jimrigby.org

Eight people were arrested at a kindergarten graduation in Cleveland. Details are sketchy but apparently someone spilled some punch and, before long, one person pulled out a pipe and someone else pulled out a hammer. None of the students from the school were involved but, in the end, ten police cars were called to deal with the situation.

The story also marked the day I officially became old, because I looked at the story and thought, “this nation is going to hell in a handbasket.” That’s right, this was the day I officially heard my father’s words coming out through my mouth.

So, perhaps I am now senile, but this whole “stand your ground” attitude has gotten completely out of hand in my opinion. For the last few decades entire television and radio industries have arisen out of triggering outrage. People listen to Rush Limbaugh for the same reason they once watched Jerry Springer- to get pissed. Since 9-11 it almost seems like our nation looks for an excuse to seek revenge. I realize that such irritability isn’t new. “Don’t tread on me” is the same kind of sentiment. But back then, people were fighting for liberty, or at least land. Today we have been reduced to fighting over spilled juice.

For years, I have tried to express why I fundamentally disagree with American Libertarianism. While I have expressed sympathy for the libertarian rejection of domination by the state, I have also accused it of cluelessness when when it comes to realizing that the state is no longer what primarily dominates us. The state been bought “lock, stock and barrel” by our new master which is predatory corporate capitalism. And capitalism usually gets a free pass from libertarian thinkers.

I have said things like:

“Anarchism, from which libertarianism sprang, criticized all forms of domination. Modern American libertarianism includes a noncritical view of capitalism that dismantles the only hope of curbing corporate domination, which is democratic government. Modern libertarians want to punish the hapless lion tamer of democracy, and release the lion of unfettered capitalism on us all.”

One problem is that libertarians, like the Green Party, are usually defined more with what they are against than with any core principles of their own. This makes the party very hard to define, much less critique. While I agree with many of their criticisms of the state, having a common enemy can give a false sense of unified purpose. I fundamentally disagree with a call to freedom that leaves the racist, religious, classist and sexist heirarchies of the culture intact. I sympathize with rejection of all forms of governance, but our government, at least potentially, is a democracy. Private corporations are feudal dictatorships. It seems insane to me to throw out democratic government using rhetoric that was originally designed to overturn autocracies.

Fortunately, Noam Chomsky has come to the rescue. Chomsky represents an anarchical attitude to current problems and specifies how he believes its libertarian cousin gets things wrong.

Here is a quick summary. First he defines anarchy:

Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics.  Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy.  It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified.  It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them.  Their authority is not self-justifying. 

Then he says what anarchy is not:

I mean it’s not at all the general image that you described — people running around the streets, you know, breaking store windows — but [anarcho-syndicalism] is a conception of a very organized society, but organized from below by direct participation at every level, with as little control and domination as is feasible, maybe none.

Then he gives his view of libertarianism:

Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power:  so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.  The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. 

 

…that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.  Anarchism is quite different from that.  It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny.  Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations.  So why should we prefer it?  Well I think because freedom is better than subordination.  It’s better to be free than to be a slave.  Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them.  I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that.  It seems like … transparent.

If anyone is for freedom it is Noam Chomsky. But like Dylan says, in this world, “you got to serve somebody.” We can call government evil, but it exists as soon as two people enter the same room. It is as evil as it is understandable for those who benefit from economic and cultural hierarchies to pretend that the systems of power aren’t there, and even to dismantle any protections for those oppressed by such systems and attitudes.

In an important sense “government” is taking responsibility for how we share power. The question we should be asking is, “what political systems and attitudes can give us forms of freedom that do not mean domination for anyone else?”

Of all places, this interview took place in Modern Success Magazing. Thanks to editor Michael S. Wilson for thinking outside the box of what success might mean.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians?paging=off

According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans’ perception of religion’s power has never been lower. Dan Merica, CNN

Is religion a good or a bad thing? Obviously people answer that question very differently depending on what they mean by the word “religion.” This Gallup Poll grabbed my eye when I first saw it but then I realized that, as usual, the word “religion” is not really defined.

So people use the same word, but “religion” means something very different to each of the speakers . Critics use the word “religion” to refer to traits like superstition, sectarianism and the fear of modernity. Supporters use the word “religion” to refer to traits like reverence, community and compassion.

Even if atheists and religionists sit at the same table, so long as they refuse to define terms they will continue to pass like ships in the night.

If we define religion as “all the above” we have a better idea of what is happening to religious attitudes in the U.S. The good news is that anti-scientific and sectarian attitudes may be on the wane: the bad news is that intimate communities that share wonder and celebrate life together may be dying with them.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/

The Texas Buddha was asked if violence is ever appropriate. He answered, “We must avoid violence whenever we can, but we must also realize there are times when we must choose between competing forms of violence. On occasion, to remain passive means participating in systemic violence. Still, we must remember that new thorns grow wherever an army has marched.

“And we must remember that no one is a fair judge of his or her own cause. It always seems that the pain we cause others is less than what we receive. I knew a Somali pirate who told me of a terrible game ancient pirates would play with their prisoners. The pirates would chain prisoners in a circle around the mast of the ship. Each prisoner would be given a whip and told to strike the prisoner in front of him. That was the game. Now, clearly it would be in the interest of all the prisoners to barely strike the others, but human nature is not like that.

“As the game progressed, each prisoner would come to feel that the others were hitting him harder than he was hitting back. Inevitably, the prisoners would be reduced to a bloody mess. This is why sages teach us that those who would seek peace must not be the judge of their own cause.”

Last year Denmark was ranked as the happiest nation in the world.  Please don’t think about that when we have political discussions here in the United States. Polls showing that Scandinavian countries and their socialist economies make people consistently happier have no bearing for us here in the States.

We all know that happiness follows personal success not social solidarity. And we all know that low taxes are the only way to achieve that goal. We here in the United States know that big government in the form of universal health care, free education and unemployment compensation are the road to misery despite what those wooden-shoed Nordic pinkos say. It is much better to let wealth be concentrated in the hands of a few hundred billionaires than to guarantee a livable wage for all. In the States we may spend our lives in dead end jobs, and have our pensions stolen, but at least we know that some poor kid won’t get an undeserved education and nutrition.

Instead of thinking about what we might do better in our own country, let us agree that because Denmark is smaller and more homogeneous than we, that we have nothing to learn from them. Let us tell each other that their happiness doesn’t come from knowing that they will be treated as human beings from cradle to grave. Let us affirm in unison that people are much happier in a dog eat dog economy. Let us also affirm that we would rather have the empty fantasy of personal wealth and live as wage slaves, than to have to share our nation’s treasures fairly with each other.

It’s always a slippery slope on the tundra my friends.

Gun deaths have surpassed automobile fatalities in 12 states and in our nation’s capital. When I saw the heading of the article, I thought this would be a slam dunk argument in favor of gun control, but the statistic can be viewed in different ways.

Those against gun control will probably say that the statistic is misleading in that the rate of gun murders and accidents is actually going down as a result of population growth, it’s just that the rates of automobile fatalities are decreasing .

Supporters of gun control point out that automobile fatalities are down because we license and regulate automobiles. Dragsters, for example, are kept off the highways, and certain people are not allowed to drive. There is no such consensus when it comes to firearms.

However we twist the statistic, the bottom line for me is that we could be saving lives while protecting a person’s constitutional right to self-protection. I would love to get monster weapons off the streets just as we keep monster trucks off the road but it will probably take more carnage to reach a consensus on the issue.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/29/1212375/-Most-recent-data-Gun-deaths-outpaced-auto-deaths-in-12-states?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29#

The Vatican has taken back the statement by the Pope that atheists who do good will not be tortured for all eternity. The Pope recently said:

“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” -Pope Francis

Well, nobody is perfect. Turns out the Pope was wrong, at least according to a Vatican spokesperson:

“All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body, hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her.” -Rev. Thomas Rosica

While the Pope has yet to retract his statement, Jesus issued an apology for saying that “God sends love indiscriminately on the just and the unjust,” and implying that “all who love know God.”

“I spoke out of line,” said the Savior, “God’s love isn’t strong like gravity that works whether you believe in it or not. God’s love only works if you believe, kind of like Santa. I apologize if my words made it sound like God or I can save people who have not come through the official channels of the church. Of course, you must be dipped in the magic water and eat the magic crackers or God and I can do nothing. I am deeply sorry and apologize to all who were offended when I implied that God is bigger or stronger than the Institutional Church. I only hope the sacred clergy of the church can find it in their hearts to forgive me for loving people they have not officially approved.”

The word “radical” is usually used in our culture as a synonymn for “extremist,” but actually the word means “to come from the roots.” “Radish” is an offshoot of the same word.

So what are the “roots” of a human being? We can come up with infinite hypothetical answers to the question, but if we limit ourselves to the kinds of experience we share in common, the list becomes much shorter. We might trace our roots to the earth, to other living beings, and to our own human nature.

From such a beginning we may conclude that the most radical stance possible for a human being is to be ecological, humane and fully alive.

It sounds simple, but such rootedness requires a rejection of many cultural idols. To be authentically human requires that we abandon the false labels of our nation or our religion as well as the trophies of our culture often falsely called “success” or “education.” To be who we truly are we must live in perpetual revolution against all that would rob us of our humanity, of living fully, or of being in harmony with the earth.

When we live unrooted lives, we settle into a kind of depression. We are trying to save the world, but we are doing so within artificial definitions such as “American,” or “Christian” or “capitalist.” Such non-radical definitions are expressions of the problem. Unless we radicalize our understanding of such labels we have little hope of being helpful in the current crises. When we try to do good within such labels we become depressed because, at some level, we know we cannot possibly make the world whole if our minds are in the process of cutting it to pieces.

Bob Jensen has a new article in YES! Magazine called, “Why Radical is the New Normal: Get Apocalyptic.”

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/love-and-the-apocalypse/radical-is-the-new-normal

Some years ago, back when I had cable, I woke up in the middle of the night and turned on some remote station of C-Span. It was a hearing on climate change. A scientist was warning of super storms that would be coming soon as a result of global warming. I was struck by how strange it was that one of the most important news stories of my lifetime could receive such limp coverage.

Unfortunately, weather is such a complicated subject, that there will always be room for those who want to deny any causal link between human activity and climate change until it is too late to do anything about it.

The following link will take you to a brief discussion on the tornado that hit Oklahoma recently. It has been described as “the biggest, most destructive tornado in the history of the world.” In the following article, Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research discusses what can and cannot be said about the relationship between that tornado, and climate change.

So, in short, Trenberth seems to suggest that while one cannot directly “blame” climate change itself for any particular storm, the altered weather patterns, thanks to global warming and the increased moisture in the air, increase, fairly radically, the probability of such storms and, in turn, their size and destructive power. -Brad Friedman, Truthout

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16600-climate-scientist-explains-climate-change-effect-on-tornadoes-like-moore-oklahomas