You see, I’m going back to school. For psychology. And I think it might be useful to others to be able to read about the process.

I don’t know how long it will be before I am able to restart school, as there are a lot of kinks to be worked out before that can happen, but I’ve gotta start somewhere…

Right now, I have a job as a carpenter for a Seattle construction company (they don’t know I’m planning to go back to school, so please don’t tell). I have a wife and 2 kids, with a baby on the way. I have my AA degree from a community college, and plan to attend Seattle University to complete either my BA or BS in psychology. After these two years, I will need to do some graduate school- either a Masters program, a Ph.D or Psy.D. This is because I’ll need a high level of education in psychology in order to make a living doing it. At this point I plan to do experimental psychology after finishing school, but I can see that changing as I go. I do really hope to be able to work somewhere in the field.

This will, of course, be difficult. We don’t exactly know how it is going to work yet, but we are going to give it our best shot. The way I see it, at some point I will be done living, and when I reach that point, I want to have at least tried to do what I was interested in- tried to do something helpful for people.

here are a few milestones in the evolution of civil rights in the US that we’d do well to remember.

-it became legal for women to vote in 1920
-it became illegal for children to work (meaning little kids) during the Great Depression. (although several laws had been attempted, they had all failed until demand for paying jobs for adults forced children out of the workplace due to the Depression). Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards act in 1938. This Act guaranteed a national minimum wage, as well as overtime pay.
-people of color in this country were guaranteed the right to vote in 1964 with the civil rights act. This act also made discrimination based on race/gender illegal in the public education system, hiring practices, and housing.
-in the last few years same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in several states, although they are not guaranteed that right at the federal level.

i’m bringing these up to remind us that there were times in this country where it was perfectly normal to own people and profit from them.

it was absurd to think of a woman voting.

it was a joke to imagine a dark-skinned person at the polls, sitting down for story time next to a white kid, or applying for a job.

it was unheard of that children should be required to go to school.

and now the question is: should consenting adults be allowed to be legally married, if they are of the same gender? decades from now, it will seem strange that this was such a divisive issue. my grand kids will wonder why anyone cared if two women got married, and what all the fuss was about, the same way they’ll wonder why black people couldn’t vote.

my point here is two pronged.

1- all of these laws were put in to effect by government to protect the “weaker-thans”. the smaller, poorer, less educated, and marginalized groups of people who heard America was great and wanted to experience that for themselves. those in power did not want to share, did not want less control, did not want the masses to uproot them. we needed our government to implement these acts in order to be what America claims to be. a free place. lately, government has been getting a bad reputation, and called all manner of things by the conservatives and libertarians among us. of course, the US gov can be an unwieldy, expensive beast but it’s all we have in the way of protecting the “minorities”. Of course, this may not be of concern to you if you are a wealthy, white, heterosexual male. And you may be paying for lots of negative campaign advertising in hopes of convincing the poor that government hates them and wants what little they have, but we both know that’s not true.
2- freedom isn’t freedom if it’s only for a few. it is, by definition, supposed to apply to all. why can’t we give same-sex couples the right to act like adults and determine the path their lives will take, like the rest of us?

please go to the polls this season. it may be broken, but it’s all we have.

HEY SUPREME COURT! CAN YOU HEAR ME??? CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. THEY ARE ENTITIES WITH UNLIMITED LIFESPAN, EARNING POTENTIAL, AND ALREADY HAVE MORE POLITICAL POWER THAN ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE US COMBINED.

They already pay more lobbyists to push for more favorable legislation than you can imagine. They already get favors from politicians that they support. Now they can spend an UNLIMITED PART of their trillions of dollars on political advertising! and the reason? because the supreme court has continually upheld a MISUNDERSTANDING of a decision made in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886.

in that case, the SPRailroad was allowed to pursue its argument all the way to the supreme court by using a law that was supposed to protect black citizens from racist white juries. it argued that it should not be treated differently than the citizens of California were, under California tax law. The supreme court DID NOT ACTUALLY AGREE. they favored the railroad on another, related decision that was already completely obvious. however, in the court reporter’s headnotes, he wrote that “we are of the opinion that it does” (meaning the 14th amendment providing equal protection under the law applied to corporate entities, rather than only to actual US citizens).

what does all this mean? it means that due to a paperwork error, corporations have been treated like US citizens since 1886, and have been amassing wealth and power that are unimaginable. Now they will be able to exert that wealth and power in yet another realm- political advertising.

I can not overstate what a powerful impact this will have on the US political system, already limping along under a burden of corruption and special interests.

corporations must have their status as US citizens revoked if this country is ever to reach an inkling of its potential.

“this election brought to you by Wal Mart, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Microsoft, Chrysler, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, and Rupert Murdoch”

in case you missed it, pat thinks the reason things suck in haiti right now is because the haitians made a pact with the devil a long time ago. of course this is completely crazy to a lot of christians, who find that idea horrifying. here’s a response to pat- blog post by author donald miller about how he feels sorry for pat, and pat’s in such sad shape, etc…

but i don’t get it. the bible that christians (i think?) believe in has tons of stories about god killing people because of their sins, pacts with the devil, mistakes, and not caring for the poor (now that’s irony). donald says we’re “living in the new testament, not the old”. so i guess that means that god doesn’t punish people any more? he’s a different guy now? hell isn’t real?

when i was a christian, i always hoped that people i was having conversations with wouldn’t bring up hell, because my reasoning for it was always so weak. let’s be honest- if our souls live forever, and the bad ones (by “bad”, i mean those who didn’t line up with christian doctrine sufficiently) get punished in some awful place FOREVER, then god wrecking haiti because it’s payback time for something they did long ago is completely logical, right?

so- if there are any christians reading, can you answer a few questions for me, please:

1. is hell real? and if not, how do you get around all the times it pops up in scripture?
2. why did god kill all those people in the old testament? and if he did, then why wouldn’t he kill a bunch of haitians?

in case you’re wondering these are a few of the main [theological] reasons i’m no longer a christian.

How about if we start off the year with some intentional public shootings! In case you didn’t know, here are a few that have already happened in 2010:

A guy killed a security guard at a federal courthouse in Vegas, wounded a cop, and was then shot to death on the 4th of January.  (BBC report/video)

Another guy stormed a factory in St. Louis, killing 3 people and wounding 5 others. Right now he is assumed (but not confirmed) dead as well. (BBC report)

I realize that this is an age-old argument that will probably never really be put to rest, but is there any way that having less guns available in the US would hurt?

We deal with so many other potentially lethal things in such severe ways- think of what happens if a cop catches you with heroin. It’s a potentially lethal thing and we don’t want it just floating around for whomever to find. However, if you’re ever in an awful car accident, you’ll be glad the hospital has some opiates around to keep you out of severe pain. We trust the hospital staff to know how to administer a potentially lethal substance in a way which is helpful. Not so with guns- they’re way easier to off yourself with, use on somebody else, or accidentally kill your kid with.

Of course, accidental overdoses happen in hospitals, but hardly ever. That’s because medical staff undergo extensive training/education, much like the extensive training/education required to buy a gun in the US. (heh)

Depending on the state you live in, you may not be able to get medicinal marijuana to relieve chronic pain from intestinal cancer, but you could buy a gun and a LOT of bullets. Everywhere. Really.

some links-
interesting & informative movie “the corporation” watch it.
movie “food inc.”
both movies are pretty easy to find in video stroes, netflix, etc. and probably online too…
if you’re down for more depth- a book by Thom Hartmann: Unequal Protection- [the rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights] (you can get used copies for pretty cheap)

if you’re wondering what i’m talking about, read on…

corporations in the US have waaaay too much power.  they have the rights of US citizens, but without the conscience, and without the responsibilities.  the purpose of corporations is to make money- nothing wrong with that, but they need to do so in an ethical manner that benefits our country rather than beats it down (or at least beats down those of us who are not part of the corporate profit-taking).  in the long run, even the profit-takers will not benefit from most of the corporate actions, because they will end up destroying the economy, the environment, and the populace.

our responsibility is to keep the corporations where they belong- in their proper role of providing services and benefiting society.  corporations used to be accountable to state governments- but now many have become so large and wealthy that they can (almost) do whatever they want.

watch one of the movies. it will make you smarter.

it’s pomplamoose.

we’ve linked to ‘em from the Grapes of Rad before- here are a few treats for you:

often, christianity (the religion i have the most experience with, although i doubt this is unique to it) explains its weirdness/downfalls/unexplainable issues by reverting to something i call the “battered wife explanation” because they sound like victims of domestic violence.

just so there is no confusion, let me point out that i’ve used this explanation for the majority of my adult life, and it made complete sense to me, it just doesn’t any more.

if you don’t have experience with this, here’s what i mean: a man hits a woman for some reason, and then the woman justifies the violence, explaining that she sort-of deserved it for doing something wrong (burning dinner, for example). it’s a real bummer. it’s a really hard cycle to break out of too, as there is usually a history of violence which makes this situation strangely attractive to them. it’s hard to explain…

anyway, what i hear christians doing is saying stuff like this:

Q: if god is all-powerful and all-loving, then why is there so much suffering in the world?
A: well, the suffering isn’t his fault, it’s ours, because we are sinners, and we’ve been sinning forever, so we deserve it because of our own shortcomings

Q: why did god have all those people killed in the old-testament? (sodom, ai, etc…)
A: well, he knew that israel was weak, and if they hung out with the wrong crowd, that would lead them away from him, because they would, by nature do the wrong things. it was israel’s character flaws that made god kick their ass/the other peoples ass.

Q:  why does god want to force billions of people to burn in hell for ever?

A:  he doesn’t want to, but that’s the consequences of burning dinner.  i mean, they sort-of had to burn dinner, because that’s what all their ancestors did for thousands of years, but they DID burn it, and that means they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by a giant burning boot forever.

I’ll admit that last one is not as widely accepted by christians as it used to be, but it’s still the mainstream view for sure.

so- what do you think?