I think that the Islamic Republic is using the case of the woman facing stoning for adultery as a means to instill terror in their citizens. Only through fear can the Islamic Republic retain its grip upon power.
Today I read that, in addition to stoning, the Islamic Republic has added a sentence of 99 lashes for another supposed crime. This is to be carried out prior to the stoning to death.
The Vatican has protested the sentence. Many Western nations have expressed disagreement with the sentence. Where are the protests originating from Islamic nations?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
The Democrats Flubbed the Stimulus
I think that voters' discontent with Democratic incumbents centers around the fact that the stimulus package has not produced the desired results in our economy. People ask, "Where are the jobs?"
I have to agree. I think the stimulus package failed in many of its objectives. As Jon Stewart pointed out, it seemed designed to help fat cats, not the common people, i.e., the voters. Much of the money was wasted, resulting in nothing except an increase in the budget deficit. Quite naturally, the voters intend to punish the incumbents who pushed it through.
*Sigh*
If only the Democrats would quit trying to be Republicans! If the Democrats had been a truly left wing and liberal party, they would not be in the unpleasant situation that they now find themselves.
I will vote for the Democrats in the upcoming election, as I always do, but without much hope.
I think an FDR-style jobs program would have been more to the point. An existing program, Americorps, should have been expanded tenfold, soaking up the unemployed and training them in viable occupational skills. All that is moot now, because once the Republicans get into power, the economy will only worsen. There would be grounds for hope if the opposition had good ideas, but their policies led to our current problems.
I have to agree. I think the stimulus package failed in many of its objectives. As Jon Stewart pointed out, it seemed designed to help fat cats, not the common people, i.e., the voters. Much of the money was wasted, resulting in nothing except an increase in the budget deficit. Quite naturally, the voters intend to punish the incumbents who pushed it through.
*Sigh*
If only the Democrats would quit trying to be Republicans! If the Democrats had been a truly left wing and liberal party, they would not be in the unpleasant situation that they now find themselves.
I will vote for the Democrats in the upcoming election, as I always do, but without much hope.
I think an FDR-style jobs program would have been more to the point. An existing program, Americorps, should have been expanded tenfold, soaking up the unemployed and training them in viable occupational skills. All that is moot now, because once the Republicans get into power, the economy will only worsen. There would be grounds for hope if the opposition had good ideas, but their policies led to our current problems.
Nicolas Sarkozy's Immigration Proposals
Immigration laws should discriminate. There are many law-abiding, honest, talented, civilized and highly educated people eager and willing to abide by the laws of their host country. I know of one--my partner.
Sarkozy's proposals as outlined in a recent CNN article do not seem all that bad to me. The Islamization of France is indeed of concern, not just to France but to people who love the image of old France. Female circumcision, street crime and terrorism are not activities that should be tolerated in immigrants. Those who are not worthy of citizenship should be deported without any right of return.
Western countries have been far too liberal in their immigration policies in the past in the interest of cheap labor. France could degenerate into another barbaric and intolerant Muslim nation. When traveling in Amsterdam, the former gay editor of Southern Voice was viciously attacked along with his partner by a trio of Moroccan immigrants who disapproved of homosexuality. Criminal immigrants, along with their extended network of families and friends, should be forcibly repatriated to their home country and never allowed to visit again, lest they gain a foothold in their host country. Liberal groups that support the right of Muslims to create their own shadow state should review the status of their counterparts in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where liberals meet a quick and dirty end in Evin Prison. None of the protests in France would be tolerated in Iran, but would be met with the clubs, tear gas, water cannons, and bullets of the Basij.
Sarkozy's proposals as outlined in a recent CNN article do not seem all that bad to me. The Islamization of France is indeed of concern, not just to France but to people who love the image of old France. Female circumcision, street crime and terrorism are not activities that should be tolerated in immigrants. Those who are not worthy of citizenship should be deported without any right of return.
Western countries have been far too liberal in their immigration policies in the past in the interest of cheap labor. France could degenerate into another barbaric and intolerant Muslim nation. When traveling in Amsterdam, the former gay editor of Southern Voice was viciously attacked along with his partner by a trio of Moroccan immigrants who disapproved of homosexuality. Criminal immigrants, along with their extended network of families and friends, should be forcibly repatriated to their home country and never allowed to visit again, lest they gain a foothold in their host country. Liberal groups that support the right of Muslims to create their own shadow state should review the status of their counterparts in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where liberals meet a quick and dirty end in Evin Prison. None of the protests in France would be tolerated in Iran, but would be met with the clubs, tear gas, water cannons, and bullets of the Basij.
The Best Gift to Loved Ones
For people who are HIV negative and not suffering from any other incurable disease, and who do not expect to be a victim of violent death or suicide, body donation is an admirable method to eliminate all costs of burial and funeral from being passed on to surviving loved ones.
Funerals and cemeteries are overpriced, with the purveyors of such services enjoying a ghastly profit margin. Getting hit for thousands of dollars to dispose of a mere body adds debt to grief. I suggest the UCLA Body Donation Program. UCLA will cover all costs related to disposal. Other universities may have similar programs in place. I learned about this while reading an article in one of my favorite American newspapers, the Los Angeles Times.
Funerals and cemeteries are overpriced, with the purveyors of such services enjoying a ghastly profit margin. Getting hit for thousands of dollars to dispose of a mere body adds debt to grief. I suggest the UCLA Body Donation Program. UCLA will cover all costs related to disposal. Other universities may have similar programs in place. I learned about this while reading an article in one of my favorite American newspapers, the Los Angeles Times.
Gold as a Long-Term Investment
I would be skeptical of placing too much confidence in precious metals as a long-term (say, twenty-year) hedge against inflation or economic or political turmoil, due to the possibility of creating or extracting synthetic precious metals. The old dream of the medieval alchemists has been achieved. At the moment, synthetic gold is not economically viable, but who knows what the future may bring.
Precious stones are already being synthesized in an economic fashion. I purchased a four-carat synthetic blue sapphire for my mother ten years ago.
Precious stones are already being synthesized in an economic fashion. I purchased a four-carat synthetic blue sapphire for my mother ten years ago.
British Media
Of British news sources, I prefer the Guardian, the BBC, and the Telegraph, in order of preference. I learned today to avoid the Mirror, because that infernal web site disables the "Back" button on my internet browser.
Friday, September 3, 2010
On Reproduction
As I study human reproduction in my anatomy and physiology class, I have been reminded of my own destiny. I believe that human reproduction is a fascinating and miraculous process, which is also true in the case of reproduction of other life forms. I feel a temptation, when studying the human body, to forget that many other species share similar traits with us. We are unique in our mental capacity alone. Therefore, we should always try to use our brains to our own advantage and that of our beautiful planet.
I often hear my professors express wonderment that we were designed in such a perfect manner. Their allusion to the Deity is understood, but they neglect the role played by evolution, which knows nothing about design and is unaware of any advantages to our apparent design. Evolution is not God, or let us hope it is not, because if it is, then the last man standing is the Chosen. Evolution proceeds by the inefficient and wasteful trial-and-error process, whereas a Heavenly Engineer could indeed design Adam and Eve from the ground up in a single day, without the necessity of hundreds of millions of years. Evolution is a slow, bloody, cruel and ugly process. The weight of evidence does not disprove, but gives a contraindication for the existence of a benevolent God, although a stronger case could be made for an evil God. Richard Dawkins, one of my favorite scientists, has covered all of this territory admirably in his marvelous books and lectures.
Anyone who reproduces is making an input into the evolutionary process. Those who fail to reproduce remove their genetic configuration from the gene pool. They have been culled. A stigma is attached by the phrase "survival of the fittest," implying that those who do not survive or reproduce are less fit than those that do. I have asked myself, "Am I less fit? Am I an inferior specimen?" I don't know the answer to that question. Compared to some people, I do feel inferior. Compared to others, superior. Still others, roughly equal. But I avoid comparisons, because it is impossible to perceive everything about a person at a glance.
My genes are not my master. Instead, I am the master. It may be true that my genes are unrewarded by evolution, in that they are not passed on to future generations. Does this mean I "lose?" What exactly do I lose? I think that all of us are equal in death. Those who "win" by having more descendants bear more responsibility for the outcome of the human race. I can only hope they know what they are doing. The future is unclear, and I don't think anyone can assume they have won anything without being able to see until the end of the Universe, at which point everyone will be equal anyway. The Universe, physicists tell us, is finite, and life will one day be extinguished. Placed in that context, what exactly is "won?" Instead of winning or losing, we are building castles in the sand to be erased by the coming tide.
In my younger years, I was motivated to raise a family and have a long line of descendants. Many men have a dynastic ambition. Children and grandchildren are an enviable achievement that accrues honor in human society. There is also an ambition to influence future generations of men. Although one may be relatively unimportant, a hope for greatness lingers as long as there is a seed.
On a scale of sexuality, with 1 being heterosexual and 6 being homosexual, I'd probably be a 5. Homosexuality puts one at a disadvantage in pursuing heterosexual relationships. There isn't enough zeal. For a heterosexual, pursuing the opposite sex is an all-consuming affair. No expense is spared. Heterosexuals possess a certain spark that arises around the opposite sex. There have also been studies that show that heterosexual men exude pheromones that women find enticing.
Despite the uneven playing field, I chose several women and had a modest measure of success in terms of landing dates, second dates, and even casual relationships. I would like to say that I chose on the basis of merit. That would be ideal, but how often does it happen? Not very, from what I gather. I think I fell in love with physical appearances, the same as heterosexual men tend to do, although I preferred a more masculine face and body, even if the equipment were female. At the time, I thought these women were the most fascinating things alive. I was indeed in love or thought I was at the time. Later observations indicated my optimism was excessive. In any event, the relationships ended in a very short amount of time, though not in any dramatic fashion. It was just not meant to be, as they say. Time passed, and at my present age, I do not believe it remotely possible that I could win over a worthy female of child-bearing age. I am not willing to dilute my blood with such women that I could still obtain. In my view, each generation should surpass the last and not represent a decline.
Many people have low standards. They settle for what they can get and produce children simply because they want to have children or because of an accident. Other people remain sterile for lack of a worthy mate. I have noticed a surprising number of women opting not to procreate, and why should they, if they cannot find a proper man? Quality is indeed important. Settling for whatever comes one's way explains many of the problems in the world. There would be no more criminals born if men and women scrutinized their prospective mates more closely. Men should look beyond beauty. Women should look beyond rank.
Dreams of a dynasty have altered into an acceptance of the finality of my own death.
There are consolations. I am free to think, to imagine, and to write, or to spend my time however I please. Much of parenting seems like drudgery, and parents are blamed in our society for things beyond their control. Also, reproduction is a gamble, because there is no telling--at this time--whether the offspring will carry a genetic defect, in which case there is no refund, no exchange, and the government requires eighteen years of loyal servitude.
If my parents foresaw that I would be homosexual, there is little doubt I would have been aborted. Such a reflection does not give me any dismay, because in that case, I simply would not exist. If I did not exist, I would certainly have no cause for complaint, now would I? All things considered, the world would probably be better off with just one sexual preference, rather than two, because the human race is intolerant of differences of any kind, an innate weakness in H. Sapiens that has resulted in more problems than any other.
The world is much easier for straight people. My offspring would be a kind and thoughtful person, but such people tend to be taken advantage of in my experience. The early years, in particular, are a trial. I would never wish my childhood on anybody. War and devastation of the population may prove a bitter medicine for the world's ills, and I doubt my genetics would be any good at that sort of mischief. Others will supply the necessary genetics. Sometimes I catch glimpses of what will be and am glad I will not be there to witness it. What the world needs are fire-breathing dragons that can grip enemies in their talons and rip them apart. I have nothing of the dragon in me, being more elf-like on the whole.
It is a comfort to know that I've led a blameless life, all things considered, not creating any new problems. Some people appreciate my presence. I enjoy a healthy and strong monogamous homosexual relationship. I like having a clean conscience and not being entangled in any sort of unpleasant or dramatic relationship. Too often, it seems, heterosexual relationships end in divorce. I do not know whether it is the fault of men or of women in general. It is probably a little bit on both sides. When I look at married straight couples, I seldom feel envy, even though I realize that they will inherit the world. My own line is doomed. I hope that they make the right choices in regards to politics, the environment, and the economy. But if they don't, it will only trouble me for a brief time before my candle burns out. Then it's their barrel of monkeys.
I often hear my professors express wonderment that we were designed in such a perfect manner. Their allusion to the Deity is understood, but they neglect the role played by evolution, which knows nothing about design and is unaware of any advantages to our apparent design. Evolution is not God, or let us hope it is not, because if it is, then the last man standing is the Chosen. Evolution proceeds by the inefficient and wasteful trial-and-error process, whereas a Heavenly Engineer could indeed design Adam and Eve from the ground up in a single day, without the necessity of hundreds of millions of years. Evolution is a slow, bloody, cruel and ugly process. The weight of evidence does not disprove, but gives a contraindication for the existence of a benevolent God, although a stronger case could be made for an evil God. Richard Dawkins, one of my favorite scientists, has covered all of this territory admirably in his marvelous books and lectures.
Anyone who reproduces is making an input into the evolutionary process. Those who fail to reproduce remove their genetic configuration from the gene pool. They have been culled. A stigma is attached by the phrase "survival of the fittest," implying that those who do not survive or reproduce are less fit than those that do. I have asked myself, "Am I less fit? Am I an inferior specimen?" I don't know the answer to that question. Compared to some people, I do feel inferior. Compared to others, superior. Still others, roughly equal. But I avoid comparisons, because it is impossible to perceive everything about a person at a glance.
My genes are not my master. Instead, I am the master. It may be true that my genes are unrewarded by evolution, in that they are not passed on to future generations. Does this mean I "lose?" What exactly do I lose? I think that all of us are equal in death. Those who "win" by having more descendants bear more responsibility for the outcome of the human race. I can only hope they know what they are doing. The future is unclear, and I don't think anyone can assume they have won anything without being able to see until the end of the Universe, at which point everyone will be equal anyway. The Universe, physicists tell us, is finite, and life will one day be extinguished. Placed in that context, what exactly is "won?" Instead of winning or losing, we are building castles in the sand to be erased by the coming tide.
In my younger years, I was motivated to raise a family and have a long line of descendants. Many men have a dynastic ambition. Children and grandchildren are an enviable achievement that accrues honor in human society. There is also an ambition to influence future generations of men. Although one may be relatively unimportant, a hope for greatness lingers as long as there is a seed.
On a scale of sexuality, with 1 being heterosexual and 6 being homosexual, I'd probably be a 5. Homosexuality puts one at a disadvantage in pursuing heterosexual relationships. There isn't enough zeal. For a heterosexual, pursuing the opposite sex is an all-consuming affair. No expense is spared. Heterosexuals possess a certain spark that arises around the opposite sex. There have also been studies that show that heterosexual men exude pheromones that women find enticing.
Despite the uneven playing field, I chose several women and had a modest measure of success in terms of landing dates, second dates, and even casual relationships. I would like to say that I chose on the basis of merit. That would be ideal, but how often does it happen? Not very, from what I gather. I think I fell in love with physical appearances, the same as heterosexual men tend to do, although I preferred a more masculine face and body, even if the equipment were female. At the time, I thought these women were the most fascinating things alive. I was indeed in love or thought I was at the time. Later observations indicated my optimism was excessive. In any event, the relationships ended in a very short amount of time, though not in any dramatic fashion. It was just not meant to be, as they say. Time passed, and at my present age, I do not believe it remotely possible that I could win over a worthy female of child-bearing age. I am not willing to dilute my blood with such women that I could still obtain. In my view, each generation should surpass the last and not represent a decline.
Many people have low standards. They settle for what they can get and produce children simply because they want to have children or because of an accident. Other people remain sterile for lack of a worthy mate. I have noticed a surprising number of women opting not to procreate, and why should they, if they cannot find a proper man? Quality is indeed important. Settling for whatever comes one's way explains many of the problems in the world. There would be no more criminals born if men and women scrutinized their prospective mates more closely. Men should look beyond beauty. Women should look beyond rank.
Dreams of a dynasty have altered into an acceptance of the finality of my own death.
There are consolations. I am free to think, to imagine, and to write, or to spend my time however I please. Much of parenting seems like drudgery, and parents are blamed in our society for things beyond their control. Also, reproduction is a gamble, because there is no telling--at this time--whether the offspring will carry a genetic defect, in which case there is no refund, no exchange, and the government requires eighteen years of loyal servitude.
If my parents foresaw that I would be homosexual, there is little doubt I would have been aborted. Such a reflection does not give me any dismay, because in that case, I simply would not exist. If I did not exist, I would certainly have no cause for complaint, now would I? All things considered, the world would probably be better off with just one sexual preference, rather than two, because the human race is intolerant of differences of any kind, an innate weakness in H. Sapiens that has resulted in more problems than any other.
The world is much easier for straight people. My offspring would be a kind and thoughtful person, but such people tend to be taken advantage of in my experience. The early years, in particular, are a trial. I would never wish my childhood on anybody. War and devastation of the population may prove a bitter medicine for the world's ills, and I doubt my genetics would be any good at that sort of mischief. Others will supply the necessary genetics. Sometimes I catch glimpses of what will be and am glad I will not be there to witness it. What the world needs are fire-breathing dragons that can grip enemies in their talons and rip them apart. I have nothing of the dragon in me, being more elf-like on the whole.
It is a comfort to know that I've led a blameless life, all things considered, not creating any new problems. Some people appreciate my presence. I enjoy a healthy and strong monogamous homosexual relationship. I like having a clean conscience and not being entangled in any sort of unpleasant or dramatic relationship. Too often, it seems, heterosexual relationships end in divorce. I do not know whether it is the fault of men or of women in general. It is probably a little bit on both sides. When I look at married straight couples, I seldom feel envy, even though I realize that they will inherit the world. My own line is doomed. I hope that they make the right choices in regards to politics, the environment, and the economy. But if they don't, it will only trouble me for a brief time before my candle burns out. Then it's their barrel of monkeys.
A Real Drug Problem
Marijuana has long constituted an imaginary drug problem in America. In reality, it is less harmful than aspirin. It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. Any competent doctor or nurse will inform a patient that it is possible to overdose on aspirin, and some patients do just that.
What is a real drug problem in America? "More than 500,000 children and adolescents in America are now taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a September 2009 report by the Food and Drug Administration." That is quite a lot of psychosis--or over-diagnosis. Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank.
What is a real drug problem in America? "More than 500,000 children and adolescents in America are now taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a September 2009 report by the Food and Drug Administration." That is quite a lot of psychosis--or over-diagnosis. Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Is God Necessary?
ABC News' web site, of all places, carries a lively forum debate over the existence of God.
Ideally, both believers and nonbelievers hold similar views on most other questions. Faith in God is immediately replaced by Faith in Goodness by an ethical person who subscribes to atheism. God is not necessary for any equations, theories, or other practical matters in our daily lives. Believers and nonbelievers share similar concerns, interests, and passions.
I feel ignorant about science and do not understand as many things as I would like. I'm not quite confident enough to withhold any chance for the existence of supernatural beings, or for that matter, extraterrestrial beings. If I had been told that there were Martians living on Mars with an advanced civilization, then I would probably believe it, if enough people of my acquaintance seemed convinced. If I heard people speaking with God on a regular basis as though he were present, particularly at a young age, then it might influence me to believe and to begin talking to him, as well. As a boy, I did pray on occasion, although it concerned me that none of my prayers ever came true, and often the things I prayed not to happen, happened anyway, and I never seemed to receive any divine communication whatsoever. I remember listening for a voice, but never heard one, which perhaps is for the best. If God was there, he was doing a good job hiding his presence.
Based on what I've read and heard about from other people, and based on the explanations given to me by devout believers, I think that the atheist camp probably has more truth on its side. Atheists do not believe in what they do not know about, and that seems a commendable policy. They are the same as agnostics, except they keep a tighter lid on the djinni bottle. Nothing exists until it is proven, in their view. The agnostics prefer to say, nothing is either proven nor unproven, which is a very liberal policy indeed, leaving the door open to all kinds of nonsense, such as goblins, vampires, wizards, demons, dragons, a flat Earth, an immobile Sun, and so on.
However, the existence of God is a narrow topic. It does not touch upon ethics, society, science, or human behavior. Both the atheist and the theist can believe the same way in regards to politics, music, art, and everything else. I do not see where God enters into the picture. God seems minor by comparison with other things of more importance to human beings. The believers tend to dwell upon God, as though he is more important than other concerns, when he is not, because being God, he can take care of things himself, without our action or advice. Indeed our only duty should be to one another.
It is interesting that few of the believers have ever really described God in his physical aspect, or described the means by which he obtains energy and moves around, so to speak. Pagan writers were far more explicit about their gods, including their amorous lives. The modern religions prefer to imbue their deity with the gravitas bestowed by mystery and elusiveness. Perhaps the early Fathers learned a lesson from the indiscretion of the Pagan writers and endeavored not to commit the same mistake. Once a god's sex life has been disclosed, it rather removes the aura of mystery.
Ideally, both believers and nonbelievers hold similar views on most other questions. Faith in God is immediately replaced by Faith in Goodness by an ethical person who subscribes to atheism. God is not necessary for any equations, theories, or other practical matters in our daily lives. Believers and nonbelievers share similar concerns, interests, and passions.
I feel ignorant about science and do not understand as many things as I would like. I'm not quite confident enough to withhold any chance for the existence of supernatural beings, or for that matter, extraterrestrial beings. If I had been told that there were Martians living on Mars with an advanced civilization, then I would probably believe it, if enough people of my acquaintance seemed convinced. If I heard people speaking with God on a regular basis as though he were present, particularly at a young age, then it might influence me to believe and to begin talking to him, as well. As a boy, I did pray on occasion, although it concerned me that none of my prayers ever came true, and often the things I prayed not to happen, happened anyway, and I never seemed to receive any divine communication whatsoever. I remember listening for a voice, but never heard one, which perhaps is for the best. If God was there, he was doing a good job hiding his presence.
Based on what I've read and heard about from other people, and based on the explanations given to me by devout believers, I think that the atheist camp probably has more truth on its side. Atheists do not believe in what they do not know about, and that seems a commendable policy. They are the same as agnostics, except they keep a tighter lid on the djinni bottle. Nothing exists until it is proven, in their view. The agnostics prefer to say, nothing is either proven nor unproven, which is a very liberal policy indeed, leaving the door open to all kinds of nonsense, such as goblins, vampires, wizards, demons, dragons, a flat Earth, an immobile Sun, and so on.
However, the existence of God is a narrow topic. It does not touch upon ethics, society, science, or human behavior. Both the atheist and the theist can believe the same way in regards to politics, music, art, and everything else. I do not see where God enters into the picture. God seems minor by comparison with other things of more importance to human beings. The believers tend to dwell upon God, as though he is more important than other concerns, when he is not, because being God, he can take care of things himself, without our action or advice. Indeed our only duty should be to one another.
It is interesting that few of the believers have ever really described God in his physical aspect, or described the means by which he obtains energy and moves around, so to speak. Pagan writers were far more explicit about their gods, including their amorous lives. The modern religions prefer to imbue their deity with the gravitas bestowed by mystery and elusiveness. Perhaps the early Fathers learned a lesson from the indiscretion of the Pagan writers and endeavored not to commit the same mistake. Once a god's sex life has been disclosed, it rather removes the aura of mystery.
Wikileaks
Anyone pointing the finger at American forces for supposed crimes has to take into account the opposition as well. On the whole, American forces have conducted themselves far better in Afghanistan than the Taliban. There is simply no comparison between the two sides in terms of ethics. I find it hypocritical of Wikileaks to publish military secrets of the Americans, because it seems unlikely Wikileaks would ever have the courage to publish military secrets of the Taliban, or another Muslim insurgency, for fear of reprisal.
I find it difficult to comprehend why a Taliban sympathizer, whatever his religious beliefs, would attack a girl's school with poison gas, or attack schoolgirls with acid, just for the supposed "crime" to trying to become educated.
I think it is fair to depict the Taliban as absolute evil, without any capacity for ethics. They attack soft targets, lacking defenses, and they attack innocent non-combatants. They are enemies of humankind, no different than virulent strains of viruses or bacteria. Whether we should be in there attempting to eradicate them on our dime is another question. But I certainly think that fighting the Taliban is a worthwhile and honorable occupation, whatever might be determined by a cost/benefit analysis of the overall conflict. The more Taliban put beneath the soil, the better for the race of man.
I find it difficult to comprehend why a Taliban sympathizer, whatever his religious beliefs, would attack a girl's school with poison gas, or attack schoolgirls with acid, just for the supposed "crime" to trying to become educated.
I think it is fair to depict the Taliban as absolute evil, without any capacity for ethics. They attack soft targets, lacking defenses, and they attack innocent non-combatants. They are enemies of humankind, no different than virulent strains of viruses or bacteria. Whether we should be in there attempting to eradicate them on our dime is another question. But I certainly think that fighting the Taliban is a worthwhile and honorable occupation, whatever might be determined by a cost/benefit analysis of the overall conflict. The more Taliban put beneath the soil, the better for the race of man.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
"I want Obama to fail." -- Rush Limbaugh
This sentiment, repeated by conservative commentators, has been a self-fulfilling prophecy so far in 2010. Rush Limbaugh spoke for all of his constituency. Rich right-wing business owners want the President to fail. They want the Democrats to fail. They are doing whatever is in their power to ensure a lackluster economy. Even those owners who are neutral have been persuaded by a climate of doubt and uncertainty. The right-wing media distorts and exaggerates to achieve political ends. Faux News is nothing but a continuous negative ad aimed at Democrats. Repeated on a continual basis are charges that Obama is socialist, Muslim, or racist. Due to the efforts of Faux News, a surprising percentage of Americans believe that Obama is Muslim. Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress block measures that would provide relief to American workers. Some Republican governors spurn Federal relief money for the sake of partisan politics. It is considered acceptable to inflict suffering upon the middle and lower classes in order to score partisan points.
Economists dwell upon numbers, but hearts and minds are just as important. If the racist and reactionary owners want the economy to be bad, just for the satisfaction of seeing Obama portrayed as wrong, then the economy will be bad.
Faux News is the enemy, a fair-seeming villain that speaks with a forked tongue. It may defeat America by exploiting the weakness that Americans have for superficial forms, such as patriotism and prayer. A cunning villain will not wear a black hat, but will wear the garb of a preacher and wave the flag, borrowing some of the dignity and authority of God and Country.
This sentiment, repeated by conservative commentators, has been a self-fulfilling prophecy so far in 2010. Rush Limbaugh spoke for all of his constituency. Rich right-wing business owners want the President to fail. They want the Democrats to fail. They are doing whatever is in their power to ensure a lackluster economy. Even those owners who are neutral have been persuaded by a climate of doubt and uncertainty. The right-wing media distorts and exaggerates to achieve political ends. Faux News is nothing but a continuous negative ad aimed at Democrats. Repeated on a continual basis are charges that Obama is socialist, Muslim, or racist. Due to the efforts of Faux News, a surprising percentage of Americans believe that Obama is Muslim. Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress block measures that would provide relief to American workers. Some Republican governors spurn Federal relief money for the sake of partisan politics. It is considered acceptable to inflict suffering upon the middle and lower classes in order to score partisan points.
Economists dwell upon numbers, but hearts and minds are just as important. If the racist and reactionary owners want the economy to be bad, just for the satisfaction of seeing Obama portrayed as wrong, then the economy will be bad.
Faux News is the enemy, a fair-seeming villain that speaks with a forked tongue. It may defeat America by exploiting the weakness that Americans have for superficial forms, such as patriotism and prayer. A cunning villain will not wear a black hat, but will wear the garb of a preacher and wave the flag, borrowing some of the dignity and authority of God and Country.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
I Believe the Vatican
I don't see eye to eye with the Vatican on many issues, but I think it is probably correct in its accusation that most of Pakistani flood relief is being distributed to fundamentalist Muslims, while Christian victims receive less aid.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Count Me Out of the Target / Best Buy Protest
Although I sympathize with the gay boycott of Target and Best Buy, I do not intend to join in any street protest or do more than simply avoid the stores. I find it a bit unseemly that a gay group such as the HRC is essentially hitting Target up for a donation. I can think of better protests to make than over that particular issue. Also, Target and Best Buy are noted for positive treatment of their gay employees. I would think that Faux News or Wal-Mart would make a better target of protest.
Laura Linney on The Daily Show
The August 11th, 2010 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart surpassed my expectations. It was my first glimpse of actress Laura Linney, who gave a thoughtful meditation on the cultural and philosophical significance of humor. No Hollywood airhead there. She actually dominated the tone and substance of the conversation, which is rare on Jon's show. It is always refreshing to listen to someone intelligent speak on television.
I do agree with her thesis that Jon Stewart is indispensable to the American political scene. Nobody expresses the liberal and left-wing point of view better than he. I am not sure anyone could replace him at this time. His presence helps to counterbalance the pernicious influence of Faux News. Although he has less air time than the entire Faux News lineup, it is a case of quality versus quantity.
The only problem I see with his show is consistency. Some shows are better than others. The quality depends upon the material provided to him by right-wingers. If the opposition has done something particularly hypocritical or self-serving, then his show profits. If the Republicans have only committed minor transgressions, then his show suffers. Sometimes Jon is forced to look outside the political sphere, on occasions when the Republicans have not done anything particularly bad. Times were easier for his show when Bush was in the White House.
A key difference between Faux News and Jon Stewart is that Jon is willing to criticize Democrats, liberals, and the Obama Administration whenever warranted. He is not completely partisan. Faux News, however, is completely partisan.
I do agree with her thesis that Jon Stewart is indispensable to the American political scene. Nobody expresses the liberal and left-wing point of view better than he. I am not sure anyone could replace him at this time. His presence helps to counterbalance the pernicious influence of Faux News. Although he has less air time than the entire Faux News lineup, it is a case of quality versus quantity.
The only problem I see with his show is consistency. Some shows are better than others. The quality depends upon the material provided to him by right-wingers. If the opposition has done something particularly hypocritical or self-serving, then his show profits. If the Republicans have only committed minor transgressions, then his show suffers. Sometimes Jon is forced to look outside the political sphere, on occasions when the Republicans have not done anything particularly bad. Times were easier for his show when Bush was in the White House.
A key difference between Faux News and Jon Stewart is that Jon is willing to criticize Democrats, liberals, and the Obama Administration whenever warranted. He is not completely partisan. Faux News, however, is completely partisan.
The DEA Doesn't Need a Warrant?
A recent case in which DEA agents entered a man's property and planted a GPS tracking device on his car without a warrant is shocking. Even more shocking is that the courts upheld their right to do so. This is an unprecedented power-grab. Apparently it is OK for police to enter anyone's property for any reason and do whatever they like, without notifying or getting approval from a judge. That does seem Orwellian.
The judges who ruled in favor of the DEA must not be aware of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. I am not sure what country the judges think they are living in, but the last time I checked, California was a state of the United States, not a province of Iran. Let us all hope that the court ruling is overturned.
The judges who ruled in favor of the DEA must not be aware of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. I am not sure what country the judges think they are living in, but the last time I checked, California was a state of the United States, not a province of Iran. Let us all hope that the court ruling is overturned.
Independent Thinking
One of the weaknesses in the military is that it creates absolute commands for soldiers to obey without question. Any deviation from rigid rules is punished. The entire military experience is calculated to eliminate independent and creative thinking. There is a danger that soldiers may devolve into little more than killing robots, inept if not incapable of independent judgment.
Lack of independent thinking resulted in this tragedy, in which a young Palestinian girl was needlessly shot by an Israeli captain. The captain should have disobeyed his orders in the name of common humanity and common sense. To shoot anyone, child or adult, male or female, in the back while they are retreating and not carrying anything that could be used as a weapon and have not committed any harm to anyone, demonstrates poor judgment.
Terrorists have created the conditions that resulted in this tragedy by using civilians in plain clothes, of all ages and both genders, to conduct terrorist operations, including surprise suicide bombings and other atrocities. Every Palestinian civilian is potentially a suicide bomber or else an accomplice intended to distract soldiers. There have been bombings directed at Israeli schools, marketplaces, and civilian homes, in which Israeli civilians, including children, are targeted. Terrorists want to kill all Israelis, whether they are soldiers or not. Their strategy betrays a kind of madness and is counterproductive.
Why did the captain shoot his weapon? Violence begets violence, and atrocity follows atrocity. The threads of civilization break down as people observe their neighbors, friends and loved ones getting injured or killed as a direct result of not being paranoid enough.
It was just possible that the girl was sent by terrorists in order to probe Israeli defenses and draw the soldiers out of their positions. A calculation may have been made by the terrorists that, if the girl were shot, it would hand their side a propaganda victory. Terrorists have proven themselves willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to achieve propaganda victories. They are aiming for the hearts and minds and do not seem to care about casualties.
Israel is a republic with proper mechanisms in place, including a free press. Therefore, I believe that the Palestinians should seek redress for their grievances through democratic, legal means, and renounce violence, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. I believe that the Israelis would respond in kind, although patience would be required.
Violence is not the answer. Patience and understanding is the answer. The past cannot be changed. It is recorded in the history books. Everyone can read about it and judge events for themselves. Only the future can be changed. A future with peace, understanding and shared purpose is better than a future with continual conflict and violence. A future with prosperity, education, and freedom of speech is better than a future with poverty, war, and animosity.
Violence is necessary only in regimes where there is no freedom of speech, and the government is a ruthless dictatorship. An example of this would be Iran, the chief sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.
A case in point would be the Roman conquest of Britain. The Romans committed many atrocities. They were ten times worse than the Israelis by any measure one would care to apply. However, in time, the natives accepted the Roman Peace. There were historical wrongs committed by the Romans, but the natives set those events aside and moved forward. They realized that there were advantages brought by the Romans, such as unification, order, trade, luxuries, entertainment, technology, roads, and law. The Romans were not all bad, but were better than some of the alternatives at the time, such as the various barbarian tribes, bandits, and warlords. In time, the natives came to think of themselves as Roman. Like the Romans, the Israelis are not perfect. However, the Israeli state offers many advantages. It is one of the better systems of government in the Middle East. Those who expect a perfection solution or a perfect government will always be disappointed. They will never find what they are looking for.
Lack of independent thinking resulted in this tragedy, in which a young Palestinian girl was needlessly shot by an Israeli captain. The captain should have disobeyed his orders in the name of common humanity and common sense. To shoot anyone, child or adult, male or female, in the back while they are retreating and not carrying anything that could be used as a weapon and have not committed any harm to anyone, demonstrates poor judgment.
Terrorists have created the conditions that resulted in this tragedy by using civilians in plain clothes, of all ages and both genders, to conduct terrorist operations, including surprise suicide bombings and other atrocities. Every Palestinian civilian is potentially a suicide bomber or else an accomplice intended to distract soldiers. There have been bombings directed at Israeli schools, marketplaces, and civilian homes, in which Israeli civilians, including children, are targeted. Terrorists want to kill all Israelis, whether they are soldiers or not. Their strategy betrays a kind of madness and is counterproductive.
Why did the captain shoot his weapon? Violence begets violence, and atrocity follows atrocity. The threads of civilization break down as people observe their neighbors, friends and loved ones getting injured or killed as a direct result of not being paranoid enough.
It was just possible that the girl was sent by terrorists in order to probe Israeli defenses and draw the soldiers out of their positions. A calculation may have been made by the terrorists that, if the girl were shot, it would hand their side a propaganda victory. Terrorists have proven themselves willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to achieve propaganda victories. They are aiming for the hearts and minds and do not seem to care about casualties.
Israel is a republic with proper mechanisms in place, including a free press. Therefore, I believe that the Palestinians should seek redress for their grievances through democratic, legal means, and renounce violence, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. I believe that the Israelis would respond in kind, although patience would be required.
Violence is not the answer. Patience and understanding is the answer. The past cannot be changed. It is recorded in the history books. Everyone can read about it and judge events for themselves. Only the future can be changed. A future with peace, understanding and shared purpose is better than a future with continual conflict and violence. A future with prosperity, education, and freedom of speech is better than a future with poverty, war, and animosity.
Violence is necessary only in regimes where there is no freedom of speech, and the government is a ruthless dictatorship. An example of this would be Iran, the chief sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.
A case in point would be the Roman conquest of Britain. The Romans committed many atrocities. They were ten times worse than the Israelis by any measure one would care to apply. However, in time, the natives accepted the Roman Peace. There were historical wrongs committed by the Romans, but the natives set those events aside and moved forward. They realized that there were advantages brought by the Romans, such as unification, order, trade, luxuries, entertainment, technology, roads, and law. The Romans were not all bad, but were better than some of the alternatives at the time, such as the various barbarian tribes, bandits, and warlords. In time, the natives came to think of themselves as Roman. Like the Romans, the Israelis are not perfect. However, the Israeli state offers many advantages. It is one of the better systems of government in the Middle East. Those who expect a perfection solution or a perfect government will always be disappointed. They will never find what they are looking for.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Spain: More Advanced than the U.S.
Spain now has a nasal spray for medical marijuana patients. Spanish patients can say goodbye to the ill effects arising from smoking.
It would be available in the U.S., too, but--well, we have the DEA to thank for that.
The DEA is opposed to scientific or medical research and all democratic efforts by citizens to remove even the tiniest brick from the wall of Prohibition.
It would be available in the U.S., too, but--well, we have the DEA to thank for that.
The DEA is opposed to scientific or medical research and all democratic efforts by citizens to remove even the tiniest brick from the wall of Prohibition.
In Retrospect... Why Not?
I used to think all Christianity was opposed to homosexuality.
That seemed to be the case in the 1970's, with the exception of MCC, Metropolitan Community Church, which was formed by and for gays.
There used to be so much hostility expressed by Christian leaders, as represented by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, that I despaired of there ever being peace, and viewed Christianity as the great enemy. Voices of moderation seemed few and far between.
Jump to 2010. Now it seems even the Presbyterians are jumping on the gay boat. They join the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians and who knows who else. That is quite a significant chunk of the mainstream Protestant Christian community.
In retrospect, why not? There is nothing inherently about homosexuality that opposes Christianity in any way, shape, or form. As a matter of fact, there are practical benefits that arise for the denomination that welcomes gays. Rather than driving gays and their families away from the Church, the Church is saying, listen, we need you, stay, and join us. Let us worship together.
From a historical point of view, gays have been in the Church forever, and there have been gay Popes. It could be argued that Christianity would not exist today without gays. I think that gays have played a central role in the Church throughout history, in part due to the policy of the Catholic church, which required priests and nuns to remain celibate. Of course, such a rule encouraged gays to join the Church in large numbers and receive the protection, dignity and privileges of the religious class. The rule was intended to keep heterosexuals out of the religious orders, to avoid misunderstandings and resulting scandals, and it was effective.
Before Christianity, gays played the role of medicine man, shaman, and seer.
I remain atheist on philosophical grounds, although I must say, Protestant Christianity is looking more impressive by the minute, especially in contrast to other beliefs such as Catholicism or Islam. The one key ingredient in Protestantism, beautiful and powerful, is its adaptability. Other religions seem carved in stone, fixed in time, denying the reality that is all around them, withering before the piercing light of science. Protestant believers, like their marvelous ancestors, adapt and thrive, as they always have throughout history.
That seemed to be the case in the 1970's, with the exception of MCC, Metropolitan Community Church, which was formed by and for gays.
There used to be so much hostility expressed by Christian leaders, as represented by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, that I despaired of there ever being peace, and viewed Christianity as the great enemy. Voices of moderation seemed few and far between.
Jump to 2010. Now it seems even the Presbyterians are jumping on the gay boat. They join the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians and who knows who else. That is quite a significant chunk of the mainstream Protestant Christian community.
In retrospect, why not? There is nothing inherently about homosexuality that opposes Christianity in any way, shape, or form. As a matter of fact, there are practical benefits that arise for the denomination that welcomes gays. Rather than driving gays and their families away from the Church, the Church is saying, listen, we need you, stay, and join us. Let us worship together.
From a historical point of view, gays have been in the Church forever, and there have been gay Popes. It could be argued that Christianity would not exist today without gays. I think that gays have played a central role in the Church throughout history, in part due to the policy of the Catholic church, which required priests and nuns to remain celibate. Of course, such a rule encouraged gays to join the Church in large numbers and receive the protection, dignity and privileges of the religious class. The rule was intended to keep heterosexuals out of the religious orders, to avoid misunderstandings and resulting scandals, and it was effective.
Before Christianity, gays played the role of medicine man, shaman, and seer.
I remain atheist on philosophical grounds, although I must say, Protestant Christianity is looking more impressive by the minute, especially in contrast to other beliefs such as Catholicism or Islam. The one key ingredient in Protestantism, beautiful and powerful, is its adaptability. Other religions seem carved in stone, fixed in time, denying the reality that is all around them, withering before the piercing light of science. Protestant believers, like their marvelous ancestors, adapt and thrive, as they always have throughout history.
Labor Strikes in China?
What's that? You didn't know that workers had strikes in China? I didn't, either, before today. Officially tolerated strikes, at that. The Chinese workers are fed up with a wage freeze that has lasted two years. So they walked.
My reaction: good for them! Nothing could make me feel better about China than a sign of democratic activity, especially if it is met by official toleration. I think that world leaders should commend China for its respect of worker's rights in those instances where strikes occur that are organized by the workers themselves.
Not everyone feels the way I do, of course. In recent talks, the Japanese government scolded China's Premier for permitting the strikes. Japan has called for "transparent labor policies in China." Translation: no strikes should ever be tolerated for any reason, and workers who strike should be sent to China's version of the Gulag.
I read about this in a recent news article from the Associated Press, which was strangely altered in The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal, because all news regarding workers' rights is ignored, whenever media sources calculate that they can get away with it. Other media outlets chose to focus on China's position regarding North Korea or China's export of rare metals, topics that seem boring by comparison.
Democracy in China would be like a dream come true for the entire world. No greater guarantee of world peace could ever arise than a genuine Chinese Republic--with representatives from Tibet and Taiwan. (Taiwan would probably unify with China, if China evolved into a Republic.) I would like to see the Dalai Lama serving as Speaker of the House in the first Chinese Congress.
The substance of the Associated Press article: "Premier Wen Jiabao told a visiting Japanese delegation Sunday that Japanese companies operating in China should address workers' unhappiness over low wages that he says led to labor disputes this year."
I feel no sympathy for companies that have exported American, Japanese and European jobs over to China, throwing millions of their fellow citizens out of work, all in the name of cheaper labor costs and feeble environmental regulations. Outsourcing to China is an obvious attempt at exploitation, either of our shared planetary environment or of the Chinese.
Our government has permitted the exportation of middle class jobs due to the influence of money in American politics. All the Republicans and many of the Democrats have sold out to wealthy interests. However, the consequences of global warming will harm not only the poor, but the rich robber barons as well, whose descendants will inherit a much different planet Earth from the one that I grew up in. America will be a much different place, as well, with many poor, few rich, and just a tiny middle class.
The rich thought they could dispense with the middle class, but as it turns out, their own destiny is intertwined with that of the professional classes. The wealthy classes, too, will find their privileged lifestyles exported to China or eliminated altogether, although the process is likely to take longer than a single generation.
The biggest problem confronting H. Sapiens at this time regards the inability to appreciate and evaluate very long-term consequences of actions. It is rare to encounter an individual who can plan twenty years in ahead; how much rarer to encounter an individual that can forecast a century ahead. It is clear that many of the rich owners lack the capacity to foresee the long-term consequences of their business decisions. Hence, the problem with global warming and with the reduction of the middle class, which has been historically important in maintaining social order. The appeal of extremes, either communism or fascism, has always been greater to those without much property than to those with vested interests, such as a house, a car, and a college education.
H. Sapiens never needed to see far into the future before, because the environment took care of itself for the most part, barring the occasional flood, drought, earthquake or volcanic explosion. But the times, they are a-changing.
My reaction: good for them! Nothing could make me feel better about China than a sign of democratic activity, especially if it is met by official toleration. I think that world leaders should commend China for its respect of worker's rights in those instances where strikes occur that are organized by the workers themselves.
Not everyone feels the way I do, of course. In recent talks, the Japanese government scolded China's Premier for permitting the strikes. Japan has called for "transparent labor policies in China." Translation: no strikes should ever be tolerated for any reason, and workers who strike should be sent to China's version of the Gulag.
I read about this in a recent news article from the Associated Press, which was strangely altered in The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal, because all news regarding workers' rights is ignored, whenever media sources calculate that they can get away with it. Other media outlets chose to focus on China's position regarding North Korea or China's export of rare metals, topics that seem boring by comparison.
Democracy in China would be like a dream come true for the entire world. No greater guarantee of world peace could ever arise than a genuine Chinese Republic--with representatives from Tibet and Taiwan. (Taiwan would probably unify with China, if China evolved into a Republic.) I would like to see the Dalai Lama serving as Speaker of the House in the first Chinese Congress.
The substance of the Associated Press article: "Premier Wen Jiabao told a visiting Japanese delegation Sunday that Japanese companies operating in China should address workers' unhappiness over low wages that he says led to labor disputes this year."
I feel no sympathy for companies that have exported American, Japanese and European jobs over to China, throwing millions of their fellow citizens out of work, all in the name of cheaper labor costs and feeble environmental regulations. Outsourcing to China is an obvious attempt at exploitation, either of our shared planetary environment or of the Chinese.
Our government has permitted the exportation of middle class jobs due to the influence of money in American politics. All the Republicans and many of the Democrats have sold out to wealthy interests. However, the consequences of global warming will harm not only the poor, but the rich robber barons as well, whose descendants will inherit a much different planet Earth from the one that I grew up in. America will be a much different place, as well, with many poor, few rich, and just a tiny middle class.
The rich thought they could dispense with the middle class, but as it turns out, their own destiny is intertwined with that of the professional classes. The wealthy classes, too, will find their privileged lifestyles exported to China or eliminated altogether, although the process is likely to take longer than a single generation.
The biggest problem confronting H. Sapiens at this time regards the inability to appreciate and evaluate very long-term consequences of actions. It is rare to encounter an individual who can plan twenty years in ahead; how much rarer to encounter an individual that can forecast a century ahead. It is clear that many of the rich owners lack the capacity to foresee the long-term consequences of their business decisions. Hence, the problem with global warming and with the reduction of the middle class, which has been historically important in maintaining social order. The appeal of extremes, either communism or fascism, has always been greater to those without much property than to those with vested interests, such as a house, a car, and a college education.
H. Sapiens never needed to see far into the future before, because the environment took care of itself for the most part, barring the occasional flood, drought, earthquake or volcanic explosion. But the times, they are a-changing.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Iran's Barbarism
Iran's barbarism knows no bounds. They are preparing to stone a woman to death.
The manner in which Iran treats an innocent woman gives an indication as to how Iran will behave once in possession of nuclear weapons. If Iran shows no mercy, justice, or wisdom in its treatment of its own citizens, how much forbearance can the citizens of foreign countries expect?
Here is a description of how the sentence is to be carried out:
It is the radical Muslims who discredit Islam. Not the U.S., Israel, or any other Western country. Incidents such as this explain the distaste that many Westerners have for Islam, including the so-called "far-right" political parties in Europe, who have no desire to see this kind of barbarism introduced into their own society. It is high time for Islamic countries to emerge from the Middle Ages and respect the rights of women, gays, and minorities. Abandoning torture as a punishment would be a good first step. Freedom of speech would be a second.
The manner in which Iran treats an innocent woman gives an indication as to how Iran will behave once in possession of nuclear weapons. If Iran shows no mercy, justice, or wisdom in its treatment of its own citizens, how much forbearance can the citizens of foreign countries expect?
Here is a description of how the sentence is to be carried out:
The Islamic Penal Code of Iran is very specific regarding the details of how stoning should be executed. Article 102 states that men shall be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the execution. Article 104 states, referring to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should “not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes; nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones (pebbles).” In some cases, if a victim can escape from the ditch during the stoning, they will be freed. However, because women are buried up to their breasts and men only at their waists, women will have a smaller chance of escaping than men.
-from The Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women.
It is the radical Muslims who discredit Islam. Not the U.S., Israel, or any other Western country. Incidents such as this explain the distaste that many Westerners have for Islam, including the so-called "far-right" political parties in Europe, who have no desire to see this kind of barbarism introduced into their own society. It is high time for Islamic countries to emerge from the Middle Ages and respect the rights of women, gays, and minorities. Abandoning torture as a punishment would be a good first step. Freedom of speech would be a second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)