Facets of Our Lives

On Foreign Affairs, Part One

2017-09-26T09:00:00.000-07:00

The complexities of the current state of international conditions and relations are compounded by the occupant of the White House. This article will not focus on him, because there are larger issues that have nothing to do with his lack of qualifications or immature behavior. My hope is to give us a few things to think about about diplomacy and foreign affairs more generally.

The United States has been a successful experiment in nation-building. Here we are, 240+ years after our Declaration of Independence, and 230 years after our Constitution was ratified. There are very good reasons to feel that the US is exceptional, because our people represent the people of the world, thanks to our history of immigration, innovation, cooperation, collaboration, and exploration.

But we're not the only ones to be ground-breaking, and we're not the only great country on the planet.

Americans have a well-earned reputation around the world, and not all of it good.

I lived in Europe in the mid-1990s and was able to have in-depth conversations about these perceptions, although global conditions were much different at that time. This was before the European Union existed, before the Euro, even Hong Kong and Macao were still European "colonies".

First, there was the perception of American arrogance and condescension. Being multilingual, I would hide my nationality if I was at a café and other Americans were present, largely because I didn't want to become a tour guide. But this did give me the opportunity to listen to the tourists and observe their behavior. (Full disclosure: I did this to Europeans, too - pretending to be the "dumb American" who spoke nothing other than English - and they could be just as offensive).

Americans could be loud, crass, and insulting, often without realizing it. They functioned under the expectation that Europeans would speak English to them, translate the menu, etc. France is usually the country that Americans associate with a negativity toward English speakers, but France is not alone, and this behavior is why that negativity exists. The more I spoke French in France, the more willing the French locals were to meet me halfway, either in English or even Spanish - just to keep the communication going and, if necessary, provide me the assistance I might be seeking. Speaking in French was a simple token of respect, for where I was and with whom I was speaking, to be provided respect in return.

The second area of discussion, because of the time period, was the Cold War. I do feel this is appropriate to discuss now because of the conflicts we now face. Many other countries felt caught in the middle between the US and USSR. They had treaties that put them in the fight, if one were to occur, but had little voice in the decision. The first World War came about because of similar alliances that activated like dominoes across the continent. There was resentment toward the US for putting them in such a position.

I do not have the sense that our allies feel as trapped in the situation in our current global climate, but there has been a loss of nuance and delicacy in dealing with these situations. American arrogance has not dissipated, and economic goals now drive our policies even more.

About five years ago, I had a long discussion with a colleague who is a Russian immigrant. We are the same age, so our experiences during the Cold War were interesting to compare. He admitted that he hated the US and its people during the height of the Soviet state, because he only received negative information. It wasn't until the press opened and he was able to gain better information that he made the choice to emigrate for economic reasons. Once he experienced the US and its culture (which many Europeans deny we have), he saw the full picture.

Americans do not realize that they are also subject to propaganda, and many of our impressions of foreign lands are informed by this propaganda. It is the nature of marketing and capitalism, so ubiquitous in the US. We just like to believe that we're better informed.

Most Americans do not travel abroad, even to Canada or Mexico unless they live in border states. They view Puerto Rico as a different country, even though it is an American territory. Some of the reasons are economic - we don't all have the disposable funds to take such a trip. Some of it is fear of the unknown, trying to function in another language, or finding one's self the minority in another culture. Until I traveled to Asia, I never became really aware of my skin color (white) - and I did not experience any prejudice or negativity, but there was the awareness of being an Other, whether I was in India or Singapore. (And I am Irish, Scottish Highlander, and Ukrainian, among other nationalities - I am very white European looking).

It is important to learn and understand that governments are separate from the people they represent. People, by and large, want the same things, whether they are in Provence or Pyonyang. Everyone is operating with the information they have been provided, and believe they have the truth when they engage with someone from another culture. Americans are not unique in this - there are preconceptions about us, too.

My high school Spanish teacher, Francesca Perez, was an immigrant from Spain. She told a story about seeing a movie set in New York, and there was steam rising from the sewer grates. After seeing this, she believed that America was so wealthy, we could heat our cities during the winter through vents placed in the streets.

You can imagine her disappointment upon learning the truth.

It is important to be vigilant. It is important to self-educate. It is important to be open to difference. It is important to be thoughtful. It is important to experience. And it is important to share what you learn. In this way, we respect each other and we respect ourselves. We cannot fight the problems in the world with insufficient information. We cannot treat people as ideas or abstractions.

We have negative forces and personages in the world, and they have the influence and/or power to create a lot of the antagonism we experience. As I have discussed in other posts, it is paramount that we proceed based upon verifiable facts and mutual respect. In some cases, these things can only be obtained through our own, individualized efforts. To quote Ronald Reagan, "trust, but verify".

And through this, one can learn the underlying motivations for behaviors or choices. These reasons are not always sinister, and they often do not need to be addressed through armed conflict. It also doesn't mean that the motivations are acceptable, logical, or even "good" - it is about understanding, not necessarily agreeing.

On Dogma

2017-09-24T09:00:00.000-07:00

I had originally intended to title this post "On Religion", but upon introspection, the issue is dogma as much as it is religion, and I believe I'll explain this adequately later.

If you've read the prior posts in this series, you will probably have many assumptions about what I intend to say. You're probably right. Let's dive in.

Merriam-Webster defines dogma as follows:

a :something held as an established opinion; especially :a definite authoritative tenet
b :a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c :a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Dogma, in a non-religious sense, is not damaging in and of itself. It is only as benign or malignant as its content, as well as how it is applied directly and indirectly to a population. For that matter, secular humanists subscribe to a certain level of non-religious dogma.

Religion is a special category of dogma, and occupies a central place in the lives of religious humans. The unfortunate nature of the major world religions is that they were codified in an unscientific, highly superstitious world, bringing it into conflict with newly discovered and proven facts. And rather than incorporate these facts, or - dare I say it - evolve to embrace the new details of reality, they try to defend their power, influence, and "truth".

Apologists will variously cite Hitler, Stalin, and others as famous leaders and/or atheists overlording atheist regimes. First, Hitler was Roman Catholic, and the Vatican made treaties with the Nazis. Secondly, I classify these as dogmatic states - they were not simply atheist or anti-religion, they were similarly seeking power over thought through advancing a state belief system, albeit non-religious. North Korea is another example of a highly dogmatic state, and it is not atheist, in the sense that they view their leaders as gods or descendants of gods.

There are effectively two issues related to dogma. The first is their construction; the dominant religions subscribe to tenets that often ill-conceived, contradictory, and overly expansive, covering scientific areas alongside philosophy. Second, the power structures which support these dogmas are corrupt, concerned with influence and self-support.

The Roman Catholic church managed to carve out a city-state, and is the only religion able to be treated on the world stage as if it were an autonomous country. Vatican City is a member of the United Nations, and the Pope manages to occupy the office of head of state alongside being the religious leader to more than a billion religious adherents. The amount of wealth the Church has managed to accumulate is staggering, and they do not use these funds for purely altruistic means or self-maintenance. This does not even address the tax breaks they receive from many countries around the world for their properties or clergy.

While this corruption is certainly sickening, the true damage they cause is in the societies they inhabit. In Africa, they have not only discouraged the use of condoms, but have stated that it will not only not stop the spread of AIDS, but will encourage it. As a result, AIDS rampages through these communities for gay and straight alike. But then, contraception of any kind is against the religion, because all sex should result in children.

The Church is also famous for its treatment of Galileo for supporting a theory of the solar system that conflicted with dogma.

Protestant believers, not content to simply harass sexual minorities in the US, have made trips to Uganda to influence laws there in the name of their deity to deny rights to LGBTQ people, even their lives. Fortunately, the law as enacted results in life imprisonment for non-heterosexuality rather than execution. LGBTQ Muslims are not as lucky.

Islam faced a similar discouragement of science, according to historians, between the 14th and 16th centuries, when clerics asserted their influence. Because evidentiary fact provided by scientists replaces superstition and storytelling provided by the non-scientific. Similar to the other monotheistic religions, Islam contains a belief that humans are separate from the animals because they were created by a deity, although some progressive Muslims believe that evolution and the first man can be reconciled based on how it is explained in the Qu'ran.

In each of these cases, it is about maintaining power and influence, not truth. Ken Ham, a famous evangelical and biblical literalist in the US who oversees the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter in Kentucky, says the Bible must be infallible, and if any part of the Bible is disproven, then all of it must be rejected. This sums up how Islam, Catholicism, and generalized/Protestant Christianity must operate from their positions of authority. To accept correction is to admit fault, and these books and dogmatic edicts would then all be open to criticism and question. Criticism and questioning ultimately threatens the influence of the leaders.

When we look at North Korea, people in the West feel a certain level of horror and shock at their dogma. The outlandish stories surrounding the Kim family are often complete nonsense when reviewed as an outside party, and Westerners are not shy about saying so. The populace of North Korea is taught this dogma as fact, and are discouraged (if not prohibited) from criticizing or questioning what they are told.

Religion is often no different. Indoctrination starts young, when children are open to and accepting of anything they are told, no matter how insane. They hear the stories from their parents and adults they trust, so they don't consider it critically. Even by the time these children are adults, the indoctrination is so effective, it is enormously difficult to consider any other option. And in many Islamic countries, leaving the religion is no more an option than it would be in disagreeing with a Kim in North Korea. And before we say, "Christians don't do that", it is more true to add, anymore. Christianity was still burning witches in the 18th Century,, and we all know it was not because these victims were really witches.

I haven't discussed Judaism to this point, because I do give them credit for trying to explain the gaps in information in the Torah in a logical way, not having a hell, and other openness in their society that is lacking elsewhere, probably due to their centuries of integrating into societies governed by other faiths. However, Jews do harbor their own prejudices, unusual rituals, and unfortunate ideas. As with the other religions, there are varying levels of orthodoxy and progressivism. The truth is, I have not studied their dogma deeply enough to explore this fully, but I do feel that Israel tends to avoid thoughtful criticism in the United States because it is a Jewish state. There are integration issues within the country with differing religions and ethnicities. It concerns me to read about their treatment of non-Jews within Israel after all they have suffered as a people throughout history. One would hope that lessons had been learned.

As I stated earlier, the issue with any dogma is how benign or malignant it is to the populations affected, and more often than not, there is a malignancy that results in the oppression, persecution, or violence against some demographic, both within and without that belief system.

It then comes down to humans as individuals.

I have a number of friends I would consider devout in their chosen belief systems, and who I credit for "thinking outside the book". They do not follow dogma blindly, but evaluate the various tenets when necessary to determine for themselves if it is valuable and/or worthy of adherence. We are Americans, and we can do this without great concern for punishment by society or even a congregation, but the internal struggle is very real. Every woman I know uses contraception, no matter what their beliefs say, because humans have sex for other reasons than making babies. My devout friends largely believe in evolution and science, because it is supported by evidence and logic. They may believe that a deity started the Big Bang or began life on this planet, but as a rule, and at a basic level, they integrate science into their belief system.

I've known Jehovah's Witnesses who didn't try to convert me, LDS members who haven't told me that I'm being sinful or try to slip me The Book of Mormon, and evangelicals who have told me they voted against amendments and propositions that would prohibit same-sex marriage or a woman's right to choose because they understand that their belief system should not be forced on others. I greatly admire these friends for the line they walk and their ability to consider an issue dispassionately or a person for who they are, because I do recognize their difficulty, but they teach us that it is possible to resist dogma and address the reality we all share.

My personal belief system does not include a deity, and I self-identify as an atheist. I do not try to convert anyone to atheism, but the separation between the state and church is paramount to me because I do not subscribe to any religion to be subject to its dogma, and in our secular system of government in the US, I should not have to. I feel great sadness for anyone victimized by dogma, whether it be one they follow or one that they don't. I believe it is important that we consider these matters seriously and critically, not necessarily to abandon them, but to progress them into our current century and current reality.

On Free Speech

2017-09-23T09:03:00.000-07:00

Much has been made in the last year or two regarding free speech in the United States. The United States is one of the few countries where the freedom of speech is codified in the constitution. It might surprise many Americans to know that Europeans do not enjoy the same latitude. For one example, in France, it is illegal to deny the Jewish holocaust.

However, in the United States, the right to free speech is also not clearly understood.

Many colleges and universities, most notably the University of California at Berkeley, have been in the news for their response to controversial speakers coming to their campuses. UC-Berkeley has invited then disinvited speakers across the spectrum, and in cases where they have not, there has sometimes been violent protest against the presence of these speakers.

I strongly disagree with violence of any kind in response to an individual speaker, but I certainly understand and support the right to protest. There are some in this discourse who do not believe the protest should not be occurring at all, particularly at colleges and universities, because they should be welcoming of diverse perspectives and thoughts.

Let's unpack this a little bit.

I am against the idea of "safe spaces" in academic or public discourse, particularly at colleges and universities. Education is about exposure to a diversity of ideas, and understanding these varying perspectives in order to determine the best path forward. There are many topics, both social and political, that are considered controversial and we gain nothing by denying or limiting our students' ability to discuss them.

I am also in favor of speakers not being invited in the first place, as a function of the free market, based on their well-known sociopolitical views that they have already expressed. Students are consumers. They pay tuition that funds all of these speakers, who do not appear for free. Moreover, speakers are validated by saying they spoke at a university; they will certainly use that information for self-promotion, and there is the implication that they were "invited" because of a favorable opinion for their views. As a student paying tuition, I would certainly feel I had the right to protest the decision to invite an individual whose views are already known., especially if they are only giving a speech and not participating in a debate. Many of those protested are well-known personalities, who are known for not just expressing their views, but for how they behave when expressing those views.

During the lead up to the marriage equality decision in 2015 in the United States, John Corvino, philosophy professor at Wayne State University, and Maggie Gallagher, formerly of the National Organization for Marriage, co-wrote a book regarding same sex marriage called Debating Same-Sex Marriage. They had participated in debates regarding the subject prior to the book's publishing, and also did promotional presentations across the country about the book and their differing views. I was familiar with and a fan of Dr. Corvino, but had had minimal exposure to Ms. Gallagher's views other than media appearances. I came away from their debates - and I stress debates - with a newfound respect for Ms. Gallagher's positions and motivations. I still disagree with her, but I now understood her assertions and goals. Most importantly, she did not spend time attacking Corvino or those who supported his positions - she discussed ideas, and critiqued Corvino's position rather than Corvino himself.

The concerns about denying controversial speakers the ability to express their views surround creating an echo chamber, where only so-called suitable topics are permitted. But having a controversial speaker simply give a speech is creating an echo chamber for that individual. They often come across as arrogant, and find it easy to slide into personal or unnecessary attacks on their opposition, who have no conduit to respond other than via protest - which is again criticized. I would advocate that we pursue debate, not one-sided conversation.

And I would further point out that this happens on both ends of the political spectrum. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have been protested and disinvited as well as Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro.

But this also leads into what free speech is and what it is not.

The freedom of speech allows one to say whatever one wishes, short of inciting violence or causing harm, such as shouting "fire!" in a crowded venue.
The freedom of speech allows the audience to respond to what has been expressed in any way they wish. This can mean boycott or other form of rejection.
Words do not need to be respected. Just as one has the ability to express whatever they wish, their audience can call bullshit and judge the speaker accordingly. The audience can identify bad ideas.
No platform has to be provided for one's speech. Say what you wish, but no television network, no newspaper, no other media outlet needs to communicate your words. No university needs to invite you to speak. And no justification is required for such rejection. It is not censorship if no one wants to listen to you.
No platform has to be provided to repeat one's self, and this is where I think the student protesters have a point. Those who are being protested would likely be accepted as guest speakers if their ideas were not well-known. If you already know what someone is going to say or defend, it is not limiting education or exposure to say "thanks, we know your spiel already." That is precisely why the protesters are there.

Full disclosure, I don't often support the presence of conservatives in education. By definition, I do not feel they add to the discourse, as they favor the status quo versus advancement; they very much want to stay in the box rather than think outside of it. However, I also feel we have gone off the rails in some areas of cultural discourse because of the focus on minutiae. We have lost sight of the forest because of the trees.

We need a reset across the board.

Not all speech is good speech. Not all speech is hate speech. We cannot determine these definitions based on personal feelings, but rather on some external evaluation in a factual way. Agreement does not mean good, and opposition does not mean hate. We are rapidly losing the ability to debate and discuss in constructive ways, if such an ability has not already been lost completely. We are passionate about many topics, as many decisions in these areas impact us personally and in how we will be able or unable to live our lives.

In the end, we have lost respect for each other. Many of the things we argue about would be non-issues if we simply had respect for each other. And this can't work unless it is universal.

On paper, the United States is a secular, democratic republic, which helps this approach of universal respect, but as any American can tell you, this is imperfect. We have many groups across the spectrum who wish to impose their views on others, including me as I write this in telling you how our society should behave. The key is finding a model to which we can all agree that provides the most good - in culture, in government, in economics - such that we can be united and safe.

On Politics

2017-09-19T09:00:00.000-07:00

I went back and reviewed prior posts on politics that I had published on this blog to sort of look back and see how thing had changed. My most recent post concerned President Obama’s re-election, and a perusal back through my history revealed what seems now to have been a much simpler time – simply advocating for equality for LGBT, lamenting the ideological makeup of the SCOTUS, and commenting on the general state of the Congress.

You know, back when America was great.

The bombastic current occupant of the White House has been described as

a misogynist
a white supremacist
a narcissist
petty and vengeful
unfit for the office

And I can’t say that I disagree with any of these observations.

There has been much discussion as to how and why Hilary Rodham Clinton lost the 2016 election. She, herself, identifies a number of reasons, but without actually taking blame herself. She came into this with significant baggage and controversy, and I think she and many of her supporters underestimate how that may have hurt her.

However, as Bret Stephens recently opined, she would have been a survivable [outcome].

The current administration has removed all sense of decorum or respect from the office of POTUS, and seems obsessed with undoing anything and everything accomplished by President Obama or during his tenure. The country is being ruled as much as possible as if it were a dictatorship, with the administration most recently advocating the firing of a sports analyst who spoke against the current occupant of the White House, which, by the way, is against US federal law, should any prosecutor have the spine to bring charges.

The Republicans are only now realizing that their agenda is not the agenda of the administration, and they are completely confused as to how to cope.

But the damage has already begun. The cabinet is comprised of individuals with no interest in serving the people or the nation, but in dismantling many of the protections and regulations that level the playing field. And much, much worse, the Republicans stole a SCOTUS nomination from President Obama in order to provide it to his successor, who in turn nominated Neil Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch has already had an influence on the court, and it is something we may only be able to remedy after decades of abuse to the population, if ever. Added to this, the Majority Leader in the US Senate had to change the rules to disallow a filibuster in order to achieve that confirmation.

I wrote recently that during the GW Bush era, my frequent mantra was that I did not vote for him, and I did not support X policy. I was traveling internationally quite often at the time, and was frequently asked about President Bush and why the US elected him. The world was stupefied, but I addressed the questions and conversations as best I could. However, I never felt the same level of revulsion as I do for the current regime. I believed, wrongly or rightly, that President Bush was truly doing what he thought best for the country, even if his policies and lieutenants were wrong-headed about just about everything.

In my view, the current administration came to power as a result of the Electoral College, which in turn, did not do its job in allowing this presidency to happen. It feels as though it happened on a technicality, like a violent criminal avoiding conviction for not being properly Mirandized. And now the country is being dismantled.

Here is short list of what I see happening.

Culturally, there is no penalty for being openly misogynist. Openly racist statements are tolerated on a hit or miss basis.
The current occupant of the White House accused his predecessor of being on vacation too much, yet plays golf every weekend. The US Secret Service has run out of money protecting him and his family.
The occupant and his family are using the office of the POTUS and its influence to make money.
We, as a country, are heavily reliant upon other leaders in the Cabinet, the Armed Forces, and others to keep the Executive in check. Even the US Senate recently passed a bill requiring approval by the Senate for any changes in sanction policy as it related to Russia. I cannot imagine such an action with any prior President.
There is growing evidence that the campaign to elect the current White House occupant colluded and/or cooperated with Russia to impact the 2016 election, yet it is not clear that the Republican-led houses of Congress will do anything about it.
There has been a concerted effort to antagonize foreign leaders wherever and whenever possible, with one notable exception.

Each time a Democrat has been elected to the US Presidency in my adult lifetime, we have spent much of that President’s term cleaning up the mess made by a previous Republican administration, and this has only worsened dramatically since 2000.

President Obama inherited a financial collapse and managed to stabilize the country, yet his opponents in the Republican electorate – who never forgave President Obama for the audacity of being black – somehow managed to blame him for the crisis.

I have no idea what the next President will inherit. Bret Stephens, a Republican at the time of the 2016 election, voted for Secretary Clinton, because he did not feel that the current White House occupant was “survivable” for the country. If he’s right, I don’t know what we will have left in 2020.

It is important that Democrats, Independents, and patriotic Republicans mobilize for the 2018 mid-term elections, so we can continue to provide strong resistance. It is up to us to educate ourselves and people who voted this vile administration into office. We also need to examine ways of ensuring that this kind of situation does not occur again, where so much hard work has been undone and our country has been regressed back to a darker time in our history. The corruption and collusion investigations need to continue so we can purge the government of these influences.

The slogan of Make America Great Again, stolen from President Reagan, clearly refers to a time when the country was significantly more racist, significantly more sexist, and significantly more intolerant of anyone not white, heterosexual, Christian and male. The instability at the top due to lack of qualifications and character only worsen this problem.

On Atheism

2017-09-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

I am an atheist. I say this without shame or reservation. This essay will discuss my history and the contradictions and circumstances that have led me to this position.

My family history has included several examples of individuals changing religions because of who they wished to marry. These were various flavors of Christ-centered religions, so it wasn’t terribly jarring to the individual in terms of philosophies, but mostly in terms of rituals and rules.

I was baptized as a Methodist, although my mother tended to refer to us as Protestants. When my mother remarried, she converted to become Roman Catholic in order to marry in my stepfather’s Catholic church. My brother and I followed suit, and I was confirmed at age 14.

From a very early age, I questioned what I was being taught in the Bible in Sunday School or Catechism classes. First, it was the usual, “who did Cain marry?” Apparently, she was from the Land of Nod. I guess this was a suburb of Eden or something. No record of when or how those suburbanites were created. It was downhill from there. I must admit, I admire Jews for the additional information and reflection on such gaps in the Bible, because there is the recognition that information was missing. For example, I find the tale of Lilith to be fascinating.

My family, before my mother’s remarriage, was not overly religious. I was also encouraged to question, to read, to investigate. I loved astronomy and all the wonders of the universe. I could see evidence of all kinds of evolution all around me in humanity, in nature, in sociology.

I recognized, once I studied mythology for the first time, that humans seek causal agents and patterns in the natural world, which led to the creation of gods and goddesses devoted to specific tasks or functions in the precursor polytheistic religions. It was logical to assume that earlier humans assigned causal agents in the form of the supernatural until better information was revealed to replace the need for that agent, such as the water cycle, or the causes of lightning and thunder. I was maybe 7 or 8 at this point.

It was also clear to me at this age that religious texts held a special status in public discourse, no matter how illogical the text might be. I accepted that this was simply the way things were, even if it didn’t make sense.

I liked being Catholic, and enjoyed my catechism classes in the time leading up to my mother’s remarriage. I lived in a small town just across the Hudson River from New York City in New Jersey. I could walk to my church, and they had a children’s mass scheduled on Sunday morning just before catechism classes. It was taught by a younger priest with material geared to children. Many of my friends from public school also attended this mass, and it was also a mercifully shorter service than the usual mass (although Catholics can be very quick if they want to be).

Things changed when we moved to a new town shortly after the wedding. I encountered the hypocrisy and inequity of the Catholic religion both in the people around me and in the scriptures, themselves.

The Bible is pretty horrific and wildly inconsistent book. I remember being curious about the Mark of Cain, and that some religious scholars through time had blamed various racial and ethnic groups as carrying this mark. But, it occurred to me that if all of humanity died in Noah’s flood (other than Noah’s family on the Ark and their spouses), Cain should have no living descendants. So much judgment, so much violence – it did not align with the “loving” God I was being taught.

My stepfather used the sacrament of Penance as a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card. You could be mistreated all week in all manner of ways, but as long as it was confessed, all was forgiven. And of course, as a good Catholic, you were supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive the person, too. As the new kid, I was bullied, and these same bullies were sitting next to me in mass or catechism, and brutalizing me was again forgiven by going into the magic confessional. And worse than my microcosm, a serial murderer or serial rapist could be sentenced to death, but find God and make confession, and voilà, fast track to heaven.

Something was seriously off about all of this.

And I will admit, I only went through with my confirmation so I would be considered an adult in the eyes of the church, and I would never have to go to mass again. And I haven’t since I was 14.

As time went on, I learned more about the corruption of the Catholic and Christian churches, and I simply became non-practicing. I had been indoctrinated sufficiently to still believe in God, however, so the journey to atheism was not quite complete.

My education continued, and my interest in cosmology, quantum physics, history, and linguistics led to more education and more examples of evolution of ideas. Biiological evolution was a foregone conclusion, even before we mapped the human genome, or the Neanderthal genome, or any of the genomic sequences we have completed. The lack of contemporaneous sources of information that aligned with the Jesus narrative, and understanding the history of religions throughout the Near East made it clear that religions and their myths were made up by somebody trying to explain what they couldn’t understand.

I was also bothered by the way organized religion victimizes both its adherents and those who follow other belief systems. The major Abrahamic religions each either chronicle genocidal behavior or endorse it for infidels. The arrogance disgusts me. No one seems to be content to live and let live, no matter what a particular prophet or other character might preach. The subjugation of women is not only unfortunate but cruel in many cases. The fact that part of my penis is missing is baffling to me.

Which leads me to where my atheism begins. I have listened to lectures by Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens, and they provide amazing arguments.

God – according to the Abrahamic religions – is supposed to be omniscient and infallible, yet He created a world populated with people He knew He would have to wipe out in a flood. Was the antediluvian stuff just a dry run? Why bother with that?

Interestingly, in the Garden of Eden, God lied – the snake didn’t – when He talked about eating from the Tree of Life. Apologists will no doubt say this was a “spiritual death”, but that’s just dodging the issue.

I do not feel there is sufficient evidence for a supreme deity, let alone the one described in the Torah, Bible, or Qu’ran.

Atheists are often asked why they are “angry”. It’s very simple – religion interferes at every level of society, and without factual evidence. This applies to education, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, racial equality, climate science, even commerce. Religious beliefs are forced on non-believers at every turn when we are supposed to be living in a secular democracy. Christianity, in particular, is given special, undeserved status in American society, to the point that there are moves to legalize Christian discrimination of others. This is unacceptable and antithetical to American principles, yet it is still a possibility if the right religious sympathizers are in place in government. Society has degraded in discourse to the point that opinion is allowed equal footing with fact.

I am also saddened for the good people I know who fail to see the strength and beauty in themselves and their character by deferring it to an unknown entity. All they do, all they survive, all they create, these things are credited to some supernatural force rather than their own skill, determination, and inspiration.

I had a major heart attack and had a near-death experience. I have actually had arguments with theists about what I experienced – no deity was evident – with them telling me I was wrong, that I didn’t experience what I experienced, because I didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. The indoctrination, and quite frankly, arrogance runs deep.

I don’t begrudge anyone what they believe, and I don’t treat them differently for it, but for myself, I cannot reject the wealth of factual information and evidence in how I see the wondrous world we inhabit.

Re-Launch

2017-09-17T15:58:00.001-07:00

Lots to cover, lots to discuss, lots of posts coming.

Stay tuned for new posts coming this week!

Post 4.13 - Tumbling Down

2012-11-15T00:30:00.000-07:00

So something frightening happened to my dog.

In April, I was working for a few weeks in New Hampshire, and a few days after I returned, my beloved Belgian Malinois presented with some scary symptoms. He kept falling, as if one side of his body were weaker, and he was vomiting. My first reaction was that he had suffered a stroke, and I went into a panic. I normally consider myself calm, cool, and logical when adverse situations occur, but my dog is my baby.

And I could not imagine what rehab one might do for a dog who had had a stroke.

We rushed him to a 24-hour animal hospital in Gilbert, AZ. He was diagnosed with "Old Dog" vestibular disease, also called idiopathic vestibular disease.

It is somewhat common in older dogs (my dog is now 12 years old), and most owners react exactly the way I did.

According to Dr. Jennifer Coates of website petMD:

The vestibular system is composed of portions of the brain and ear and is responsible for maintaining our sense of balance. When something goes wrong with the vestibular system, it feels like the world is spinning.

My dog has had one other episode, which appears to have been longer lasting, but generally speaking, he has recovered well. But it was probably one of the more frightening things I've had to experience in a long time, and it took me a long time to calm down enough to communicate.

According to Dr. Coates, any or all of the following can present if your dog is affected:

A head tilt
They are unsteady on their feet and may fall over
They circle in one direction or even roll across the floor
Their eyes flick back and forth, up and down, or rotate in a circle (this is called nystagmus)
An unwillingness to eat due to nausea
Vomiting

My dog has had several of these between the two instances, but knowing more definitely helped me deal with things better the second time around. I think the hardest part is being unable to explain to him what is happening, and that it will all be better soon. But he does get better, and in the end, that's all that matters, since there is nothing else to do. It is just a transient condition that can sometimes happen.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 3.15 - Olympus

2012-11-14T01:00:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned on Monday, while I still reside in Arizona, I have been working in California. Specifically, I have been working at a site about 30 minutes north of San Francisco. I have spent much of the last several months on site, but in 2013, we are adjusting my schedule so I can divide my time a bit more fairly and effectively between the two states.

Since relocating to Arizona in 2005, I have spent most of my time working from home, leaving me outside of typical office politics and human social interaction. It hasn't been all bad - in fact, I have found that it has made my work more productive and efficient. Unfortunately, I am still human, and there is much to like about being around other members of the species.

Not the least of this is what I refer to as "eye candy".

And oh, is there much to see.

Post education, we meet most of our social contacts through our places of employment. Even with all the social media options we have now, there is no substitute for actual human interaction. In person. And I've been surprised how much we all notice eye candy. Not so much surprised in that it happens, but in how easily some folks will talk about it.

One colleague, who I'll call Ares, has commented on several of the female co-workers with whom we work. At first, I thought he might be trying to gauge where my interests might lie, but I've learned that it's just a natural part of who he is. And as a straight male, sharing these things with me as another male is as a safe outlet. It doesn't descend to locker room type banter, but a release.

Another colleague, Hyperion, is more subtle. He is one of my favorite people to begin with, because he's just so intelligent and warm, but when his sexuality is expressed, it's just even more fun. His style is much more under-your-breath kind of commenting, that if you heard randomly, you wouldn't even completely register what he'd said. It's an amazing gift he has for that.

That's not to exclude the women, because they do it, too, although it takes an increased comfort level to express it with me as a male.

My colleague Ananke is a somewhat naturally shy person, but it is very clear in watching her and listening to her when and for whom there is that extra layer of interest present. Aura, another colleague, is very tight-lipped, but I've learned she is the object of interest for a number of my male colleagues.

And then there are the objects of my own interest, which thus far, I've revealed to no one... and there are several.

So with all this tension and attraction and things going on below the surface, what are sexual beings to do?

There are two schools of thought here.

First, there is the position that mixing business and pleasure are bad ideas. A relationship gone bad can make a mess of the working situation. Even a misplaced crush or expression of interest can be a problem. And don't forget the entire sexual harassment situation that may be perceived. I have noticed among my LGBTQ colleagues that there is next to no discussion of interest or even LGBTQ-type activities, even here in California.

I think a lot depends on the maturity of the parties involved, and of course, I would be against any sort of situation involving someone married or already otherwise involved. But suffice to say, this can be a significant can of worms.

On the other hand, we spend a lot of time with these people. I can confidently say that I have a lot of affection for my colleagues, and I consider several of them to be actual friends. As an adult who does not enjoy the bar scene, is no longer involved in higher education, and who has little time to socialize heavily in other ways -- my options are limited. Shouldn't I go for it?

For me, specifically, the decision is actually much easier, because I am not interested in building a life in California - I am here for a job. Companionship, affection, even sex would be nice, but in the end, it can't really go anywhere unless my paramour is open to moving to Arizona. I'm selfish that way.

I think the bottom line is that life is too short. There is no reward without risk, and things can be handled in the right way to allow for any number of possibilities. My advice is this:

Be honest about what you want and expect.
Be amenable to a negative response, as in, s/he isn't interested. And be a grown-up about the rejection. There will be others.
Keep personal time separate from professional time as much as possible. Remember that this will be an adjustment for co-workers, also, and the best road to travel is to be discreet.
Do what you can to ensure your potential partner is on the same page with these points.
Workplace drama doesn't help anyone.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 2.18 - Obama: The Sequel

2012-11-13T00:07:00.000-07:00

On November 6, 2012, the United States re-elected Barack Obama to a second term as President. While the rejoicing was not as euphoric as 2008, this came as a great relief to many across the country and the world.

Despite living in a traditionally red state (Arizona) and working in a very blue state (California), I know many from the opposite party in both locations. It has given me a new respect for Republicans and conservatives in general, and encouraged me on the issues that are important to me.

I am a civil rights voter. It's not that I don't care about energy, the environment, or the economy, but in my opinion, until we get beyond certain serious civil issues, things are not going to improve. One party has a decidedly better record in this area.

And I think this is where the future lies, more than many might expect.

As citizens, as human beings, we are stewards of our country and our world. We are only here temporarily, but we all leave a legacy. We can choose to leave a legacy of discrimination, of destruction, of waste, of ignorance -- or we can choose to leave a legacy of justice, of nurturing, of growth, and of knowledge.

A conservative friend of mine was trying to explain to me his free-market position and how it applies across the board. If you are mistreated by an employer, simply find another. If you have a bad experience with a product, simply buy something different. And my response was to say that if companies and individuals behaved ethically, whether in health, safety, or just basic fairness, we wouldn't need regulations in these areas. Our country and our world are not level playing fields unless we do things to make them so.

In the US, we are taught that all men are created equal. If that were really true, we would not have had the women's suffrage movement or the need for the Civil Rights Act. Yes, our founding documents may say these great words, but our failing has always been that we ignore them.

It is my fervent hope that we continue to see the progress we saw in this election on LGBT issues, on the population of women and minorities in government, and in embracing the changing face of our electorate. It is our future, and clinging to outmoded ideology is denying the force of nature.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 0.8 - The Return!

2012-11-12T00:01:00.000-07:00

My sincere apologies for my protracted absence. I've begun working in California, and much of what I do is write all day -- so writing more at night and on weekends has had a reduced appeal.

But I was telling a co-worker about my blogging activities, and I thought it was time that I incorporate this blog back into my life again.

So here we are.

Monday is normally my foodie day, but with my traveling, that's become even more of a challenge -- so I'll return to this topic next week, just in time for Thanksgiving. :-)

Tomorrow, on politics day, I'll give my take on the recent election. It was monumental in a lot of ways.

Wednesday is sex/relationship day, so I'll have a post on workplace flirtation and romance. Now that I don't work from home a lot, I have some material for this based on my observations and experiences. Not that I didn't have any before, but it's definitely in my face these days.

Thursday is pets day, and since I last wrote, my pets have had a number of issues. This Thursday, learn more about idiopathic vestibular disease.

And Friday, as usual, will be a surprise! In this case, as much to me as to you, since I'm not sure what it will be about just yet.

So if you're still reading, thank you for that, and thank you for being here for my return. :-)

If you have a question or would like to suggest a topic, you can write me at facetsblog@gmail.com. Again -- comments are moderated, so you can also feel free to ask an anonymous question there or suggest a topic, and I'll answer in a future post.

Post 5.17 - Model Students

2012-02-28T00:55:00.000-07:00

PBS Newshour recently aired a story about cyber schools and discussed some of the effects of this model on education. The issues are really very interesting, but I think the piece highlights the issues in each competing model for education. And given the profits quoted for the cyber school, it's clear that education can be done more economically.

However, I think the proper solution for all students lies somewhere in an amalgam of these models.

I know a lot of teachers, and they all struggle with students of varying calibers, with budgets, with supplies, and with curricula with respect to the time allotted. I know parents who home school, use cyber schools, use Montessori schools, and other parents who are constantly looking for ways to give their children the best possible education. If nothing else is evident, education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Different students thrive in different environments and with different methodologies.

My mother wanted to send me to a Montessori school, but this was not financially viable, so I went to public schools until college. I was segregated out with the "smart kids" into different classes for elementary and middle school, and then was offered options for advanced placement and honors high school courses. I was fortunate to have arts and music opportunities at all levels, and my high school had a policy of offering class options that would be scheduled formally if enough students wanted them, for electives like accounting, computer science (showing my age here), or stenography.

Now we're in a new age. We can think outside the box in how education is offered.

Here's what we know:

Education funding is being cut across federal and state levels virtually all across the United States, while standards for education remain at largely the same level.
Every time a student goes to a private school via a voucher program or other system, the public school loses even more money. As one superintendent pointed out in this piece, you can't close the school or classroom because you lost two students.
Some students are simply not served by the current educational approach because they are either too advanced and work better on their own, or are at the other end of the spectrum and require extra help.
Parents cannot always be as involved in the process as they would like or the school might like. The realities are that many households have two parents who work outside the home, or have only a single, working parent.
Children continue to suffer from bullying and other social issues for which there is little support available. This has again fallen upon a burdened school system to address.
Children in home schooling and cyber situations often have fewer opportunities for group activities such as team sports or school clubs.

It seems to me there are ways to combine the best offerings from the various models into a new approach. While I agree with the school superintendents in this piece that "the money [belongs] to the kids", the investment in research and development as well as other areas show that the money can be used in other ways to benefit the students and community.

So here's what I'd suggest.

Combine the cyber aspect into the public school system such that there would be different approaches available: traditional public schooling (in a building), cyber schooling utilizing public school teachers in the same classes and schedules (which gives home-based students a structure for classwork and other activities), mixed approaches offering both (morning cyber classes with afternoons on-site at school), accelerated cyber schooling (giving more advanced students greater flexibility), and independent study approaches. It could even be possible to offer night and weekend classes in additional electives, if the student were interested. And imagine a study hall where you could go online with a tutor for math or English from a laptop at your desk, whether on-site or at home.

If all of this is based out of the public schools, the school does not need to lose funding. Classrooms would not close their doors if 2-3 students were switched from the room to home. This also has the potential to avoid overcrowded classrooms, since a class could be split, if needed, to allow one teacher to engage home-based students while another engaged the on-site students. Additionally, the home-based student would have the ability to access school-sponsored activities such as after-school clubs, athletics, or possibly after-school music instruction.

It would also be necessary to apply the same standards for accountability in curriculum and progress. While you can't necessarily give a home-based student detention in the traditional sense, there would be the caveats attached that if progress in one environment is not optimal, another environment would need to be considered. In other words, no spending all day playing video games if the student doesn't have the self-discipline to complete their lessons.

Now, this isn't perfect. There would be considerations for school buses, for example, if a student were on a unique on-site schedule or wanted to participate in something after regular school hours after spending all day as a home-based student. We'd also need to get the technology into the classrooms and to all the home-based students, although many school districts are already pursuing ways to get laptops to every student. It also does not address those parents who home-school for religious reasons, which is a whole separate ball-of-wax.

But it seems to me there has to be a way to find a synergy between these various approaches such that schools, and most importantly, students are given the best possible options and opportunities.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 1.20 - Pollo Perfecto

2012-02-27T00:05:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I like to cook chicken or with chicken is that it often tastes great with very little effort. Sure, you can bread it, marinate it, poach it, cover it in barbecue sauce and grill it -- but a little salt and pepper and 40 minutes in the oven can taste amazing, too.

So I have two recipes for you today.

The first is one I prepared for my mother at her suggestion. She is diabetic, and this recipe is diabetic-friendly (i.e., low-carb, high protein), and so easy as to be ridiculous. The result is delicious.

The second is one I have made several times in bulk, as the individual portions freeze and sous-vide or microwave beautifully.

Both can be served with rice, vegetables, or both -- but you'll see when you try them. No heavy sauces here, but amazingly flavorful.

American Pie Chicken (from the original recipe here)

Non-stick cooking spray
4 boneless skinless chicken breast cutlets (4oz. each)
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon pepper
1/4 cup apple butter
1/4 cup shredded reduced-fat real cheddar cheese

Keep in mind the safe-handling guidelines with this recipe. You will not use an entire jar of apple butter, so separate out your 1/4 cup in a separate dish before you begin and put the rest in the fridge. Then your spoon can go back and forth between the dish of apple butter and the raw chicken. If you don't, you could contaminate your apple butter and you'll only ever be able to use it safely for this recipe.

Directions:

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Coat a 7" x 11" baking dish with the non-stick cooking spray.
Place chicken in baking dish; season chicken with salt and pepper then spread apple butter evenly over it.
Cover with aluminum foil and bake for 25 to 30 minutes, or until no pink remains in the chicken.
Remove the baking dish from the oven, uncover, and sprinkle chicken evenly with cheese. Return chicken to oven and bake uncovered for 4 to 6 minutes, or until the cheese is melted.

Spinach Chicken Parmesan (from the original recipe here -- I have modified it slightly)

1/3 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1/4 teaspoon Italian seasoning
6 skinless, boneless chicken breasts
1/4 cup chopped green onions
1 tablespoon butter
1 tablespoon all-purpose flour
1/2 cup skim milk
1/2 (10 ounce) package frozen chopped spinach, thawed and drained
1/2 diced red bell pepper

Directions:

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).
In a small bowl combine cheese and seasoning. Roll chicken pieces in cheese mixture to coat lightly. Set remaining cheese mixture aside. Arrange coated chicken pieces in an 8×8×2 inch baking dish. I have found that it works best if you roll up the breast slightly when you place it in the dish, although leaving them flat is fine, too.
In a small saucepan, saute green onion in butter/margarine until tender. Stir in flour, then add milk all at once. Simmer, stirring, until bubbly. Stir in drained spinach and diced red bell pepper and mix together. Spoon spinach mixture over chicken and sprinkle with remaining cheese mixture. Bake uncovered for 30 to 35 minutes or until tender and chicken juices run clear.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 1.19 - Tomayto, Tomahto

2012-02-20T10:22:00.002-07:00

I grew up in an era when less was known about many of the food allergies we hear about today. And all my life, while loving the taste, I've had a problem with tomatoes. Which is to say, typically, I have the runs.

We're all friends here, right? :-)

In a recent conversation with my mother, I learned that as a toddler and younger, I would get a rash on my face whenever I ate tomatoes. In other words, an allergic reaction! She was explaining how she could get me to eat anything with tomato sauce by telling me it was pizza, and then casually mentioned the after effects.

But like I said, it was a different time.

Anyway, in changing my diet in recent years, I have found that I can eat tomatoes without incident, depending on how I prepare them. I simply have to seed them first. I am not allergic to the skin or the "meat" of the tomato -- the part I like best anyway -- it's the mucus covered, acidic seeds that do me in. So I can make tomato sauce, I can add tomatoes to sandwiches and other entrees, and have no problem with stuffed tomatoes whatsoever.

Who knew?

Now, with other allergies, it isn't so simple. Peanut allergies can be downright deadly, but I relate this story because maybe I am not the only one who has trouble with tomatoes, and it really comes down to the acidic nature of seeds in general. Many seeds, especially those of fruits (as tomatoes technically are), have defenses to ensure the survival of the species, and acid is just one trick. We also eat tomato seeds without thinking much of it, while we'd never do the same for apples, oranges, or for that matter, a peach pit.

And I dare say, my favorite homemade tomato sauce is wondrously flavorful, even better than what my parents used to make when I was growing up -- which consisted of many ingredients stewing on a stove for hours on end.

So here's my recipe. Hope you like. I actually highlighted this/these recipes in May 2011, but they're worth repeating.

The Italian dressing mix is based on this recipe, and the overall dish is based on this recipe.

Italian Dressing

Ingredients:

1 tablespoon garlic salt
1 tablespoon onion powder
1 tablespoon white sugar (I use Splenda or equivalent -- cuts the calories and sugar content)
2 tablespoons dried oregano
1 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/4 teaspoon dried thyme
1 teaspoon dried basil
1 tablespoon dried parsley
1/4 teaspoon celery salt
2 tablespoons salt

In a small bowl, mix together the garlic salt, onion powder, sugar, oregano, pepper, thyme, basil, parsley, celery salt and regular salt. Store in a tightly sealed container.
To prepare dressing, whisk together 1/4 cup balsamic vinegar, 2/3 cup canola oil, 2 tablespoons water and 2 tablespoons of the dry mix.

Pasta with Fresh Tomato Sauce

Ingredients:

1 (16 ounce) package dry penne pasta (or your favorite pasta - I use whole wheat rotini/fusilli)
8 roma (plum) tomatoes, seeded and diced
1/2 cup Italian dressing
1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese (optional)

Directions:

Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Place the penne pasta in the pot, cook 10 minutes, until al dente, and drain.
While the pasta cooks, seed and dice the tomatoes. You can also use a food processor to dice the seeded tomatoes, pulsing until you have the desired texture - from chunky to puree.
In a large bowl, toss the cooked pasta with the tomatoes and Italian dressing and Parmesan cheese, or add the cheese to taste.

You can expand this with some diced onion (as the original recipe calls for), some grilled chicken, or even some browned beef.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 2.17 - The Clash

2012-02-09T00:07:00.000-07:00

When I started writing the posts for this week, I had planned my usual diversity of articles discussing all the topics I usually do. But it's been a remarkable week politically.

Tuesday saw the resignation of Karen Handel from Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, after the defunding then refunding of Planned Parenthood. The Republican voters also handed victories to former Pennsylvania Senator and far-right conservative Rick Santorum (R), giving renewed life to his campaign.

Wednesday saw the Ninth Circuit of Appeals affirm the federal court ruling that California's Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional.

And all week, the talking heads on the various networks have been discussing the Obama Administration's decision to require insurance coverage for birth control, even for so-called religious institutions who may believe differently.

Since this post is prepared in advance, who knows what today may bring?

But if nothing else is true, it is a fairly sure bet that the next and any future conflict will be conservatives trying to deny something to somebody. That is what all of these points have in common. And when is this nonsense going to end?

I guess it can't. Conservatives only seem to be happy if they get to tell people what they can and can't do, and they only cry foul if someone tries it against them.

I had Republican and conservative friends telling me that Komen had the right to give money to whatever ancillary organizations they wish, and that's true. Doesn't mean we (the public) have to like it, nor does it mean we don't have the right to speak out against it -- isn't that supposed to be what the Tea Party has been doing since Obama's inauguration? Oh right - I forgot, only conservatives can do that.

Plus, the issue was as much Komen hiring Karen Handel as vice-president of public policy, as she is an avowed opponent of a woman's right to choose -- making the entire situation all the more suspicious.

Now Republicans and conservatives, both pundits and my friends, are saying religious organizations should not be subject to the birth control requirements if it is against their beliefs. The problem is, if a religion decides to involve itself in other services, it is subject to state and federal constitutional authority. I've heard people say, "you don't have to go to a Catholic hospital" for medical care if you disagree -- but in some areas of the country, you do, because there are no other options available. People also do not have the easy opportunity in the current economy to change jobs to a more favorable/like-minded employer, and this flies in the face of being able to maintain health coverage from job to job if some coverage is offered and other is not. In the end, it is all part of the same argument involving Planned Parenthood and women's health in poorer communities, as well as same-sex marriage and spousal visitation rights. Where do these so-called "conscience clauses" end?

Additionally, involvement in health care and education means that religious philosophy and other teachings can be imposed on the public, rather than allowing individuals to make their own choices. (There is a great article here on the bogus "War on Religion" that the right is trying to get the public to buy).

Access to birth control doesn't mean you have to use it.

Access to abortion services doesn't mean you have to have an abortion.

The ability to marry a same-sex partner doesn't mean you have to do so.

And because this is not a theocracy, but a democratic republic respecting ALL belief systems, involvement in the public square providing public services means showing that respect even if it conflicts with what you believe.

I would not force nor prevent someone from using birth control if they did not wish it.

I would not force nor prevent someone from having an abortion if she did not wish it.

I would not force nor prevent anyone from marrying anyone else.

This is what personal liberty is about. This is what the pursuit of happiness is all about.

If you don't want to use birth control, then don't. If you don't believe in pre-marital or extra-marital sex, don't have it. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to marry a same-sex partner, don't do it. No one is forcing anyone to do any of these things by giving people a choice.

As we head into this election, the Republicans are putting forth candidates who would work to curtail civil rights, either through legislation, policy, or who they nominate to the Supreme Court.

Please pay attention and keep these matters in mind as the election season continues to unfold.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 2.16 - Proposition Hate

2012-02-08T00:54:00.000-07:00

‎

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." -Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 07-Feb-2012

Proposition 8, voted into law in 2008, was California's ban on same-sex marriage. The campaign was largely bankrolled and supported by the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, various Protestant evangelical sects, and various conservative groups from around the country, including the National Organization for Marriage. The ruling yesterday upheld the earlier federal court ruling that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

As I discussed yesterday with respect to the liberal/conservative paradigm, this is another case of conservatives denying rights to someone. For the moment, this is a losing proposition with respect to same-sex marriage (and with the resignation of Karen Handel from Komen, also for a woman's right to choose).

What I continue to grapple with and fail to understand is why conservatives and religious fundamentalists care so much about what other people do in their private, personal lives. The need for control over what other people do with their lives and their bodies is nothing short of stupefying. And make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening in these conservative referenda and laws across the U.S. today, from Proposition 8 in California to the recently defeated Proposition 26 in Mississippi.

But back to yesterday's victory.

The Ninth Circuit's decision is just the latest battle in the ongoing war. The decision is limited to California, which may make it more difficult for the case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which most believe will be the next step. Had the decision applied to the entire Ninth Circuit, it would have impacted more states, including my home state of Arizona. Arizona adopted Proposition 102 in 2008 limiting marriage to one man and one woman, after failing to pass a similar measure (Proposition 107) in 2006. Under a broader Ninth Circuit decision, this would likely have been nullified.

The crux of the anti-8 case is that the state has no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. In our society, one cannot cite the Bible or any other religious text or teaching as a basis for discrimination. Interestingly, conservatives have tried to use this argument repeatedly over the history of our country when denying rights to women and minorities. The pro-8 legal team did not resort to this (they actively avoided using any testimony from religiously motivated witnesses), but cited easily and repeatedly debunked "studies" to illustrate damage to families and society. And in an amusing turn, if you read the transcripts of the original federal trial, most pro-8 witnesses made the case for the anti-8 side.

I think what continues to anger me about these cases is the ridiculous amounts of money spent to fight these cases and fight these referenda. Here's why:

Civil rights should never be determined by the majority. That isn't how it is supposed to work in this country, and is against the very spirit upon which this country was founded.
Conservative forces claim to be patriotic, but are perfectly willing to deny "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" portions of our Declaration of Independence to anyone they want to treat as less of a person.
This country is not a theocracy. This country draws its strength from the depth of diversity of its population: many faiths, many nationalities, many beliefs and many ideas. This culture and its people were borne of a rejection of conformity. Every case, every proposition, every legislative vote which denies these facts diminish us all.
We have bigger things to worry about, and all we continue to do is pick sides rather than work together.

It's all so tiresome.

I am happy that the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Walker's decision, and I have no doubt it will be upheld again if another judicial body is required to hear the case. The evidence coming from the states which do allow same-sex marriage is clear, and the existing, protected California marriages give the same result: heterosexual marriage is completely unaffected, families have not collapsed, and somehow, society continues apace. I look forward to a day when this is simply a non-issue and we can all move on to more important matters.

Post 2.15 - Running Path

2012-02-07T00:02:00.000-07:00

We are in the thick of the race for President here in the United States, but the ongoing circus that has been the selection process for the Republican candidate has not been the only news. Last week, in the continuing War on Women, a leading breast-cancer focused charity, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure announced that it would no longer provide grants to Planned Parenthood ("PP"), the leading provider of women's health services to poor and underserved populations in the U.S. The Komen organization stated that their new criteria for providing funds to other organizations required that such organizations not be under federal or state investigation, and PP is currently under such investigation.

The reaction to this decision and the "criteria" has been swift and vocal, both from pundits and the general public, and the Komen organization has been forced to reverse their decision. The damage, however, has been done.

So why did this all happen?

PP also happens to be the largest organization to provide abortions. The Komen organization recently hired a new vice-president who is a former political candidate for governor of Georgia, and she is decidedly anti-choice and ran on a platform of defunding PP in her last campaign. Buoyed by the successful pressure to reverse Komen's funding decision, activists on the political left are now pressuring that this vice-president be terminated.

It's a mess.

On the one hand, private organizations like Komen are allowed to give or not give money to anyone they want. On the other, Komen has supported PP for years, as the funds for PP were specifically designated for low-cost and free cancer screenings, not abortions. These screenings are vital to the early detection and treatment of breast cancer, and offer the needy the only avenue to such care in many cases. The "investigation" of PP is politically motivated, and is not criminal in nature, and such "investigations" can be initiated by any legislator looking to make a name for him- or herself with their largely Republican and/or conservative constituency. PP has been under constant attack since the Republicans won control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Breast cancer runs in my family. I even have a male cousin who is a breast cancer survivor. It is a serious health concern, and women should have access to as many resources as possible. PP may represent the largest network of abortion providers, but abortions account for only 3% of their activity. In many areas, PP offers the only low-cost medical services for women of any kind. But all of this comes down to the basic difference between liberals and conservatives at the core of the Democrat and Republican parties, respectively: despite any "libertarians" on the Republican side who often tout the benefits of "smaller government", they are not happy unless they get to decide how everyone is supposed to live. Liberals are always on the side of civil rights, whether they be for women or minorities or laborers or even children, while conservatives are always in favor of a hierarchy which diminishes one group in favor of another.

And you can review American history and find example after example. You will always find the liberals on the side of equality and fairness, and conservatives on the side of denying rights or favoring one group over another. The arguments may evolve, but the pattern is always the same.

The Komen PP debacle highlights a lot of issues on several fronts, but here are just a few:

Politics do not belong in healthcare. The vast majority of PP's services - 97% - do not involve abortion, but do involve scores of needy and underserved women. The public at-large recognized this situation for what it was, and reacted accordingly.
Organizations like PP need to exist because the U.S. continues to support a fee-for-service model of healthcare.
Organizations like PP and Komen need to exist to represent and advocate for women's health interests, which are grossly underserved by our state and federal legislators.

Komen may be irreparably damaged by these events, but it will hopefully be a learning experience for organizations that operate in these spheres. The work has to go on, the support has to go on, and politics need to stay out of it.

Post 1.18 - Frankenfood

2012-02-06T00:02:00.000-07:00

I hope to be back to my recipes for next week's post, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about home gardening, especially in regards to some recent items in the news, namely, the continuing controversy over Monsanto and related companies with respect to genetically-engineered foods.

In a nutshell, industrial food interests have continually and successfully lobbied the USFDA and governments in other countries to avoid having to identify which foods have been genetically-engineered, denying consumers any choice in the matter. Foods are modified primarily to make them resistant to pests, but it doesn't end there. Some seeds are modified with a so-called "terminator" gene, which results in the adult plant not producing viable seeds to be replanted, forcing the farmer to repurchase new seeds for a new harvest. However, there is now evidence that some genetic modifications result in damage to benign species. The collapse of honeybee populations has been investigated for some time, and these modifications are now believed to have played a role.

Honeybees pollinate. No bees, no pollination. No pollination, no natural food.

One solution to rising costs of fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as a solution to avoiding genetically-modified food is to simply plant your own.

Think you have no room? Well, my friend Michael Nolan has the answer. He's written about urban gardening, and he practices what he preaches. (He's also really my friend, believe it or not). His website, The Garden Rockstar, includes information about his book, and links to his blog, My Earth Garden, where you can find recipes and other tips for healthy living.

And irrespective of where you live, I urge you to contact you local representatives or MPs and demand that your government require genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be so identified so you can make an informed decision about the produce you purchase.

Post 5.16 - Grief in the Digital Age

2012-01-20T13:59:00.001-07:00

I never met Michael Walsh in person. Our first connection was on LiveJournal, some time in late 2004 or early 2005. He was a friend of a friend, as most of my contacts on LJ have always been. His comments to a friend's journal piqued my interest, or my comments piqued his. In any case, we started reading the other's blog/journal, and this was how we got to know each other.

I learned he was a librarian, living in Detroit with his partner in a house they owned together. He was originally from Ohio, and had an older sister named Ann. He loved food and sharing "food porn". He would take trips to see friends and it would be as much about what he ate as who he went to see. He was very social, and his companionship was valued by all who knew him. My view into his world and into the person he was came solely through LiveJournal at first, and then in 2008, through Facebook. I knew about his co-workers, the people he admired, the people he loved, the trials and tribulations of his relationship with his partner and those who came after, and what little things made him smile. We were both teenagers of the 1980s, so there was this wealth of common ground provided by pop culture for us to reflect upon.

He was always upbeat, no matter what was going on. He was always supportive if there was something going on with anyone else that might be considered trying or difficult, even if only to the person involved. He wasn't afraid to let you know that he cared, and it was always genuine.

But here I am, someone who never met him mourning his loss yesterday. I am one among many.

The word came first from another friend of Mike's who had posted a picture of him, noting his loss. Then a review of his FB profile as more messages came pouring in. No details, just shared grief, from real-world and online contacts alike. Many who knew him in the real world changed their profile pictures and banners to include his image, creating something of a viral memorial.

All relationships in life are what we make them. There are people reading this now who are people I know in the real world, people I once knew in the real world, and people I have never met. I have "online friends" that I may never meet, but in the final analysis, the feelings of friendship and closeness to some where the effort has been made is no less real or tangible as those I will see and interact with away from the screen. In some ways, online friendships can become even more intimate, since we generate personal content out of our hearts and minds in often the purest of forms. We share things more impulsively and instantaneously, both wisely and unwisely at times. But in any case, lives are touched. We cheer for each other, we laugh together, and we take the journey together, even if it is only in text and information we share.

Michael and I were not particularly close -- he was just a good person, and the thought of him made me smile. I wanted him to succeed in all he wanted and to live a long and happy life. Even as someone I never met, his death was shock, and I could feel the very real grief just below the surface, wondering if it was appropriate that I should feel this way. But Michael's life touched mine and I cared. That's all it comes down to.

And I know the greater world is diminished with Michael's loss. We need more people to make us smile as easily as he did.

Cross-posted to Facebook and LiveJournal on my personal accounts.

Post 0.7 - Some Updates

2011-10-11T15:38:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to get back on track with regular entries here, but I am working again, so that has sapped some of my time.

Also, some expansion is coming. To the left, you'll see links to my new podcast and my additional work on EmandLo.com, both of which are coming soon.

Thanks for sticking with me and reading -- I really appreciate all the feedback, and I hope you'll enjoy the new work to come!

Post 5.15 - Another Entry on Bullying

2011-10-11T14:23:00.000-07:00

CNN recently aired a special by Anderson Cooper, Bullying: It Stops Here. Despite all the attention paid to the subject in the last year, bullying continues to be a major issue for US schoolchildren.

But this special was excellent, and provided a lot of new information in the form of a study they performed using high school students at a particular school on Long Island in New York. I highly recommend you take the time to watch if/when it airs again. One of the key concepts to come from the study were the categories kids fall into: aggressors, victims, and interveners. The first two are self-explanatory, but the last category, interveners, represent bystanders who choose not to be bystanders, and work to diffuse the situation by defending the victim(s) and/or shaming the aggressor(s), among other methods.

This topic hits close to home both because of what I went through in school, but because of my teenaged niece and nephew, who are living in the high school environment right now, and the child I hope to adopt soon, who will also be going through this.

My niece and nephew are great kids -- my sister and her ex-husband have done an amazing job with them. I experience them both primarily through Facebook on a day-to-day basis, which serves as an interesting window into who they are. I am not stalking them, of course, but I see how they joke with their friends, what their interests are, who they are dating, etc. And I have also had the chance to see how they deal with bullying. More specifically, how my niece deals with it.

My niece is a beautiful, talented, and from what I can tell, popular sophomore. I am biased, but I can easily see her as a leader in her circle, and not a target for bullying. But in August, just before the beginning of the current school year, her friends were talking about how they were planning to pick on the incoming freshmen. Now my niece could have joined in, or she could have said nothing, but instead, she wrote:

Dear incoming sophomores who claim to be so stoked to pick on freshmen next year. We were all freshmen a few months ago... No one did anything to us...

And I was never more proud. Proud of my sister for instilling such values, and proud of my niece for taking what could potentially be an unpopular stand and being such a strong person within herself.

So I am optimistic that things are changing for my niece, my nephew, and all the kids out there, even if the steps are slow and not happening universally.

And just for the record, my nephew rocks, too. :-)

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 1.17 - Visions of Sugar Plums

2011-10-05T17:15:00.001-07:00

So I had an idea.

I think it's a good idea, but it's also somewhat troubling.

I like to cook - that's not a secret. It occurred to me that I could send out care packages this year. I have no idea what it would cost to ship food, only that I could effectively vacuum-seal things and everything would arrive as reasonably tasty as it was when I first made it. Everything could be prepared in the microwave or by putting the sealed bag in a pot of boiling water for 20 minutes.

But then it occurred to me how many people might actually not only appreciate the gift, but need the food.

And that's just... tragic.

So I am contemplating how to make this idea work. I can't commit to feeding 20 people - my finances are stretched thin, too. I could certainly buy a quantity of food and whip up a bunch of things, but there is the shipping cost and special considerations for food. I'm not talking fruitcakes, but things like turkey meatloaf cordon bleu, spinach chicken parmesan, or a Moroccan tagine. I thought about putting a menu together and sending a whole meal, or maybe a selection of entrees or something. My food is good, it's healthy, and I make different things for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

In past years, I'd be Christmas shopping now, and I'd be finished by mid-November. And the way things are now, I'd rather do something more personal and more worthwhile than just buying the latest gadget for someone. I mean, not everyone reading this needs this kind of basic assistance and would still love to get one of my culinary creations, but I feel like I need to do more.

I'm still working this through in my head.

Post 1.16 - Captivating Crescents

2011-09-26T00:02:00.068-07:00

This week's recipes aren't the healthiest, but I've done my best with them.

Croissant dough is available in your refrigerator case in both name brand and store brand varieties, called by the more English sounding "Crescent Rolls". In fairness, these versions, while tasty, are nothing like their French counterparts: definitely more doughy, less flaky, less buttery. However, working with this dough is very easy, and lends itself well to various recipes. I've used the dough to make pockets full of chicken and vegetables, sweet breakfast treats, and of course, dinner rolls.

The real problem with the dough are the fat and calories. Even if you buy the reduced fat version, they are 100 calories per crescent, and they're small. So if you're planning to use any kind of filling, you've got to be mindful of what you're using or you could end up with a very high-calorie, high-fat snack. Needless to say, for today's recipes, I have used the reduced fat version of the dough.

When you unroll the dough, you are presented with pre-cut dough triangles, and these are very easy to work with, no matter what filling you're using. I decided to try two different types of filling this weekend -- ham & swiss cheese, and chicken taquito filling.

Yes, I used a Mexican chicken filling in a French-inspired pastry -- but it worked! Very tasty.

But before we talk about that -- a word about deli meats. I rarely buy them. The sodium content is usually very high because salt is used as a preservative, and the fat is always difficult to gauge. This is true of both meats and cheeses. When I do buy deli meats, I buy Boar's Head. They have an extensive selection of low sodium, low fat, reduced calorie products. I have four supermarkets near my home, and two sell Boar's Head and two don't, so you may need to look around for it. Even for sandwiches on whole grain bread, the difference is worth it for your health.

For this recipe, I used Boar's Head Low-Sodium ham, sliced very thinly, which according to the website is 60 calories, 460 mg of sodium, and 25 mg of cholesterol per 2-oz serving. I use probably a half to 1-oz per crescent in this recipe, so about 40 calories worth from the ham. For the cheese, I used Boar's Head Lacey Swiss Cheese, which is listed at 90 calories, 35 mg of sodium, and 15 mg of cholesterol per 1-oz serving. Here again, I probably used about 40 calories worth.

And let me tell you, these products are very flavorful, so a little does go a long way, especially in this recipe.

In a dough triangle, I lay out the cheese on the dough (within the area of the triangle), then the ham on that. Roll up the triangle from the wide end to the narrow end, spray the rolled dough with spray butter, and bake according to package directions. It's that easy.

For the chicken taquito filling, I used a recipe (which I also recommend) from Kelly Hunt of the Eat Yourself Skinny blog. I use this filling also for quesadillas, or even as a standalone chicken salad -- and it's only four ingredients:

One 9.75-oz. (or 10-oz.) can 98% fat-free chunk white chicken breast in water, drained well

1/2 cup salsa, fresh salsa is best

1/3 cup shredded fat-free cheddar or mexican cheese

1 tsp. dry taco seasoning mix (I make my own, but store brand is fine).

Mix the chicken and salsa together thoroughly, then leave in the fridge for 20 minutes before adding the other two ingredients. Blend it all together thoroughly, and your filling is done. I put about a teaspoon on the unrolled dough triangle, maybe a little more (depending on the size of the triangle), then roll it up, wide end to narrow end. Spray it with spray butter and bake according to package directions.

Delicious.

But be careful. These really are delicious, and it's hard to eat just one. I might suggest these better as appetizers, or maybe an afternoon snack rather than for a meal. Too small to be a meal, really, and it's really tempting to eat too many.

But hey, they're something different!

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

Post 1.15 - Chicken with Mayo

2011-09-03T05:58:00.002-07:00

Happy Labor Day Weekend!

I figure since I have slowed down on my posting, I will go ahead and work this Labor Day and give you some recipes.

"Americans love their mayo," a friend said to me when we were discussing baguette sandwiches I had enjoyed in Paris. The French do not use mayonnaise, but rather butter or margarine. Interestingly, I saw a program on the Food Network this weekend describing sandwiches that have both. The Dutch (and the Flemish of Belgium) use mayo with their famous french fries, and purchasing patat or frites, you select which fritesaus you'd prefer -- from a specific type of sweet mayo, to a peanut sauce, to a curry mayonnaise, to other local, delicious and diverse options.

Ok, so why am I discussing this?

Well, I visited my mother last week, and thanks to changes in her diet, she has little use for mayonnaise at the moment. To add further to her disinterest in the product, she purchased a low-fat or non-fat version of mayonnaise, which is essentially tasteless. When I use mayonnaise, whether in making up a egg, tuna or chicken salad, or just to moisten a sandwich, it has to have a taste to it. There is nothing like cold mayonnaise to add flavor and creaminess to a sandwich or salad, but only if it is, at minimum, regular mayonnaise. Even some diets will say that it isn't worth it to choose some low-fat options both because of taste or the possibility that the amount of sugar has been increased to compensate for the taste.

I don't know about this particular manufacturer, but it's really bland. But it occurred to me that there was a way to fix it.

I went through a phase where I was making a lot of my own condiments -- from McDonald's Big Mac Sauce to peppercorn mayo. I adjusted the recipes to reduce sugar, fat, and other undesirable ingredients, but with no loss in taste. And I have to say, it was pretty awesome.

So here are a few quick recipes for flavored mayonnaise. These can be used as a spread, a salad dressing, or in other creative ways. Try adding a dollop to some leftover chicken for a unique chicken salad, or use it on your freshly grilled hamburgers, a dipping sauce for vegetables, or in any other way you might use a condiment like mayonnaise.

Following the mayo recipes is a recipe requested by my sister that I made this weekend, so keep reading!

Aïoli
For real Aïoli, you're essentially making homemade mayonnaise with different herbs thrown in, but it can be done easily with pre-existing mayonnaise.

1 cup of mayonnaise
4 cloves of garlic, minced
2 tbsp of lemon juice
1 cup chopped fresh basil
1 cup chopped fresh dill

Whisk together all ingredients in a bowl thoroughly until well blended. Refrigerate for at least one hour before use.

Basil & Dill Mayonnaise

Same as above, just leave out the garlic!

Green Peppercorn Mayo
I've made this recipe from Epicurious.com, and it really is perfect, especially on hamburger, but even on a ham & swiss sandwich.

2 cups of mayonnaise
1/4 cup of Dijon mustard
3 tbsp of green peppercorns
2 cloves of garlic
2 tbsp of lemon juice

Combine in a blender, then refrigerate until use.

Chicken & Vegetable Pasta Sauce
I LOVE my slow cooker. I am always trying new things with it, and thanks to my Food Saver appliance, I am able to store the leftovers quickly and efficiently, and have meals ready for weeks. So in this latest episode, I decided I wanted a pasta sauce with a lot of texture but without any added sugar. I also wanted it to be low-fat, tasty, and relatively little effort to prepare. I think I won on all counts.

1 slow cooker
4 chicken breasts, as much fat removed as possible
2 zucchini squash, quartered and sliced
1 summer (yellow) squash, sliced thinly
8-oz of sliced mushrooms (I used criminy, but portabello or any other variety works, too)
28-oz of diced tomatoes (no "flavored" varieties, and if you can find an organic, no-salt-added brand, even better)
1/4 cup of low-fat/part-skim mozzarella cheese, shredded
1 16-oz package of whole grain pasta
about 1 tsp each of oregano, minced garlic, minced onion (or onion powder), and fresh basil

Spray the slow cooker with a non-stick, nonfat spray.
Place half the tomatoes in the slow cooker, and add the seasonings. Stir well.
Place the chicken in the tomato mixture. The chicken can even be straight out of the freezer.
Add the zucchini and summer squash, and then the mushrooms, followed by the remaining tomatoes.
Cook on LOW for 6 hours. After 3 hours, stir well (it's ok if you don't, it will just be more flavorful if you do).
When 30 minutes of cook time remain, stir the mozzarella cheese into the sauce. Prepare pasta according to package directions - it should be ready about the same time as the sauce.
After cooking time is over, remove chicken from the sauce, cube or shred it, and it back into the sauce. It's important not to overcook the chicken or it will be tender but a bit dry.
Serve over pasta. Leftovers can be refrigerated or frozen.

It really was delicious, and it made 8 good-sized servings over penne pasta.

Enjoy!

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.

formspring.me

2011-08-14T11:24:00.001-07:00

Ask me anything... http://formspring.me/facetsblog

Post 2.14 - Fixing the Budget

2011-08-09T00:02:00.000-07:00

I have been listening to interviews and reading articles about budget crisis. There is a lot of finger-pointing, but essentially, both parties are to blame if you look at the whole situation historically, especially over the last 30 years.

So here's my analysis and thoughts on the whole thing.

It is a foregone conclusion that the entire system of politics is broken. We are not governed by leaders but by financial interests on both sides of the aisle. Forget the so-called "hard" decisions, people can't or won't make the human decisions because humanity is out of the equation.

First, the playing field is not level. Jobs are exported because the labor laws in other countries are weaker and salaries are cheaper. That's it. It's not rocket science. The answer is not dropping taxes in the US, because that just means these corporations pay less money here, not that they create more jobs. Why would they? If you can hire 10 Chinese for the cost of one American, the math ends there. Americans expect a certain standard of living that people in other countries may not, so they are not going to work for that lower salary if given a choice. The unions have been a check on corporate power for just this reason -- because corporations want to pay their employees as little as possible with as few benefits as possible so they can make more money. We have dealt with this problem continually throughout our history since the Industrial Revolution, and it has been exacerbated by the increasingly intertwined and international business environment of the last 20 years.

In my opinion, the answer to this is to impose our labor laws on not just American corporations, but any corporation that wants access to our marketplace, no exceptions and no loopholes. This would increase the standard of living and labor expectations of people in other countries to align with ours, and make labor between countries and regions more interchangeable. The developing world needs the investment and decent wages just as much if not more than we do. This may be a backdoor way of imposing our way of life on other countries and cultures, but the alternative is where we are now, with abused workers the world over and people continuing to suffer because of corporate greed.

And as a bonus, we create more jobs for inspectors to enforce these standards.

Some will say, "hey, wait - won't this raise consumer prices, then?" Well, yes, perhaps in the short-term. It will take some political will, but the prices will come down as demand increases -- prices always do after new technologies are introduced. If corporations want their products to sell, they will have to adjust their markups accordingly.

Second, re-regulate the de-regulated industries. We have monopoly situations in many sectors and in many parts of the country, as companies buy each other and consolidate. This is particularly true for cable, internet, and wireless services. Where I live, I have access to only one cable company, who also provides phone service to my area. It's their way or the highway. And do we need to talk about the banking industry and how we've been played?

Third, we need socialized health care, if for no other reason that health should not be for-profit. The insurance industry will not die as a result -- they can still sell insurance in other sectors, including enhanced options like home health care workers, gym memberships, long-term care, and the like. But it should otherwise end there. If health care were not for-profit, we would be in the business of saving and extending lives, not making money from prescription drugs or keeping our people sick to get more money from them. It would promote a systemic encouragement of better health to keep overall costs down.

Fourth, the entire approach to agriculture and our food supply should be re-examined. Healthy foods should be cheaper, and foods that are bad for you should be more expensive. Make the population healthy and encourage them to be so. This will not put agriculture out of business, people will always need to eat.

These are human decisions, and do not put business ahead of the consumer or the average person. We would never have needed unions if this had been done properly and humanly.

And when establishing these guidelines, these business do not get a seat at the table, nor does anyone who has received any financial support from them. They've had their chance, they've wrecked everything, so now we have to clean it up and they have to do what they're told.

As for the tax code, all the loopholes need to be closed and exemptions wiped out. I don't know how I feel about a flat-tax, but I could envision three brackets: 0%, 20%, and 40%. And that's it. For corporations, 25% with a $2,000 credit per American employee, $4,000 per veteran. No loopholes. You want to save more money? Grow your business so you can hire more people. You want the poor to pay taxes? Make it so they're not poor. Corporations will simply go to other countries to incorporate, you say? Well, they can pay 25% tax on their sales and/or employment in the US -- the cost of access to our market.

Basic, I know, and maybe it doesn't consider a lot of nuances -- but does anyone else have anything workable and fair?

This only scratches the surface. It doesn't deal with defense, social security and pensions, environmental and infrastructure issues, education funding, and so on -- but it seems to me that every issue can be boiled down to something simple if legislators put people first or at least consider them as a meaningful part of the equation.

I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment -- we should not spend more than we have. That has to stop. So if we want to get involved in a military conflict that lasts longer than 90 days, I'd like to see a war tax per conflict. We'd quickly see which things the public wanted to do and which things it didn't.

That's "market forces".

Business does not have to be destroyed, nor does innovation or doing the things we want or need to do internationally, but the people should not suffer to favor these concepts. It's all a matter of priority and thinking about things rationally and logically, rather than politically or solely financially.

Have a question or a suggestion for a future topic? E-mail me at facetsblog@gmail.com.