Recent Posts
Science and religion mix like oil and water. Most people have heard that before - I would say science and religion mix like rocks and water. Sure, enough rocks can hold back alot of water, but sooner or later, if there is enough water, it spills over the rocks of ignorance and knowledge moves ahead.
It's interesting to note, those who believe some of the most outlandish mythologies are the first to deny real knowledge. Not surprising, really. Since people first began to question the world around them mythologies have arisen to explain the unexplainable. As time went on, what had been explained through myth gave way to scientific method.
Still, many find themselves either unable or unwilling to move out of the shadows of myth and embrace knowledge. It's easier to continue the myth, to stay with the familiar. What, for example, is the factor most responsible for determining what religion a person will follow?
Where they are born, of course. A child born in South Carolina isn't likely to grow up to become a Muslim, unless that is his or her family tradition already. Kids in Iran aren't overwhelmingly Christian. Some move on from the comforting power of myth and seek real knowledge, but their numbers aren't big in fundamentalist societies.
The tragic arises from the fact that every fundamentalist thinks their way is the only way, and the others are dismissed as heretics or even worse "non-believers." The non-believer suddenly has less value - and is therefore easier to dehumanize.
What else do all the fundamentalist religious sects share? A disdain for knowledge, for art, for anything not reinforcing their narrow world view. They view science as enemy, free thought as poison, and a questioning mind as heresy. The mindset spills over into every facet of life.
The denial of science is part and parcel of the fundamentalist belief, whether it be evolution or climate change, or any other topic of scientific import. And to allow anyone that holds views of obvious denial don't deserve even a minute of respect for those views. It's one thing to say "live and let live, believe what you want," but when those beliefs threaten our ability to tend to clear and present dangers like global climate change.
Sure, not all science denials come from religious fundamentalists. There are plenty of corporate hack "scientists" who will claim anything their handlers tell them to, for the right money. And there are some who don't fit either description, but are so blinded by their ideology as to listen to whatever their spokespeople tell them to. "Dittoheads" could bring themselves to go against Rush anymore than a fundamentalist Christian will go against James Dobson.
They will throw out nonsensical arguments like "the earth is cooling." And it is, right now, a little bit. It's because we are in a period of extremely low sun spot activity. That won't last forever, and the greenhouse foundation will still be there. When Florida is only one county or two after rising sea levels, it's too late to try to stop it.
Point is, we need real solutions to real problems that won't be solved by praying or giving into denial. We need to plan now for a future changed by what we are doing to our environment. And anyone who wishes to believe in fairy tales needs to step aside for real leadership.
Just who are Senate conservatives working for, anyway?
I use the term Senate conservatives because there are enough turncoat Democrats on the take from health insurance companies that real health care reform is in danger. Senators like Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Max Baucus (D-MT) have come out against a public health care option just when we need a solid front for real reform.
Even Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) who is one of my home state Senators, won't come out and endorse single-payer or a public option. He has championed health care reform for years, and is behind his Healthy Americans Act that would go along way - but he hasn't come out for a public option. I admire so much of what Senator Wyden has accomplished for Oregon, I wish he wouldn't disappoint me.
What's a big potential problem? Pure and simple, money. The real power behind so much of what is wrong in America today, corporate money. With so much on the line, health insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies, private hospitals - all have been stuffing the pockets of politicians for years in order to pre-empt change.
So much money and undue influence are in play that the health care battle may just represent the last, best chance for a restoration of American democracy. If the overwhelming majority of Americans who want at least a single-payer option are ignored, it may be the death knell for representative government in America for the foreseeable future. Corporatism will have won out, and we will find ourselves at the whim of the powerful corporate elite.
It's a given that the Republicans in Congress are bought and paid for by corporate special interests. It's a shame that many Democrats may be also. It will help now that Al Franken will be allowed to take his rightfully won Senate seat - yes, the Senate is that tight where one vote counts big.
Conservatives babble on about how including at least a public option will "destroy the best health care system in the world" although stat after stat doesn't bear that out. We pay double the next highest country for health care, and are behind in every measure of outcome. It's broken, and getting worse by the day.
Most Americans know it, and want real action. A recent poll indicated 76 percent of Americans want at least a public option, and 56 percent favor outright single-payer. Where is their voice? Common in the recent protests in Iran were signs that said "where's my vote?" Will Americans need signs asking "when will my vote count?"
The election in Iran was pitched as reformer against hardliner, the future against the past. Although little might have changed if the "reformer" Mir Hossein Mousavi defeated "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so much could have changed.
The presidency of Iran isn't as powerful as many think, with ultimate power being held by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The cleric holds power to overrule the president whenever he sees fit, and to guide him to the policies Khamenei deems important. Still, the president of Iran holds a big spot on the world stage, and has power to address issues, as long as he remains in context with the clerics.
But with the results of the presidential election looking very suspect and the people hitting the streets in protests, at least a chance of a re-vote exists. The decision may come as soon as Friday. If that happens, or even if a lesser accommodation is made, the point is clear. The clerics who have long dominated Iranian politics have to address change.
The majority of Iranians don't want to fall into the mold made for them by FOX News and conservatives in America. They don't want to be political pariahs. They want to engage the west, especially America. And they are willing to take to the streets to keep away from that. They want change at home too, like more equality for women.
Will they get what they want? Probably not right away, but big steps have been taken. And the Iranian people join the ranks of other birthing democracy movements like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in showing the power of people in mass.
It's a lesson we here in America need to re-learn. The power of protest ended the Vietnam War. The power of protest propelled the civil rights movement. The power of protest gave us labor laws, gave women the right to vote, and ended slavery. It can bring change again.
We have it easy here - with some notable exceptions, protesters in America aren't in danger of losing life and limb these days. We can march and then go home at night in relative safety. The Iranians hitting the streets have more in common with civil rights marchers in the 60s then with the challenges America faces today. So I have to ask - where are America's protesters?
Sure, we have the tea bag movement, but it's ill-defined and even less informed. We had marches against the war in Iraq, but not big enough. What would have happened if millions of Americans would have been out in the streets for days after George Bush was allowed to steal the presidency in 2000? What if America (or at least Florida) was forced into a new vote? How much damage to the country could have been avoided?
Or what about health care? Polls show a big majority of Americans favor single payer health care, and even more favor at least a public option. Still, big money interests are dimming the chances of passage. How broken does the system have to get before enough Americans are enraged?
We could learn from the Iranians. And others around the world. France is a country with a grand history of protest. Sometimes over issues far more trivial than health care or stolen elections.
My friend Jim Stillman entered into a debate with Orble's most infamous blogger, S.L. Bradish. The topic picked was abortion, a stickng point between right and left, to be sure. Jim did himself and his viewpoint proud, and I commend him for it!
It's a hard thing to do, try to speak logic to a right wing ideologue. I've heard it compared to trying to teach calculus to a monkey. Surely that must be easier. The far right is entrenched in it's firm opposition to women's reproductive rights, and not just on abortion. Every aspect of the reproductive process and a woman's decisions regarding it are targets for the far right
[ Click here to read more ]
If you listen to everyone from right wing pundits to the conservative on the street, they will tell you Democrats are bringing "socialized medicine" to America, and it will ruin "the best health care system in the world." Few of them actually understand what that means, or what it would do for American health care.
First, it's a mistake to say "best health care in the world." In reality, it's only the most expensive. Not even in the top 20 in terms of actual results. Why the discrepancy? In short, for-profit insurance companies. Sure, if you've got the money, you'll get great health care. If you can afford Cedar Sinai, you have little to complain about. If, on the other hand, you aren't insured are find yourself under-insured, good luck
[ Click here to read more ]
It seems some on the right think ACORN stands for the devil incarnate, out to eliminate the American Way and destroy capitalism whilst corrupting America's virgin youth and eating kittens.
Glenn Beck seems to have taken the point against ACORN, having a special one hour episode on FOX trying to demonize the organization. With zeal akin to Simon Wiesenthal hunting down Nazi war criminals, Beck scoured the country looking for real and imagined ACORN infractions. He found problems, of course. There were, and are, investigations of ACORN and it's employees
[ Click here to read more ]
To say Obama's deficit proposals are better than those of the president who preceded him sounds like a partisan apologist just making a statement. It's not, and here's why. There are differences in what the spending does and how it affects the country and the economy.
The deficits of the Bush Administration were due in large part to excessive and unnecessary war spending as well as irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy. The extra spending did nothing but increase debt with no tangible returns to anyone except corporate cronies from companies like Halliburton and such. Most Americans saw their real earning power decrease and their debts increase, all while the costs of health care exploded
[ Click here to read more ]
As America moves toward the inevitable recognition that same-sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, another barrier comes down as the latest version of the popular game The Sims allows same-sex marriage.
With the release of The Sims 3, gamers can do something many real people cannot. Of course, that's common in gaming, real people can't fly through walls or shoot a couple of hundred people in an hour. But by allowing gay marriage, the creators of The Sims 3 do more than just allow the fantastic, they help to move social progress ahead
[ Click here to read more ]
The debate just keeps on going about gay marriage, even though it is fairly obvious that at some point the wall will come down and gay marriage will not be looked on any differently than other forms of marriage.
What's the most often touted reason those against gay marriage give for their opposition? That it threatens the foundations of what they hold dear. That marriage is a deeply personal and religious matter that they feel is mortally wounded if gays are allowed to marry. So, why not make a compromise that lets them hold on to their ceremony, but makes them no different from the gays they so which to minimize
[ Click here to read more ]
Just what is an "activist judge" anyway? Is it just an arbitrary phrase thrown out to the public forum? Perhaps the term might be applied to judges and courts who overturn the 'will of the people?" If that's the test, the most activist judges on the Supreme Court are Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy - each of them have voted more than 50 percent of the time to overturn laws either passed by Congress or voted in by the people, when such cases have been brought before them. No so-called "liberal" judge on the court hits that mark.
And which judges, if one were to guess, have been more likely to vote in favor of corporate interests and big money elites? Now we look to the first of hopefully many Supreme Court nominees to come out of the Obama years and he, by all but the most partisan observers, has made an excellent choice. Of course, the hard right will mobilize for a battle, and they will say they want nominees who aren't "activist judges
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Comments (7)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Jeff Musall
on Conservatives and health care in America
Secular Humanity