Time magazine just recently ran a story about a new study that strongly suggests a genetic component to being gay. I have mixed feelings about this kind of study because, while having a genetic component for orientation is not much different than having a genetic component for hair color or eye color or skin color, orientation is not merely a physical trait.  I intentionally do NOT use the words “sexual orientation” because orientation has nothing to do with who you have sex with. It’s about who you can fall in love with. Not love, as in friends/siblings/cousins/etc. But fall in love with. Additionally, studies like this bring up the whole “free will/predestination” debate as well. Scientists have, for many years now, been telling us that our emotions are the result of a complex series of chemical reactions. This, in my humble opinion, is a bit “dehumanizing” because if it is true, then we really are nothing more than preprogrammed robots reacting as the chemicals in our body tell us to react. I also worry that, if a “gay gene” is found— or even a sequence of genetic coding— that some firm will eventually start offering tests to determine if your child is likely to be born gay, giving parents the opportunity to abort before they have a gay child.

But that’s not really why I’m writing this post. I’m writing it because the article in Time is so full of inappropriate comparisons and has so many subtle enforcements of old stereotypes that I’m surprised it made it past the copy editor. Let me show them to you.

“If homosexuality is hereditary, why doesn’t the trait gradually disappear, as gays and lesbians are probably less likely than others to have children?”

This subtly implies that having gays in society is detrimental to the continued existence of society since traits that have no “survival of the fittest” advantage usually die out. Additionally, it implies that it would be in humanity’s best interest if it just disappeared. Yet there are animals who show homosexual affinities. And there are many reasons why having a “gay” animal in a pack can be of great benefit to the pack. No, the animal will likely not reproduce. But it eventually leads to having another adult to act as guardian and/or as a food provider without adding additional mouths to feed. This can be the difference between life and death in times when food is short and predators are many (sometimes because food is short.) It also acts as a form of natural birth control, especially if it’s a male animal that is “gay”.

The very same reasons can be used for the human population in its beginning stages. Having another man around to help hunt who wasn’t looking to mate with a female could have decreased the competition between the heterosexual males, thereby keeping life with in the clan a bit more harmonious. Having another female around who wasn’t giving birth to kids but who could, conceivably, be a wet nurse or at the very least help provide maternal care to the children while mom was recovering from birth or illness would have benefited the entire clan.

Additionally, in human society, the “need” to reproduce disappeared a long, long time ago. Man has become “master” of his environment (notice “master” is in quotes…). Now reproduction is usually a matter of choice. One’s orientation is of no importance in the ability of man to survive. While traditionally, gays were less likely to have kids, with the advent of sperm banks and surrogate mothers and open adoptions and gays coming out of the closet, gays now have as many options to have children as infertile straight couples.

Moving on…

In a related, unpublished study, Hamer added to growing evidence that male homosexuality may be rarer than was long thought — about 2% of the population, vs. the 4% to 10% found by Kinsey and others. Hamer notes, however, that he defined homosexuality very narrowly. “People had to be exclusively or predominantly gay, and had to be out to family members and an outside investigator like me. If we had used a less stringent definition, we would probably have found more gay men.”

So why even make the point that it “may be rarer than was long thought”? I am bisexual. When I was married to a man, I was no less bisexual. Yet, I’m guessing that according to Mr. Hamer’s study, I would not have been included because I was not “exclusively or predominantly gay”. Nor was I out to family members or outsiders like him. So if he altered the definition, there’s no “probably” about it: he would have found more gay men! Gay men are much more in the closet than lesbians or bisexuals because there is still such a huge stigma against being a gay male in US society. There are out lesbians in professional sports of all genres. In fact, there are many professional sports where it’s almost automatically assumed that any woman playing it is a lesbian (ie, women’s football or women’s basketball). And society in general doesn’t have a problem with that. But let a professional sports figure come out as a gay man and it’s major news. So if Mr. Hamer was able to find 2% of the population who were “homosexuals” according to his definition, then I’d be willing to bet that the real number is closer to the 10% often claimed by gay rights advocates.

The article continues.

Simon LeVay, who won wide publicity for an analysis of differences in brain anatomies between straight and gay men, acknowledges that the brains he studied were of AIDS victims, and thus he cannot be sure that what he saw was . [sic] genetic rather than the result of disease or some aspect of gay life.

I admit: I am not a scientist. But please, tell me exactly what “aspect” of “gay life” is so drastically different from “straight life” that it would alter one’s brain? There is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle”. A lifestyle is a conscious choice. One can choose to be altruistic or miserly, pious or hedonistic, promiscuous or prudish, law-abiding or criminal, lavish or within-our-means. Or anything in between. About the only aspect of “gay life” that is different is having to hide who we are from society and the abuse that’s heaped upon us because of who we are. But, from my understanding of the effects of abuse on the brain, it doesn’t matter what kind of abuse you suffer (physical, verbal, mental, emotional, sexual or any combination thereof), the effects on the brain are similar. So the brains of gay men would not have been all that different from the brains of straight men who were abused as children. (And that number is higher than most think.)

Might it have been the AIDS that caused the differences in the brains? Sure. But AIDS is not a “gay” disease. It may have hit the gay community harder and faster than other communities at first because it was not understood initially how it was transferred from person to person. But in today’s society, the fastest growing population who are getting AIDS are young people under 25. Of the more than 14000 new cases of HIV infection every day, 50% fall into the “under 25″ age bracket and more of them are women than men. And the vast majority of them are poor, living in third world countries without access to the plethora of drugs Americans have to slow down the disease’s progress or even bring it to a complete stop.

Comments like the one quoted only serve to perpetuate the mistaken belief that there is a “gay lifestyle” that separates gays from straights.

Dr. Richard Pillard, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine and co-author of some twin studies — showing that identical twins of gay men have a 50% chance of being gay — is almost as laudatory. Says he: “If the new study holds up, it would be the first example of a higher-order behavior that has been found to be linked to a particular gene.”

“Higher-order behavior”? Being gay is not a behavior. Stealing is a behavior. Praying is a behavior. Laughing is a behavior. Loving is the essence of the human soul. (Yeah, I know, there are those who don’t believe we have a soul.) I’m not sure exactly what Dr. Pillard is considering a “higher-order behavior”, but it sounds as if he’s referring to one’s orientation. If this is the case, it once again supports the mistaken belief that being gay is a choice because behaviors (at least those without a pathological cause like Tourette’s) are choices that we make. Gays do not choose to be gay. They may choose to acknowledge that. They may choose to embrace that. They may choose to hide that. But they do not choose to be gay.

Now let’s get into the statements that really are absurd.

“If homosexuals are deemed to have a foreordained nature, many of the arguments now used to block equal rights would lose force.”

This statement assumes that those arguments are now valid (have force). And they aren’t. This country is a constitutional republic. It is governed by democratic principles. The rights of the majority rule ONLY IF they do not violate the constitutionally guaranteed rights of even one individual. The Declaration of Independence states that all people have certain unalienable right, and that among these are the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. In simpler terms, that means the freedom to live our lives in the manner we think will make us happy. The DoI goes on to state that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Read that again, please. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” So the government’s main reason for existence is to secure each and every individual’s right to live their life in the manner they think will make them happy.  Every single law in the US should have one litmus test: does this protect the rights of EVERY individual to live his/her life in the manner s/he thinks will make him/her happiest? If you can answer yes to that question, the law is valid. If you cannot, then the law is unconstitutional.

Murder (intentionally taking another’s life) is not legal because it is inherently evil. We justify homicide every day: self-defense, war, “justifiable” homicide, etc. The very fact that we have different “degrees” of murder/manslaughter and accept extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the “degree” of murder is proof that we do not view murder as inherently evil. Murder is illegal because it violates the rights of the victim to live life in the manner they think will make them happiest. Same with theft, rape, etc. Drunk driving laws increase the risk to the lives of others without their consent, thereby interfering with their right to live their life in the manner they think will make them happiest. So those laws are valid. There is NOTHING in the laws that ban gay marriage that protects the rights of ANYONE. Including the rights of those who oppose gay marriage. Because if we allow such laws to stand, we are setting a precedent that the government can tell us who we can and cannot marry based on what the majority of society says is “right/wrong”. And that undermines the very foundations upon which this country was founded: equality and personal freedom.

Here’s another one that gets my goat.

“Some legal scholars think that if gays can establish a genetic basis for sexual preference, like skin color or gender, they may persuade judges that discrimination is unconstitutional.”

Hello!? Understand this: We do not need a genetic basis for discrimination to be illegal! ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Does that ring a bell for anyone? Simply because laws have been written in the past that condoned or legalized discrimination (and make no mistake, laws are still being written to condone and legalize discrimination) does not mean they were constitutional! That’s why they’re being overturned. The only “activist judges” are the ones like the judge in Houston who restricted a gay man’s ability to enjoy his visitations with his children by imposing undue restrictions on those visitations. The judges who throw out laws because they violate the US Constitution, no matter how much popular support they have, are only doing their jobs.

Oh, it keeps on coming…

In addition, genetic evidence would probably affect many private relationships. Parents might be more relaxed about allowing children to have gay teachers, Boy Scout leaders and other role models, on the assumption that the child’s future is written in his or her genetic makeup. Those parents whose offspring do turn out gay might be less apt to condemn themselves.

Parents are “uptight” about leaving children with gay teachers, Boy Scout leaders and other role models because parents have these fucked up misconceptions and stereotypes about gays that are being perpetuated by radical religious right like James Dobson and Pat Robertson in their quest to make this into a fundamentalist Christian nation. And those fucked up misconceptions and stereotypes are being spread by politicians like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and by news outlets like Faux News and even Time. Radio personalities like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and all those other hate/fear-mongerers are keeping the lies and misconceptions about gays alive because they make a whole shitload of money when they get people so pissed off.

And then there’s this…

Says Cherie Garland of Ashland, Oregon, mother of a 41-year-old gay son: “The first thing any parent of a gay child goes through is guilt. If homosexuality is shown to be genetic, maybe parents and children can get on with learning to accept it.”

Again, you’re putting the cart before the horse. What we need to get rid of is the idea that there’s anything WRONG with being gay. Does a parent of a child feel guilty if the child is blond vs brunette? No, because no one thinks there’s anything “wrong” with being blond vs. brunette. Society doesn’t discriminate against blonds (well, to a certain extent they have their own stereotypes, but there’s no laws prohibiting blonds from marrying who they love.). The guilt Ms. Garland feels is due to her programming by society that being gay is a sin or wrong or deviant or harmful or somehow hurtful to her son. It’s not the being gay that’s hurtful or harmful: it’s society’s attitudes and preconceived ideas and stereotypes.

“On the other hand, mothers who used to blame themselves for faulty upbringing may start blaming themselves for passing on the wrong genes.”

Again, see how this article itself is perpetuating the stereotype that there’s something wrong with being gay by saying “the wrong genes”? The attitudes of straight society have to change and they’re not going to change until gays have equal rights and even then, it’s going to be several generations before attitudes change. The same thing happened when blacks won equal rights: attitudes started to change as people were essentially “forced” to deal with blacks as their equals. And then they saw that a lot of their stereotypes and preconceived ideas were plain wrong.

Even some of the gay participants in the study subtly reinforce the preconceived notion that there’s something wrong with being gay. One of the participants states: “I always believed that homosexuality was something I was born with. If homosexuality is genetic, there is nothing you can do about it. If there is more research like this in years to come, hopefully homosexuality will be accepted rather than treated as an abnormality.”

Why should you have to do anything about it? It is NOT something that needs “fixed” or “cured”. What needs “fixed” and “cured” are the attitudes of society in general who fear anything that is different from them.  I even find the notion of homosexuality being “accepted” to be subtle reinforcement that something is wrong. It feels like “We’ll tolerate you being here…”.  “Accepting” homosexuality seems to me to be about as necessary as “accepting” that some people are artistic or musical geniuses or childhood prodigies.  Those people are probably (strictly speaking by the numbers) more “abnormal” than gays. And yet there’s no problem not merely “accepting” them but embracing them as equals. And in large part, in this country, the attitude that there’s something wrong with being gay is directly contributed to modern Christianity (which, for the record, I believe has about as much relevance to the message of Love taught by Yeshua, the Christ, as paint has to bananas.)

Even when the article addresses some of the points I have made above (on page 4), they still don’t really get it right. Donald Suggs of the New York chapter of the GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) believes that homophobia will go away when people accept us.  Truth of the matter is, that nothing will make homophobia go away except education. Phobias are fears— often irrational fears. And the only way to get rid of a fear is to confront it and take away its power.

Changes in laws can gain us tolerance and, even to a certain extent, acceptance, but it won’t wipe out homophobia any more than passage of the Civil Rights Act more than 40 years ago wiped out racism. It’s more a matter of respect. When we are respected as equals, not merely accepted or tolerated, then homophobia will begin to disappear. Yes, it begins with changes in the law that “force” tolerance and acceptance, but it doesn’t end there.

And there’s nothing that’s going to change those who hate/fear gays due to faith because faith is beyond logic and reason. Faith is the belief in what which is beyond proof. But what has to stop is allowing the faith of a few to dictate the public policy of the masses. The wall of separation between church and state must be rebuilt and protected against any attack by any faith.

I wrote this article in 2006 and published it on the site where I am the resident visionary. I am republishing it here because it’s important that we remember why this country was founded.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….”I hope you recognize these words, but I’m afraid that our politicians, judges and the vast majority of citizens of the United States don’t really understand them. It seems quite clear and straightforward, but in today’s pervasive atmosphere of intolerance and extremism, it’s obvious that the elected officials of our nation and a majority of the public often don’t have a clue as to the meaning and intent of these words. So let’s break it down line by line.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,…” means that the statements that follow need not be proven. They are so obvious that they cannot be argued against using reason and logic.

“…that all men are created equal,…” means that every human being in this country has the same rights. All are equal in the eyes of the law. “All men” does not mean just white, heterosexual, Christian males. It includes women, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Satanists, agnostics, spiritualists, Wiccans, Druids, shamans, humanists, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Some would even say that this includes every human being since the statement does not say “all citizens” but “all men.” Human rights activists around the world are fighting to gain the same rights for everyone that we here in America often take for granted.

“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…”

Please note here the use of the words “their Creator.” History shows us that the founding fathers spent a great deal of time with the wording of this document and the subsequent Constitution and Bill of Rights. Their choice of words was intentional and deliberate. They intentionally chose NOT to use God, Allah, Krishna, Jesus Christ, Wakan Tanka, the Great Spirit or any of the other thousands of names for a specific deity. “[T]heir” was a conscious choice by our founding fathers to allow each and every individual to define their own “Creator”.

“Creator” was also a conscious choice and, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, does not imply deity or supernatural abilities. Nature creates— look at the Grand Canyon. Chance creates— look at the winners of the big jackpots in lotteries or at the gaming tables of Las Vegas. Natural disasters (something we often view as “bad”) create— floods dump fresh silt on the flood plains to replenish depleted nutrients and create a better soil for growing crops. Even destruction creates— the cones of the Lodgepole pine need exposure to the high temperatures of forest fires before they open and release new seeds creating new growth.

However we define our creator, our very existence endows us with certain unalienable rights. Rights that cannot be separated from us and are part of our very being. The rights we have are not bestowed upon us by any nation, any state, any government, any law or any individual and cannot legally or justly be taken away by any nation, any state, any government, any law or any individual. They are ours by virtue of the fact that we are living, breathing human beings.

“…that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”

Note the use of the words “among these”, signifying that the three listed are not the only unalienable rights that we have. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” means that each of us has the freedom— the liberty— to live our life in whatever manner we see fit in pursuit of whatever we believe will make us happy. What most people don’t remember, however, is that with every unalienable right comes the unalienable responsibility to respect everyone else’s unalienable rights. This means voluntarily limiting our actions so they don’t interfere with another’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We cannot falsely scream “fire” in a crowded theater simply because we have the right to free speech. Our freedom of speech does not give us the right to place others’ lives in danger from the resulting panic of our falsehood. In fact, the unalienable right to free speech gives us the unalienable responsibility to make sure that what we say does not interfere with another’s right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. The founding fathers, in their infinite widsom, realized that not everyone would accept their unalienable responsibility, so they included the next line.

“… —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,…” Read that line again, please. “… —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,…” This is saying that governments are brought into existence with the primary— some might even say sole— purpose of protecting every individual’s right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “A few bad apples spoil the bunch.” Such is the case with human beings as well. Those who refuse to accept their unalienable responsibility are the reason that governments must exist. They exist to create laws that allow society to remove from its midst those who ignore their responsibility to respect the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. Therefore, the litmus test for any law governing human behavior should be, “Does this law protect the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit?” If the answer is “Yes”, then the law is a valid law. If the answer is “No”, then the law is invalid.¹

“…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” means that the people tell the government what it can and cannot do outside of its primary role of protecting the rights of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. We, the people, grant the government the right to create laws for taxation to provide other services like road maintanence, public schools, etc. We, the people, give the government the right to enact laws regulating business beyond honest transactions (since dishonest transactions are a form of theft, which would be covered under the laws governing human behavior.) Unfortunately, we have become so used to the government telling us what we can and cannot do that we seem to have forgotten that we are the ones in charge, not the government. Abraham Lincoln phrased this in another way: “…government of the people, by the people, for the people….”

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,…” Remember, “these ends” means ensuring every individual’s right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit and whatever other powers the people have bestowed upon the government.

“…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,…” means that the people have the right to rebel against the government, indeed, even to dismantle it if the government interferes with the right of the people to live their lives as they see fit or otherwise abuses the power they have been given by the people.

“…and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….” means that the people, not the government, determines what actions the government will take to protect them. This makes laws like the civil-rights-destroying and grossly misnamed US PATRIOT Act absolutely and utterly invalid. This statement also emphasizes the “pursuit of happiness” —or in other words, the right of the people to live their life as they see fit.

While many correctly argue that the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, to deny that this important document is relevant is an earmark of ignorance. In this document, the founding father’s lay out why they want to form a new nation and what ideals are important to that new nation. And at the core of that document, indeed the very purpose for creating a new nation, is the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. The principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are the cornerstones of the US Cosntitution and Bill of Rights.

It is imperative that the lawmakers and the judges of this nation keep this in mind not only when writing laws but when determining the constitutionality of any given law. Any law that cannot pass the litmus test of protecting every individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be overturned.

The enormity of this task— no, this obligation— with respect to our legislative and judicial system can be glimpsed by considering some of the legal issues that would be affected. Please bear in mind that the law must protect children— even from their own parents— until they reach maturity. Therefore changes in the law are necessary with respect to consenting adults. (Which is not to suggest that laws protecting children are perfect— far from it. But that’s another article altogether.)

• Drug use/possession/sales
• Prostitution
• Gambling
• Gay marriage
• Euthanasia
• Suicide
• Child custody/child protection
• Adoption
• Taxation
• Gun ownership
• Abortion
• “Blue laws”
• Health Insurance
• Corporate rights

And there are many others.

The Constitution of the United States (including the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution) was written (and has been updated) to fulfill the goals of the founding fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It is the government’s job to define legality, not morality. For example, laws prohibiting murder say nothing about whether it is moral (right) or immoral (wrong). The sole purpose of such laws is to protect the right of every individual to be free to live his/her life as he/she sees fit from anyone who does not respect that right. Such laws say only whether the act of murder is legal or illegal. If an individual wishes to assign morality to such laws as well as legality, that is his/her right. But that same individual does not have the right to insist that everyone else accept his/her ideas of what is moral (right) or immoral (wrong).

The argument exists that because we live in a democracy, if the majority wants a law that defines morality (for example, banning gay marriage) then the majority is entitled to enact such a law. This argument is based on a false premise: that we live in a democracy. A true democracy means that the majority rules always. If the majority of people in this country wanted to return to the days of slavery, that is what would happen. In a democracy, the rights of the majority override the rights of the individual.

The founding fathers’ clear intent was to protect the rights of every individual and to this end, they set up our nation to be a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, the majority rules only as long as it does not violate the rights of even one individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. In a constitutional republic, the rights of the individual are protected not only from the government and from other individuals but also from the will of the majority.

The US government has long been straying from the principles set down by our founding fathers, but since 9/11, we’ve been rocketing towards a fascist theocracy. Now it is up to us, the people, to say, “Enough!” We must take back that which is rightfully ours: control of the behemoth called government. The task is daunting, but no more daunting than that faced by the founding fathers and early citizens of a brand new experiment in freedom called the United States of America.

Let us return our nation to the path envisioned by the early leaders: liberty and justice for all.

Let us turn our backs on the corporate special interests that are buying up politicians and their votes right and left.

Let us renounce the imperialistic forays of this current misadministration.

Let us once again become a shining light to the rest of the world as to what is possible when the people of a nation work together to teach respect and tolerance and equality.

______________

¹Let’s take a few examples.

It is illegal to murder. Does this protect the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit? Absolutely. To allow someone to murder another is to allow them to interfere in how the victim lives his/her life. Therefore it is a valid law.

It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Does this protect the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit? This one may not be so obvious, but the answer is still “Yes.” Living has inherent risks of dying. But a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs increases that risk without the permission or consent of those whom he/she passes while operating a motor vehicle. In fact, in far too many cases, the driver under the influence takes the life of those whom he/she passes while operating a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is a valid law.

In many places, it is illegal to smoke in public places. Does this protect the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit? Try looking at it this way. Does this law prevent someone from smoking? Or does it merely prevent them from smoking where that smoke will adversely affect others? Since anyone can smoke as long as no one else has to breathe the smoke against his/her will, then such laws are valid.

It is illegal for two people of the same gender to marry in forty-nine of the fifty states. Does this protect the right of every individual to live his/her life as he/she sees fit? Absolutely not. In fact, it directly infringes on the rights of gay, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendereds who want to marry the one they love. Looked at another way, allowing gays to marry does not stop anyone else from getting married. Therefore it is an invalid law.

I think I’ve figured it out. I think I know why so many people watch Faux (which in French means “false”) News. (And yes, it really is Faux News since at least three different studies over the years have shown that the “news” that Faux reports is full of misconceptions and, dare I say it,  outright lies. Especially their “talk show hosts” like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly who add their own “spin” to the “truth” they report.)

Psychologists suggest that people tend to do two things when it comes to information: think the worst (or at least think bad things) about people who are different than them (or situations they don’t agree with) and they tend to believe the bad things that are said about people (and situations) before they’ll believe the good things.

I have a bumper sticker that says something like “The truth is greatly influenced by what you want to be true.”

And herein is where Faux News excels. It plays to people’s prejudices, it plays to their fears, it plays to their biases and it plays to their greed.  (The entire Republican platform is essentially how to get government out of business and how to slash social programs so we can make more money. Ironic given it is in bed with the radical religious right, which claims to be Christian, and whose leader (Jesus) said that all his followers should give away everything they own to follow him. But that hypocrisy has been addressed elsewhere.)

So essentially, Faux News tells its viewers and listeners what they want to hear. That it’s all someone else’s fault (usually whatever minority has had the audacity to assert their equal rights) that they’re not richer, or have a bigger house or a faster car or a better job. It inflames their fears, which allows them to justify in their own heads their prejudices and bigotries.

But just since the election of Barack Obama, Faux News (through their broadcasts or their pundits) has called for the repeal of some very important constitutional amendments and the roll back of some very necessary programs. And unfortunately, given the nature of human beings (or at least of Americans), it’s likely that their viewers will soon be calling for such repeals and roll backs as well.

It’s sad, really, that so many people are so content to remain so misinformed, ignorant and fearful.

This was done by another AlterNet user, but I think it is such a fabulous interview that I wanted to make a blog post about it rather than just share it on face book. I have felt for a long time that the US has overstepped her bounds when it comes to military action. And this interview does a great job of explaining why. I’m gonna have to get me a copy of the book “Washington Rules”.

And as “proof” that the old ways aren’t working anymore, a poll by ABC News and the Washington Post found that most Americans don’t feel any safer now than they did before 9/11.

I have great admiration for Stephen Hawking. The man is a genius. But he recently said (ok, so it was last September when the article was written) that the laws of physics make it unnecessary for God to exist. Mind you, I do not consider myself a Christian. I do not believe the underlying tenet of the Christian faith (ie, that man needs redemption in the sacrifice of Yeshua on the cross). To me, “God” is not some supreme deity up there in heaven with a score card keeping track of what we do and how best to punish us for our “sins”. I believe more in the statement “God is Love”. The Divine has no gender, no ego, no need for revenge or no need to be worshipped. The only “need” the Divine has is to Love because that is the only thing the Divine can do. Love. Unconditionally. But I digress.

Even though I don’t believe in the “supreme being” model of God, I do not think that the laws of physics can explain Love. Unconditional Love. The kind of Love that says “I accept you for who you are even if I don’t like what you are doing.” It’s not something that has mass. It’s not something that can be measured. It’s not something that is reproducible in experiments. Therefore it has nothing to do with science. And for me, the only way to explain Love— to explain that spark that makes us more than the sum total of all the chemical reactions and chemical components in our bodies— is the Divine.

I have watched with sadness, frustration and almost helplessness as, for the past 35 years, partisanship and religious fundamentalism have polarized this nation.  I actually believe the seeds were sown during Viet Nam and Watergate. (Mind you, I was only about 3 when the US really began sending fighting troops to Viet Name and I was only 13 when Watergate occurred and 15 when Nixon resigned.) Here’s my vastly simplified beliefs as to the underlying motivations/reasons we’re in the position we are now.

However, I think that Nixon’s resignation deeply affected the Republican party. They became the first party in the history of the US to have a member of their party rise to the office of president and then be forced to resign. (Of course, they had Spiro Agnew, then vice-president to Nixon, resign as well. (While Agnew was not the first vice-president to resign— that honor goes to John Calhoun,  John Quincy Adam’s VP who resigned to take a seat in the Senate in 1832.) Agnew’s resignation was due to criminal misconduct to which he pled “no contest”.)

And then, of course, Gerald Ford took over as president. While Ford may have been a wonderful man, the public image of him, made famous by those Saturday Night Live sketches, was that of a bumbling idiot.

So in the midst of Watergate, the Republicans have a VP resign due to tax evasion, a president resign due to involvement in Watergate, and his replacement is considered a bumbling idiot who two women tried to assassinate!  (This might explain the Republican vendetta against women as well…) That’s like a triple whammy to the Republican party’s image.

But wait! It gets even worse (from the Republican perspective anyway)! Ford lost re-election (or more accurately, his first attempt at election to the presidency) to a former peanut farmer from Georgia whose brother is a beer-guzzling redneck! (Or at least that’s the way Billy Carter was portrayed in the media.) (Mind you, I think Carter was one of our best presidents in terms of portraying what it means to be an American.)

So the Republicans are in utter disgrace by the time the 1980 presidential election comes around. So who do they nominate? An actor…someone who can play a convincing role. Someone who appeals to mainstream America (who even then had an obsession with celebrity).  And he wins! And one of his first acts as president is to announce the release of the American’s held hostage in Iran. (Of course, this later went on to become the Iran-Contra scandal that sent Oliver North to jail. Reagan, for his part, when asked questions during testimony, simply said, “I can’t recall” (or words to that effect) and Americans were okay with that!?!?!?!)

Now, this is 1980. And drugs are becoming an ever increasing problem. While technically Richard Nixon first used the phrase “War on Drugs”, it was Nancy Reagan who really put it out in the pubic sphere with her “Just Say No” campaign in 1984. Beginning in 1980, convictions and incarcerations for drug charges began to climb at unprecedented rates and have continued at about the same rate until  about 2000 when they began to taper off slightly.  Of course, the “war on drugs” completely overlooked the fact that we’d once before attempted to legislate what someone could or could not put into their body and we called it Prohibition. And once Prohibition passed, gangs popped up all over the place fighting turf wars for who got to sell the illegal drug (in this case, alcohol.) And of course, the same thing happened when Reagan really began to crack down on drugs. But that’s another post…

Reagan is also known for his “innovative” economic theory called “trickle down economics” wherein, according to him, if we give the wealthiest people and big corporations tax breaks (ie, they don’t have to pay taxes), those people will spend even more money and that money will “trickle down” to all levels of society. Only thing is that he forgot to take into account “evaporation constant” and “diversion factor” : the principle where in money, like water, “evaporates” or is diverted before it gets to the bottom layer.

Reagan seemed to take the idea of corporate personhood to new heights, granting tax breaks not only to the wealthy but to corporations as well. Additionally, Reagan deregulated a lot of businesses claiming that over-regulation interfered with the free market and that was what was slowing the economy. Unfortunately, the real world doesn’t work like textbook economic theories predict and the money that was supposed to be reinvested in the economy ended up disappearing into the pockets of burgeoning salary packages and retirement packages of CEOs and upper management.

In 1980, the average CEO only made about 50 times the annual salary of the average worker. But in 1980, that started to climb and by the year 2000, when Bush was elected to office, it reached its peak of more than 500 times what the average worker makes each year.

Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the first time since the 1954 mid-term elections that Republicans gained control of one of the houses of Congress.  They retained control of the House for six years and the White House for twelve years before Clinton was elected in 1992 and swept Republican control away from both houses of Congress for a mere two years.  From 1994 to 2006, except for one two year period (when Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status in 2001 and decided to caucus with the Democrats, giving them de facto control of the House, which had been evenly split at 50-50), Republicans have been in control of both houses of Congress and partisanship has been the fashion of the day.

Nothing highlighted this partisanship more than the Republican “Contract with America” (1994) when the Republican party hijacked God and patriotism for their own political agenda.  This also opened the door for the radical religious right to get their foot in the bedroom door of the Republican party.  Pat Robertson’s Christian Coaltion began publishing a “voter’s guide” that was supposed to be “nonpartisan” but was anything but. The Coalition made it clear that in order to be considered a good Christian, one had to vote according to the Coalition’s stance, which was completely Republican.

Of course, one should not dismiss the influence of Focus on the Family and its founder, James Dobson. At one point, Dobson’s power was so great that the mere threat of leaving the Republican party and forming a third party was enough to cause Republicans to cave into his demands.

The marriage of religion and politics did not sit well with many Americans, especially those who did not consider themselves Christians. But even among more moderate and liberal Christians, this marriage was problematic. So the Republican party began to make use of a tactic that the radical religious right has used since the inception of monotheism: fear-mongering.

“Homosexual activists are on the verge of destroying the Boy Scouts of America— and your church could be their next target” the ACLJ screamed in a fundraising letter.

Fear-mongering is also a favorite tactic of another segment of society: conservative radio talk-show hosts. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and a whole host of other wannabe’s love to say “What if…”, and unfortunately, a large portion of the American population doesn’t seem to realize that you can “what if” any situation to any conclusion. Limbaugh et al simply “what iffed” the situation to its most fearful conclusion and made it seem as if that was the only way it could be.

And then came September 11, 2001.

No matter that many Americans think that 9/11 is the result of years of unjust American foreign policies. Or that some of us think that our government knew about the impending attack and did nothing to stop it in order to further their own agenda. Or, alternatively (my own belief) that they knew, placed conditions on the attack (like it had to be before 9 when the buildings opened and were full and they had to hit the upper stories so that most people would have a chance to get out before the buildings collapsed and those kind of things) and then let it happen. Regardless, the Bush-Cheney regime made full use of the attack and took fear-mongering to new heights!

Not that fear-mongering is new in American society. But fear was used to push through the inappropriately titled “PATRIOT Act”, which did more damage to our constitutional rights than any single act of legislation in history. Our emails can be monitored and phones tapped without warrants now. And they convinced us that the people of Mexico are such a threat to us that we’re building a wall much bigger than the Berlin wall ever was. And while I don’t deny there are those Democrats and liberals who use fear-mongering, the radical religious right and the Republican party and conservative pundits have perfected the art of fear-mongering. And they’re using it to slowly erode away our civil rights. Our constitutional rights. And in doing so, they’re polarizing our nation into those who buy into the fear and those who do not. Into those who have hope and those who have none.

Fear is nothing but the absence of Love. When we Love, we do not fear. And where Love exists, fear cannot exist. It’s like light and dark. Darkness cannot exist in the presence of light unless something blocks that light. And fear cannt exist in the presence of Love unless something blocks that Love. By promoting fear-mongering, they’re making you forget that Love is more powerful than fear. They’re making you believe in the boogie man. They’re making you give up hope.

How do we fix it? For one thing, we turn off the channel or change the station when the fear-mongering pundits come on. We don’t need to have those negative thoughts reinforced any more than they have already been reinforced. And most importantly, we start treating other people the way we want to be treated.

When you get right down to it, we all want to be treated EXACTLY the same way.

We want to be respected.

We want to be free to live our lives according to the beliefs we hold dear.

We want to be safe in our homes, in our jobs, walking down our streets.

We want clean water, clean air and healthy food for ourselves and our children and their children for generations to come.

So if that’s what we want, then we need to make sure that the things we are doing are not interfering with those goals coming true. Which means changing how we each do things (or at least how most of us do things.) We are the only ones we can change. We can’t change our neighbors. We have no right to try to change someone’s beliefs if we don’t want people trying to change ours. So the only thing we can change is what we do, what we think, what we say.

Who’s gonna help me change the world one person at a time?

According to a report about private security firm, Blackwater, they created about 30 different shell companies in order to get more work from the government after the incident in which Blackwater forces killed 17 Iraqi civilians.

Now, I know that when we ordinary folk try to get a job, we often have to have a criminal background check and on the form you fill out, you have to put down what other names you may have used, like your maiden name or an alias. So why don’t the Blackwater shells have to be upfront and forthcoming with who their parent company is?

Oh, and for what it’s worth, Halliburton, the company the former VP Dick Cheney ran for so long, hired Blackwater for some of their security for them….

I read a story by another AlterNet blogger about child porn and the Pentagon. According to the story, in the course of an investigation into contractor corruption, the Pentagon discovered more than 260 employees who had purchased or viewed child pornography online. But because the focus of the investigation was fraud and not child porn, only a fraction of those cases (52 to be exact) were investigated further and only 10 of them were ever charged!

The Pentagon says that it dropped the investigations because they did not have the time, money or personnel to continue the investigations since their main focus was contractor fraud.

Now how the hell does that make any sense whatsoever? If you don’t have the resources to prosecute, then give the information to the FBI! That’s their job! To investigate crimes! And the last time I checked, child pornography was still a crime!

No wonder hammers sold to the government by private contracts cost upwards of $900: the people they’re selling them to have no common sense!

Remember last year when the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” thing was happening? All that hateful speech aimed at the Muslim faith and at Muslims in general made the news and was followed by a whole lot of hate crimes (acts of terrorism, really) against Muslims, mosques,  Muslim businesses and anyone who even remotely looked like they might be Muslim. A coalition of faith groups, both Muslim and non-Muslim, met with Justice Department officials last year to request that the White House take a more public and proactive stand against what they saw as hate speech. The ABC News story that covered this meeting was titled “Anti-Muslim Rhetoric: Free Speech or Hate Speech?” To that I answer, “Both.”

Is the anti-Muslim rhetoric hate speech? You betcha. Is it protected free speech? You betcha. Here in the US, free speech means free speech (unless of course you’re doing the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there really is no fire) no matter how repulsive, repugnant or hateful the message may be. I know I’ve posted this quote before, and I’m sure I’ll post it again because it is the quintessential “speech” made by a “politician” (in this case, Michael Douglas as the president in “The American President”).

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Hate speech is really just a form of bullying. The speaker is trying to intimidate not only the group they’re berating but also anyone who is listening to them. They are trying to get you to change your mind about what you believe and start to accept what they believe as the truth. Unfortunately, most of what they tell you (and much of what they believe) is based on lies, misinformation, out-dated stereotypes and deeply-held prejudices.  Michael Moore wrote a great piece that reminds us that America is not a nation of bullies.

But this all raises an interesting point, as expressed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: do we have to redefine what the “crowded theater” is? Justice Breyer references the pastor whose name I have forgotten  who threatened to burn copies of the  Qur’an on 9/11 if  Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf continued with plans to build the community center 2 blocks from Ground Zero. A bigoted pastor from a church with 30 members was directly responsible for riots and killings halfway around the world! His ignorance is the match that caused the explosion. Should he not be held responsible? Is this not akin to screaming “fire” in a crowded theater because people died from his words just as surely as people die when someone screams “fire” when there is no fire. The person who screamed it is not the one who trampled on them any more than the pastor is the one who killed the victims of his words. And yet we legally hold the person who screamed “fire” responsible for those deaths. Should not this pastor also be held legally responsible?

And if he should be held responsible, even if he is speaking what he holds to be “God’s truth”, then where does that leave the ubiquitous Fred Phelps & Co.? Fred and his band of merry followers first began protesting at funerals when they showed up at Matthew Shepard’s funeral in 1998. Now they protest at funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan because they believe those soldiers are dying because we are a “fag-enabling” nation.

About four years ago, the father of one of those fallen soldiers sued Fred Phelps for damages for protesting at his son’s funeral. The father originally won, but Phelps appealed and the ruling was unanimously overturned. The appeals court  ordered Albert Snyder to pay the Phelp’s attorney fees, which amounted to about $16,000 at that point in time. (Four years and a whole lot of court cases later, including an appearance before the Supreme Court, who knows what the number is now.)

Just this past week, the US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, upheld the US Constitutions protections on free speech. (The only dissenting justice was Samuel Alito, whose main argument seems to be that upholding Phelps’ right to protest was just plain mean.) Snyder claims his son didn’t die to protect the kind of free speech that Phelps et al engage in. And to a certain extent, I agree, because his son died for a bunch of lies, but that’s another story.

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of this nation and as such, it must be protected even when we find what is being said to be verbal diarrhea. Yeah, sometimes we have to put up with a really awful smell, but the alternative is even worse. If we prevent speech simply because its offensive, we’re going to end up like Huck Finn, white-washed by the broad brush of popular sensibilities, which changes from generation to generation.

However, we must make the distinction between religious beliefs and rhetoric spewed just to keep one’s name in the news and make more money. Like all the mouthpieces of the radical religious right: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, et al. These people are mere hate-mongerers and fear-mongerers, spewing lies that, for some reason, the American people seem to accept without question. They fan the flames of hatred and fear to make a buck and the Republican and Tea Parties, through their lack of condemnation for this fear-mongering and hate-mongering, are complicit accomplices.

However, as grim as the outlook may appear when the story is told in the media, I still maintain a belief that everyday, ordinary Americans know the truth. Like the residents of Corvallis, Oregon, who came out to support the members of a mosque that was damaged by arson. Not only do they demonstrate the real values of America, but they also demonstrate how to teach those values: by living them.

The Obama administration— mind you, this is the Obama administration, NOT the Bush-Cheney regime— is contemplating an executive power of ordering the “targeted killing” of US citizens living abroad who they (the administration) feel pose a threat to national security!

Yes, you read that right.

The Obama administration seems to think that it has the right to simply order the murder of one of its own citizens without any charges being filed, without any trial being undertaken…just the “intelligence” communities word that this person is dangerous and needs to be taken out.

Wow.

So the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s “right” to order these “targeted killings”, especially when they’re not even in the context of a war. But the lawsuit was tossed out by a federal judge on procedural grounds. The group, Human Rights Watch, wants the US to clarify their position and explain how they can legally justify that position. But so far, no word from the White House.

What happened to the oath of office the president takes to uphold the US Constitution? How is this in any way, shape or form constitutionally permissible?

I am reminded once again of words attributed to Ben Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”