Sneaking Under

Confucius knew a lot of things 2,500 years ago that many people still don’t seem to understand in America today. I recently finished reading the entire text of The Analects of Confucius: A New-Millennium Translation Translated and annotated by David H. Li (ISBN: 0-9637852-8-1).

My understanding is that previous translations were not very good and were often confusing or did not correctly reflect what Confucius was trying to say. If you’re going to undertake reading this, which I recommend, I highly recommend you don’t just pick up any old copy but try to find this one. It might be hard to find (I’m not sure), but it would be worth it if you can.

Since I so often end up writing about how I don’t really understand the rest of humanity, I thought for a change I would write about someone who just seems to get things. I find Confucius very inspiring, so I want to just go through a few of the things he said. All quotes herein are from the book mentioned above. I won’t be able to include all of the pearls I found, because I liked so many.

A quick glossary of a few important words:
Gentleman: How Li translated Junzi, “a person with worthy attributes.”
Nobleness: How Li translated ren, which he says Confucius saw as “the ultimate — an aggregation of all worthy attributes in a human being.”
Direction: How Li translated dao, “the approach one needs to follow to obtain nobleness — at at the personal level, to be a gentleman and beyond; at the public level to be a righteous administrator and beyond.”
The Master: Confucius.

1.14: The Master said: “A gentleman eats without expecting satiation, lives without expecting luxury, and is diligent in work and careful with words — these are steps to the right Direction. Such a person is a student of learning.”

2.15: The Master said: “Learning without thinking is pointless. Thinking without learning is precarious.”

4.11: The Master said: “A gentleman focuses on virtue; a common man, on land. A gentleman focuses on civic responsibilities; a common man, on gaining advantage.”

In 1.14 he talks about how one should do things because of the good that can come out of them, to do things because they are in keeping with Direction, not because one expects to get luxury or happiness out of it. It is not enough to try to be happy; one must be good. In America we put too much importance on happiness. America teaches that it is OK or even good to be out for personal gain, to be out there putting one’s personal happiness on top of the list of important things, and screw anyone else. That is a big issue I think our society has. Confucius knew this, even in those days, yet we have not come to grasp this. 4.11 also points to that.

I think 2.15 is connected to those because of the way we educate people in the US. We need to teach people to think and to want to pursue learning. Many people think that once they get out of high school they have learned all that is government mandated that they learn, and they don’t need to do anymore. This attitude is dangerous, and does not advance Direction.

7.3: The Master said: “Failing to promote virtue, failing to disseminate learning, failing to respond to what is right, and failing to correct what is not good — these are my worries.”

These are my worries too! He gets it! It concerns me that more people are not worried about this. At least, if they are, they don’t spend much time talking about it. Maybe the fundamentalist Christians do, but some of the things they think are right are not in keeping with what Confucius or I would consider noble.

8.10: The Master Said: “One who has courage but resents poverty leads to violence. One who is without nobleness but resents others leads to violence.”

This is America! Why is there violence in our population? Poverty. Why is there war? Our leaders are not noble, but they resent others; so they attack other countries and start wars.

12.16: The Master said: “A gentleman helps with others’ good deeds, but refrains from participating in others’ sinister plans. A common man does the opposite.”

In America we are lacking in the good deeds but have no end of sinister plans. Just think if we were more careful of who we helped.

13.26: The Master said: “A gentleman is content but not pompous. A common man is pompous but not content.”

14.21: The Master said: “Those who are unashamed of boastful words are the same ones who find it difficult to make good on what they have said.”

13.26 made me immediately think of Glenn Beck and his peers. Pompous and sure as hell not content. Hence, he is not working toward virtue. 14.21 made me think of those pundits as well as politicians. They’re full of promises, but how often are they kept?

15.21: The Master said: “A gentleman demands of himself. A common man demands of others.”

15.22: The Master said: “A gentleman is self-respecting but not aggressive, is gregarious but not clannish.”

15.23: The Master said: “A gentleman does not recommend a person merely because of that person’s eloquence, nor disregard a person’s words merely because of that person’s reputation.” [footnote from Li:] In context, reputation is used in the negative sense — a lack of reputation, or even notoriety — perhaps due to that person’s low social status, such as being a recluse.

15.28: The Master said: “Be observant of a person whom the crowd dislike unanimously. Be observant of a person whom the crowd like unanimously.” [footnote from Li:] This passage may be viewed as an extension of an earlier saying that a gentleman is not clannish (15.22), that he must think independently and on his own.

Good advice for everyone. In this country I think we allow too much for aggressiveness, assuming more often than not that aggressive is good — actually, it is usually bad. As for 15.23, our politicians often get elected because of their eloquence, which isn’t a very good reason to put someone in power. Also, many people don’t trust the testimony of a prostitute, for example, just because of what she does for a living. This is wrong.

As in 15.28, Confucius often points out the danger of just going with the majority. In the US, the majority is often thought of as some kind of authority, just because there are many of them. This is a negative product of Democracy. Just because many believe it does not make it right.

19.6: Zi-xia [disciple of Confucius] said: “When one reads widely and holds his aspiration steadily, asks anxiously and thinks about his surroundings perceptively — he is on target to reach nobleness.”

This is what I strive to do, and what I believe we should all strive to do. I say it a lot: critical thinking. We need to be thinking, observing, and attempting to be the best people that we can. We need to focus less on our own happiness and more on making the world a better place for everyone. Happiness is not the ultimate goal for me — goodness is, nobleness as Confucius spoke of it is.

Happiness is not a goal, but it can be a side-effect of life (although it isn’t always). If it is not, there are still other reasons to go on living. Happiness is not the end-all be-all of existence. I think that I disagree with much of western society in this belief, as it seems happiness is very highly regarded here.

Confucius lived so long ago, yet was still so much wiser than many people alive today. I only wish that I could begin to become more like him and his ideals. I only hope that we all could and would.

Today I came across this article about a grad student who didn’t want to learn about counseling gays or have contact with gays, even though the school’s program required it. Of course, a judge ruled against her. Either she completes the work, or the school doesn’t have to pass her. Makes sense to me.

If someone can’t or won’t complete the work, she cannot get the degree. But this woman seemed to think that a special exception should be made for her because dealing with gay people was “against her beliefs.”

[Image source: Getty Images]
She’s not listening. La, la, la, la.

This phrase gets thrown around a lot lately. Some people seem to think that freedom of religion implies things it does not, for one, and they seem to think that all beliefs fall under that category, for another.

Let me put it this way: an Orthodox Jew has freedom of religion in this country, and no one can force him to eat or handle pork. This Orthodox Jew would also not become a pig farmer because he would not want to be associated with the slaughter of pigs for food. Simple enough.

If this man, for some reason, applied for a job as a pig farmer and then when he was hired announced that he was not about to do the duties of the job, he would be fired. It would not fall under freedom of religion if he wanted to sue to get his job back. The court would not force the pig farm to hire him back to sit around and do nothing.

In the same vein, if someone does not want to work with gay people, she should not take a job that would require her to. She cannot take the job then refuse certain clients.

The same is true of pharmacists. If one does not want to dispense the morning after pill, as required by the job, then he should not be a pharmacist. Also, the woman’s freedoms allow her to pick up that drug, and the pharmacists beliefs cannot be allowed overrule her rights.

The same is also true of the recent story I read about a Muslim bus driver who would not let a guide dog on the bus. The law requires that he do so. If he does not want to let the dog on the bus, he needs to get a new job.

This also makes me think back to a story that was out around the time that An Inconvenient Truth came out. There was a young man receiving media attention (I remember it being on Fox News, of course) because he did not want to be required to watch the movie for his class. Why? Because he did not believe in global warming.

I’m sorry, what? This one is extra stupid. Firstly, how can he know he doesn’t believe in it if he refuses to listen to what the film has to say? Secondly, he must have been pretty insecure in those beliefs if he was afraid his weak mind would not be able to resist the facts therein, that he would somehow be forced to change his mind on the issue.

If he thinks the knowledge will alter his beliefs then he would rather remain ignorant. And it’s his right to maintain his ignorance, right? No, no it is not. If you need to ignore things to maintain a belief, what good is that belief? Plenty of people have managed to watch the movie and still don’t have the brains to see that global warming is real, so why should this kid think he is so special?

It seems that some people are becoming confused. They seem to think all opinions are covered under freedom of religion, and that beliefs allow someone to bypass requirements. It simply means that you have the right to quit your job if you don’t want to dispense the morning after pill, or you can have another pharmacist distribute it. Either suck it up and do what is required or leave. Those are the options these people are free to enjoy.

As an atheist I am not going to become a preacher, get hired by a church, and then refuse to talk about god. If I did, I would expect them to be within their rights to fire me. That’s how the world works.

This article is an update to the article entitled Mosques in Your Town: It’s Called America.

I want to take a moment to encourage you to speak up if you support freedom of religion, if you support the right of Muslims to build their places of worship in the U.S. The media tends to focus on those against Muslims and ignore those Americans who support the rights of Muslims in America. Those of thus who want to uphold the constitution rather than take away the rights of a specific group are not being heard.

Recently, I came across this copy-and-paste Facebook status:

If you think that putting up a mosque anywhere near the ground zero and having the inauguration on the anniversary 09/11/11, is immoral, inhuman and a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that perished there on that day and the survivors. If you believe that’s doing a grave injustice to the fallen heroes, their families, let alone the entire country, THEN COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL.

I was very upset about this. Once again, the spread of hatred was being encouraged. I saw no such copy-and-paste status for the support of mosque building; so, I wrote this one:

To attack the freedom of Muslims to build a cultural center wherever they want, law permitting (it does), is to attack the freedom of religion of ALL Americans. There’s been a mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero for 40 yrs. We were NOT attacked by all Muslims on 9/11 but by single a group of terrorists. Hatred of Muslims doesn’t honor the dead. I stand up for their right to build; I stand up for Freedom in America.

The above is exactly 420 characters, the limit for a Facebook status, so if you copy and paste, be sure Facebook does not insert any additional line-breaks, as that will make it too many characters. If you want to encourage your friends to copy and paste it or pass it on, you can write a comment to the status, like I did, or you can also link this page and let it explain for you (http://sneakingunder.com/?p=290).

I encourage you to spread it, to write your own, or to speak out in favor of religious freedoms in other ways. It is becoming too commonplace to speak ill of Muslims, and that is not right. All people have freedom of religion in America, and we must protect that.

My mother-in-law recently relayed a story about how she was recently eating dinner with some people she didn’t know well, and they started talking about how all Muslims are out to get Americans. It was something along the lines that they wanted to cut off all of our heads or something equally ridiculous, but they were totally serious. She asked them if they really believed that, and they said yes. They thought that it was acceptable to announce this to someone they had just met.

The idea that that kind of bigotry and hatred is becoming that acceptable frightens me. We must let these people know if we disagree with them and why they are wrong. We cannot let the voice of hatred be the only one heard, as it is often very loud. Seeing someone I knew in high school posting that message of hatred on Facebook scared me. Seeing my friends support my status made me feel like there were at least some sane people remaining in this country, and we all need to know that others like us exist.

According to a recent CNN poll, only 29% of people support a mosque near ground zero. 68% are against. Apparently there aren’t many of us, but at least there are some of us.

As an added bonus, here is another update from a recent episode of The Daily Show. I like that they continue to cover the issue, and are willing, unlike mainstream news in America, to say that the mosque opposition is flat out wrong and bigoted.

Also, thanks to another one of my Facebook friends, here is Keith Olbermann explaining how there is no “Ground Zero Mosque.” It starts out slow, but stay to the end, the end is pretty awesome.

Thank you for listening, and spread the word.

Truth. Most days I fear I am starving from lack of real information, something that I can verify to be honest fact. Everything has spin. I realize that in reality there is no truly objective point of view, it’s all been shaken around in the mixer of someone’s mind before hitting the page, but this thing we call spin is a monster of its own. It haunts my dreams at night, and my waking hours as well.

Whether it’s some atheist stereotypes in a blatantly false video someone posts on Facebook, or a story from an American “news” outlet, you can bet the percentage of Truth is pretty small. Sometimes I don’t know where to focus my rage, there are so many lies around. For now, let’s take a look at the video that one of my friends on Facebook posted. This isn’t the first time I have seen it, nor will it probably be the last. Sigh.

Blatantly false video. Will not keep you thinking in the sense that they mean.

If you don’t want to watch it, that is fine. Save yourself! I will give you the highlights so that you don’t have to lose the four minutes of your life that could be better spent doing, well, anything else. An evil atheist stereotype (this time a professor) scares all of his students into keeping silent on the issue of the existence of god. Evil atheist prof. spends all semester of his philosophy class on the issue (because that’s what they’re paying for), and no one is willing to stand up when he asks if anyone still believes in god. At the end of each semester he drops a piece of chalk, stating that god should be able to keep it from breaking if he exists. Every year it breaks. Until Super Christian Freshman spends all semester praying and stands up to him. Then the chalk rolls off the unnamed (if he exists, what is his name?) prof’s pants and doesn’t break. Professor Blank, for an unexplained reason, runs from the room, Super Christian Freshman talks for thirty minutes about Jesus, and not one student leaves the room because they are so enthralled.

I don’t know where to start. It’s an offensive stereotype, for one. Evil liberal atheists trying to corrupt our college students, who so badly want to keep loving Jesus, but they can’t because… why is that again? Oh yeah, they’re weak (it’s not me saying that, it’s the video). I can guarantee you that if this class actually managed to go on as depicted in the video (it wouldn’t) at Knox College, for example, where I went to school (a very liberal school), there would always be at least one person in class who would stand up to say they believed in god. There would be more than one, I’d wager. That premise is absurd. There’s always at least someone willing to disagree when asked.

I could get into things like the chalk, and how it is highly unlikely that it would break every time, probably less likely than it randomly hitting some guy’s pants, but that’s not really as important as the people in the story. And, boy, this is a story with some of the worst characters I have ever seen. They are totally unrealistic. The professor stakes his whole claim on a chalk-dropping experiment? Yeah, right. By the way, unless they can recreate the praying and chalk-not-breaking scenerio, the findings cannot be conclusive on god. But the people who made this video can’t be expected to understand elementary science. Big Bad Atheist Professor runs crying from the room? No way. Especially a philosophy professor. It’s a class; there would be a discussion on what just happened. Besides, running off crying is so unprofessional.

Then there is Super Jesus Boy. Yes, he’s the only one who stood up… wait, isn’t that the most cliche thing you have ever heard? Me, too. I’m surprised his classmates didn’t all stand up (slowly at first, one or two, until the whole room is standing). They could also start slowly clapping and, well, you’ve seen all of the movies already so you know how that sort of thing works. Then, my favorite part, once the professor is gone, and class could be over, some dork gets up in front of class and starts talking about Jesus, and no one leaves. This is not going to be on the exam. No professor means no class, at least in the college world I knew and loved. I certainly wouldn’t have listened to the boy.

They said I had two choices. Pass it on or forget I saw it. I chose option three, tear it apart. Take that, propaganda. That’s what you get for trying to guilt people into spreading your lies.

Why do people keep passing this on? Because they don’t care if it’s true. If I asked them, they would probably still swear it was true, no matter what I said. If I used my evil logic on them they might eventually say that it’s a parable meant to teach a lesson. Either way, the fact that the whole thing never happened would mean nothing to them. It wouldn’t shake their faith. It doesn’t shake my faith that a god does not exist to see it, which I can only guess is what they were hoping would happen. It’s something for Christians to rally around. They can all comment on how great god is and bond over their shared ideas, as well as the fact that they feel they are above the evil atheists.

That’s the problem with the Truth. Most people don’t seem to care what’s true, only what suits them. That doesn’t suit me. I need the Truth to be known. I resist the urge to reply to the posting of the video because the people always shake their heads at the silly atheist and how I don’t understand their faith before moving on to post more of the same. I don’t have the energy for it. Sometimes it makes me feel like I have failed in my duty to stand up (there’s that cliche phrase again) for Truth. That’s why I have to post something like this. To keep the insanity away, just for a little while longer.

Disclaimers are everywhere. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d think life is risky. We all know that when we go swimming there is a chance that something could go horribly wrong, and we could drown. Signs warning us to “swim at own risk” aren’t really about safety and warning. Such signs are there for the expressed purpose of denying responsibility for, well, anything one can put on a sign. The grocery store does not want to get sued for the cost of repairing your car if a cart hits it, even if it is the job of the company to make sure its employees go out and wrangle said carts.

[Image from here.]

The website selling the above sign, and many other such signs, boasts:

Decrease your liability with a simple, effective “Not Responsible” sign. Not only do these signs limit your responsibility, but they also promote personal responsibility and respect for your property. –mysecuritysign.com

It’s easy to see whence this idea came. America is the land of the lawsuit, and companies didn’t want to get sued. It seems to me, though, that companies don’t want to be held responsible for anything that happens on their watches. There has to be a limit to what you can disclaim, right?

My husband recently told me he used to be confused about the meaning of the word responsibility when he was a kid, because it seemed that any time adults were using the word they were trying to make someone else accountable. When someone else says, “This is your responsibility,” what they’re really saying is “This is not my responsibility.” It’s like the childhood response of “He started it!” The cry that says: even though I was involved, someone else is to blame. In reality, we should be teaching our children that anyone who is involved in responsible.

It’s especially difficult in a democratic society not only to point to who is to blame for any given problem, because so many people are involved in the process but, more importantly, to point to who is responsible for fixing a problem. Sometimes people blame whomever is president at the time, whether he deserves it or not. Blame is the less important of the two issues. Who will fix our problems is more important.

Elected officials are more concerned with not stinking up the place, not doing anything wrong to get the attention of the voters, than they are of making a real difference. If they try to make a real difference and mess up, the voters will notice and vote them out. If they sit there and do nothing wrong, but everything stays the same, more often than not they will get voted back in. Where’s the motivation?

When I was a kid, teachers often gave us predictions of what would happen in our lifetimes. One told us that my generation would have more careers than generations past, something like five careers. This concerned me. They also told us that even though since the depression each generation has had it better than the generations before, ours would be the first to be overall worse off than our parents. That makes me think they had some advanced warning of this economic depression.

Yet, beyond warning us, their generation did little to nothing to change that dire prediction. I thought maybe we’d only be as bad off as our grandparents’ generation. I didn’t think that maybe we’d be going farther back than that. Maybe much farther–we don’t really know yet how this is all going to work out. Perhaps they could say to themselves, “Well, we warned them. It’s up to them now.” No, my friends, a disclaimer was not good enough this time. It’s not good enough any time.

[Image from here.]
If the playground is not responsible for making sure the equipment is safe, who is?

These kinds of warnings come with no assurance on the part of the sign-poster that they will also be doing their part to ensure that you are not going to drown in their pool. There is no assertion that they will be diligent in removal of carts from the lot or thieves from their premises. All that matters is who is at fault: you, and who is not at fault: them.

We need to be careful about what we teach the younger generations, about themselves and about ourselves. I’ll leave you with this excerpt from The Postman by David Brin that always comes to mind when I think about humankind and responsibility. There is, according to legend, a supercomputer in this post-apocalyptic world who is helping mankind survive. The main character imagines that he hears this in the ever-repeating blinking of its lights, always the same pattern:

Who will take responsibility now, for these foolish children? …
Who will take responsibility …
The words repeated over and over again within his head, firmly lodged like a tune that would not let go. It was the same rhythm–he realized at last–as the winking lights of the parity display on the face of the old, dead machine, lights that had rippled again and again.
… for these foolish children?

I have a lot I want to say about how children and teens are treated in this society, so I hope to make a series of articles on children.

Here, I would like to discuss using children to further one’s political beliefs. If someone wants to explain his/her beliefs to a child, and why s/he holds those to be important, that’s different than, say, putting a sign in a kid’s hand at a protest. Children can have strong beliefs, and maybe they want to protest, but we need to be careful that they aren’t just doing it to make mom and dad or some other authority happy. It also upsets me if I feel the child has been indoctrinated with an opinion that they don’t seem like they fully understand.

[Image from here.] Where did they get that figure?

Sometimes you see a whole group of adults who seem to have paraded some children out to hold signs. Some of the kids seem pretty into it. Some of the kids don’t even seem old enough to read. Worse yet, sometimes the children have been taught misinformation. In a country so hopped up on the idea that people should have their own opinions we sometimes forget that some “opinions” have no basis in fact.

I mean, some people are of the “opinion” that evolution says that we are descended from monkeys. This is not an opinion because you can look up evolution and see that it never says anywhere that humans evolved from monkeys. Yet, some people still tell their kids this, and then have their children hold up signs that say their grandpa wasn’t a monkey. Well, obviously he was not. They’re just showing off how dumb they have made their children and themselves. That’s sad, and I feel bad for the child and the parents.

My main concern is that the child is well informed, and that the child wants to be out there holding a sign, not that mom or dad plopped this sign in a kid’s hand to get people to be on their side. How much have parents who are against homosexuality really explained to their children on the issue before they give them a “God hates fags” sign to tote? I’m guessing very little.

[Image from here.]

When you put a kid out there with a sign saying that they don’t want to pay off our debts, does the child really understand how the economy works? Does the parent? It’s not like we teach much about how the economy works in elementary school. We don’t teach children that a depression is not a good time for the government to start cutting spending. A lot of people are just now getting upset about the deficit. Yes, it’s big (and republicans are mostly to blame for creating it), but an economic depression like one we are having now is no time to start cutting programs that help poor people. But I digress.

A child is under the impression that they will have to pay those trillions of dollars himself? That’s not really how it works. Taxes will be put toward that, but they’re being put toward that now. It’s not like the bill collector is going to show up at Billy’s house twenty years from now and ask for the money to pay of the deficit. Billy doesn’t know that, because he’s just a kid. Leave him out of it.

A lot people will say that something is “for the children” to get others on their side, and this is not only manipulative and misleading, often it’s just not true. Most things that should actually be done will benefit everyone, but I’m supposed to get more choked up for my grand kids that don’t exist yet than for the homeless guy on the street. All people are valuable, and when someone tries to get something passed just for the children I wonder about the true motive. I’m not for someone doing something in the name of children when his/her motives lie elsewhere. If something were for the children, it would be obvious, and therefore there would be no reason to say so except to put undue emphasis on that fact.

[Image from here.]

What it comes down to is one has no right to drag a three year old to a protest and stick a sign in her hand when she has no idea what the whole thing is about. If a kid has an “Abortion Kills” sign, do they understand the stages of a developing life? Do they understand how many pregnancies abort on their own without the woman even knowing it? Do they know that a cluster of cells isn’t necessarily a person? Probably not. I’m sure no one has explained sex to them if they are the type of person to use a child as a sign post.

Of course, I have more problems with a child being at a “protest” for hate. Hating gays or hating pro-choice people, that kind of thing. If a child was protesting for peace I would be less offended because that is a child that is protesting for a good cause rather than a hateful cause. That’s just because I believe it is good to teach children to love and bad to teach children to hate. (I’m sure that some people would say that anti-choice protesting is to “save lives” of unborn children, but I don’t think so. I’ve found that rabid anti-abortion people are more for punishing the mother than helping the child. I don’t know who originally said it, but “If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?” comes to mind.)

What it comes down to is that a child should not be a tool. He or she is a person and should not be used to further hateful beliefs. It’s taking advantage of a child’s love and trust of his/her parents and the desire to please them as well as taking advantage of the impressionable nature of a child. Further, a person should be educated fully on a cause and possess the ability to think critically, child or adult, before devoting himself to a cause.

If more people understood how life develops in the womb and how it developed over time, a lot fewer people would get behind the anti-gay and anti-choice movements. I firmly believe that, and that is why I firmly believe that only well informed children and adults should be protesting any topic. A child with a pacifier doesn’t understand what debt is. She is just a prop, and that is wrong.

I Stumbled across this rubbish today: If Women Controlled the World. If you Google that very phrase, you get a bunch of sites with the same “humorous” pictures, with some variation. One had a set of shelves with the assembly directions as follows: “1. Call Daddy.” That’s probably because my hammer is a fucking shoe and my screwdriver is a goddamn butter knife. Oh, wait, I own tools and can assemble things. Maybe I have a penis? No, still nothing like that down there. Huh.

Sexist crap. Image Credit: Humorless Asshole (probably thinks blond jokes are hilarious).

I am not even beginning to smirk at any of these. If you are, you are a sexist. I don’t care. You are. I can’t even laugh at how bad these jokes are. They cannot be commentary on the badness of sexist jokes; I’ve ruled that out. The only thing I can conclude is that they aren’t really to make you laugh, but to make you remark on how backward we women are. Can’t let those women rule the world; they’ll make everything frilly and stupid.

Many of these “jokes” are about women and cars. Light bulbs of recognition everywhere: women know nothing about cars, am I right? To me, there are just blue cars and red cars, TEEHEE! Der, what’s a speed limit? Parking?! Better let the husband do that. Boy, these are some hilarious jokes. They’re so bad, in fact, that even if I could stretch my mind into that of a sexists, I still don’t think I would laugh. Let’s not forget that I prefer to apply make-up rather than pay attention to the road, because, well, I’ve got these troublesome boobs. They make me do stupid things.

One stereotype I was not aware of is that women apparently know nothing about computers. Recycle the “any key” joke from The Simpsons, with women instead of Homer, and you’re a comic genius. Women and machines don’t mix. Nevermind my ability to operate a number of machines daily, including a computer, with ease and comfort. I am deluded.

I don’t even get the one with the prettified bowling alley. Where are they going with that one? Women like flowers? Harsh? I do find that I enjoy putting drapes and finery in places they do not belong. It’s a hobby of mine, like giving birth whenever I can and staying in the kitchen where I belong.

But enough with the joking on my part. I am seriously sick of this crap, and the main reason for that is right at the bottom of the first link: “MAKE ANOTHER WOMEN’S DAY, AND SHARE THE SMILES.” Yes, won’t you share the smiles with … wait, women?! These jokes aren’t even for men to laugh at the stupid women anymore; we’re supposed to laugh at ourselves for being stupid. My dim little woman mind is supposed to light up, and I’m supposed to say, “that is so me. I would forget my vagina if it wasn’t screwed on.” Plus, the grammar in that capslock “sentence” is not even near correct. I guess it must have been written by someone with ovaries.

This vacuous crap is far from harmless; it’s everywhere. The people who re-post this honestly laughed? They wanted to share it? They thought it would make someone’s day? Any time I see someone spreading stereotypical stuff as straight up humor, I can’t help by cringe. What really bothers me is that many other people do not cringe. This diminishes us all. As the man says in Billy Madison:

“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” (emphasis mine)

I like my jokes to be funny. This sexist hogwash will not stand. We shall knock it down with our hammers, which are not shoes, with our wits, which are not dull, and with our strong power of will, which is not imaginary. Join the good fight and leave the caveman shit behind.

I’ve noticed that in this country a lot of ignorant people don’t seem to know the difference between Socialism and Fascism. That’s alarming, because they are very different. Said people like to use the terms as interchangeable insults sometimes. I want to focus, for the purpose of this article, on Fascism, because I feel that is the real threat to America in this age.

Let’s face it, in the fifties they did a pretty good job of getting rid of most true Communists and Socialists in this country. We don’t really have many Socialists here like they do in other parts of the world. Despite what right-wing people will say, Obama is not nearly that far left. To me, that idea is laughable.

So, moving on to Fascism. A lot of people who like to compare things to Fascism seem to me to be pretty Fascist themselves. Perhaps it is just their way of trying to distance themselves from the word while moving people towards the idea that some of the tenets of Fascism aren’t that bad. Glenn Beck comes immediately to mind. He throws the word Nazi around more than anyone else I’ve ever heard, and he seems very Fascist to me. But what is Fascism, really, you ask?

The Fascism article on Wikipedia states: “Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.” Here’s a page I found interesting that highlights 14 Characteristics of Fascism. Looking at that list, you can see that the GOP, or at least many factions of it, would like our country to follow all 14 of these. As I see it, we already have most of them in this country to some extent.

Remember when people freaked out because Obama wasn’t wearing a flag pin? I point to Characteristic one on the above list. Torturing is OK according to some. Check next to point number two on the list. Do I need to even cover point three? Some Americans blame immigrants (usually code for Mexicans), Muslims, Communists, Socialists, and certainly terrorists. That’s a big check. Number four, big check on the huge military budget and lots of Tea Partiers complaining about social programs for the needy (rich people actually get more money from the government, as I read in the article “Tea Partyers in Wonderland” August 2-9, 2010 issue of The Nation).

From Wikipedia again: “Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists’ nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.” Look to the idea that immigrants should “learn English.” Check out my article talking about how people don’t want Muslims to be able to build mosques wherever they want. Palin often talks about “real Americans.” The only real Americans are the ones that fit into her stereotype of the white person from a small town, or whoever agrees with her.

Sexism is number five. We have made a lot of headway on that one, but there is still a way to go to get to equality, and some people still want to hold us back. I find that many people who want to keep women in the kitchen tend to lean right politically. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for number six, our mass media is controlled mostly by the same 2-3 rich guys. They show whatever supports their agendas. I’d say these days most Americans are obsessed with National Security, so that covers number eight. What’s really alarming about that is that they are willing to take away rights like free speech in the name of National Security.

Nine, Corporate Power is Protected. Remember that court case that decided that Corporations can give as much money as they want to politicians? That’s just the tip of a much larger iceberg housing lobbyists, etc. The courts ruled that Corporations are people, remember (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad)? The 14th Amendment was supposed to protect blacks, but it has been used for that only 15 times, whereas it has been used for businesses in 135 cases [source].

For number ten, just look at how the number of labor unions has fallen over the years. You can view the table on this site (table 4 is what I am looking at). Unions were at their highest in 1953 on this chart, with 29.3% of workers in unions, and in 2000 it was 14.1%. Many people say unions are flat out bad these days, but without them we don’t have much of a voice for the worker. Places like Walmart strongly discourage unions because they know that they would then have to pay their workers decent wages and provide them with many other benefits that cost them money. Again, people don’t like the worker, they like the corporation, if they side with the right wing.

Neo-cons are often complaining about “latte drinking liberals” as Thomas Frank points out in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? There’s your number eleven. The right is always complaining about the “liberal elite,” and often go after professors and the like. Number twelve? We have the highest number of prisoners in the world in the US, plus capital punishment is disturbingly (to me, at least) popular as the best mode of punishment for murder when it’s not in other first world countries.

Corruption? No, not in America! Oh, yes. Politicians are showing themselves to be quite corrupt, don’t you think? That’s thirteen. Just look at those shady W. Bush elections. Tampering? I think so. Which gets us number fourteen.

We may not be entirely Fascist yet, but let’s not allow people like Glenn Beck to convince us to take the last few, small steps. We may already be lifting our foot. It sure feels like it to me.

“Now all of these voices
And all of these noises
With all their illusions of choices
They’ve come to my door
With one dozen roses.”
-The Wallflowers, “Invisible City”

This song came on the other day, and it got me thinking. The idea is not originally mine, obviously, many others have posed the idea of choices as illusion. I’m not talking about always, but so-called choices can be a useful tool in keeping someone busy. I’ve contemplated this idea in the past, the way everyone talks about freedoms and choices and freedom of choice in this country; it all seems so shallow when I really think of it.

For the little things, like which toilet paper to buy, we have a ton of choices. You can stand in the aisle for a long time if you really gave it a lot of thought. But is quilted or not quilted really that big of a choice? Or is it more of a choice that is there to keep us busy? Something for us to point to and say, “This country really is great! I love Capitalism!” (The media prefer to call it The Free Market now, because more and more people have negative feelings about the word Capitalism). “Why, how else could I have so many options in ice cream flavors?!”

“You’re given the illusion of choice. Americans are meant to feel free by the exercise of meaningless choices.” –George Carlin

I posted my status on Facebook as: “Don’t be fooled by illusions of choice. They are there to distract you from what’s really going on,” the day I heard the song, wondering to myself how many people would respond to that. Only one out of my 200+ friends. Now, there are many reasons not to respond to someone’s status. Sometimes I miss one or I get what they’re saying but don’t want to “like” it, or I don’t agree and don’t want to start something, etc. But some statuses seem to get a lot of comments and thumbs up, while others just sit. I wondered why no one seemed to really resonate with this one. If I saw this as someone’s status, I would like it. But that’s me. I digress.

With all of the little choices calling to us (Apple or Windows? Pick a side and hate the other side! Do it!), we have less time to focus on what is really important, like who is running our country. I’ve thought about it, and I think it’s the rich people. Most people haven’t thought much about it, I’d wager. The average guy on the street, I mean. He’ll pull out his stock answer that voters run the country. Oh? By the time we get a say in it, the choice of who to run has been made for us. Who runs in a primary is not our choice. It’ll be who the parties like, and who can afford it. Most poor people don’t get enough donations to run, and if you’re rich, well, you don’t need those, really (but you’d sure like them anyway).

Then, when it comes down to the actual election it’s two, or maybe three (but who thinks the 3rd guy will win?) choices. It’s never really a guy I would choose to run things for me. It’s like on Futurama, where they had Candidate A and Candidate B, and they just say the same things in different words. It’s slightly different, but no one wants to change things too much; that might cause them not to get elected. Obama got elected on the idea of change, I guess, but so far he doesn’t really seem much different from any other politician to me. What has he really done that’s going to change America, or the world, for the better?

Again, I digress. You see, this subject leads to so many trains of thought. That’s why it’s so important that people think critically, not only about the supposed choices they are being offered but why they are being offered those choices and not other choices, broader choices–better choices, maybe.

Here I would like to toss in a video of George Carlin talking about freedom of choice. The first half is about soldiers, but then he really gets into what I’m talking about after that (around the 1 minute, 15 second mark). Enjoy. And for everyone’s sake, please, take some time to think about whether the choices you are being asked to make are going to matter, and how. Don’t get distracted.

“They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want … they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that.” –George Carlin

There’s a lot of talk lately about building mosques in this country. A lot of people seem pretty upset by this. I don’t understand. I understand that they’re apparently bigots, but beyond that I just don’t get it. America doesn’t stop having freedom of religion because people are afraid of Muslims. Firstly, they should not be afraid of Muslims. They are not trying to “take over” any more than anyone else is. Christian politicians seem to be trying pretty hard to convince us that they are, and that this is a Christian nation. That’s absurd.

But let me go back to the kinds of questions the media is asking. Firstly, here’s a clip from The Daily Show from awhile back that got me thinking about this:

The first half is about NASA and Muslims, so it only sort of goes with what I’m saying, but the latter half is about the mosques. Diane Sawyer asks, “What do you think? Should Muslims be able to build mosques in the neighborhoods of their choosing?”

Even asking that question in The United States of America means that you don’t know what the whole point of America is, not to mention that the question is offensive as hell. Of course they should. Why would I want to hear from the people who disagree? It does not matter what they want. By even discussing this issue with these individuals, we give the impression that their opinion may be valid. What we should be doing is explaining to them why they are wrong. Don’t let them think such arguments have merit.

Any religion is free to build their religious temples wherever they want in America, assuming they get the proper permits, etc. Should we issue those permits? Obviously! It’s just wrong to tell Muslims where they can build and no one else. As long as they are following the same rules that a Christian church would need to follow, they can build it where they want. You cannot single out a group in that way. It’s wrong.

I don’t get where the debate is. People seem to think that fear is a reason to revoke rights. It is not. That is what makes something a right. It cannot be taken away. Some people in our country don’t seem to realize that lately. This country is founded on certain principles and rights; you cannot go back on those just because you don’t like Muslims. If people don’t want them to build in their town, I assume that means they do not like them. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Some people don’t want to allow a mosque to be built “near Ground Zero.” Firstly, I don’t know how close they want to build it, but it doesn’t matter. As long as they are not building it on the spot where the towers fell, they should build it. The only reason I say not on the spot is because I figure you should not build anything on that spot unless a memorial, just out of respect. It may surprise certain elements of the population to know that not all Muslims conspired to take down the towers.

But that fact is not even the reason they should be able to build wherever they want. They should be able to because this is the United States of America and that is how we are supposed to do things. Our freedoms are for everyone, not just who is liked at the moment. That’s the whole idea. There is no discussion. Build the mosques. Stop the fearful bigots.