The Treachery of Images

Of relevance to the day thing, it was time to revamp this classic.

Also
Ceci n'est pas une author.

God's Own Law

Okay, well, I guess I'm tired of hearing the canard about how "our laws" (ie. the laws of the United states) are "Biblically based" and all "flow from God's law outlined in the Bible." Not to mention the often repeated, "we're a Christian nation and a nation of Christians." It's a bunch of bullshit and actually violates two of the commandments. But, let's look at it. While there are hundreds and hundreds of laws outlined in the Bible (mainly Old Testament stuff, and even more from the Torah and Halakha), let's just look at the biggies, the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadlies.

And because I really like the poetry of the KJV (which was written in an antique language style even for its time), well use that text for the Big Ten:

And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Okay, the first one out of the gate and here we have an establishment of religion. God's saying, "Ignore all those others, pay attention to me and me alone" (although I've had discussions on what this commandment is actually saying given modern Christianity's stance that all other religions are false here God seems to be saying that there are other gods). And that's in direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution (so much for the religiosity of our Founding Fathers if they can't even get this one right). So we have our first score and it's 0-1.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

There's a whole history regarding just exactly what God may or may not have been talking about here, but I think most of us can safely say that even with the recent "ZOMG, Terrorists!" rules regarding taking photos in public places, we pretty much ignore this one outright. While we don't (as a rule) make statues of gods for our public spaces, we've pretty much have made graven images of thee and me as it were as a matter of course. And if you want to say God was just talking about making graven images of him, and deny the whole "we are made in his image" trap, I say, okay, what about crucifixes, the statuary of Christ being taken off the cross, and the ubiquitous Warner Sallman's Christ painting that seemed to be hanging in everyone's homes when I was a kid. So, our score so far? 0-2. It's not looking good.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

If this was a crime, the jails would be even more full then they are now. Also, here I will point out that this Commandment deals with more than "cussing." Many an evangelical minister is guilty under this by saying they do what they do in the name of God, only to directly contravene his laws and precepts, not to mention the various infidelities and other crimes. Also, when Crazy Uncle Pat says that God/Jesus told him whatever was going to be true (like putting Mitt Romney in the White House and giving the Senate to the GOP) and then it turns out not to happen that way, yeah, guilty of taking the Lord's name in vain. 0-3.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

At one time in the US there were local laws that forbade any business happening on Sundays (and here we could have a debate on which day the Sabbath actually is). They were a part of the Blue Laws and most have been repealed. Heck, we can't even shame businesses to not be open on Memorial Day, Labor Day, 4th of July and Christmas, how would we close down the malls on every Sunday. So, 0-4.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Should I quote the long litany of cultural garment rending that accompanies every new generation about how they don't respect their elders and are a bunch of slackers? IIRC it's even possible for a child to sue for divorce from their parents. So, 0-5. It's not looking so good for God's law, is it.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

Oh sure, you think you've got me here, don'tcha? We could go into the various degrees of killing (felonious to justified) and if the definition of killing in war actually falls under this Commandment or even talk about how not killing people has been a standing rule since we decided to band together to bring down the antelopes that were taunting us. Seriously, it's been a part of any organizations laws since forever and dates back to the Hammurabi Code (which, IIRC, is one of the earliest code of laws written). But I'm feeling generous and will give you this. 1-5.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Puslifer)

Sorry, couldn't resist that joke. And, okay, here we do have codified laws regarding this. Adultery is grounds for divorce or palimony. But that shows the problem here, our law doesn't specifically outlaw it, but recognizes it's caustic effect on relationships. I could also discuss about how we no longer stone adulterers or require them to wear scarlet letters. But I'll call it a draw on this one. Yes, adultery is in the law code, but not really the way this commandment calls for. So, 1-5-1.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

Same thing as with killing, it's been in everyone's law books. I have some thoughts about what is now considered stealing (such as certain right wingers who like to call taxes "government stealing", and how tithes are essentially Church taxes and how they relate), but I'll give you this one. 2-5-1.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Perjury, libel and slander. Seems simple enough, and since I'm going with the killing and stealing I can not give this one. 3-5-1.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

We could talk about the nature of coveting, but if I'm willing to go with killing, stealing and false witnessing, here I'm going to take it back because "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a national hobby (and for any definition of coveting, "I want what they have" is pretty much a standard definition).

So, final score for the Big Ten? 3-6-1. Even grading on a curve, that isn't good.

So what about the Seven Deadlies? You know, the sins that'll take your soul on a straight path to the Lake of Fire. So if our law follows God's law, there should be some strong laws about these.

1. Lust

You've got to be kidding me, right? Okay, well, there are laws against some forms of lust. But here we are mostly talking about intense desire that is differentiated from Greed and Envy (numbers 3 and 6). If lust were made a crime, most teenagers wouldn't make it to adulthood without going afoul of the law. 0-1.

2. Gluttony

There's various definitions for gluttony that go beyond the simple consumption of food beyond one's need. But there ain't no laws against rampant consumerism either. Add in America's obesity epidemic and we get to 0-2.

3. Greed

"Greed is good" pretty much has defined the later half of the 20th century and much of what was wrong with the first decade of the 21st. Nobody has gone to jail (except for violating other laws like perjury and making false statements to investors). You could say the laws against insider trading might qualify, but I think that's pretty shaky ground (as the law isn't so much against greed as it is against getting an unfair advantage regarding your greed). So, 0-3.

4. Sloth

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…" So you would say that we would incorporate the socialist creed into our laws? 0-4.

5. Wrath

Okay, well, we do have laws regarding the effects of wrath, however not being in one's right mind, ie. filled with wrath, is sometimes used as a defense. So we'll call it a draw. 0-4-1.

6. Envy

You can't be serious if you think this would be encoded in our law. 0-5-1.

7. Pride

Yes, because it's not like we aren't a prideful nation. 0-6-1.

So God's Law fared even worse when it comes to the Seven Deadlies. Care to make any bets on the Commandments as reinterpreted by the Christ? I mean, if we take both the Big Ten and the Seven Deadlie together we're at 3 wins, 12 loses, and 2 ties. Given that Jesus rewrote and consolidated the Big Ten to his Laws of Deuces, love your God and love your neighbor, you'd think we would at least get those two down in the laws.

For a nation founded on God's Law, we don't seem to be doing very well with it.

Meet the new whinge, same as the old whinge

Oh noes, the EPA is going to require that gasoline producers reduce the amount of sulfur in our gas. Cue the rending of garments, the "impossibility" argument, and the "it's going to cost so much" and "we're never going to be able to do it" typical bull. Sure, it's going to cost the industry money. IIRC, cost estimates are about $10 billion. Which sounds like a lot, doesn't it. I mean, how will the oil industry ever find that much money. Why they'll have to raise gas prices by $0.09 a gallon.

I mean, Exxon-Mobil by itself only had $9.6 billion in net profit the last quarter. You know, that money they like to say they need to have to plow back into their business so we shouldn't do anything like closing up the oil company's tax loopholes and deductions. It might mean a whole quarter of one oil company's profit plus the change they can find in the couch cushions to reduce the Medicare and Medicaid's cost (you know, what you and I pay) by $28 billion by reducing respiratory problems. Not mention reducing smog and increasing the life and productivity of our catalytic converters and engines.

Remember when Obama came into office and talked about alternative energy production and using natural gas as a bridging technology from coal? Remember the energy production companies wailing and moaning about how much that would cost and the "oh we can't ever move that fast, it'll take decades and require so much money in research, blah blah blah"? Say, did you know that in less than 5 years we reduced our dependence on coal by 80% by converting our power plants to natural gas? And all it took was for natural gas prices to nose dive to where power companies realized it would be cheaper to convert to natural gas. Did you see your electricity prices rise because of all the retrofitting? Remember the "we could never get our CO2 emissions below 1990 levels" wailing over Kyoto? I mean, we could never meet that goal by 2014. Except that we met that goal last year.

So, no, I don't believe the companies when they say they can't do or afford this. Like I said, it'll take just a little over one quarter's profit of one of the oil companies to pay for this.

Yea, I'm calling shenanigans.

Smart people can be very dumb sometimes

Dear Justice Antonin Scalia,

Regarding your argument that "young people are not "'stupid' and should be able to buy insurance when there is a 'substantial risk of incurring high medical costs.'"

With all due respect sir, your argument does not have a basis in reality as the most popular provision of the ACA already enacted is that parents can keep their kids on their health insurance until the children are 26. Your argument here, on the face of it, holds no water.

This is because the parents, at least, know that young people can, very suddenly and without prior indication, end up with medical bills that would exceed the amount of their total student loans for a four-year college. One broken bone which requires surgery can lead to a total bill over $35,000 (I know this from personal experience, and that amount is approximately 10 years out of date now). The news regularly reports on kids falling over dead because of undiagnosed heart or circulatory problems. They don't even mention those that survive to find themselves dealing with a chronic condition. Again, here I speak from the experience of a friend who found himself with a chronic heart condition in his late 20s. I don't know the total amount of his medical expenses, but I do know he was glad for coverage under his wife's employment plan.

Please, sir, move beyond the circle of your friends and look out at the wider experience. Obviously all those parents who are glad they can keep their children on their own plans know something you haven't experienced, or that you wish to ignore. Costly medical bills and chronic healthcare problems are not the provence of the aged.

Sincerely,
Me.

Poking the bees nest

I really didn't want to write about this subject, but I get tired of bullshit.

Okay, for all of you shouting about how George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, what about Trayvon Martin's rights under that same law? After all, he was being trailed by someone who was armed for absolutely no good reason (both being armed and trailing him).

While there's lots of flying crap all over this one (including the police department or school leaking the story about him being dispelled for having traces of marijuana in his bookbag – which whomever did that? that was a violation of the law, hope they put you in jail for abusing the trust you're given), so it can cover everybody who jumps into this story (which was why I didn't want to comment). Before you go off shouting about how poor George was ambushed and had to fight for his life, understand that Trayvon was already operating under those rules when George was tracking him before calling 911.

Neighborhood Watches are an excellent law enforcement tool. Going on patrol, while armed, trailing "suspects" is not a part of that program. That's what vigilantes do. When George stepped out with his gun, that's where the problem started.

And before you decide to say, "You're just anti-gun" I remind everyone that I've already completed the concealed carry course here in Ohio. I'm not NRA lunatic fringe material, but I do believe in a healthy exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I just don't buy in to all the swaggering bullshit that surrounds that issue.

Newt Gingrich Is Full of Crap

Okay, one of the things Newt is promising he'll do is bring gas down to $2.50 and make us less dependent on "foreign oil" (and here we'll continue to include Canadian imports, because we really can't quit the Canadians without making us more dependent on places like Venezuela, African West Coast countries, and the dreaded Middle-East). About every price fluctuation of $10 a barrel translates to $0.25 in gas prices. Light sweet oil is about $106 a barrel right now. Current average gas price is $3.80. Okay, so to get to $2.50 a gallon oil prices per barrel would need to be reduced by approximately $52. Sounds doable, right?

Wrong. That gives us a per barrel price of $54. To keep oil flowing from the Canadian Oil Sands the price per barrel needs to be above $70. Let's say they're making 15% profit at $70, that gives us a break even point of $59.50 a barrel to mine that oil (if they'll continue to pump the stuff for costs, anybody believe they'll do that?). Canada accounts for over 20% of all our imported oil (they are by far and away the largest single contributor to our imported oil).

All that "domestic oil" that people are salivating over? That's shale oil which costs even more to produce (notice not much is being made from shale oil). Deep sea oil drilling? Not really economical for below $60 a barrel (for what we're exploring now, all the cheeper oil is being produced). PRetty much all the new oil we're looking for in the US has a bottom base price of around $60 (median, some areas are as low as $30, some as high as $80 with most being on the upper end).

So, let's say Gringrich is actually able to wave his fairy wand and make gas $2.50 a gallon (let us not discuss the over control of the market that would be necessary here, and how antithetical that control is to conservatives). Domestic oil exploration ceases. Canadian oil imports dry up (which might be good for Canada who still imports much of their oil, oddly enough). And we'll be at the mercy of countries that actually do hate us.

So, still think Gingrich has great ideas? He's farting in the pews and everybody is thinking that someone delivered roses.

Unless we have a severe program for conservation, somehow make cars that get over 80mpg, or everybody stops driving and our economy crashes to the ground, we aren't going to see $2.50 gas anytime soon. If ever again.

And before anybody says, "but if we produce more domestically…", look, oil is sold on a world market. Doesn't matter where it's produced. The only difference is that we'll stop making other countries rich from our oil habit. At best we can hope for is $2.80 a gallon. And unless we stop speculators (which is the real reason oil prices are above $80 a barrel), we won't see that either. And does anybody believe that with the current political environment that we'll be able to reign in commodity speculators?

It's a Christmas (Carol) Miracle

Okay, well, maybe epiphany is more the like.

For those of you new to my blog you may not know this, but Dickens's A Christmas Carol is one of my favorite stories and has been very informative on my psyche. I know I haven't done much on it in the past few years. I have a feeling that there will be more this year.

But it just occurred to me that I now understand the conservative mind a little more. This whole "War on Christmas" thrust has been confusing to me. I mean, you could just chalk it up to the feelings of martyrdom envy, the perceived persecution of "christians" (which, in this case, has always translated as "conservative privilege"), and a need to feel that it's "us against those dirty liberals". However, I finally just got it.

See, if you promote free-market capitalism, the belief of being overtaxed, living in a welfare state, and promoting the concept that those people on the "have not" side of the equation should just go out and get a job already… well then, those are the people who are cheering Scrooge as he snuffs out Christmas Past with her cap. Don't believe me? Go and reread the Stave 1 in A Christmas Carol. Scrooge is a market capitalist, to the nth degree. When approached for charity, he complains about his high taxes supporting the welfare society and certainly that is enough for him. If those people who are in "want" don't like the Treadmill or the Work Houses, well then, they should die and decrease the surplus population.

So the "War on Christmas" (or, the War Against a Non-Existent Foe) is actually a preemptive strike to avoid that label of "Scrooge" being applied to them. See, "we's all about the Jebus and Christmas, so obviously we can't be Scrooge."

As the song goes, "but don't you believe it." Dickens wrote his little yarn because capitalism was driving Christmas into being just another work day.

"And yet," said Scrooge, "you don't think me ill-used, when I pay a day's wages for no work."

The clerk observed that it was only once a year.

"A poor excuse for picking a man's pocket every twenty-fifth of December!"

If that's not a complaint about not letting capitalism run it's own course without interfering government and societal, long-haired hippy notions, I don't know what is.