As one grows older, the tendency is to reflect on one's life and to see what paths brought you to your current destination. Recently I have been pondering why my thought process had veered so far from my family's destination.
I was born and raised on the far southeast side of Chicago, in a community aptly named South Chicago. Virtually everyone in our neighborhood was Polish and Roman Catholic. My family was the quintessential South Chicago family. Between my mother's side and my father's side, I had one older brother, fourteen aunts and uncles and twenty-seven cousins. Each one was 100 percent Polish. We were all devout Catholics who attended mass every Sunday, went to confession, received Holy Communion, and attended parochial school. But somewhere along the way, I took a fork in the road that set me miles apart from the rest of my relatives.
I became an atheist. Despite my devout Catholic upbringing, I began to have doubts about Catholicism and religion in general around the time I graduated from high school. By the time I was twenty-one, my skepticism had transformed into full blown atheism. Why the change? Unlike many non-believers who were once deeply religious, there was no trajedy or trauma in my life that shook my faith. I attribute my change to the way my brain is wired. As far back as I can remember I have always observed the world through a cynical and skeptical lens. In more graphic terms, I have always had a sharply tuned bullshit detector.
While my adult years have been spent as somewhat of an outlier when compared to the rest of my large family, I have always remained on excellent terms with each and everyone of them. The difference has been in lifestyle. God and religion remain a strong focal point in their lives. In contrast, God and religion have as much relevancy to me as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.
There is a second divergent path I have taken away from my relatives. This one involves ethnicity.
As I previously stated, everyone on both sides of my family is 100 percent Polish. I grew up in a neighborhood that was overwhelmingly Polish. We lived in a two flat owned by my widowed paternal grandmother. She spoke very little English. My parents, my brother, all my aunts and uncles, and many of my cousins spoke Polish. They listened to Polish language radio stations, read Polish language newspapers, listened to Polish music. My brother even played in a polka band. It was to say the least, a rather insular world, like having a Polish village drop down in the middle of Chicago.
Once again my questioning mind was revving up. I remember being around six, or seven, or eight and wondering why everyone around me was speaking Polish, listening to Polish music, eating Polish food. After all, this was the United States of America, not Poland. It made no sense to me. It wasn't like I was ashamed or embarrassed by my ethnic heritage. It was the simple fact that I saw myself as an English speaking American. Why would I want to assume I lived in another culture and spoke another language? This foreign land ten thousand miles away hand nothing to do with me.
So the two staples in the lives of my relatives--religion and ethnicity--had zero influence on my life. I had no interest in being mired in ancient traditions, myths, legends and superstitions. It certainly is no crime to be religious or take great pride in your ethnic origins. But for me, all that matters is the here and now. Rather than tradition and myths, reason and logic are my priorities. Supernatural entities and long buried ancestors do not dictate who or what I am.
I have taken my own path and have never looked back.
Monday, February 18, 2019
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
STOPPING THE MONUMENT BUILDERS
In Bill Daley's quest to become the third Daley to rule Chicago, he has suggested the name of the Dan Ryan expressway be changed to the Barack Obama expressway. It could be a dangerous course for Bill to take. It would mean eradicating the name of a fellow Irishman from the Chicago landscape. That would border on heresy and treason to many in the Irish community.
One of Barack Obama's supporters stated that Dan Ryan has had his day. Now it's Obama's turn. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Perhaps in 80 or 100 years from now, another political figure will rise to prominence, and Obama's name will be resigned to history's discard pile in a political flavor of the month contest.
So who was Dan Ryan and why was an expressway named after him? Well, back in the 30's, Ryan was President of the Cook County Board. You thought maybe he was some kind of hero? Nope! He was political insider with all the right connections. The expressway was named after him because the mayor at the time--Richard J. Daley-- was a fellow Irishman, political confidante and loyal Democrat. Being a party loyalist and member of the ethnic group currently in power were the primary credentials required.
Ayn Rand, the novelist and philosopher, coined a term for this self-aggrandizement and egotistical behavior of politicians. She called them "monument builders." Like the kings, queens and emperors of the past, these vainglorious holders of power love nothing more than to erect monuments to one another. In the Chicago area alone, we have expressways named after President Reagan, former governor Stevenson, President Eisenhower, former mayor Jane Burn, and of course good ole Dan Ryan. A government building in the heart of the city is named after the first mayor Daley. Then there are the plethora of schools named after Washington, Madison, Eisenhower, Lincoln, etc..
Are there individuals more deserving of these civic memorials? Fact is, mayors, governors, presidents, congress persons and bureaucrats are nothing more than glorified administrators, managers and CEO's living off of tax money expropriated from working folks. Where is their brilliance? Did Daley ever stand between a citizen and gun toting terrorist? What disease did Reagan help conquer? Did Obama ever rush into a burning building to save a child?
If public thoroughfares and structures need titles, let them be named after first responders, war heroes, medical researchers, influential educators. Let us cease creating monuments to egotistical power seekers whose only function is to control the lives of others. Let us stop dedicating monuments to bogus gods; instead, let us erect monuments to the real heroes of humanity.
One of Barack Obama's supporters stated that Dan Ryan has had his day. Now it's Obama's turn. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Perhaps in 80 or 100 years from now, another political figure will rise to prominence, and Obama's name will be resigned to history's discard pile in a political flavor of the month contest.
So who was Dan Ryan and why was an expressway named after him? Well, back in the 30's, Ryan was President of the Cook County Board. You thought maybe he was some kind of hero? Nope! He was political insider with all the right connections. The expressway was named after him because the mayor at the time--Richard J. Daley-- was a fellow Irishman, political confidante and loyal Democrat. Being a party loyalist and member of the ethnic group currently in power were the primary credentials required.
Ayn Rand, the novelist and philosopher, coined a term for this self-aggrandizement and egotistical behavior of politicians. She called them "monument builders." Like the kings, queens and emperors of the past, these vainglorious holders of power love nothing more than to erect monuments to one another. In the Chicago area alone, we have expressways named after President Reagan, former governor Stevenson, President Eisenhower, former mayor Jane Burn, and of course good ole Dan Ryan. A government building in the heart of the city is named after the first mayor Daley. Then there are the plethora of schools named after Washington, Madison, Eisenhower, Lincoln, etc..
Are there individuals more deserving of these civic memorials? Fact is, mayors, governors, presidents, congress persons and bureaucrats are nothing more than glorified administrators, managers and CEO's living off of tax money expropriated from working folks. Where is their brilliance? Did Daley ever stand between a citizen and gun toting terrorist? What disease did Reagan help conquer? Did Obama ever rush into a burning building to save a child?
If public thoroughfares and structures need titles, let them be named after first responders, war heroes, medical researchers, influential educators. Let us cease creating monuments to egotistical power seekers whose only function is to control the lives of others. Let us stop dedicating monuments to bogus gods; instead, let us erect monuments to the real heroes of humanity.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
GOD: HE OR A SHE?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)