Disclaimer: I'm fairly certain that no cats, dogs, horses or any other animals were harmed in the making of this incredibly funny dialog.
Enjoy!
"Why Mockingbirds and Sacred Cows?" you ask. That's easy. In my favorite novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee dared to challenge the sacred cows of 20th Century America, many of which still wander the pastures of our minds befouling our political discourse and bulldozing our societal maturation.
Besides, I firmly believe that a generous helping of roast sacred cow, well-done, is the best response to the question, "Where's the beef?"
Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 8:3-4
innocent, artless, guileless, unworldly, unsophisticated, naive, ingenuous, trusting, unaffected, unsuspicious, unwary, credulous,gullible without airs, uninhibited, natural, spontaneous.
“You are too young to understand it,” she said, “but sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whiskey bottle in the hand of—oh, of your father.”
I was shocked. “Atticus doesn’t drink whiskey,” I said. “He never drunk a drop in his life—nome, yes he did. He said he drank some one time and didn’t like it.”
Miss Maudie laughed. “Wasn’t talking about your father,” she said. “What I meant was, if Atticus Finch drank until he was drunk he wouldn’t be as hard as some men are at their best. There are just some kind of men who—who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.”In To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee does a masterful job of exploring and exposing not only the how but the why behind the hypocrisies and injustices that arise in otherwise well-meaning communities when rigidity and ethnocentrism trump righteousness and empathy. For that reason, I believe the original, with all its nuances, is preferable to an altered passage tied to an image, thus reducing a complex theme to an internet meme.
“Arthur Radley just stays in the house, that’s all,” said Miss Maudie. “Wouldn’t you stay in the house if you didn’t want to come out?”
“Yessum, but I’d wanta come out. Why doesn’t he?” Miss Maudie’s eyes narrowed. “You know that story as well as I do.”“To Kill a Mockingbird” By Nelle Harper Lee 24
“I never heard why, though. Nobody ever told me why.”
Miss Maudie settled her bridgework. “You know old Mr. Radley was a foot-washing Baptist-”
“That’s what you are, ain’t it?” “My shell’s not that hard, child. I’m just a Baptist.” “Don’t you all believe in foot-washing?” “We do. At home in the bathtub.” “But we can’t have communion with you all-” Apparently deciding that it was easier to define primitive baptistry than closed
communion, Miss Maudie said: “Foot-washers believe anything that’s pleasure is a sin. Did you know some of ‘em came out of the woods one Saturday and passed by this place and told me me and my flowers were going to hell?”
“Your flowers, too?”
“Yes ma’am. They’d burn right with me. They thought I spent too much time in God’s outdoors and not enough time inside the house reading the Bible.”
My confidence in pulpit Gospel lessened at the vision of Miss Maudie stewing forever in various Protestant hells. True enough, she had an acid tongue in her head, and she did not go about the neighborhood doing good, as did Miss Stephanie Crawford. But while no one with a grain of sense trusted Miss Stephanie, Jem and I had considerable faith in Miss Maudie. She had never told on us, had never played cat-and-mouse with us, she was not at all interested in our private lives. She was our friend. How so reasonable a creature could live in peril of everlasting torment was incomprehensible.
“That ain’t right, Miss Maudie. You’re the best lady I know.”
Miss Maudie grinned. “Thank you ma’am. Thing is, foot-washers think women are a sin by definition. They take the Bible literally, you know.”
“Is that why Mr. Arthur stays in the house, to keep away from women?”
“I’ve no idea.”
“It doesn’t make sense to me. Looks like if Mr. Arthur was hankerin‘ after heaven he’d come out on the porch at least.
Miss Maudie stopped rocking, and her voice hardened. “You are too young to understand it,” she said, “but sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whiskey bottle in the hand of—oh, of your father.”
I was shocked. “Atticus doesn’t drink whiskey,” I said. “He never drunk a drop in his life—nome, yes he did. He said he drank some one time and didn’t like it.”
Miss Maudie laughed. “Wasn’t talking about your father,” she said. “What I meant was, if Atticus Finch drank until he was drunk he wouldn’t be as hard as some men are at their best. There are just some kind of men who—who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.”
Many of our concerns about globalization "Palin, the face of lionized scientific ignorance."
Does anyone besides me remember Car 54, where are you? from back in the early 60s?
When I was teaching, the sentence I most disliked hearing from a student was, "This is hard!"
Of course it's hard. Work is hard. That's why it's called work and not play. But people who master something that's hard feel good about themselves without needing a curriculum that focuses on self-esteem at the expense of education.
Link to Source
Yes. And everyone paying the same tax rate would level the playing field and make things fair. (I discussed this topic at length in my February 15 post They're Not The Same #1: Fairness & Justice.)Link to Source
Greg Abbott decides to try the Sgt. Schultz defense after his mouthpiece bites him in the butt.
This one is for all the politicians (and the members of their duped base) who rail against the inefficiency of government programs and sweep their effectiveness under the carpet.
Link to Source
I told you this week offered a heap of comics and cartoons worth sharing, most of which skewered ignorance. Allow me to exit on a positive note.
The soundtrack to the Youtube slideshow linked below comes from Waiting For The Electrician or Someone Like Him, a 1968 LP (yes, a vinyl record) by The Firesign Theatre.
It serves up an excellent piece of biting satire. That comment alone should make you hungry to watch it.
But there's more on the menu.
I think you'll find that "Temporarily Humboldt County" is the perfect main course to follow the visual appetizer you posted.
Bon appétit!
Note: I don't know who created the video, but the title is incorrect. It should read "Temporarily Humboldt County," not "Temporary."
I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”-- John Wayne
* * *One of the things I do fairly-regularly is to reply to friends and relatives who have
All,
Is this propaganda? It scares me and I don't scare easily.
BruceThis is the video found at the link above:
We all need to be aware of thisThis is a 4 minute clip that explains the US budget dilemma. It is not Republican, or Democrat.
It is presented by an Accountant using the 2011 actual budget. I found his explanation clear and concise.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtu.be>
Bruce, ol' buddy,
Of course it's propaganda. Those figures and projections have been around for decades. I find it most interesting, as should you, that the national debt and balancing the budget only become critical issues when the Democrats are in power.
Under Reagan and both Bushes (three bogus, fiscal conservatives) the deficit mushroomed. It went down under Clinton (see chart below)
To be fair, the deficit has gone up under Obama, but the economy he inherited from "W" may have had a weeee bit to do with that. ;-)
One more mark of propaganda is a non-comment in the video. The narrator laments that the US has lost its triple A rating without mentioning that S & P's downgrade was the direct result of the Republicans crying wolf about shutting down the government prior to their agreeing to raise the debt ceiling.
That fact, of course, is what's meant by "Political Process" in the headline (see below) that was shown in the video, but left unmentioned by the narrator.
Finally, the narrator talks about the need for "a fairer tax code that doesn't cripple the economy," and he follows with "Everyone must VOTE for representatives who will focus on FINANCIAL SOLVENCY."
That, my friend is not tax code talk, it's coded language for "Don't raise taxes on the rich." Conveniently, of course, it leaves out the fact that the rich have both gained and maintained their wealth because our economic system is structured to benefit them at the expense of everyone else.
Finally, you're scared because the right-wing wants you to be scared. They know that the only way they can regain the White House, and thereby another chance to rape the country as Reagan and the two Bushed did (look at the chart again) is for enough people to become scared enough to overlook his actual record both as a businessman and as governor of Massachusetts and vote for Mitt R-MONEY.
When people are frightened, they pull back from bold action, and they wind up voting against their own best interests.
When F.D.R. said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" in his first inaugural speech, he was right. It's as true now as it was back in the 1930s.
Any time you need your head screwed on straight about this stuff, just ask. ;-)
Thank you for the stimulation of your published works and weekly newsletter. My question concerns the pastoral care of those Christians who do not have the intellectual capacity or strength of character to tolerate the ambiguity of your message. Rightly or wrongly their "simple" faith sustains them and many would be fatally undermined should they be confronted by doubts concerning such issues as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Is it right to leave their views unchallenged, or should gentle sensitivity necessitate a less direct approach? I am aware that I will appear patronizing in posing this question, but from your own pastoral experience how have you dealt with this matter?Dear Stephen,
About 2 Cows and a ChickenIn this description are found all the elements needed to construct a conceit commenting on the foibles of life in modern America.
No one in town -- neither the real estate developer nor the relatives -- was happy when Farmer Ray left everything to his beloved farm animals. So they fled in fear, leaving a spunky young girl named Pearl to battle for their rights. Now the farm is theirs, but neither Pearl, nor the Wise Crow, nor the Weird Rabbits, can find them. Join the intrepid trio as they adventure their way across the land, seeking wide and far for their long lost home sweet home.
conceit
By Richard NordquistSee More About
glossary of grammatical and rhetorical terms
Definition:
A literary and rhetorical term for an elaborate or strained figure of speech, usually a metaphor or simile.
Originally used as a synonym for "idea" or "concept," conceit refers to a particularly fanciful figurative device that's intended to surprise and delight readers by its cleverness and wit. Carried to extremes, a conceit may instead serve to perplex and annoy.
I'm guessing that thong is attached to a tea bag. Polly, put the kettle on...
Although I appreciate this comic as a work of satire, I am unwilling to accept as valid the condemnation it heaps upon the entirety of the (unfortunately) non-endangered species known as politicus mendacium – (thanks be to Google for the Latin translations).
In its stead, I offer a substitute in which I assign the full measure of scorn only to the sub-species politicus ideologicis and exempt the sub-species politicus pragmaticam from blanket denunciation.
The ideologue's success is directly proportional to his ability to generate shit that his constituents find palatable. Maggots, of course, must eat shit to live. Thus, the sentiments expressed in the cartoon describe perfectly the symbiotic relationship between the ideologue and his base of blind, uncritical maggots, who consume whatever shit their champion feeds them, even if it is devoid of any connection to reality. They would never question their leader, for to do so would earn them the indelible stamp of disloyalty - the unforgivable sin among the truly faithful.
The pragmatic politician, on the other hand, follows a more difficult path to success. He generates a mix of shit and sustenance in an attempt to lead not only his base, but also the general population, to embracing practical solutions for real problems. Supporters of the pragmatic politician are not maggots. They tend to be more discriminating in what they swallow and what they recognize as shit to be passed over. They are also willing to call out their leader when the mix he gives them becomes too shitty. Of course, any mix is much less palatable to maggots than what is served by the ideologue; but, the pragmatic politician's mix can be effective if it contains enough shit to get at least a few maggots to nibble and thereby discover the nourishment found in truth.Notes:
1 a : to bring together : fuse
b : confuse
2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole
Yet, 179 years after Oberlin integrated its campus, there are still a whole lot of Americans, who don't like the fact that the White House is inhabited by a Black man, and they are doing everything they can think of to undermine his presidency.
We will have matured as a nation when such people are identified as bigots and thereby deemed unsuitable for public office by the voters of their local and state communities.
Too often, however, bigots get elected because bigots vote for bigots. What needs to happen is for Society (and the media) to begin condemning bigots publicly, but we know that's never going to happen since the media "must" be "fair" in its coverage. After all, you can't call Candidate A a bigot if you don't have a similar disparaging remark to make about Candidate B. That might give Candidate B (the decent human being) an "unfair advantage." Phooey.My friend's description of the media's song and dance routine is accurate, and in writing "must" in quotation marks he correctly implies that this way of being "fair" is disingenuous. Of course it is. "The media" is an agglomeration of for-profit businesses. No business wants to alienate its customers, and the music to which any business dances is always played on the cash register. Thus, the media's "fairness" policy is a subterfuge which enables them to retain that sizable portion of their revenue stream which flows from the pockets of the bigots found in the general population.
Are you really so ignorant of how easy it is to check the emails you receive for accuracy, or is it your Rush Limbaugh-dictated hatred of President Obama, that allows you to blindly forward lies which have been debunked, and do it with a clear conscience?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to tell me you sent this email to the bigot whose hate-mongering post you sent to me or that you sent a retraction to all the others to whom you forwarded it without bothering to check whether or not it was true.Today:
Consider this blog post from marketing guru, Seth Godin, to be a followup to my reply to the hate-mongering, lie-infested email you recently sent to me.
Godin's observations make it clear that you have a choice as to how you are seen by those to whom you send such third-party emails...that is, if you care.
Uninformed or ignorant?
Uninformed is a temporary condition, fixed more easily than ever.
Ignorant, on the other hand, is the dangerous situation where someone making a decision is uninformed and either doesn't know or doesn't care about his lack of knowledge.
The internet lets us become informed, if we only are willing to put in the time and the effort. That's new--the ability to easily and confidently look it up, learn about it, process it and publish to see if you got it right.
Alas, the internet also creates an environment where it's possible to feel just fine about being ignorant. It's easier than ever to live in a silo where we are surrounded by others who think it's just great to not know.
"Ignorant" used to be a fairly vague epithet, one that we often misused to describe someone who disagreed with us. Today, because it represents a choice, the intentional act of not-knowing, I think it carries a lot more weight.
The more I think about this, the more I'm aware of just how ignorant I've chosen to be. Not a happy thought, but a useful wake-up call.A Recommendation:
L: What an overwhelming contrast of ethics!
O: Go Ms. Duckworth!
G: The Upworthy question used as a title for the article is misleading. It stresses Ms. Duckworth's injuries when, in fact, her commentary focuses on how those who "game the system" for personal gain hurt our veterans and feed into the public's inaccurate perception (thanks in large part to the GOP's incessant propagandizing) that all government programs are corrupt.
L: No, George, not all government programs (& not all non-gov't programs) are corrupt. The difference is that in a free society, the public learns of the private corrupt stuff and stops patronizing it. But the gov't corruption goes on and on and Congress "solves" the problem by throwing more money - TAXPAYER money - at the corruption!
G: I thought it was too good to be true that you and I might actually agree on a political point for once.
You left out the most important word in your description of the difference between private and public corruption. That word is IF, and it goes here:
IF the public learns of the private corrupt stuff...
By the definition and legal underpinnings of PRIVATE enterprise, corporations are able to hide their misdeeds behind the smokescreen of "proprietary information."
The fact that folks all over the country constantly argue about the efficacy of PUBLIC policy gives the lie to your argument. It is the collaboration between corrupt and/or unregulated businesses and bought-and-paid-for politicians that creates and perpetuates corruption in the public sector.
Can you say, "Cut food stamps and use the money to enrich agribusiness conglomerates?" I knew you could.
Watch the Duckworth video again. This time pay attention all the way to the end.
L: Let's take Bernie Madoff as an example. Massive ripoff of maybe a couple hundred clients. he left his prototype, Ponzi, in the dust. Only a few "investors" who were smart enough, or lucky enough, to withdraw early came out ahead. BUT - Madoff is left in the dust by that great American institution, Social Security! Early participants paid in pennies and received worthwhile pensions. But now we have Congress "borrowing" from the SS trust fund, faux-disabled people ripping off the SSDI - retirement benefits in BIG trouble - and you and I have no say in watching the whole thing tank.
L: George - Your comments about crony capitalism, the unholy alliance of government and private interests, are right on the money. We need to STOP corporate AND union funding of politicians' pockets! The entire Ag bill should die - it's a first-class example of crony capitalism!
G: So, we do agree on something, that being the existence of and danger to our country posed by crony capitalism.
However we disagree on another point. I contend that Social Security retirement benefits are NOT in "BIG trouble" except in the eyes of those who believe selling that lie will enable them to more quickly realize their goal of getting their mitts (deliberately chosen word) on the flow of money into the Social Security trust fund in order to "fix" (again a deliberately chosen word) it.
Anyone who understands how Social Security was designed knows that it is rooted in the belief that the American economy and its people will continue to flourish and prosper.
Congress, when it has taken a more-liberal turn, has "borrowed" from the Social Security fund because it was the only way to fund needed social policy in the face of opposition by those working to privatize the wealth held in common by all Americans. That "borrowing" amounts to little more than a paper transfer, an entry into an accounting ledger. The funds are backed, as is every dollar bill printed, by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
Disingenuous, duplicitous, and disgusting are words that come to my mind when I think of politicians who say they're working to restore fiscal responsibility to the public sector by passing legislation designed to funnel that wealth into the bank accounts of the few via "privatization" schemes.
L: George, don't know about you, but I voluntarily put less into a 401K, for fewer years, than I involuntarily put into SS. But my retirement funds from the 401K beat the daylights out of Social Security. Yes, I endured the turbulence of 1987 and 2008 and a few more, but can't complain overall. Can't say I'm impressed with the way the government handled my money, though!
G: And I'd be willing to bet that the difference in performance you describe is mainly due to the restrictions placed on Social Security by the folks of whom I spoke in my previous post.
If that is the case, as I suspect it to be, then your argument amounts to little more than an endorsement of the use of the old "self-fulfilling prophecy" ploy to thwart competition while promoting the very crony capitalism you claim to dislike.
L: Don't think so, sir. I simply did a little research on what companies were most consistently profitable in the open market. Yes, some of them also did some government business, but that amounted to 10-20% overall, and the goods they sold the government...
G: Not talking about companies that did government business. I'm talking about the Social Security fund not being allowed to invest in any number of safe, lucrative financial instruments because of politics.
Here are some links for you to peruse:...See More#142: Trust Fund Investment Policies and Practices With trust fund assets growing from just under $46 billion at the end of September 1986 to over $730 billion at the end of September 1998, interest earnings from the investment of trust fund assets have been an increasing percentage of trust fund income. (See the table below.) As the trust funds con...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/note142.htmlhttps://www2.bc.edu/pierluigi-balduzzi/wp1.pdfhttp://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=-1
L: Don't forget that US debt has DOUBLED in less than a decade.
G: Another less-than honest argument, given that the vast majority of the national debt is owed to the 1%, and the portion owned by foreign entities represents investment in America based on the strength of the very "full faith and credit" guarantee that backs Social Security.
L: That "full faith and credit" guarantee merely means we are less likely to default than Mexico or Argentina or Italy. I'm sure that puts us in good company.
G: (posting text copied from http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=6)
Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, well in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.
L: We do have the fastest printing press in the galaxy!
L: Throughout history, the timing of governments' corrective economic action has been: TOO MUCH, TOO LATE. As such, it exaggerates economic cycles. Any engineer who has studied closed-loop control systems will immediately see the parallel.
G: And you don't see that as being the result of politics? Notice that I didn't specify whose politics, as in those of the two major political parties. History, however, makes it fairly clear that those who embrace and promote conservative policies, be they economic, social, racial, educational, of any other you might think of, by and large do so out of fear of change and a desire to control the lives of others who might pose a challenge to their positions of privilege.
So, in light of my statement made earlier that "the full faith and credit" of the U.S., which backs Social Security, "is rooted in the belief that the American economy and its people will continue to flourish and prosper," I must ask you the question so often posed to liberals by conservatives: Why do you hate America? ;-)
L: "... fear of change and a desire to control the lives of others who might pose a challenge to their positions of privilege." Huh? No, the conservative (or I should say libertarian) position is the knowledge that government and its laws and regulations can either 1) permit natural incentives to experiment, fail perhaps, but try again, and thus advance prosperity for the individual and his clients; or 2) rigidly restrict innovation, slow economic progress, You can see our Constitution is in #1, as a result of our founding fathers having had ENOUGH of #2.
G: You, my friend are trying to have things both ways. At the heart of what you call "knowledge", is an attempt to resurrect and re-litigate the federalist vs. anti-federalist debate of pre-constitutional America.
The question of federalism vs. anti-federalism
http://staff.gps.edu/mines/APUSH%20-antifederalists_vs_federalists.htm
was settled when the Constitution was ratified.
For the philosophical forefathers of those who today call themselves Libertarians, however, that was not acceptable. It was they, who in the 1860s challenged the legitimacy and supremacy of federal law under The Constitution in what many of their philosophical offspring still call "The War of Northern Aggression."
In addition, your talk of "natural incentives" is little more than a reworking of the flawed concept of "natural law" applied to economics. Thus, yours is an economic philosophy based on rigidly-held, a priori assumption supported by little more than circular argument.
Therefore, your seemingly benign position is exposed as aduplicitous given that it would codify and impose rigidity while claiming to be against it.
The Constitutional barrier between church and state is a clear refutation of a government in which a priori assumptions serve as the template for legislation. Thankfully, the founding fathers devised a system which strives, albeit imperfectly, to enact just and malleable laws for the benefit of all rather than for "the individual and his clients."
Granting primacy to the advancement of "prosperity for the individual and his clients" is clearly an argument for crony capitalism, which mocks the preamble to The Constitution.
So, I must ask you once again: Why do you hate America? ;-)
L: Worth a look: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/.../role-business-and...
"Intellectual Takeout was founded to take back our future because there is a better way forward. We reach back to deeper truths in order to present what could be, based on the ideals of freedom, justice, and subsidiarity. By doing so, we hope to provide our readers with the knowledge, clarity, and confidence necessary to pursue a bright future."G: Despite its claim to objectivity, the "Our Perspective" section on the ITO website makes it clear that it is pushing an agenda based on Libertarian ideology. How else is one to interpret the following?
L: The view from 1600 Pennsy Ave.:http://www.ijreview.com/.../113068-wh-press-secretary.../
G: Congratulations on your ability to cherry-pick a sound bite out of context and present it as if it were the crux of a much longer statement. This is exactly what the right did with "You...you didn't make that" when President Obama said it in reference to the publicly-funded infrastructure of highways that supports businesses.
L: review that BHO speech again. He was speaking in general terms, not confined to highways!
G: You review it. It was clearly a parenthetic expression referencing the government-funded programs which help make businesses possible only to have their CEO's claim to be completely self-made millionaires.
L: Face it, George. Our "benevolent" government takes on jobs it can't handle, hires people with NO expertise in the proposed job, monopolizes the market, and buries its mistakes in goobledegook and lies. Look no farther than PPACA; the geniuses who contrived this belong in a zoo! It has kicked MORE people out of health insurance contracts than it promised initial coverage. Can you say the cure is worse than the disease? Whatever the flaws of a free market, it COULD NOT be worse than PPACA.
G: Since you have clearly decided to resort to meticulously and thoroughly debunked "arguments" against the Affordable Care Act as support for your position. I believe it is time for me to bow out of this non-discussion.
Have a nice day.I need someone to remind me why I bother doing this.