The increasing polarization of American politics and culture has many people concerned for the future of our great Republic. After much careful consideration and not a little hand-wringing, I've come up with six ways to bring the right- and left-wings of the socio-political spectrum into a more perfect union.
1) Baby Oil
The right has called repeatedly for opening up more domestic sources of energy, with slogans such as "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!" Meanwhile, the political left has supported innovation in renewable energy and (apparently unrelatedly) put its weight behind Roe v. Wade, which has allowed for an average of 1.3 million legally induced abortions per year since it was handed down. That is a massive amount of organic material which currently goes almost completely to waste. If we can only find a new method by which to fuel our vehicles and power plants using human fetuses instead of fossil fuels, surely both sides can come together and encourage abortion doctors to "Drill, Baby, Drill!" our way to national energy independence.
2) Single-payer sterilization
This one is such a win/win it is practically a no-brainer. The left has been clamoring for population control from time immemorial, from Margaret Sanger to Paul Ehrlich to the activists at www.VHEMT.org; more recently they have also been clamoring for single-payer health care here in the U.S. Meanwhile, the right has been up in arms over abortion, bastardy, and transfer payments to single mothers. In the future, we can greatly reduce all these social ills and the human population itself by the simple expedient of universal mandatory reversible vasectomies for men and removable implants for women, both funded by the national health service and reversed upon request for those who can present a legal marriage certificate. The right will take consolation in the fact that only married heterosexuals will be allowed to create babies henceforth, while the left will finally enjoy the implementation of effective population control. As an added bonus, this policy will also have the effect of slowing if not halting the prevalence of dysgenic breeding, feared by right-wing intellectuals such as Charles Murray for decades. Naturally, this reform would make my first proposal obsolete, so we'll have find some way to wean ourselves off of fetal fuels prior to implementation.
3) Occupy Ball St.
Left-wing liberals love nothing so much as a crowd of rowdy hippies protesting the powers that be, while right-wing troglodytes apparently cannot get enough of college football. What better way to combine these two activities than to recruit a crowd of angry young hipsters to support Cardinals football? They have an 0-5 record in Division I bowl games, having been outscored by a total score of 184-97, so there is little risk that they will ever become part of the top 1% of NCAA football. If you're going gather together a crowd of discontented losers, why not gather two? Perhaps by rubbing elbows with sports fans, the protest crowd will finally realize that it is utterly hopeless to try to fix America, and then they can get back to serious endeavors like finishing up their degrees in [historically oppressed group of choice] studies.
4) War on Poverty
Generally, progressives support social safety nets and transfer payments as a means for promoting the national welfare, while conservatives support the notion that warfare is the health of the state. Why not combine these two notions into a modern synthesis? Instead of leaving our war veterans to find a job and fend for themselves upon returning to the homeland, we can recruit them to fight poverty by hunting down and killing the Wall Street bankers who wrecked the global economy in the first place. Naturally, the soldiers would be ordered to redistribute all wealth liberated from the clutches of the bankers in the form of transfer payments to the desperately needy. As the result of this policy, the left will get to realize their goal of eradicating poverty, while the right may rightly revel in the fact that patriotic American soldiers get to go on killing enemies of the state.
5) Church-state integration
On its face, this might seem like a total capitulation of the secular left to the religious right, but please hear me out. Once the wall of separation is torn down, the government can start paying churches directly to fund their building campaigns and charitable programs, and then threaten to withhold funding if the churches don't live up to strict anti-discrimination laws interpreted by a panel of west-coast liberal activist judges. If you can think of a quicker way to get Southern Baptists to offer marriage counseling and adoption planning to interracial gay couples, I'd like to hear it.
6) $2.50 / gallon gas -- On the moon!
This one should be self-explanatory. The left loves funding research and scientific advances, while the right loves oil subsidies and cheap gasoline. What better way to combine the two than to develop lunar colonies wholly dependent upon fossil fuels? Granted, a few million years of terraforming seems like a huge up-front investment, but we have to learn to take the long view.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Contra Bacon
Every faith community is occasionally riven over matters of doctrine and practice, and this goes for communities of unfaith as much as anyone else. Those who see themselves as reformers may be recorded by history as splitters, heretics, or worse. Acutely aware of these issues, it is with great trepidation that I have come to the conclusion that I must speak out against bacon.
That's right, bacon. It is growing threat to the freethought community, and I'm here to warn you against it. Firstly, it is an explicitly pro-Christian food. Allow me to quote just a bit from the late great Christopher Hitchens on this point, from God is Not Great (pp. 40-41):
Five years ago, Hitchens warned us of the potentially evil uses of bacon, but many devout atheists have refused to heed his warnings. Instead, they continue to interject bacon into conversation and inject it into recipes, with wanton disregard of the role it has historically played in enforcing Christian dominionism throughout the Iberian peninsula.
Why, you ask, are Christians so keen on bacon? Is it merely a means of distinguishing themselves from Jews and Muslims, or does this perverse porcophilia go deeper? It goes deeper, my friends, it goes so much deeper, to the very roots of the Christian Church.
The two great pillars of the early church were, of course, the apostles Paul and Peter. Paul's mission was to bring the Christian gospel to the Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire, peoples already quite familiar with and indulgent in all manner of pork products. His major hangup was with the practice of circumcising new Christian converts as if they were Jews, a ritual requirement which was not exactly helping along his missionary efforts, and which he helped to abolish by writing various screeds against it. Needless to say, new converts flowed in more rapidly once this issue was definitively settled in Paul's favor.
Peter's mission, meanwhile, was primarily to bring the Jews into the Christian fold, men who were circumcised from birth but may have been well educated and culturally Hellenized. For these men, circumcision was not a live issue, but pork surely was. In major centers of Roman influence such as Sepphoris and Caesarea, first century Jews would have seen their Gentile neighbors herding swine, pulling pork, and frying bacon. They would also be aware from their rabbinical training that God changes the dietary rules every so often, such as just after the Noahic flood and again with the proclamation of the Levitical holiness code. They would also know that any true Messiah would bring with him a new order of the ages, the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God, and with that the possibility of a new set of social relations and dietary rules. Jesus alluded to such an upheaval when he repeatedly proclaimed that "the last will be first, and the first will be last," but did that saying apply only to persons, or also to that which they consume? Would the most ritually unclean of animals be cleared for human consumption in the new dispensation?
With the smell of frying bacon still wafting about, Peter fretted over this question day and night, until finally the answer came to him in a dream. It looked something like this. Take a moment to browse through those illustrations, please. I'll wait.
Ok, did you notice anything particularly odd about those heavenly picnic blankets? Right. Most of those animals either aren't that appealing (reptiles), or they are incredibly hard to get (e.g. lions and bears), or they are already kosher. The only domesticated animal on the menu that clearly appeals with the Hellenized Jews of the time period was, you guessed it, the pigs. Peter's amazing heavenly flying-carpet picnic-blanket at once solves the problem of how to give the men who are already circumcised an incentive to join the nascent Jesus movement - BACON!
In conclusion, then, we've seen that the two great pillars of the early Christian church solved similar recruitment problems in a similar way, by assimilating themselves to the culture of the gentile polytheists. In doing so, however, they sealed the fate of the Christian church forever. No longer could it maintain its identity as an insular Jewish sect, but instead it has to look outward for new converts, leading eventually to global colonization and the wholesale destruction of native peoples by viruses originally endemic to Indo-European swine herds.
Do freethinkers really want to associate ourselves with an animal that has wrought so much harm in the name of Christ? Or shall we instead stand boldly on the side of all that is right and good and pure, namely, pasta? The FSM will no longer tolerate second-billing to this upstart bacon meme. There can be only ONE truly HOLY food. Pastafarians of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your hypercholesterolemia.
That's right, bacon. It is growing threat to the freethought community, and I'm here to warn you against it. Firstly, it is an explicitly pro-Christian food. Allow me to quote just a bit from the late great Christopher Hitchens on this point, from God is Not Great (pp. 40-41):
Porcophilia can also be used for oppressive and repressive purposes. In medieval Spain, where Jews and Muslims were compelled on pain of death and torture to convert to Christianity, the religious authorities quite rightly suspected that many of the conversions were not sincere. Indeed, the Inquisition arose partly from the holy dread that secret infidels were attending Mass—where of course, and even more disgustingly, they were pretending to eat human flesh and drink human blood, in the person of Christ himself. Among the customs that arose in consequence was the offering, at most events formal and informal, of a plate of charcuterie. Those who have been fortunate enough to visit Spain, or any good Spanish restaurant, will be familiar with the gesture of hospitality: literally dozens of pieces of differently cured, differently sliced pig. But the grim origin of this lies in a constant effort to sniff out heresy, and to be unsmilingly watchful for giveaway expressions of distaste. In the hands of eager Christian fanatics, even the toothsome Jamon Iberico could be pressed into service as a form of torture.
Five years ago, Hitchens warned us of the potentially evil uses of bacon, but many devout atheists have refused to heed his warnings. Instead, they continue to interject bacon into conversation and inject it into recipes, with wanton disregard of the role it has historically played in enforcing Christian dominionism throughout the Iberian peninsula.
Why, you ask, are Christians so keen on bacon? Is it merely a means of distinguishing themselves from Jews and Muslims, or does this perverse porcophilia go deeper? It goes deeper, my friends, it goes so much deeper, to the very roots of the Christian Church.
The two great pillars of the early church were, of course, the apostles Paul and Peter. Paul's mission was to bring the Christian gospel to the Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire, peoples already quite familiar with and indulgent in all manner of pork products. His major hangup was with the practice of circumcising new Christian converts as if they were Jews, a ritual requirement which was not exactly helping along his missionary efforts, and which he helped to abolish by writing various screeds against it. Needless to say, new converts flowed in more rapidly once this issue was definitively settled in Paul's favor.
Peter's mission, meanwhile, was primarily to bring the Jews into the Christian fold, men who were circumcised from birth but may have been well educated and culturally Hellenized. For these men, circumcision was not a live issue, but pork surely was. In major centers of Roman influence such as Sepphoris and Caesarea, first century Jews would have seen their Gentile neighbors herding swine, pulling pork, and frying bacon. They would also be aware from their rabbinical training that God changes the dietary rules every so often, such as just after the Noahic flood and again with the proclamation of the Levitical holiness code. They would also know that any true Messiah would bring with him a new order of the ages, the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God, and with that the possibility of a new set of social relations and dietary rules. Jesus alluded to such an upheaval when he repeatedly proclaimed that "the last will be first, and the first will be last," but did that saying apply only to persons, or also to that which they consume? Would the most ritually unclean of animals be cleared for human consumption in the new dispensation?
With the smell of frying bacon still wafting about, Peter fretted over this question day and night, until finally the answer came to him in a dream. It looked something like this. Take a moment to browse through those illustrations, please. I'll wait.
Ok, did you notice anything particularly odd about those heavenly picnic blankets? Right. Most of those animals either aren't that appealing (reptiles), or they are incredibly hard to get (e.g. lions and bears), or they are already kosher. The only domesticated animal on the menu that clearly appeals with the Hellenized Jews of the time period was, you guessed it, the pigs. Peter's amazing heavenly flying-carpet picnic-blanket at once solves the problem of how to give the men who are already circumcised an incentive to join the nascent Jesus movement - BACON!
In conclusion, then, we've seen that the two great pillars of the early Christian church solved similar recruitment problems in a similar way, by assimilating themselves to the culture of the gentile polytheists. In doing so, however, they sealed the fate of the Christian church forever. No longer could it maintain its identity as an insular Jewish sect, but instead it has to look outward for new converts, leading eventually to global colonization and the wholesale destruction of native peoples by viruses originally endemic to Indo-European swine herds.
Do freethinkers really want to associate ourselves with an animal that has wrought so much harm in the name of Christ? Or shall we instead stand boldly on the side of all that is right and good and pure, namely, pasta? The FSM will no longer tolerate second-billing to this upstart bacon meme. There can be only ONE truly HOLY food. Pastafarians of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your hypercholesterolemia.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
What's up with the 1% - Trends in annual income
Yesterday, I posted very briefly on the topic of whether the very rich are getting richer and thereby driving the mostly peaceful youth uprising we've seen in the streets and parks of major American cities. I am satisfied that the overall wealth inequality in our society hasn't changed that much in my lifetime, at least according to the numbers given in table two of this report. Today's graph is about income disparity over time, and the data are from the same table, which are ultimately derived from the Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board.
(click to enlarge)
Here we can see two things right off the bat. Firstly, the top %1 are indeed taking more and more money home each year, as the red portion of the chart climbs erratically from 12.8 to 21.3% of the total income. Secondly, the next 19% of earners are holding relatively steady over time, as the overall shape of the entire graph is being driven by the shape of the 1% in red. So maybe the protesters really are on to something when they pin the blame on the 1% for the current state of affairs.
It is unclear to me, however, why people should feel worse off just because some other people are getting better off, although I've heard it is a well-documented aspect of human nature. Next time, we'll look at whether the middle class is itself being squeezed.
Friday, October 7, 2011
What's up with the 1% - Trends in net worth
Last night on TRMS we were treated to this graph of percentage income increases over the years. It made me think, is annual income what this is really about? I had been given to understand that the problem is wealth disparity, rather than income disparity. Maybe, though, I've been misled, so let's look at the numbers.
On the theory that wealth disparity might actually be a major component of the collective angst, I dug into this report to find out how net worth (defined on page 6) has trended since 1983:
(click to enlarge)
The results shown above (taken from table 2 on page 44) were really quite surprising, at least to me. It turns out that the top 1% aren't going gangbusters after all, at least not if the Levy Economics Institute is to be trusted on such matters. Moreover, to the extent that the top earners are getting even wealthier, it is primarily on account of the top 5%, rather than the top 1% which have been trending flat for two and a half decades. So, five-percenters, consider yourself warned. Once the rabble eat the super-rich, you're next.
Tomorrow: Income trends
On the theory that wealth disparity might actually be a major component of the collective angst, I dug into this report to find out how net worth (defined on page 6) has trended since 1983:
The results shown above (taken from table 2 on page 44) were really quite surprising, at least to me. It turns out that the top 1% aren't going gangbusters after all, at least not if the Levy Economics Institute is to be trusted on such matters. Moreover, to the extent that the top earners are getting even wealthier, it is primarily on account of the top 5%, rather than the top 1% which have been trending flat for two and a half decades. So, five-percenters, consider yourself warned. Once the rabble eat the super-rich, you're next.
Tomorrow: Income trends
Monday, July 4, 2011
Celebrate Freedom
On account of my wife's pleadings and our mutual lack of closet space, I had to get rid of a number of old t-shirts this morning. Among them was an old favorite with an American flag pictured waving across the front, and the phrase "Celebrate Freedom" emblazoned thereunder.
I would love to celebrate freedom, but it's difficult to do so when I cannot help but thinking of how many of our fellow citizens we deprive of liberty when compared to other nations whom we condescending think of as less libertarian than ourselves. You can lie to yourself and blithely "celebrate freedom" as if we Americans enjoy liberties that other developed countries are sorely lacking, or else you can get real and do something to address the underlying problems which have lead to our current status as the world's leading jailer.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Happy Independence Day!
Signage at Moore Liquor
Photo credit: Danny Wallace
Today is July 2nd, the anniversary of the date in 1776 on which the Second Continental Congress voted to formally cut legal ties with Great Britain by adopting the Lee Resolution. This momentous event prompted John Adams to write the following to his wife on July 3rd:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more...Turns out he was only off by a couple of days, because Americans were so taken with the wording of the subsequent declaration of independence to the British that they pretty much disregarded the fact that the colonies had formally voted for independence two days earlier. A cynic might say that the triumph of style over substance in American self-governance took all of 48 hours, but the full story is just a bit more complicated, but we'll not go into it just now.
According to Professor James R. Heintze, one of the first celebrations of the 4th of July took place two years later, in 1778, as "General George Washington direct[ed] his army to put 'green boughs' in their hats, issue[d] them a double allowance of rum, and order[ed] a Fourth of July artillery salute" from his headquarters in New Jersey.
Which brings me to the problem of rum. I'm a fan of rum, especially Puerto Rican rum, and it seems that we Okies cannot buy any rum on July 4th (because it is Independence Day) or on July 3rd (because it is the Lord's Day). So, if I want to celebrate July 4th in grand Washingtonian style, with a double helping of my favorite rum, I've got to get my ass out to the liquor store today. On that note, I'm off to Moore Liquor, because it seems that they alone are willing to publicly condemn the foolishness and irony of celebrating our national independence by curtailing our individual liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)