A Tale Of Two Ceremonies

On a fairly regular basis these days, we hear about some new attempt at breaking a Guinness World Record.  It's typically something very odd and not at all useful, like the world's largest popcorn ball or the world's largest group hug.

With that in mind, I would now like to submit setting a new useless record earlier this month:  The first ever invited, attending guest at a gay wedding, a catholic priest ordination, and an interracial wedding, all within the span of seven days in the state of Iowa.  I have no proof, but I defy anyone to tell me it's been done before.

But this blog entry isn't going to be about setting records.  It's going to be about the gay wedding and the religious ordination, and the wild juxtaposition of those two events.

I don't want to spend the time or words to describe everything I saw and/or experienced at these occasions.  Instead, I'm going to break it down like this.....

Within a week's time, I attended two ceremonies.  I'd describe one of those ceremonies as joyful, colorful, and spontaneous.  The other I'd describe as subdued, dark, and ritualistic.

One of the ceremonies promoted working together as equals to create a better life.  The other ceremony literally called for the obedience of one party to another.

One of the ceremonies was a manifestation of newer civil rights in America.  The other ceremony went out of its way to applaud the recent elimination of long-standing civil rights.

One of the ceremonies seemed like it was the start of a relationship with unlimited growth potential.  The other ceremony seemed like it was the start of a relationship destined to shrink in size and value.

And ultimately, one of the ceremonies was completely non-judgmental, while the other ceremony judged the first to be depraved and worthy of being banned.

Notice that I haven't identified which event I believed them to be.  Which do you think was which?

Don't get me wrong, I care for the people involved in all of these ceremonies, including the aforementioned interracial marriage.  The (young) participants chose to make an open public expression of their love for someone or something else, and I was among hundreds or family members and friends there to unconditionally support them.

That said, I've never experienced a greater feeling of dissonance than I did during those seven days.

Blocked

You only have to look up the label 'Facebook' on this blog to know I've never been a huge fan.  It was a cool new way for youngsters to communicate at first, but then it was co-opted by adults, and its owners' choices in monetizing the content and data.

If I'm so down on Facebook, you might wonder why I have a Facebook account.  For years now, the answer has been because I use it as an information and entertainment source.

I follow a few comedy shows, see some amusing memes, and get some free info about where other people are and what they're doing.  (BTW, such a dumb thing to do when you're clearly going to be away from home for a while.)  I rarely post anything myself.

More recently, however, I can't take it all.  Too many people posting too many personal, religious / political views, plus other content that I don't agree with.  In the past I might have just un-followed those folks, but I've decided those people deserve less.  So.....

I've started to block those who frequently and consistently post that stuff.  I'm not interested in their boring status updates, and I'm sure they don't care about my infrequent ones -- but just in case, they won't see them.  It was a small act on my part, but it actually felt pretty good to do it.

I didn't expect that feeling, but I felt that way nonetheless.  It was nice to take control of the content, and in a way, set a price of admission for other people to see mine.

A Tale Of Two Viruses

As I write this, we are in the midst of a global pandemic, brought about by a novel virus with no existing vaccine or treatment.  This virus sickens virtually everyone who comes into contact with it.  It does not care about race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, financial class, political affiliation, or nationality.  It is not a hoax.  All of this has led to an economic meltdown of historic proportions, as worldwide people are asked to abide the directives of governments that cannot be trusted to provide proper information or materials.

Also as I write this, we are in the midst of a domestic crisis, brought about by a narcissistic virus with no existing vaccine or treatment.  This virus sickens virtually everyone who comes into contact with it.  It only cares if you are white, Christian, male, straight, upper class, Republican, and American.  It is a total hoax.  All of this has led to a political meltdown of historic proportions, as American citizens are asked to abide the directives of a government that cannot be trusted to provide proper information or materials.

The virus I refer to in the first paragraph is COVID-19.  The virus I refer to in the second paragraph is Donald Trump.

Let's hope one of these viruses overcomes the other as soon as possible.

Post #400

This is my 400th blog entry since I started it almost 10 years ago(!)  (I'll have to throw a party in July when the actual 10th anniversary arrives.)  I'm going to do what I've done in past 'century' posts, which is to review some of what I wrote about since my 300th entry.  The time gap between the 300th and 400th is going to expose how I don't write as much as I used to -- it's taken me twice as long as the prior 100.

I wrote about several recurring annual topics, including the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (soon to be post #410), my advice to graduating seniors, RAGBRAI musings, and things for which I'm not thankful. 

I wrote about how smart people have many advantages in the world, but are disadvantaged by a lack of numbers, and so many stupid people holding them back.

I wrote about new cities and regions of the country I visited, including attending the Rose Bowl.

I wrote about how great social media technology and platforms could be, if not for the all of the people who use social media for evil and not for good.

I wrote more about our country's slow, inexorable march toward decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, which can't come soon enough.

I wrote a few more times about financial issues, and starting my own firm.

I wrote a handful of times about great songs and songwriters, a dying breed with the exception of a few hip-hop and country artists, to which I rarely listen.

Nearly 100 entries apart, I wrote about my observations at the funerals of my father and mother.

I wrote about how religion separates people (and in many cases, harms people) at least as much as it brings people together.

I wrote about the dysfunction and hatred of this decade's politics and politicians, which is in many ways related to the last item.

I wrote about how today's baby boomer parents are ruining not only their kids' lives, but society in general, with their awful parenting.

I wrote a few items of self-reflection, on what happened in the past, and what I might do differently if I knew then what I know now.

400 posts.....bring on the next 100!

The Catholic Reformation

Looking back on the label-tags on this blog site, I'm surprised to see that 'religion' is one of the most used.  I didn't recall writing much about the topic, I suppose because it's been a few years since I've made more than a passing reference to it, and frankly, I haven't been a big fan of religion for a while.

That streak gets broken today, in order to write about the sexual abuse scandals that are (still) engulfing the Catholic Church.  We've known for many years now that some of the clergy have used their positions to abuse children.  It's widespread enough that I had to reflect on whether I, a product of Catholic schooling and a former mass server, may have been abused.  (I decided No.)

We've known for a lesser time, however, that despite promises to the contrary, the church has done virtually nothing to stop the perpetrators, nor to keep it from happening further.  And now we're finding out that nuns have also been part of the abused, and part of the abusers.

Of course, this is outrageous.  As I write this, the church hierarchy is meeting in Rome at the pope's request, trying to figure out how to stop the cover-ups, and somehow move forward.  No one knows what's going to happen, if anything, but it seems one thing that must happen isn't even on the table -- publicly identifying and prosecuting those known to have committed abuse in the past.

Of course, this is even MORE outrageous.  The old men who collectively run the Catholic Church, including the pope, continue to close ranks to protect their own.  They somehow seem to think this is a winning strategy, as they have for the past decade or two.  They continue to fiddle while Rome burns, semi-literally.

This inaction is immoral at the least, and criminal at the most.  Speaking for myself (but probably parroting others), Catholics aren't going to come back to the church unless the abusers and their protectors are arrested, placed in handcuffs, prosecuted, and jailed if proven guilty.

In the meantime, since the church is a benevolent (or maybe malevolent?) dictatorship and the leaders can't be voted out, I believe there's only one thing true Catholics can do to effect change:  Reduce or cut off the money supply.  In other words, limit alms giving to non-monetary or specified local needs.

The fact is, in today's modernized world, institutions fail without funding. Therefore, to remain viable, such institutions are motivated to reform.

Make no mistake, stopping the flow of money to dioceses and the Vatican will reform them, and fast.

Unfortunately for the needy, doing this will create collateral damage, no doubt.  But at this point, does anyone what to argue it's better to serve a vulnerable population with unchecked, potential pedophiles than it is to simply reduce services?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  The Catholic Church needs swift and permanent reform, and it's going to take more prosecution and/or less money for it to happen.

2019

Should auld acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind?  No, it's time to again review the things I wanted to have happen this year, and consider some things I would like to see happen in 2019.  As usual, we start with the prior year's list, with comments in ALL CAPS:

-The failure of Bitcoin, not as an idea, but as an investment.
BITCOIN'S SHARE PRICE WENT FROM OVER $15,000 TO UNDER $4,000.  THESE DAYS, IT'S AN AFTERTHOUGHT.

-An NCAA scandal so large they will have to start allowing players a cut of revenues.
THERE WAS/IS A RATHER LARGE SCANDAL RELATED TO SHOE COMPANY REPS GETTING MONEY TO DIRECT AMATEUR BASKETBALL PLAYERS TO CERTAIN SCHOOLS.  BUT SO FAR IT'S ONLY LED TO A FEW COACHES BEING FIRED.

-More destinations and ways to fly on Southwest Airlines.
WELL, THEY ADDED A DIRECT DES MOINES - PHOENIX FLIGHT.

-A widespread ability to charge devices without a cord (also asked for this for 2016).
NOPE.

-A new governor / lieutenant governor elected for Iowa.
IT LOOKED LIKE THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE A SURPRISING DISAPPOINTMENT.

-Let's try this -- exponential growth in the cannabis industry to the extent all states will want a piece of it through taxation.
ALMOST READY TO SAY THIS HAPPENED.  [I JUST COVERED THIS IN MY LAST POST.]

-Greater national and international awareness of CRISPR (genome editing) technology.
THERE HAVE BEEN MORE NATIONAL STORIES ABOUT THIS.

-Smaller entree portions served in restaurants, for a reduced price.
THE PORTIONS MAY HAVE GOTTEN LARGER.

-Fewer national weather disasters, but more understanding of climate change.
ANOTHER ITEM THAT MOVED FARTHER AWAY FROM HAPPENING, NOT CLOSER.

-The resignation or impeachment of a mentally unstable and unqualified president -- again, no names.
CARRYING THIS ONE OVER TO NEXT YEAR.

Now, for 2019 I'd like to see these things happen:

The resignation or impeachment of a mentally unstable and unqualified president -- again, no names.

The electric vehicle becoming America's fastest growing (by percentage) seller.

Alabama and Clemson and New England to have poor football seasons.

Some major medical breakthrough, perhaps a vaccine to eliminate a dread disease.

Consistent, moderate summer rain in central Iowa.

A priest actually arrested and charged and jailed for past sexual abuse.

More cities allowing app-based scooter rentals.

Another scandal that ruins another Fox TV personality.

U.S. restaurants that allow payment by app, OR that bring the credit card reader to your table.

Me traveling to one of the five continental states in which I've never set foot.

The LOST Loss

I’m a big believer in behavioral science / economics, which is essentially the idea that people are motivated in all facets of life by potential gains or losses, and their calculation of the underlying risk in achieving / suffering those gains and losses.  The gains and losses are often related to money, but can also be based on things like religion, politics, or relationships.

Unfortunately, many times humans do not properly calculate the underlying risk, leading to bad decisions / behavior.   I thought about this again this week, when the residents of my county were asked to vote in favor of voluntarily and regressively taxing themselves via a sales tax increase.

The local option sales tax (LOST) has been around for a while in Iowa, as a way for county localities to raise additional tax revenue by tacking on another 1% to the statewide sales tax.  When it was first introduced around 15 years ago, the idea was to allow counties to use the money solely for school infrastructure improvements over a 10-years taxing period.  As with most new tax ideas, I've hated it from the beginning.

Over several years, every county in Iowa passed a LOST, increasing the total sales tax from 5% to 6%.  And as a result, we have the nicest school infrastructure in the United States.  For real.  I’ve been to most other states, and their school building suck compared to Iowa.  (Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence that nicer bricks and mortar mean smarter kids, but that’s another story.)

But then something happened that was only predictable to those of us with common sense:   The LOST never went away.  In fact, after the school districts mismanaged their budgeted improvements to the tune of millions of dollars, the state decided to simply make the statewide sales tax 6%, and allow another, new LOST for counties to use as they wish.

97 Iowa counties have piled on to this regrettable legislation, leaving only two that have not voted for a new LOST that increased sales taxes from 6% to 7%.  (Note:  That isn't a 1% increase, that’s a 19% increase, a math computation the LOST supporters don’t want anyone to know about.)  My county is one of the remaining two, and this week, after an affluent neighboring suburb passed a LOST a few months ago, my county decided to have another vote.

Which brings me back to behavioral economics.  Why would anyone vote to tax themselves, especially with no explicit guarantee that local government would spend the money on non-essential services?  Yet, it happens quite often – as I mentioned, it recently happened in 97 out of 99 other instances in Iowa.   It’s usually backed with nothing more than a promise that the sales tax it would help to offset some other tax burden (this time it was property taxes) or that it would not be permanent (see above).

My answer is, it’s another matter of not properly calculating the risk.  Many people don’t recognize the cumulative impact of a regressive tax.  They think of it in terms of ‘just an extra penny on the dollar’ rather than a whopping 19% increase on every Average Joe that will probably cost hundreds of dollars a year, and many thousands of dollars over many years.

As in past LOST votes, I voted no, and I’m pleased to day this time it failed (barely).  I’m not against paying for essential government services, but I’m totally against voting to tax myself for undisclosed services I may not need, to be administered by government bureaucrats that haven’t been truthful, and who aren’t good stewards to begin with.

In other words, I’m for properly assessing risk and behaving appropriately. 

Winning The Family Feud

It’s long been an axiom that family and politics don’t mix.  This has never been more true than in the past year, with the unexpected election of a polarizing president – and that’s saying the absolute best thing I can about what happened / what’s happening in America.

Even amongst families, there seems to be no bridging the current ideological divide that has been forged by Fox News, Trump, and the Republican Party.  It’s crazy, because none of those aforementioned things even mattered to the general public until recently.

Since the last national election, I’ve been at a few gatherings of immediate family members.  When social and/or political matters have inevitably come up in conversation, I’ve been very good about quickly changing the subject.  (My favorite line is, ‘So who do you think is going to win the [name sports division here]?”)  Changing the subject is better than silence, lest someone mistake that silence as a tacit agreement about anything being said.

I suppose it was just a matter of time, however, before I heard one of my relatives say something racist or homophobic or xenophobic or misogynistic to the point I could no longer bite my tongue. That happened last week.

So I spoke back at them, trying to expose their beliefs as unacceptable in today’s society, and definitely unacceptable in present company.  (By ‘present company’ I refer to me, but there were several other family members in the room, none of whom were willing or able to engage in a sociopolitical conversation.)

At first, I tried to make my points in a passive-aggressive way, with sarcasm and mocking.   Not surprisingly, that resulted in the other person getting defensive, and doubling-down on their hate speech.  So I stepped up my game to equal their verbal aggression, making much more salient and intellectual points.

But of course, that’s where the ‘conversation’ went off the rails and crashed into an awkward silence, because you can’t argue with another person who is unable to recognize – much less agree with – demonstrable facts.  I knew we’d reached that point when the other person claimed Fox News was actually anti-Trump.  Good god, not even Fox News or Trump agrees with that.

So what was the outcome of this family strife?  I simply declared victory by ignoring the other person.  It was a great moment for rational minds.  #Winning!

Good, Evil, And Religion

There's been so much rhetoric lately on domestic terrorism, given the recent events in Paris and now San Bernadino, CA.  It seems there's no middle ground for people who think the answer is arming ourselves with more automatic weapons, or banning said weapons, or perhaps banning immigration altogether.

This week, it was taken to the extreme by the non-to-be-taken-seriously Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who suggested banning new Muslims from entering America.  It's an unconstitutional, certifiably insane idea, but he actually gets cheers from other extreme Republicans for saying it.

I plan to blog about the presidential candidates sometime before the Iowa caucuses.  In the meantime, to all who think like Donald Trump, I say in the famous words of Joseph Welsh to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who destroyed lives in the 1950s with false accusations of communism:  "Have you no sense of decency?"

The underlying current behind all of this rhetoric is religion.  We like to think religion reminds us to love our fellow man, but aren't there as many examples of religion making us hate?

I'm not just talking about radical Islam, either.  I know plenty of Christians who have no problem discriminating against gays (yes, that counts as hate), for no other reason than their religion tells them to do so.  Religion and religious differences have promulgated hate for centuries, from the Crusades to the Revolutionary War to the World Wars.

The other day, I came across a quote from more than a decade ago, attributed to Steven Weinberg.  He's an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions on the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles.  (Whaaaaat?)  Let's just assume he's a very smart dude.  Oh, he's also an atheist.  His quote pretty much sums up how this deal works:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Vive la Facebook

A few days ago, a coordinated terrorist attack in Paris, France murdered over 100 innocent people and wounded hundreds more.  It’s saddening and infuriating, as all terrorist actions are.

What I want to write about, however, is something that happened in the aftermath that I also find saddening and infuriating, in a much different way.  It’s the response of Facebook users to this tragedy, and to other man-made catastrophes similar to it.

Within hours of the attack, before we even knew of the true scope of it, Facebook had created a way for users to show their support for France by putting overlaying the French flag to their profile picture.  Untold numbers of users have utilized this new feature.  Now, this seems benign enough, why would that be saddening or infuriating?

Because the vast majority of those users are only trying to make themselves look/feel better.

I’m not saying these Facebook users don’t care about the victims, or the victims’ families.  I believe they do.  But let’s get real, 'supporting' them or France by adding a transparent French flag on social media for your friends to see is not making the slightest difference.  At best, it’s a self-serving coping mechanism, not to mention a PR win for Facebook.  At worst, it’s a faux-show of concern over terror victims, and terrorism in general.

We’ve seen how social media can be powerful tool to elicit social change in the world – in some instances, not for the better.  However, no good change whatsoever is going to result from a short-lived symbolic gesture like this.  It doesn't DO anything, that's the saddening part.

Here's the infuriating part:  Most of these same Facebook users couldn’t point out France on a map, nor name their own elected federal representatives, to whom they’ve actually granted power that might effect change.

No, it’s only a matter of time, probably just days, before these same folks forget about France or terrorism and go back to forwarding stupid animal videos, or posting far right-or-left wing political and religious propaganda.  Of course, these things are also without real meaning.

If people want to do something using social media that might actually make a difference to reduce terrorism, or to support the ideals of liberty and a free society like France, they needn't waste time updating a Facebook profile picture.  Instead, use the time on social media (or elsewhere) to learn more about the geo-political, scientific, and especially religious issues at the root of domestic and international conflicts and terrorism.  Or learn the names of elected officials.  You can even learn where France is.

Support and resolution requires understanding.  It does not require an updated Facebook image.  If this is too much work for Facebook users, well, just keep posting those hilarious animal videos!

Viva il Papa

Pope Francis visited the United States last week, attending events in Washington D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia.  Thus did faith (generally) and Catholicism (specifically) become the top news story of the week.

As a Catholic, I viewed the media attention the pope received with mixed feelings.  To be sure, the fact that the host cities were in the major east coast media markets made a difference.  Plus, there is definitely more excitement about having a likable, more open-minded, quasi-celebrity leading the church.  But why are the messages of hope and compassion given so much more attention when delivered by the pope in person, as opposed to any other time?

I especially loved how our federal politicians over-compensated, giving Francis time to speak at the White House and to a joint meeting of Congress.  There’s a basic cynicism to that, given how most of them aren’t practicing Catholics, but knowing how crucial it might be for voters to see them with the pope.

On the other hand, it was understandable how some devout Catholics considered the pontiff’s visit to be a spiritual, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see him in person.  I wish there’d have been a way for them to get more exclusivity, they deserved it.  For those not-so-devout Catholics and others, I was left to wonder if seeing the pope in person constituted a faith/life-changing event, or just a chance to see a celebrity.

In the end, the pope’s visit to America made for a generally uplifting week.  Given the past scandals and unappealing social conservatism of the Catholic Church, it’s encouraging to see so many people enthused by Pope Francis.  The church – the world – needs more of him, and more like him.

More April Fools

It's April Fools' Day again today, another chance to expand on last year's list of facts that should be followed by the phrase, "April Fools!" if only they weren't true:

* The state of Indiana thought it could allow businesses to discriminate against gays without anyone noticing.

* Stories about suffering pets commonly air before stories about suffering people on broadcast news.

* Ted Cruz thinks he is a viable presidential candidate.

* You can stockpile and use guns and alcohol, but will be thrown in jail for owning an ounce of cannabis.

* The NCAA makes billions of dollars annually on the backs of its institutions' revenue-producing athletes, but opposes sharing any of that revenue with those athletes.

* Farm Bureau believes farmers will sufficiently police themselves to keep ground water clean.

* Most people base their current moral beliefs on undocumented, male-only writings from thousands of years ago.

I (Religiously) Object

Last week, there were a couple of Supreme Court rulings of major interest.  The most interesting, and polarizing, one was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.

As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy.  The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.

Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint.  I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate.  And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women.  (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)

However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism.  While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.

So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling.  While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate.  While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.

Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business.  The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around.  Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay.  (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)

Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance.  If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid.  (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care.  But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)

Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic.  Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform.  Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.

Post #200

Since July of 2009, I've been writing random thoughts out in this blog.  This is post #200, so just as I did with post #100, let's review some of what was covered in the last 100 posts, or basically the past two years.....

I spent a little time writing about the importance of certain singers and song lyrics.

I spent some time writing about finance and investing, which is the work I do for a living.

I spent a good deal of time writing about politics, particularly in 2012 as related to the presidential election.

I spent a bunch of time writing about people who are dishonest, how to identify them, and calling them out.

I spent too much time, but will probably spend more, writing about the moral hazards of religion.

I spent a lot of time, and will definitely spend more, writing about how taxpayers are being shafted by people in government who make selfish decisions.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Assuming I labeled my posts properly, I went the entire calendar year of 2012 without an entry on religion.  Hard to believe, because it isn't as if there weren't religious controversies worth blogging about.

Regardless, that streak is over.  Some news today pushed me over the edge, that being a new proposal from the Obama administration that would allow religious groups to opt-out (sort of) of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandatory contraceptive coverage.

Religiously affiliated groups, especially the Catholic Church, have been going nuts over this mandate.  When this topic was at its hottest this past summer, and preachers were crusading against the mandate during church services, an acquaintance of mine had a letter published in the Des Moines Register that complained about those tactics.  After all, she wasn't going to church to hear those white men telling her what she should believe about her reproductive health care.  The next thing you know she was getting letters from strangers, telling her how wrong she was to feel that way.

Here's the problem with all of this.  The outrage of those religious leaders and their followers over the contraceptive coverage mandate, while somewhat understandable, would have a lot more credibility it it weren't for at least two really big things:

1) Religiously affiliated groups, and here again especially the Catholic Church, completely supported the passage of Obamacare.  I'm sure much of that support was at least indirectly financial, via PAC contributions.  Then once the rules were written, and they realized the rules apply to them, snap! they suddenly wanted to be excepted from a major part of Obamacare.

2) It's laughable to see the outrage of so-called religious leaders over this issue, when it is a fact that many of the organizations they oversee have been including contraceptive coverage in their health care plans for many years.  Apparently, they think all of the young female teachers in their schools are using abstinence as their birth control method.  Classic old white men group-think.

Who knows if this new 'opt-out' rule will pacify the mandate-haters.  It probably won't.  But that has more to do with the out-of-touch religious hierarchy, and its culture of thinking they can and should govern themselves.  (Ask any former church pedophile victim how well they think that self-governance thing has worked out.)

Burning Words

A few weeks ago I wrote about how America need not apologize for its treatment of dead enemy soldiers.  Turns out that small furor was nothing compared to our latest request to apologize.

This week in Afghanistan, some NATO troops accidentally burned some copies of the Quran.  Apparently this is a serious no-no in Islam, burning former trees that have taken the shape of the word of Allah.  It may shock some that this act resulted in massive demonstrations there, with many people killed including two Americans, but read this and you won't be that surprised.

With all due respect to the beliefs of another religion, this really is an outrage - to humanity.  Equating a bound compilation of wood products that was put together in some print shop (maybe in China?) with something so sacred that human violence and death is wished upon its (accidental) desecration?  This is taking the concept that Christians might call 'Word Made Flesh' to a whole different level.

To add injury to insult, President Obama apologized on behalf of America.  He called the act "inadvertent," and said, "We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible."

OK, I'm sure at some level we had to do this to try to save other lives - presumably American lives.  But damn him for making me agree with this reply from none other than Newt Gingrich: "The president apologized for the burning, but I haven't seen the president demand that the government of Afghanistan apologize for the killing of two Americans."

Of course, the Taliban rejected the apology anyway.  They called on Afghans to take revenge, saying, "We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Quran."

Clearly, it's less offensive to some Muslims to kill people than it is to burn a Quran.

I suppose all religions have doctrines that don't make sense.  Regardless, if any belief or act can be justified in the name of a religion (be it Islam or Christianity or anything else) you don't have a religion, you have a cult.  That's something we'd all be better off without.

Piss On The Taliban

This one is for all the bleeding hearts out there who are outraged (outraged, I tell you!) over the just-released video showing a U.S. Marine sniper team urinating on dead bodies in Afghanistan.

Are you kidding me!?  The only outrage in this whole thing should be directed at the namby-pamby civilian and military personnel who are making the dead people the victims, and the U.S. troops the enemy.

This is not torture.  This is not Abu Ghraib.  This is a group of Marines who are probably damn tired of being away from their families in godforsaken country full of people trying to kill them (possibly including the pissees), and who want to exact a little bit of mental revenge.

Is this really so hard for us to accept?  I can imagine it now, one of these Marines says, "Screw this place.  These people are trying to kill us, and nobody at home gives a damn because they're too busy trying to decide whether to buy the 'grande' or the 'venti' today.  We got them before they got us, and since there won't be any parades, let's celebrate our victory by pissing on them!"  And the other Marines say, "Hell yes!  Great idea!"  And finally one of the dumber Marines says, "Yeah, and let's put it on video so we can show everybody back home some day!"

I get that the U.S. / Obama administration has to officially condemn this conduct.  We don't want to come off looking like barbarians.  The thing of it is, the Taliban and other radical Islamic terrorist group are going to think that about Americans regardless of what we do.  They would kill us in a second if given the chance, no questions asked.

What I don't need to hear are any religious scholars out there suggesting that somehow the U.S. is desecrating Islam.  Does anyone really believe these Marines were urinating on these people as a symbol of their hatred for Muslims?  Of course not, they couldn't care less about their religious beliefs.  The Marines are simply showing their disrespect for some people who probably just tried to kill them.

This is war.  There are no rules in war, at least not in combat.  Did we follow any rules when we captured/killed Bin Laden?  If there were rules, the U.S. would surely lose the so-called war on terror, because the enemy sure as hell isn't following them.

I hope the way this plays out is, soon there will be a groundswell of support for these Marines.  Most Americans are going to see through the pious rhetoric and realize that no one was actually harmed in the shooting of this video - although someone was clearly harmed beforehand.  And piss on them!

Tolerating Intolerance

In the past week, I've had a front row seat to witness what I consider to be two separate acts of religious intolerance.  It isn't the religious intolerance one might think of though.  Someone isn't putting down a religion - a religion is putting someone down.

Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles.  In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work.  This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.

Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer.  The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood.  In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose.  Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.

What do these incidents have in common?  That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently.  They actually only tolerate those who agree with them.  In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based.  They are, in a word, hypocrites.

It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined.  Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate.  What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those.  They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas.  (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)

Basically, their religion screws up their faith.  It makes them tolerate intolerance.  It makes atheists look good.

The Diminishing Returns of Religion

Anyone who has taken a basic economics class has been introduced to the concept of diminishing returns. In short, this is defined as the point at which an increased unit of production generates lower (not greater) unit returns.

This is also how I would currently define the state of religion, both personally and in the world. Putting more effort into it isn't going to improve things, and at least from a global perspective, it probably makes things worse.

Let's start with the personal. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic since childhood. This included 12 years of Catholic schooling, which in turn included 8 years of nearly daily mass atttendence. After 40+ years, I've attended church services many thousands of times. I long ago learned the routine, the readings, and the symbolism by heart.

So I have faith, and I consider myself well indoctrinated in that faith. The question is, what more is there to know? As long as I lead a life dedicated to respect and the betterman of man and society, it's difficult to see the marginal benefit of continued adherence to the recommended daily/weekly/annual religious rituals.

Plus, over the past several years I've come to realize that the church I follow isn't exactly a role model. Pedophile priests, as well as other politicized Vatican scandals, have conspired to turm me away. And the Catholic church's unrelenting dogma related to gender roles, celibacy, etc. haven't helped. The rest of the world is evolving, my church is not. (How did it ever progress out of the Crusades era?)

My personal religious beliefs take a back seat to the larger world view, however. The fact is, religion is Earth's #1 creator of wars. Name any past or present international military conflict, and you will find that differing religious beliefs are at its core. Hell, even our Civil War was essentially a morality-based disagreement over how humans should be treated.

This is not a good thing. It's maybe the irony of ironies that religion is supposed to give people a reason to live, and we mostly use it to explain why, how, and when people should die.

In spite of this, I do believe that religion is a net good thing for society. If nobody believed in an afterlife, our civilization would be pretty barbaric. We might still be clubbing each other in caves.

But from my perspective, we've reached the point of diminishing returns.

Some Of You Should Read This Book

Six years ago, the writers of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart published one of the best books of political satire I've ever read, America (The Book). This so-called "Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" chronicled the history and workings of democracy in civics textbook form, including inforgraphics and sidebar opinions (from the likes of Stephen Colbert).

Spring Break gave me a chance to finally read through the latest book from the writers of The Daily Show, Earth (The Book). This "Citizen's Guide to the Human Race" may be the most entertaining, sharpest, and cleverly written book I've ever read. It again takes the textbook format used in the prior book, but this time to an even higher level.

Earth (The Book) is aimed at an audience of aliens who find the Earth deserted after the human race spectacularly manufactures its own demise. The subject matter has shifted from US politics and education to the planet and world civilization. And while America (The Book) was mostly written with many text passages and included commented infographics, Earth (The Book) is basically the opposite, with more commented infographics making for dozens of satice-laced jokes per page.

To give the history of the world some focus, the chapters are broken down into things like society, religion, science, and culture. A great example of the book can be found in the chapter on commerce, where newspapers float in the high-supply, low-demand quadrant of a supply/demand graph, just below ketchup packets and slightly above blogs.

One warning about this book - it will help tremendously if you have above-average intelligence, enjoy satire, follow pop culture, and have watched The Daily Show. If you aren't into any of those things, you aren't going to get this book. If you are into at least 2 of those 4, you will be entertained.

4 out of 4, and it will be one of the best books you'll ever read.