, so you can dispense with the rest if you like.

(*–A good Philadelphia Lawyer AND a monarchist; now that’s irony for ya!)

“Muslim leaders want to curb ‘Islamophobia’”

From MSNBC.  Though they could start by working on their own people who give their faith a bad name, like the Saudis and their highly sectarian and provocative Wahabbism (a minority among the world’s Muslims), bin Laden and his ilk, get Ahmadinejad to tone it down a scooch, introduce those radical madrasa schools a little bit into the Reality-Based Community, stuff like that.

Then, just try to understand where “libertarian” Westerners are coming from: today’s Western Christianity and “post-Christianity” are built on the foundation of the Rennaissance of Classical pagan Greek and Roman culture, which was much aided by translations of Classics via the Muslim world at the height of its own culture.  As an Orthodox Christian, I see alot of problems with this too, but it’s there and it’s highly influential around the world now.

If the Islamic Conference just tries to beat countries over the head it doesn’t like with international law, they’re more likely to drive more countries into the U.S. camp, which largely disdains international law.  Then nobody benefits, as the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein have learned, and the Iranians may yet learn, sadly.

Maybe what they should do is work domestically, within countries, based on their own existing legal systems and parliaments.  Form “Anti-Defamation Leagues” in each country, like Jewish folks have in the U.S.

I personally have a growing problem with growing Muslim influence in the West, in particular the retrograde influence of Saudi / Wahabbist and other radical ideologies who take advantage of “liberal” Western immigration, speech, and publishing laws to oppose Western values, societies, and people’s lives and safety, and so-called honor killings (aka revenge vendettas).  But I oppose all false rhetoric, and favor critiques based only on truth.  In a Western country, if you can prove slander or libel in court, you can win some kind of award.  As for non-Muslim cartoonists or their publishers who violate Muslim rules, well, you shouldn’t just expect people who don’t belong to your religion to follow its rules, any more than Jews expect non-Jews to keep kosher; you have to inculcate genuine sensitivity.  We do that with White police; there’s no reason rational Muslim representatives can’t peacefully ask to meet with Western periodical publishers, etc., and help them voluntarily become more sensitive to your religion’s concerns, just like any other growing minority religion here.  But does a problem in Denmark have to provoke violence in Pakistan and the East Indies?  Is that reasonable?  Isn’t that just “Westophobia”?

OTOH, if you come to the West, you implicitly agree to the rough-and-tumble of Western democracy and political “dialogue,” which sometimes is “in your face” and offensive.  I oppose gratuitous, senseless offensiveness, but sometimes legitimate critique and questioning will offend, but in the end is helpful.  Where’s the rationalism and reasonableness of Medieval Islam, the cultural height of your civilization?  There were limits to potentially-scandalous criticism, but there was also literary give-and-take.  Embrace the best of your heritage; we’re supposed to embrace the best of ours as Westerners; challenge us to do so.

There’s productive confrontation, and there’s just unproductive point-scoring.  The latter feels good only for a short time, like self-gratification; the former can bring significant, permanent improvement for everybody concerned.  Ask American Jews and Blacks.

Insofar as “Islamophobia” is a “phobia,” it is an irrational fear, one not based in reality, and so in theory has a psychotherapeutic treatment and cure, even on a societal scale.  Outlawing it through the UN won’t cure it, only make it worse.  Treat the phobia, show it to be irrational and not based in reality.  What Westerners fear is terrorism, war, weapons of mass destruction, violence, unruly mobs, senseless property damage, intolerance, any real loss of rights or freedom or democracy, threats to their elected governments and to what they value in their own historic cultures, etc.  Is this unreasonable, irrational?  Don’t Muslims fear the same things?  Yet Westerners feel these things are being threatened by some people in the name of Islam, rightly or wrongly.  Help us out, please.

Then again, if all you’re going to be about is avenging 800 years of Western victories over Muslims, well then I guess it’ll be World War 3 and the end of everything.  Then the Promised One will come, and we’ll see who was right.  Is that it?  Do you want the same thing as American Fundamentalists, Armageddon?

Why can’t we both choose peace?

Taking marriage seriously

Here’s to it!  As we Orthodox say, Many Years to them both!

That’s the thing about old-fashioned marriage: you presumed this was the person you were going to spend the rest of your lives with, and so you operated out of that presumption.  Now, as divorce spreads, that presumption weakens in alot of people, or so you hear.  That’s a problem, and it probably has an untold impact on our society.

I’m not talking about staying if there’s physical abuse or outright emotional torture going on.

It probably helps that these two are reasonably-devout Catholics.  Divorce wasn’t a sin in Catholicism (though remarriage while your ex-spouse is still alive is), but frowned upon, and relatively rare, rarer I think than in Protestantism.  I think still Protestants are more likely to divorce than Catholics, though divorce is spreading among Catholics.  Andrew Greeley might say that traditionally, Catholicism’s “social capital” helped reinforce its principles among its adherents: neighborhood, parish, church, school, organizations (Knights of Columbus, Ajax Ladies, Ancient Order of Hibernians, etc.), back then even parish quasi-banks.

For Catholics traditionally this wasn’t really a “doctrinaire” approach like for “family values” Protestants today, it was just their religious culture.  As a Greeley character put it, tongue mostly in cheek, “Homicide, maybe. Divorce, never!”

I’d have to do more homework, but I’m not sure the vaunted increase in Catholic annulments of marriages in recent years is a percentage increase.  Their population numbers have grown in step with the nation’s population - they’ve been steadily approximately a quarter of the population for a century or more.  Have annulments outpaced population growth?  Or has there really been no change in the rate of annulments, just that the numbers have now grown so large?  Remember, despite their minority status here, the U.S. is one of the biggest Catholic countries in the world, up there with Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines….

Poorest not eligible for Stimulus money

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) does not count as qualifying income for the stimulus payment.”

What’s wrong with this picture?  Economists say $600 or $1200 will most likely stimulate the economy (as much as it will at all, which is not much) in the hands of the poorest.  For those with higher incomes, it’s no big deal, “pin money” as it used to be called.

Of course, this isn’t a real Economic Stimulus Package.  It’s an Incumbent / Republican Election Package.  And alot of the poorest don’t vote.  Wonder why?  :|

Impeach ‘em all for bribery!