jimrigby.org

In the article linked below, the Daily Show’s Samantha Bee gives her take on a UCLA study showing that women in the GOP have more stereotypically feminine faces than women in the Democratic Party. The study was based on women serving in the House of Representatives. The women’s faces were rated based on actual measurements of facial structure. They were then rated according to “gender-typical feminity” and shown to undergraduates who were then asked to guess which party the face in question belonged to. According to the report, “The students guessed correctly with surprising accuracy.”

The researchers called their results the “Michele Bachmann Effect.” The implication would seem to be that female Republican candidates are selected in part because they look more stereotypically female. I’m assuming there was a control against students actually recognizing the faces in question. If it did not I would be suspicious of the whole test.

But the article provokes a larger question about women and power, as Samantha Bee puts it:

“But this U.C.L.A. study contains measurable scientific data collected by actual professional scientists who have just basically given us the green light to go ahead and judge a book by its cover. And though the data offered no evidence as to the relative “attractiveness” of either party’s representatives (as the face-modeling software controlled for superficial markers like makeup and hairstyles), why would that stop anyone from conflating gender typicality with sex appeal? The answer is ha ha, of course it wouldn’t, but I adore your innocence.”

Not surprisingly, the study did not find the same correlation with male representatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/the-gops-feminine-mystique.html?_r=0

The other night, as I spoke at the ISD on domestic partner benefits, I was not surprised to hear boos and hisses when I mentioned that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. I was on the clock, so I couldn’t use the moment to teach Bible 101, but I remembered how many Christians get their view of religion from a preacher, and how few get it from Jesus.

Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek, to share our world fairly with all, and to refuse to sit in judgment over others. How different Christian history would be had we been able to prevent ignorant bullies from taking over our faith. Our story would not be stained with the blood of innocents had not bullies like Constantine taken over and changed a call to love into an absurd faith claim that no one could test and which could only be defended by coercion. Constantine conquered Christianity not by the sharpness of his understanding, but by that of his sword.

What the Constantinians who call themselves “Christian” most have to fear is that, in the middle of the book they wave in the face of their enemies, is a sermon by one who called himself “a friend of sinners.” It is a little homily called the Sermon on the Mount by the one they say they follow, but who said he had come not to judge but to serve.

So, whenever you speak on human rights in the name of Jesus, do not be surprised to hear “boos” from Christians whose claim to special privilege feels to them like a holy calling. Remember that they are good people who have been besotted with fear. They have good minds, but because they believe in the cruel Christ of Contantine, they also fear the fires of hell and would sell out their grandmothers to avoid it.

Sometimes it is those who lift highest the Cross of Christ to which the humble words of Jesus sound most heretical.  So when you are being biblically assaulted for promoting kindness, remember this little dictum:

“Never assume, just because someone is beating you with a Bible, that they have read it.”

Being hostage to money power is no myth. As Dave Lindorff points out in CounterPunch, the biggest contributors to the Obama campaign in 2008 were mostly financial companies. Apart from other big corporations. These included Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup, who gave him close to $2.5 million via Political Action Committees (PACs).

Another $1.5 million came from two more big banks, “UBS and Morgan Stanley, as well as General Electric, which less than a year later bought a bank.” GE did that in order to gorge on the government’s “bailout” with billions of “rescue” dollars from public money.

Mr. Obama repaid those debts, Mr. Lindorff points out. Among other things, he made Tim Geithner his Treasury Secretary. Mr. Geithner, as head of the New York Federal Reserve branch during the Bush era, “had ignored the derivatives scandals that brought on the financial crash.” Mr. Obama also made Lawrence Summers his top economic adviser. The same Summers who “as Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, had pushed for the deregulation of derivatives, and for allowing banks to merge with investment banks.” There were other such jobs for the boys, too. Yet, this time around, Mr. Romney has collected more Wall Street money than Mr. Obama.

Compensation on Wall Street rose by four per cent last year to $60 billion, says the New York Times. Higher than in any year except 2007 and 2008. And “the average pay packet of securities industry employees in New York state was $362,950, up 16.6 % over the last two years.” Meanwhile, about 25 million people who want full-time jobs can’t find them. The number of those on food stamps is at record levels. And 50 million people suffer food insecurity in a nation where, as economist Paul Buchheit points out: “The 10 richest Americans made enough money last year to feed every hungry person on earth for a year.”

Abortion is a unique ethical dilemma. One human being develops within another. Men have no parallel experience.

In ideal situations we affirm both lives, but there are other times when we must distinguish between an actual human person and a developing one. When push comes to shove we must decide whether the woman is the context for the pregnancy, or the pregnancy is the context of the woman.

I distinguish between being pro-life as a philosophy and trying to pass laws that restrict abortion in the same way I distinguish between those who want to prevent divorce and those who would make it illegal. Trying to prevent divorce is a noble goal most of us share, but most sane people have realized that writing coercive laws against divorce creates more pain than it eliminates. Just it is best to help marriages be happy without standing in the way of divorce, so is it better to give women better options than abortion without standing in their way if they themselves determine abortion is their best option.

As much as we might wish it otherwise, there are some human goods that cannot be obtained with coercion.

A note to those who have checked out of the political process: yesterday faithful activists in New Jersey convinced the state legislature in New Jersey to join 8 other states in calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen United. “Citizens United” is the infamous Supreme Court ruling that claimed that corporations were “persons.”

It is important to recognize the shell game that electoral politics have become, but it is also important to do the good that is possible for us within the system while we work for more fundamental change.

While most Americans were either voting mindlessly between the false options available, or sitting at home criticizing, activists in New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont were trying to save the world.

It understandable and very human to throw in the towel when things seem hopeless. But even if we are going down, it is important that we go fighting. Even if we knew our species were facing certain extinction, we would still want to live our last day faithfully on behalf of our species and planet, and to breathe our last breath as a hymn to our highest value.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/18-7

To the members of the Pflugerville ISD,

My name is Jim Rigby, I am pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church on Wells Branch Parkway.

I have come here tonight to thank you for your recent decision to offer domestic partnership rights to all the people who serve schools in our community.

I understand there are clergy in our area who oppose your decision. I respect my Christian brothers and sisters and affirm their religious liberty to say publically what they believe to be true. Where I disagree with them is when they believe they have a right to force their religion interpretations into the public sphere and to deny others the same rights they would claim for themselves.

My understanding of Christianity is fundamentally different from my brothers and sisters who  believe homosexuality is a sin. I have never found any teaching of Jesus that prohibits homosexuality, but I have found plenty that tell me not to judge my neighbor. I have a direct commandment from my savior to treat my neighbors the way I would want to be treated, and when my neighbors are attacked unjustly, I feel I have a duty to rise to their side.

When my Christian brothers and sisters attack my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, when they constantly criticize their families, when they demean the faithful love these people have for one another, when they come into this public sphere to deny domestic partner benefits because they don’t approve of how my brothers and sisters live, they are not exercising their own religious liberty, they are infringing on the liberty of others.

Earlier today the Defense of Marriage Act, prohibiting same sex marriage, was struck down as unconstitutional in a federal appeals court. This was inevitable. One indispensable element of our American democracy is “inalienable rights.” “Inalienable” means they can’t be put up for a vote. Our Declaration of Independence says every person is born with inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Every person in this room has rights that cannot be overridden no matter what the majority says. So we are not discriminating against the majority when we insist that unpopular minorities must receive the same rights as everyone else.

I wish the church would stand up for persecuted minorities, but since we often don’t, and since we sometimes are even the source of persecution, I’m glad there are those of you here who stand up for all the people who live and work in our community.

Jesus once summarized his entire teaching as being a good neighbor. I have come here tonight because, by offering the same rights to all the people who work for our schools, you have been a good neighbor. And, as one who attempts to follow Jesus, I wanted to say “thank you.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (sic) are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” -Declaration of Independence.

Judge Dennis Jacobs is a Republican judge known for his conservative ways. Today he released an opinion that rules the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

[W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class.  They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

Earlier this morning I mentioned a movement from within conservatives to take back their cause from big business and from the religious right. Joe Forbes spotted this story and sent it with the tongue in cheek question, “might this be what you had in mind by a conservative sea change?”. Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about. Protecting inalienable rights should be the “Republican” side of that phrase “democratic republic.” The true liberal remembers that we decide by majority rule, but the true conservative is the one who remembers those rights that should never be put up for a vote.

Thanks again to Joe Forbes for the sending following link:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/18/1040901/breaking-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-doma-in-opinion-by-republican-appointed-judge/

The Arizona Republic released a story this weekend that recruiters for the Arizona National Guard have been conducted “bum hunts” where cadets and potential recruits would hunt homeless people from official vehicles. No wonder Sgt. 1st Class Michael won “Recruiter of the Year.”

“Military investigators were told that Amerson wore his National Guard uniform and drove a government vehicle marked with recruiting insignia as he and other soldiers — some still minors — shot transients with paintballs or got them to perform humiliating song-and-dance routines in return for money. During some of these so-called “bum hunts,” female recruits said, they were ordered to flash their breasts at transients. Homeless women, conversely, were offered food, money or drinks for showing their breasts.”

Governor Jan Brewer (R) has promised a full investigation done by an independent third party.

Thanks to Rebekah Duke for the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/national-guard-recruiters-hunted-homeless-paintball-guns-arizona_n_1970664.html

A people is not free who merely votes between two masters. One does not need a cage whose imagination has been enslaved by the propaganda of those that would control them. Freedom of thought precedes any other freedom and requires us to consider other options than those given to us by our dominate culture.  To that end, our Presidential debates should include a range of viable parties and not just those sanctioned by corporate sponsors.

The night of the presidential debates Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, was arrested for trying to get in. When she tried to enter the debating area, she was pushed back. When she and her running mate sat down, they were arrested. She was quoted as saying, “We are here to bring the courage of those excluded from our politics to this mock debate, this mockery of democracy.”

In my line of work we call what these candidates did a “prophetic action.” By that I mean one that reveals the violence and control over our lives we don’t want to see. Dr. Stein is scheduled to represent the Green Party in four upcoming debates. For more information, click here:

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/10/16-11