After the female bishops of the Church of England demanded that the Church stop referring to God as "he," the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, declared that God was neither male or female. Is this blasphemous? Sacrilegious? Neither. What it happens to be is logic and common sense.
Whatever title you bestow upon this entity, the Supreme Being of the Bible would have no specific gender, and here is why. Human beings and most living creatures have two distinct genders for one specific purpose: propagation of the species. In plain English--reproduction. Nature in all its forms has one encompassing and overriding goal: to keep the species going, whether it's plants, animals or people. That is why one of the most pleasurable and powerful--if not the most powerful--drive we possess is the sex drive. Nature designed it that way to insure that we would reproduce. Our species would have died out eons ago if every human was repulsed and sickened by the very thought of sex. And it is no coincidence that our genitalia is conveniently compatible. A protruding penis for the guys, and an accommodating vagina for the ladies. Everything about our physical and emotional makeup is designed to keep the species reproducing.
When the concept of a God was conceived thousands of years ago, it was a world ruled, owned and operated by men, so it followed that ancient minds made God a male.
That raises the question: Why would a Supreme Being have a specific gender? The short answer is that it wouldn't. A Supreme Being isn't human, and therefore does not require genitalia for the purpose of reproduction. God would have no need for a penis or vagina, which means God would have no gender.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Saturday, November 17, 2018
HAIL, GRIDLOCK!
Gridlock: It's a word we all dread when it describes rush hour traffic. When it's used to describe the political landscape, it's a word we should all welcome.
Prior to this year's midterm election, the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. After the election, the Democrats regained control of the House, while the Republicans increased their majority in the Senate. The media portrayed this has a stunning defeat for President Trump. But was it really? The Democrats gained 29 seats in the House. By comparison, during Clinton's first midterm election, the Democrats lost 53 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. During Obama's midterm, The Dems lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. Those numbers make the Republican losses in the House in 2018 look like a minor blip. In fact, it's typical. Historically, Americans have traditionally given the majority in Congress to the party not holding the White House. Only twice in the past 96 years, 1934 and 2002, have the voters increased the President's majority in Congress during the midterm. It seems that Americans value balancing the powers of the Federal government. That situation has earned the title of gridlock.
But is gridlock in Washington a bad thing? When political parties operate with little or no opposition, their worse tendencies emerge, particularly as it effects the economy. The marketplace hates uncertainty. Business men live in fear of the government hammer falling on their heads in the form of higher taxes and more stringent regulations. With a divided Congress and White House, the risk of such a calamity is signifigantly reduced. Look what happened the day following the 2018 election. The stock market gained over 500 points. Why? Because with gridlock, the marketplace believes both parties will fail to cobble together a majority to pass major legislation. In fact, we are all saved from an overactive government. Someone once said that he who governs least governs best. Gridlock allows that scenario to play out, saving us from a burdensome avalanche of rules, regulations and laws that ultimately reduce our freedom. In any given year, Presidents have signed into law as many as 300 bills, the vast majority restricting our freedom to one degree or another.
Americans are a tough, self-reliant bunch who prosper the most when politicians get the hell out of the way and allow citizens to run their own lives as they see fit.
Hail, gridlock! The American citizen's best friend.
Prior to this year's midterm election, the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. After the election, the Democrats regained control of the House, while the Republicans increased their majority in the Senate. The media portrayed this has a stunning defeat for President Trump. But was it really? The Democrats gained 29 seats in the House. By comparison, during Clinton's first midterm election, the Democrats lost 53 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. During Obama's midterm, The Dems lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. Those numbers make the Republican losses in the House in 2018 look like a minor blip. In fact, it's typical. Historically, Americans have traditionally given the majority in Congress to the party not holding the White House. Only twice in the past 96 years, 1934 and 2002, have the voters increased the President's majority in Congress during the midterm. It seems that Americans value balancing the powers of the Federal government. That situation has earned the title of gridlock.
But is gridlock in Washington a bad thing? When political parties operate with little or no opposition, their worse tendencies emerge, particularly as it effects the economy. The marketplace hates uncertainty. Business men live in fear of the government hammer falling on their heads in the form of higher taxes and more stringent regulations. With a divided Congress and White House, the risk of such a calamity is signifigantly reduced. Look what happened the day following the 2018 election. The stock market gained over 500 points. Why? Because with gridlock, the marketplace believes both parties will fail to cobble together a majority to pass major legislation. In fact, we are all saved from an overactive government. Someone once said that he who governs least governs best. Gridlock allows that scenario to play out, saving us from a burdensome avalanche of rules, regulations and laws that ultimately reduce our freedom. In any given year, Presidents have signed into law as many as 300 bills, the vast majority restricting our freedom to one degree or another.
Americans are a tough, self-reliant bunch who prosper the most when politicians get the hell out of the way and allow citizens to run their own lives as they see fit.
Hail, gridlock! The American citizen's best friend.
Monday, November 12, 2018
FEDS, FIRES AND NATURE
The fires ravishing California have been among the fiercest and deadliest in recent memory. California governor Jerry Brown is one of the many voices blaming these ferocious fires on climate change. Are they correct? Is global warming the culprit? Climate change is the easy whipping boy, but could there be another culprit?
For thousands of years periodic fires have attacked our forests. Rather than being a purely destructive force, these fires replenished nutrients in the soil, established seeding for new trees and encouraged the growth of more fire resistant older trees.
The Forest Service, organized in 1905 by the Federal Government, began a policy of fire suppression. The Forest Service mission is to suppress all fires in order to save vegetation and nearby communities. By completely stamping out the light burning of forests, the Feds have created unnaturally dense forests. Most of these forests had light fires every 10 to 30 years, but since these fires have been curtailed by the Feds, these forests have become choked with vegetation. To worsen the situation, since the 1980's the Feds have reduced the number of timber harvests. Reduced harvests mean that more trees are densely packed, which ultimately results in more frequent and more intense fires.
Has with so many other areas of human endeavor, government encroachment inevitably leads to waste, destruction, and in the case of forest fires, the loss of human life. And we must ask ourselves one pertinent question: How many protected species of animals and plants have perished because of over reaching government policies?
For thousands of years periodic fires have attacked our forests. Rather than being a purely destructive force, these fires replenished nutrients in the soil, established seeding for new trees and encouraged the growth of more fire resistant older trees.
The Forest Service, organized in 1905 by the Federal Government, began a policy of fire suppression. The Forest Service mission is to suppress all fires in order to save vegetation and nearby communities. By completely stamping out the light burning of forests, the Feds have created unnaturally dense forests. Most of these forests had light fires every 10 to 30 years, but since these fires have been curtailed by the Feds, these forests have become choked with vegetation. To worsen the situation, since the 1980's the Feds have reduced the number of timber harvests. Reduced harvests mean that more trees are densely packed, which ultimately results in more frequent and more intense fires.
Has with so many other areas of human endeavor, government encroachment inevitably leads to waste, destruction, and in the case of forest fires, the loss of human life. And we must ask ourselves one pertinent question: How many protected species of animals and plants have perished because of over reaching government policies?
Thursday, October 4, 2018
THE POISON OF WORDS
I have always been a junkie. No, not that kind. I'm referring to a political junkie. When I was just a kid in grade school, I would rush home from school to watch the Democrat and Republican conventions. Not only that, I would watch with avid interest the Senator Kevauver crime hearings and the Army/McCarthy hearings with Senator Joe McCarthy. It didn't strike me as odd at the time, but looking back on those days with an adult perspective, it's obvious that I was a genuine political geek/nerd. After all, How many 12 year olds sit in front of the TV to watch Congressional committee hearings?
My purpose of bringing this up is to show that I have over a half century as an observer of the political scene. With that in mind, let me state that in all those years, all those decades, never have I witnessed such hysteria surrounding the political scene in this country. It verges on the insane and maniacal. To note: Kathy Griffith posting a picture of her holding a replica of the bloody severed head of Donald Trump; Madonna declaring that sometimes she feels like going to the White House and killing somebody; A writer for Saturday Night Live tweeting that Trump's 11 year old son is a serial killer in the making; Samantha Bee on her TV show calling the President's daughter a cunt; Rapper M&M rapping about killing the president; Congresswoman Maxine Waters urging her supporter to confront Trump supporters in restaurants, hotels, stores, etc., and tell them they do not belong there and to get out; Jimmy Kimmel saying the president should be castrated; Robert DeNiro opening the Tony Awards TV show by shouting "Fuck Donald Trump!"; Georgetown University professor, Christine Fair declaring that GOP senators deserve slow, miserable deaths, and that their corpses should be castrated.
And so it goes. There is no escaping the relentless verbal onslaught. We are being infected with a national madness the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetimes. Thee is no escaping it. It permeates TV, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, movies and the internet. This does not auger well for the future of this nation. Why? The cold, brutal fact is this: The more politicized a country, the less free it becomes. Look at North Korea,, Cuba, China. Every aspect of everyday life in those countries is politicized. They live and breath political propaganda 24/7.
In 1966, Karl Hess, political pundit and speechwriter for Senator Barry Goldwater, published an article, in of all places, Playboy Magazine. The article was titled THE DEATH OF POLITICS. In it, Hess wrote of the dangers of an overly politicized society, and the ways in which it erodes freedom and the overall quality of life. It is clear not enough people have read the article.
One expects political babble from elected officials and bureaucrats, but we are now exposed to wild rants from standup comics, professors, movie stars, singers and anyone else who can lasso a public forum to spout their bile. Knowledge and intellect not required.
There will always be political discourse. We will always have political disagreements. It goes with the territory. But we cheapen and degrade ourselves when the rhetoric is filled with hate, lies obscenities, ad hominem attacks and calls for violent action.
We all want a secure, strong and non violent country, but these goals can only be achieved and maintained through reasoned and rational debate and the use of rational logic. A sane society cannot maintain its sanity when it rejects rational discourse in favor of abusive, irrational and vile language.
To adopt the language of immoral vermin is to become that vermin.
My purpose of bringing this up is to show that I have over a half century as an observer of the political scene. With that in mind, let me state that in all those years, all those decades, never have I witnessed such hysteria surrounding the political scene in this country. It verges on the insane and maniacal. To note: Kathy Griffith posting a picture of her holding a replica of the bloody severed head of Donald Trump; Madonna declaring that sometimes she feels like going to the White House and killing somebody; A writer for Saturday Night Live tweeting that Trump's 11 year old son is a serial killer in the making; Samantha Bee on her TV show calling the President's daughter a cunt; Rapper M&M rapping about killing the president; Congresswoman Maxine Waters urging her supporter to confront Trump supporters in restaurants, hotels, stores, etc., and tell them they do not belong there and to get out; Jimmy Kimmel saying the president should be castrated; Robert DeNiro opening the Tony Awards TV show by shouting "Fuck Donald Trump!"; Georgetown University professor, Christine Fair declaring that GOP senators deserve slow, miserable deaths, and that their corpses should be castrated.
And so it goes. There is no escaping the relentless verbal onslaught. We are being infected with a national madness the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetimes. Thee is no escaping it. It permeates TV, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, movies and the internet. This does not auger well for the future of this nation. Why? The cold, brutal fact is this: The more politicized a country, the less free it becomes. Look at North Korea,, Cuba, China. Every aspect of everyday life in those countries is politicized. They live and breath political propaganda 24/7.
In 1966, Karl Hess, political pundit and speechwriter for Senator Barry Goldwater, published an article, in of all places, Playboy Magazine. The article was titled THE DEATH OF POLITICS. In it, Hess wrote of the dangers of an overly politicized society, and the ways in which it erodes freedom and the overall quality of life. It is clear not enough people have read the article.
One expects political babble from elected officials and bureaucrats, but we are now exposed to wild rants from standup comics, professors, movie stars, singers and anyone else who can lasso a public forum to spout their bile. Knowledge and intellect not required.
There will always be political discourse. We will always have political disagreements. It goes with the territory. But we cheapen and degrade ourselves when the rhetoric is filled with hate, lies obscenities, ad hominem attacks and calls for violent action.
We all want a secure, strong and non violent country, but these goals can only be achieved and maintained through reasoned and rational debate and the use of rational logic. A sane society cannot maintain its sanity when it rejects rational discourse in favor of abusive, irrational and vile language.
To adopt the language of immoral vermin is to become that vermin.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
TEARING US APART
In 2017, NFL Colin Kaepernick refused to stand during the pre-game playing of our National Anthem. Instead, he dropped to one knew in protest. Within weeks hundreds of other NFL players--the majority being African American--followed suit and also took to their knees during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. The reasons given for these protests were police brutality and oppression of black people in the United States. We may look back on these protests as a pivotal era in American history.
For over a century, the playing of our National Anthem signified our coming together, a diverse group of people putting our differences aside in support of the principles that comprise the social and political values of the US. The song symbolized our love and pride of country. It represented the honor and respect felt for those who sacrificed their lives in defense of our nation. Our ancestors may have originated from vastly diverse parts of the globe, and skin color and physical stature may differ greatly, but with the waving of the flag and the playing of the Star Spangled Banner, we become one homogenous, unified culture, sharing and celebrating mutual values. That tradition appears to be a dying one.
The National Anthem controversy may spell the beginning of an ever-widening gap between the white and black cultures and their values. Whereas the white culture regards the flag and Anthem with reverence and respect, growing numbers in the black culture regards them as a symbol of repression. Coupled with that attitude is a growing disregard within the black community for our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Many blacks regard Founding Fathers, like Jefferson , Washington, Franklin, Madison, etc., has old white slave owners, and hold these men in contempt, while disregarding their writings, which have shaped an entire nation with the concept of individual liberty.
The danger is that the newest generation of blacks will grow up viewing the NFL protesters as heroes and role models. It is very likely that in the decades ahead, we will witness a splintering within our population. One culture will disregard and hold in contempt the ideals represented by the flag, Anthem and Constitution; the other culture will continue to hold those ideals as the embodiment of
human freedom.
Our future may see an ever widening rend in the fabric that unites and protects our country. A tear that cannot be mended, and that may not stop until it is torn in two, forever severing and shredding our bonds as a free and united culture.
For over a century, the playing of our National Anthem signified our coming together, a diverse group of people putting our differences aside in support of the principles that comprise the social and political values of the US. The song symbolized our love and pride of country. It represented the honor and respect felt for those who sacrificed their lives in defense of our nation. Our ancestors may have originated from vastly diverse parts of the globe, and skin color and physical stature may differ greatly, but with the waving of the flag and the playing of the Star Spangled Banner, we become one homogenous, unified culture, sharing and celebrating mutual values. That tradition appears to be a dying one.
The National Anthem controversy may spell the beginning of an ever-widening gap between the white and black cultures and their values. Whereas the white culture regards the flag and Anthem with reverence and respect, growing numbers in the black culture regards them as a symbol of repression. Coupled with that attitude is a growing disregard within the black community for our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Many blacks regard Founding Fathers, like Jefferson , Washington, Franklin, Madison, etc., has old white slave owners, and hold these men in contempt, while disregarding their writings, which have shaped an entire nation with the concept of individual liberty.
The danger is that the newest generation of blacks will grow up viewing the NFL protesters as heroes and role models. It is very likely that in the decades ahead, we will witness a splintering within our population. One culture will disregard and hold in contempt the ideals represented by the flag, Anthem and Constitution; the other culture will continue to hold those ideals as the embodiment of
human freedom.
Our future may see an ever widening rend in the fabric that unites and protects our country. A tear that cannot be mended, and that may not stop until it is torn in two, forever severing and shredding our bonds as a free and united culture.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
LOSING THE GRIP ON CULTURE
I have always prided myself on being someone who kept up with pop culture and who could relate to what went on in this country in terms of music, movies, television, literature, politics, etc.. But not anymore. Now that I have reached my 70's, I find myself drifting to the periphery of pop culture. I feel increasingly like an outsider looking in, unable to fully relate to what I see and hear around me.
Take movies, for instance. Ever since I was a youngster of 4 or 5 I have been a big movie fan, a love implanted by my mother, who was also a huge fan and often took me along to see her favorite movies and stars. I have seen thousands of films over the years, comedies and dramas, big spectaculars and obscure independent films. Today I scan the movie listings and yawn with boredom. I recall the edgy and innovative films of Scorcese, Altman, Coppola, and a host of other young directors from the 60's and 70's. These were productions that created cutting portrayals of the human condition, both funny and tragic. Today, Hollywood offers up a menu of preposterous super heroes from some alternate universe, cartoonish comic book figures in preposterous plots aimed at adolescent mentalities.
Turn on the TV and it's more of the same. Superheroes, comic book characters, and the sophomoric and silly antics of 20 somethings written by sophomoric 20 somethings for 20 somethings.
The casting of movies and television ooze with political correctness. Stories are no longer cast with actors who would be most proficient for that role. Instead, actors are cast to fill diversity requirements to meet some unwritten diversity quota.
Even one of my favorite magazines-Entertainment Weekly-has begun to lose my interest. When I first became a subscriber 20 years ago, the magazine took a serious approach at all aspects of the entertainment world. Today the magazine is all about superheroes, comic books, ComicCon and an editorial policy aimed at people under the age of 25.
The music scene has also changed, and not always for the better. Listen to the top 20 songs and all you will hear is slow and moderate tempo music. Gone are the rockers like "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "I Saw Her Standing There," or one of the up temp jams by Chuck Berry or Little Richard. Hip hop, rap and EDM dominate the charts, all of them done by artists with identical voices and singing styles.
Maybe a growing sense of cultural alienation and detachment is inevitable.As the years mount, so does my distance from the youth that shapes and dominates our culture. In truth, 2 generations separate me from this under 30 group. The old cliché says time marches on, and as it does, it moves past the older generation and doesn't look back. It also means I do not have to follow if I dislike the direction on which they're headed.
Take movies, for instance. Ever since I was a youngster of 4 or 5 I have been a big movie fan, a love implanted by my mother, who was also a huge fan and often took me along to see her favorite movies and stars. I have seen thousands of films over the years, comedies and dramas, big spectaculars and obscure independent films. Today I scan the movie listings and yawn with boredom. I recall the edgy and innovative films of Scorcese, Altman, Coppola, and a host of other young directors from the 60's and 70's. These were productions that created cutting portrayals of the human condition, both funny and tragic. Today, Hollywood offers up a menu of preposterous super heroes from some alternate universe, cartoonish comic book figures in preposterous plots aimed at adolescent mentalities.
Turn on the TV and it's more of the same. Superheroes, comic book characters, and the sophomoric and silly antics of 20 somethings written by sophomoric 20 somethings for 20 somethings.
The casting of movies and television ooze with political correctness. Stories are no longer cast with actors who would be most proficient for that role. Instead, actors are cast to fill diversity requirements to meet some unwritten diversity quota.
Even one of my favorite magazines-Entertainment Weekly-has begun to lose my interest. When I first became a subscriber 20 years ago, the magazine took a serious approach at all aspects of the entertainment world. Today the magazine is all about superheroes, comic books, ComicCon and an editorial policy aimed at people under the age of 25.
The music scene has also changed, and not always for the better. Listen to the top 20 songs and all you will hear is slow and moderate tempo music. Gone are the rockers like "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "I Saw Her Standing There," or one of the up temp jams by Chuck Berry or Little Richard. Hip hop, rap and EDM dominate the charts, all of them done by artists with identical voices and singing styles.
Maybe a growing sense of cultural alienation and detachment is inevitable.As the years mount, so does my distance from the youth that shapes and dominates our culture. In truth, 2 generations separate me from this under 30 group. The old cliché says time marches on, and as it does, it moves past the older generation and doesn't look back. It also means I do not have to follow if I dislike the direction on which they're headed.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
THE NEXT GREAT POPULATION SHIFT
As we approach the end of the second decade of the 21st century, we may be witnessing the beginning of a trend that could reshape the human population of our planet. Not since the "out of Africa" migration a million years ago have humans undergone such a species altering shift in population patterns,
Caucasians have been the dominant species for approximately the last ten thousand years. Virtually every major event during this time span, both good and bad, has been the result of Caucasian culture.
Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, the industrial revolution, the rise of farming, the rise of cities, the creation of the first real democracy in America can all be attributed to Caucasians. And yes, wars and brutal regimes are part of that legacy. The modern world as we know it, including the USA, has its roots in western European culture, be it science, medicine, the arts, religion, etc.. It now appears that this dominance may be on the wane and headed for complete dissolution.
The demographic numbers tell the story. When John F. Kennedy took office in January of 1961, the United States was 80% white. Today it is 65% white, and experts predict that by the middle of this century the US will be 45% white. For the first time in our history the white population would no longer be in the majority.
Over in Europe the shift is even more pronounced. People of English descent are actually a minority in London. The mayor of that city is a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent. The most popular boy's name in England the last two years is Mohammed. Mohammed is also the most popular name of newborn males in Holland.
In Italy, the population growth among Italians has fallen right off the table, an interesting irony for a country that is the capital of worldwide Catholicism, a religion that is firmly opposed to birth control. Experts predict that by 2080, Italians will be a minority in their own country, with 52% of the population comprised of Africans and Middle Easterners.
Throughout other regions of Europe, like Germany and Scandinavia, Middle Easterners and Africans dominate large swathes of the major cities.
As European and American birthrates either stagnate or plummet, the birthrates in the Middle East and Africa soar, as millions of their citizens migrate to the west. These numbers and trends may not only foretell the end of Caucasian dominance and influence in the world, but also its total demise.
These sorts of shifts in the human population occur at a glacial pace. It won't happen in the next hundred years, but perhaps within the next thousand years. In the far future, Caucasians may be reduced to a barely perceptible minority, or perhaps because of low birthrates and inter breeding, the race may cease to exist entirely.
Whether such events would have a positive or negative effect on the human race no one can predict. What one can predict is a future generation looking back at the 21st century as the turning point for a new phase of the human experience.
Caucasians have been the dominant species for approximately the last ten thousand years. Virtually every major event during this time span, both good and bad, has been the result of Caucasian culture.
Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, the industrial revolution, the rise of farming, the rise of cities, the creation of the first real democracy in America can all be attributed to Caucasians. And yes, wars and brutal regimes are part of that legacy. The modern world as we know it, including the USA, has its roots in western European culture, be it science, medicine, the arts, religion, etc.. It now appears that this dominance may be on the wane and headed for complete dissolution.
The demographic numbers tell the story. When John F. Kennedy took office in January of 1961, the United States was 80% white. Today it is 65% white, and experts predict that by the middle of this century the US will be 45% white. For the first time in our history the white population would no longer be in the majority.
Over in Europe the shift is even more pronounced. People of English descent are actually a minority in London. The mayor of that city is a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent. The most popular boy's name in England the last two years is Mohammed. Mohammed is also the most popular name of newborn males in Holland.
In Italy, the population growth among Italians has fallen right off the table, an interesting irony for a country that is the capital of worldwide Catholicism, a religion that is firmly opposed to birth control. Experts predict that by 2080, Italians will be a minority in their own country, with 52% of the population comprised of Africans and Middle Easterners.
Throughout other regions of Europe, like Germany and Scandinavia, Middle Easterners and Africans dominate large swathes of the major cities.
As European and American birthrates either stagnate or plummet, the birthrates in the Middle East and Africa soar, as millions of their citizens migrate to the west. These numbers and trends may not only foretell the end of Caucasian dominance and influence in the world, but also its total demise.
These sorts of shifts in the human population occur at a glacial pace. It won't happen in the next hundred years, but perhaps within the next thousand years. In the far future, Caucasians may be reduced to a barely perceptible minority, or perhaps because of low birthrates and inter breeding, the race may cease to exist entirely.
Whether such events would have a positive or negative effect on the human race no one can predict. What one can predict is a future generation looking back at the 21st century as the turning point for a new phase of the human experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)