With Easter coming along, I cannot resist commenting on some thoughts I always have when I see people wearing crosses.
What if Jesus had lived in France in the late 18th Century? Would women be wearing miniature guillotines around their necks? Would every Christian church along the 210 freeway have a huge pillar bearing a massive guillotine? What if Jesus had been stabbed to death or hung? Would we have daggers in our windows and large hangman's nooses above the alters?
The issue is why do we take the cross as the icon for Christ? The cross was a vicious and cruel device for putting people to death slowly. What, indeed, does it say about Christianity that this icon of suffering and death seems to be the only way we can remember the life of Jesus? People have largely forgotten what that life was about, in terms of rebellion against the powerful and service to the oppressed. Instead, we remember his ugly death for the narcissistic reason that we hang our own hopes for immortality on it. Clearly, we could care less for his real message.
So, Happy Easter to all you Christians out there.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Budget
Well, Congress almost closed down the Federal government this week. And this is just the first wave of arguments over the Federal budget. The whole experience has brought out a number of interesting points.
First, let's take the overall "theory" behind the Republican love of reducing Federal spending. The idea is that reduced spending will put more money in the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs who will then (of course) create jobs, thus stimulating the economy. No matter that this has never ever been demonstrated true to reality! The interesting thing about this theoretical vision is that it completely ignores the quality or character of the jobs that are involved. The Federal jobs that are mostly likely to be cut by Republicans are jobs in social services --- inspection of foods, protection of the environment, monitoring of fair labor practices, teaching children, giving aid to the poor and unhealthy. But when the entrepreneurs come forward with their new job opportunities, do they create jobs in the same fields? Of course not. We're talking about making new jobs in the manufacture of plastic buckets or new tanning sprays. The Federal government is good at creating jobs for the welfare of society; entrepreneurs are good at creating jobs for their own profit in popular consumer fields.
In the last few weeks, we've heard nothing but the Republican mantra that they only want to reduce Federal spending. We should ignore HOW they want to reduce spending. In fact, the Federal budget reflects the face of our government; it is how we spend our money. Any reduction in the budget, consequently, is an alteration of the government's face. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be surprised by that. So the last minute fight over women's health care and NPR and public television was no accident. These are Federal programs that Republicans want to destroy and they will continue to try to destroy them so long as they have the strength to do so.
So how do Republicans think the Federal government should look? That is, what should be left after they have successfully destroyed Federal programs for the social good? Basically, Republicans want to protect our borders and maintain a military presence around the world. They never consider lowering military spending. Too many of their buddies in the manufacture of military goodies would suffer. Yet that's where the real spending is. No other country maintains military bases all around the world. The United States is more militarist than the Third Reich but nobody complains about it, not even the Democrats. While we're throwing away lunches for under-privileged children and mammograms for women, we are waging three different wars in Africa and the Middle East. But nobody is talking about how these are the activities that have caused our huge deficits. Why? Because our militarism is not something we are willing to look at. We don't want to admit it as fact. Isn't that pretty much the same as the German people of the 1930s? No one wanted to admit the dark side of where they were going.
First, let's take the overall "theory" behind the Republican love of reducing Federal spending. The idea is that reduced spending will put more money in the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs who will then (of course) create jobs, thus stimulating the economy. No matter that this has never ever been demonstrated true to reality! The interesting thing about this theoretical vision is that it completely ignores the quality or character of the jobs that are involved. The Federal jobs that are mostly likely to be cut by Republicans are jobs in social services --- inspection of foods, protection of the environment, monitoring of fair labor practices, teaching children, giving aid to the poor and unhealthy. But when the entrepreneurs come forward with their new job opportunities, do they create jobs in the same fields? Of course not. We're talking about making new jobs in the manufacture of plastic buckets or new tanning sprays. The Federal government is good at creating jobs for the welfare of society; entrepreneurs are good at creating jobs for their own profit in popular consumer fields.
In the last few weeks, we've heard nothing but the Republican mantra that they only want to reduce Federal spending. We should ignore HOW they want to reduce spending. In fact, the Federal budget reflects the face of our government; it is how we spend our money. Any reduction in the budget, consequently, is an alteration of the government's face. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be surprised by that. So the last minute fight over women's health care and NPR and public television was no accident. These are Federal programs that Republicans want to destroy and they will continue to try to destroy them so long as they have the strength to do so.
So how do Republicans think the Federal government should look? That is, what should be left after they have successfully destroyed Federal programs for the social good? Basically, Republicans want to protect our borders and maintain a military presence around the world. They never consider lowering military spending. Too many of their buddies in the manufacture of military goodies would suffer. Yet that's where the real spending is. No other country maintains military bases all around the world. The United States is more militarist than the Third Reich but nobody complains about it, not even the Democrats. While we're throwing away lunches for under-privileged children and mammograms for women, we are waging three different wars in Africa and the Middle East. But nobody is talking about how these are the activities that have caused our huge deficits. Why? Because our militarism is not something we are willing to look at. We don't want to admit it as fact. Isn't that pretty much the same as the German people of the 1930s? No one wanted to admit the dark side of where they were going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)