John Steinbeck, "East of Eden," Chapter 34

A child may ask, 'What is the world's story about?' And a grown man or woman may wonder, 'What way will the world go? How does it end and, while we're at it, what's the story about?'

I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one, that has frightened and inspired us, so that we live in a Pearl White serial of continuing thought and wonder. Humans are caught in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too -- in a net of good and evil. I think this is the only story we have and that it occurs on all levels of feeling and intelligence. Virtue and vice were warp and woof (old terms for weaving cloth) of our first consciousness, and they will be the fabric of our last, and this despite changes we might impose on field and river and mountain, on economy and manners. There is no other story. A man, after he has brushed off the dust and chips of his life, will have left only the hard, clean questions: Was it good or was it evil? Have I done well -- or ill?

Herodotus, in the Persian War, tells a story of how Croesus, the richest and most favoured King of his time, asked Solon the Athenian, a leading question. He would not have asked it if he had he not been worried about the answer. 'Who,' he asked, 'is the luckiest person in the world?' He must have been eaten with doubt, and hungry for reassurance. Solon told him of three lucky people in old times. And Croesus more than likely did not listen; so anxious was he about himself. And when Solon did not mention him, Croesus was forced to say, 'Do you consider me lucky?'

Solon did not hesitate in his answer. 'How can I tell?' he said. 'You aren't dead yet.'

And this answer must have haunted Croesus dismally as his luck disappeared, and his wealth and his kingdom. And as he was being burned on a tall fire, he may have thought of it and perhaps wished he had not asked or not been answered.

And in our time, when a man dies -- if he has had wealth and influence, power and all the vestments that arouse envy, and after the living take stock of the dead man's property and his eminence and works and monuments -- the question is still there: Was his life good or was it evil? -- which is another way of putting Croesus's question. Envies are gone, and the measuring stick is: Was he loved or was he hated? Is his death felt as a loss or does a kind of joy come of it?

 I remember clearly the deaths of three men. One was the richest man of the century, who, having clawed his way to wealth through the souls and bodies of men, spent many years trying to buy back the love he had forfeited and by that process performed great service to the world and, perhaps, had much more than balanced the evils of his rise. I was on a ship when he died. The news was posted on the bulletin board, and nearly everyone received the news with pleasure. Several said 'Thank God that son of a bitch is dead.'

Then there was a man, smart as Satan, who, lacking some perception of human dignity and knowing all too well every aspect of human weakness and wickedness, used his special knowledge to warp men, to buy men, to bribe and threaten and seduce until he found himself in a position of great power. He clothed his motives in the names of virtue, and I wondered if he ever knew that no gift will ever buy back a man's love when you have removed his self-love. A bribed man can only hate his briber. When this man died, the nation rang with praise, and just beneath, with gladness that he was dead.

There was a third man, who perhaps made many errors in performance, but whose effective life was devoted to making men brave and dignified and good in a time when they were poor and frightened and when there were ugly forces loose in the world to ultilize their fears. This man was hated by the few. When he did, the people burst into tears in the streets and their minds wailed, 'What can we do now? How can we go on without him?'

In uncertainty I am certain that underneath their topmost layers of frailty men want to be good and want to be loved. Indeed, most of their vices are attempted shortcuts to love. When a man comes to die, no matter what his talents and influence and genius, if he dies unloved, his life must be a failure to him, and his dying a cold horror. It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action we should remember our dying so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.

 We have only one story. All novels, all poetry, are built on the never-ending contest in ourselves of good and evil. And it occurs to me that evil must constantly re-spawn, while good, while virtue, is immortal. Vice has always a new, fresh young face, while virtue is venerable as nothing else in the world is.

Flashmob Video

I never get tired of watching this.

An Open Letter to Michelle Dugger

An Open Letter to Michelle Duggar As She Celebrates Her Victory In Repealing Anti LGBT Discrimination Laws
By Carissa House-Dunphy on December 13, 2014

Dear Mrs. Duggar,
Over the years, I have often defended you to friends and in online comments that criticize the life you have chosen for yourself. I’ve seen and heard comments that describe your family as abusive since your older children become caretakers of the younger while many feel that they should be enjoying their youth, and that you blatantly exploit your children by allowing cameras to record their every awkward and private moment for your own profit.

I have defended you despite how differently your life is structured from my own. I never chose to have children, and I’ve taken a lot of criticism and have been the target of a lot of confused reactions to that choice. Despite my own feelings about whether or not to become a mother, I have always defended your right to have as many children as you wanted and to earn money to raise those children in any way that you saw fit. I would never support any law that discriminated against you for your religious beliefs or your decision to birth nineteen children. I would never stand for our government limiting your right to express those beliefs, or allow a landlord to discriminate against you by refusing to rent you a home to house your family of twenty-one, or an employer to discriminate against you by refusing to allow you 19 separate maternity leaves. You see, Mrs. Duggar, I get that your being granted those rights doesn’t affect or harm me in any way. None of my beliefs about motherhood, marriage, or religion are challenged by your own, nor are my rights limited because you’re allowed the right to live a different lifestyle than mine.

You and I were both raised in a Christian church. The core beliefs, similarly, were based on the words of Jesus. Somehow, though, I missed those passages printed in the Bible in red where Jesus said that we must discriminate against others in order to follow His teachings. Instead, I was taught Biblical passages such as “Judge not lest ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31), and “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).

While you celebrate your successful campaign to repeal anti-LGBT legislation in your town that would prevent housing and employment discrimination based on a tenant’s or employee’s sexual identity, I stand here, confused. While the country screams “discrimination!” and “unconstitutional!” over a decision to kick Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson out of the NFL because one chose to abuse his wife and the other his child, there is still such a large faction of fundamentalist Christians who believe that they should be allowed to discriminate in hiring an LGBT person. While landlords rent every day to people who commit all sorts of sins, as we all do according to the Bible (“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23), the messages you received in church somehow told you that your sins are lighter and less offensive to Christianity than the sins of others. I’m not sure, Mrs. Duggar, that you and I really were both raised in a Christian church with a Christian message.

You see, I understand that making life more difficult for LGBT people will not reduce the numbers of people who identify as other than heterosexual, nor should that even be a goal. LGBT persons have lived and struggled to be accepted despite decades, centuries even, of LGBT living as targets of violence and discrimination.
I also know that it is not an increase in protections for LGBT people, or same-sex marriage rights, or work in eliminating the discrimination levied against transgender people, that are turning people away from the Christian church. It’s hypocrisy. Hypocrisy such as yours, Mrs. Duggar, in thinking that any sin you commit should be weighed less heavily or considered less of a sin than anyone else’s. Hypocrisy such as yours, also, in saying “I’m a Christian” despite your lack of kindness toward and acceptance of other people.

Yet, I’ll continue to defend your choices. I’ll continue to do so because I DID hear those messages in church that told me that I was not better than anyone else in the eyes of God. I heard those messages that told me not to judge others. I heard those messages that told me that God sees my sins as no different than anyone else’s.

I heard the words of Jesus that told me to love others.
Sincerely,
Carissa

I"ll See Your Reasons, And Raise You Measured Data

I found it.
Actually I just ran across it accidentally while reading the econoblogs and following links, but I had been wondering if there was a simple presentation of this somewhere.

A Facebook friend of a friend had commented on my friend's post saying that volcanos produce way more carbon dioxide than humans.  This was in the context of global warming isn't real because, you know, reasons.  There was a strong suggestion that she believed that the thousands of climate scientists around the globe over the last several decades had somehow failed to account for the amount of CO² produced by volcanos, and possibly other natural sources, in their measurements, and that, since she knew about this and they didn't, that she had knowledge superior to the so-called experts.

Okay, that sounded a bit more contemptuous than I intended, but I'm going to let it stand.

My reading last night led me to this article, which had the following graphs.

  The black line in each graph represents actual measured temperatures, and the red line in the top graph represents the median temperature predicted through modeling.  The top graph represents both natural and man made contributions to greenhouse gasses.
    The bottom graph removes the man made contributions from the equation, the blue line representing the median temperature predicted through modeling.  This chart would cover everything natural, like volcanos, cow farts, and forest fires.
   So yes, it seems that someone has indeed taken the time to figure out how things would be if we weren't around to screw things up.

I've Been Published!

...well, reposted anyway.

Moderation

The last post did something I have hoped all of my posts would do: it started a conversation on Facebook.  Yay!  But I had to use the delete button on the post linking to my blog.  I feel I need to explain.

I have one reason, and one reason only (so far) for unfriending someone on Facebook, and that is that they don't post enough to be interesting.  I don't unfriend everyone who fills that description, for there are other reasons to keep in touch with people, but I won't unfriend someone who I don't agree with, or even someone I don't like much, as long as they keep me entertained and are willing to talk to me. That being said, I do keep my finger on the delete button when it comes to specific comments. And I have rules to help me decide what to delete.

My friend Bobby has been a person of ideological persuasion, but some of his recent Facebook posts have hinted that he wants to move toward a more empirical approach to understanding the issues of the day.  This pleases me, but as he is new to the process, he doesn't always know where to look.  The comments he posted were some quotes from some people with rather fringe ideas, which he explained as an effort to understand the political roots of the movement.  I don't believe he's going to find that understanding on the fringe. 
    He didn't quite violate the first rule, which is "The comment must have something to do with the post," but it did have the potential to move the conversation away from the subject, so once our discussion re his comments was over, I deleted it, lest someone else get involved.

My friend Jason is a special case.  He's on a journey which I've already been on.  I came out all right, but there are several places he could wind up at the end, some of them good, some of them worry me, but he's got to make this journey on his own because his circumstances are unique to him, and he's dealing with a lot.  (I'm sorry if I'm being cryptic about this, but it concerns a subject that I don't discuss on social media.) 
    Unfortunately, Jason's comments can sometimes invite abuse, often because they can appear abusive in themselves, as Gaby pointed out to me last night.  But when I can help it, I don't intend to let anyone abuse him.  If one wants to argue the merits of his comment, that's perfectly alright, and you are certainly welcome to ridicule his poor spelling and grammar, but remember, my finger hovers over the delete button, and I can make it all go away.

Freedom, And Those Who Oppose It

Monday afternoon, I went to the local craft store to buy some paint brushes for a model I'm working on.  A young lady I know works in that department, and she asked me how I was doing.  I said, "Fantastic.  My marriage is recognised in the state where I live, my husband is no longer an illegal alien, we both have jobs and health insurance--I feel freer than I've felt in my whole life."
    "Feels good, doesn't it," she said.
    "Absolutely."

Monday morning, the Supreme Court announced that they had declined to hear the appeal from the 10th Circuit Court, effectively making same-sex marriage legal in Oklahoma and four other states.  Among my friends there was much rejoicing.  My friend Michael posted, "Gay marriage is now legal in Oklahoma. Words cannot express my happiness for this moment and my thanks goes out to my friends in Tulsa who pushed hard for this moment. We weren't state #50 for this to happen!!!"
    Not everyone shared in that jubilation, however.  Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin issued her official response later that day.

“The people of Oklahoma have the right to determine how marriage is defined. In 2004, Oklahomans exercised that right, voting by a margin of 3-1 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“The will of the people has now been overridden by unelected federal justices, accountable to no one. That is both undemocratic and a violation of states’ rights. Rather than allowing states to make their own policies that reflect the values and views of their residents, federal judges have inserted themselves into a state issue to pursue their own agendas.

“Today’s decision has been cast by the media as a victory for gay rights. What has been ignored, however, is the right of Oklahomans – and Americans in every state – to write their own laws and govern themselves as they see fit. Those rights have once again been trampled by an arrogant, out-of -control federal government that wants to substitute Oklahoma values with Washington, D.C. values.”

 Now, I can't say that I'm actually sure that Governor Fallin believes her statement.  Certainly from a legal and historical perspective it makes no sense.  Notice that she's still talking about a vote that took place ten years ago. Since then, attitudes have shifted, and demographics have changed--maybe not enough to move Oklahoma into the pro-civil rights column, but today's 27-year-olds were not old enough to vote back then.  But then, she also never explains why we were voting on basic civil and human rights to begin with, except for that tired old canard about the "definition of marriage." 
It's funny to me that she tries to make the point that the Supreme Court Justices are "unelected."  Of course they are unelected.  If they had been elected,  they would be basing their decisions on the will of likely voters instead of the one thing they are supposed to be accountable to: the US Constitution.  Furthermore, "all U.S. state constitutions are subject to federal judicial review; any provision can be nullified if it conflicts with the US Constitution."*  In fact, Governor Fallin herself swore to uphold the Constitution in her Oath of Office.  And whether she likes it or not, the 14th Amendment is a part of the US Constitution, and has been for 39 years longer than Oklahoma has been a state.
    But in one way, her statement makes a lot of sense:  she's up for re-election, and she's calculating that saying something like this in a state as conservative as Oklahoma will get her a lot of votes.  She's probably right.

    In Washington DC, Ted Cruz also had something to say.

     "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Okay, that was actually someone else, but the spirit was just the same. What he actually said was:

“...This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures..."

This is, of course, a ridiculous statement, as I'm sure he knows.  Most Federal and state courts in the US have the power of judicial revue, and have had since 1803.  It's their job.  It's what they do.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment..."

The Supreme Court is not implying that, or anything else.  They, and all the courts that the case has gone through, are stating explicitly that, because of the 14th Amendment, you cannot create one set of laws for one kind of people and another set of laws for another kind of people if all of those people are US citizens, and that you can't create laws that rob a certain subset of people of their basic civil and human rights based simply on who they are.  And this "definition of marriage" crap doesn't change that.

“...Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws."

The US Constitution is a document that protects the liberties of the individual, and here he is wanting to add an amendment that will take away liberties from some based on who they are.  And I have friends who agree with him.  When I posted an article about this on Facebook, one friend responded, "Good I hope does take action. I support him 100%. He actually has some backbone!"  I pointed out that that could also be said of Orval Faubus and George Wallace.
But I don't believe that it's "backbone" that he has; what he has is a lot of cynicism.  He knows that in the unlikely event that his bill makes it out of committee, it would never be approved by the American public.  He's taking advantage of the ignorance and indignation of his constituents, banking on their belief that these things will change.  But the evolution of America has always been toward liberty and freedom, sometimes in halting jerky steps, frequently with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, but always managing to move forward somehow. 
    "Liberty and justice for all" is not just a motto; it's our destiny.