Political, Religious, Personal: The US, Israel, and the World

I had a dream of doing one single blog entry that would encompass all of my political beliefs so I could get them all down I one place and, in keeping with this blog's original purpose, never have to explain myself again. I would just give people the link and let them read it and get back to me. But then when I decided to start by defining terms, I was going to end up with around 20 pages of definitions, so I've decided to instead just keep putting things down as they come up (sort of), and if I change my opinion on something I'll do an edit. Today's topic, which has actually been brought up on and off for the past several months, is Israel, and why I, unlike a lot of people with bumper stickers it seems, don't stand with it.

It's really hard to know where to start this explanation, because all my various opinions on US foreign policy and my own religious attitudes are connected to it. I'm just going to have to start somewhere, and if you find it a bit confusing, it's probably a result of the fact that this is a complex issue, and I must admit I'm nowhere near the writer I used to be.

I think it's probably better if I state the religious part first, because the political part comes from that.

I have had several discussions with American Christians who for one reason or another think that the Jews are still God's chosen people. Now I have to admit that this is strictly an interpretation question. After years of study, I'm no closer to being able to answer the question of God's opinion towards Jews in a post-Christian world. The Bible makes it clear that Christians are supposed to be spiritual successors of the Jews, sanctified through Jesus under the new law as the Jews were through Moses under the old law. There are also several passages that state that Christians are co-heirs with the Jews, and supposed to become “spiritually circumcised” in ways that make it look like both doctrines are supposed to continue. There are also several passages that state that Christians are supposed to put aside Jewish doctrine and tradition and separate themselves to Christ regardless of what the Jews do.

Now, my interpretation for a long time has been that there was a lot of muddying of the waters in the first century. Most of the Christians in the churches the scriptural letters are written to were Jews, and the conflict that Paul in particular writes about the most is how Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are supposed to make things work side-by-side. The Jewish tradition at the time required them to be so separate from the Gentiles that Jesus wasn't even allowed to enter a Gentile household to heal someone, and Peter required three visions from God before he would go preach to a Gentile convert-in-the-making. Plus you had former Jews and former pagans trying to worship under the doctrine of Jesus, and there are a lot of cases where the Jews are told they ought to continue to keep the Mosaic law, while the Gentiles are not, but are required to give up their pagan traditions. Like I said, it was a messy time, and it took several letters from apostles to get it together, so it's understandably a little confusing now.

Going on that interpretation, I don't think the Jews are God's chosen people anymore. I think their “chosen” status was transferred to Christians, and that the promise made to Abraham concerning his descendants no longer refers to his biological offspring because Jesus transferred it to his spiritual successors. But I have to admit that you can read the passages the other way if you're so minded. Now I don't understand why anyone who thinks that way would be a Christian instead of converting to Judaism, but that's a question for another day.

Following from that though, if the Jews are no longer God's chosen people, then Christians are not under any particular obligation to them; certainly no more than to any other group. I've stated before elsewhere that I don't think we're on the right side in the struggle between Judaism and Islam for example. Muslims have more in common with Christians than Jews do; at least Muslims accept the divinity of Jesus's teachings even if they don't accept the divinity of Jesus Himself.

Where things start to separate for me, though, is when we get to the state of Israel. Let's stipulate for a moment that Jews really are a special group to God: how does it follow that Christians have a duty to preserve a country for them? I can find no scriptural evidence for that at all. In fact, God was the one who let the original kingdom of Israel split into two states, and then let them both be taken by foreign powers, warning them in advance it would happen because they'd been so sinful in idolatry without repentance. The Babylonians conquered Judah and took the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (with some Levites) into captivity; the Assyrians captured the rest of the kingdom and annihilated the other tribes. When the Medes and Persians captured the former Babylonian empire, they let the Jews go back to their homeland, and the Alexandrian dynasty that took over after that didn't bother them either. But God still let that restored Jewish state get captured by the Romans just a few hundred years later. After Jesus's resurrection, just before He ascended to heaven, His own followers asked if He would restore the kingdom to them. Jesus just sighed and said they still didn't get it. It seems pretty clear to me God wouldn't have let Israel be conquered a second time, particularly since the Jews had not gone to idol worship this time, unless it had fulfilled its purpose and wasn't needed anymore.

If God really doesn't care whether there's an earthly Jewish state (which He doesn't seem to, given how little He's done to preserve one for them), then why do we as Christians care one way or the other? I'm not anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic, or whatever other charges you'd care to level at me. I'm fine with the Jews having their own state. Why not? The Germans do, the Russians do, the Chinese do, the Arabs do, the Turks do, and so forth. But why is it our duty as Christians to make darn sure the Jews have their own state more than any of those other groups? Even if you buy that they're still the chosen of God, which I don't, why do the other chosen of God need to risk our own safety, liberty, lives, global reputation, etc. in defense of any earthly, worldly, political state? That's not rhetorical. I don't have a satisfactory answer. I might change my opinion if someone could give me one.

Where things really go their separate ways for me is when we move beyond the religious questions of how Christians and Jews ought to behave towards each other and enter the political world. I have mentioned previously my admiration for Henry Kissinger, and my endorsement of realpolitik in practice. I ought to clarify how that applies here before I get into the serious discussion of why we ought to drop Israel as an ally, but I want to say one final thing on the nature of religion when it comes to nations: America is a country; it's not a person. It does not have a soul to save or lose. As an institution, the duty of the USA and its government is to its citizens, not to doing the right thing. America is fully justified in doing evil to others if it serves the needs of its people, and this applies to every other country in the world as well. If we want “the right thing” and “the needs of the people” to coincide, that's up to us. It would take massive political reform to really make those decisions viable again, but that's also a topic for another day. For now, just understand that I don't judge America (or any other nation) as good or evil on the same criteria that I use to judge myself (or another individual human being).

To clarify my stated position, I believe it's right (or at least defensible) for nations to make their friends and allies based on real world considerations like who has material resources, who has a strong military, and such rather than more idealistic concerns like who's torturing their own people or using the wrong form of government. If you take an honest look at even our history, let alone world history, what you see is that those are the sorts of reasons we make those decisions by anyway. Because America tries to be idealistic, we end up lying to ourselves a lot in ways other countries don't have to. Once America decides it needs a country, it has to rationalize that they are a “good guy” nation, no matter what the reality. A lot of our problems nowadays come from the hypocrisy this rationalizing caused us during the Cold War. We propped up or even installed a lot of “bad guy” regimes because the people we supported opposed communism, and that was enough for us to tell ourselves they weren't evil. We were even telling their victims that, while insisting to ourselves that those citizens must have done something to be slow-roasted by hot coals over wire cot frames a la the Shah of Iran, or that the ethnic cleansing campaign couldn't have been as bad as we were hearing, as with Saddam Hussein. If we had been more honest with ourselves and with other countries then, we probably wouldn't be involved in a lot of the fighting we're involved in now. What's more, the war in Iraq, for example, could have been over and done with by now if we'd been honest about needing to defend our oil interests – which I see as a legitimate reason for a nation to go to war – rather than attempting to wrap it up in positive idealistic motivations. We went to war to avenge our dead from September 11th (another motivation that's fine on a national level but personally abhorrent, although not one we needed to lie about, strangely enough), and to depose the corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein after we'd spent 30 years supporting it. The thing is, it's now the idealistic wrapping paper that's holding us in the fight. Saddam's dead; Bin Laden's dead; al-Qaeda is defunct; the Taliban is all but destroyed; and we still have our oil. The only thing keeping us there is the idea that we have to rebuild these “liberated” nations, which their own citizens still see as us occupying their country and dictating how they live, which is breeding more of the same violence we keep saying we have to stop. To put it briefly, you can't put a fire out with gasoline, no matter how many times you write 'water' on the gas can.

So, our double-faced attitude to realpolitik is getting us into more of the same trouble it got us into in the first place. How does that relate to the state of Israel? Because America, for reasons going all the way back to our national attitudes before WWII, has placed Israel squarely in the “good guy” camp. We used to nationally support the phrase “ethnic self-determinism”; the idea that any and every ethnic group ought to be able to form its own state and govern itself. Hitler used this very argument in his own defense of his initial expansions: “The Sudetenland is full of Germans who would like to be part of Germany. If Czechoslovakia would let them vote on it, they'd vote to leave and join Germany. We're just standing up for their right to be with their own people.” It was the same argument we used when we supported letting Yugoslavia break up into its various component pieces, and to some extent to letting the Soviet Union break up. The thing is, we couldn't stand on principle and break the Soviet Union up because, unlike any other country we've dealt with in 70 years, if we tried to destroy the Soviet Union, they had the ability to destroy us back. If we'd really been the fervent idealists we said we were, we'd have risked that total annihilation to liberate the Turks, Uygurs, Bulgars, Magyars, Romani, and various non-Russian Slavs that were all held by the Soviet regime.

When it comes to a country that is every bit as dangerous as we are, we realize it's not worth dying for. When it comes to a collection of countries that, even combined, couldn't attack us even if their lives depended on it, well, we'll back our ally no matter what. We'll bravely stand on our side of the respective oceans and tell the whole Middle East that whatever Israel does, we're behind them. Alone, Israel is like any other country in the region. With its good buddy the USA standing behind it, it's more or less granted superpower status by association.

Now, I've already talked about why, morally, I don't think there's any reason for the Christians to help the Jews over any other group, but I don't see why America has any moral obligation to support the state of Israel where it is on ideological grounds either. A brief look at the Internet says there are around 6,212,000 Jews in Israel as of 2014; compared to 6,500,000 in the US (some estimates as high as 6,750,000). It would honestly make more sense, if the US wants to support an independent Jewish state, for us to declare one somewhere here than to keep supporting them over there. I could get behind that, morally and politically. There is nothing wrong with us giving up some of our land to create a Jewish state; particularly since we have more Jews than Israel does! On top of which, Israel was created by the UN by giving them someone else's land. It was just proclaimed, just like that. No one ever thought to ask any of the people already living there if they minded being part of a specifically Jewish state that was going to set up right there where they already lived. This violates that same principle of ethnic self-determinism, because the majority Arab ethnic group that was going to be displaced didn't have any say in the matter. It wasn't like the division between India and Pakistan, for example, where both sides agreed that there needed to be separate states, they worked out a treaty, and they separated. This was flat-out strong-arming: one group told a second group that a third group got to have their land, and a fourth heavily-armed group was backing them up. Imagine some people you've never met show up unannounced and start moving into your house. The homeowner's association said they could because the people you bought the house from had stolen it from your new housemates' great-great-grandparents. And if you have a problem with that, you can either move out or just be quiet, because the police are enforcing their claim over yours. So from its foundation right up to the minute, we've been nothing but hypocritical on the subject.

So, to summarize, I don't agree with the US continuing to support the state of Israel where it is on any level. God gave it to them in the Old Testament, but then God also took it away in the Old Testament. The UN, citing ethnic self-determinism, gave it to them in violation of ethnic self-determinism. The US, citing a shaky interpretation of the Bible, continues to support this when it would honestly make better sense politically to side with their enemies, and be more justified morally to give them some of our land instead.

Single Issue: Fifteen More Underused EDH Combos, and Then Some

It has been a while since my first Magic post, and I've thought up or remembered some more combos, so I thought I'd do a new one.

As before, this post will feature some copyrighted material. My use of it should be protected under the same sort of laws that allow for fanfictions and other fan tribute creations. The name Magic: the Gathering, the mana symbols, the card templates and designs, set names, setting names, card names, and all major character names (if I've mentioned any) are copyright 1993-2013 Wizards of the Coast.

Also like last time, some of these combos are not original. So if you think you've seen this somewhere else before, you may well be right.

15. Blind Dousing



Blind Seer and Douse

Effect - 2UU: Counter target spell.
Combo Type - Reusable Counterspell.
Pros - Counter anything as long as you have the mana.
Cons - Aside from the demands it puts on your mana supply, the only real drawback is that it's a defensive combo and doesn't win the game on its own. Obviously the better it works, the more aggression you'll draw.

14. Propaganda War


Propaganda and War's Toll

Effect - Other players can't attack unless they attack with everything, can't attack you unless they pay, and can't pay unless they pay everything.
Combo Type - Shield Effect/Complementary Effects
Pros - Fairly straightforward, cheap, consecutive turn combo; both cards work fine independently even without the other.
Cons - Useless if they can afford to pay the cost; purely defensive; and irritating enough to draw aggression.

13. Gideon's Field
This combo is one of a few in this entry that seems too obvious to miss, since both of them came out in the same set. But I've not seen them in use together at all, except by me. There's not even a lot of online chatter about them.



Gideon Jura (1st ability) and Lightmine Field

Effect - Force attack, then punish the attack
Combo Type - Control and Damage
Pros - Reusable, and possibly clears the board of opponents' creatures and keeps them gone. Gideon can attack for 6 when not drawing other creatures into the field, and isn't hit himself. It doesn't discriminate against flying or even unblockable creatures.
Cons - Large creatures, or small numbers of creatures, will slip through alive, as will indestructible creatures and the small number with protection from white.

12. Sudden Pyroclasm
I'm well aware that Sudden Spoiling is used plenty. That's why it keeps getting printed in Commander products. However I've only seen it used defensively, stopping attacks and blocking combos and things. It has enormous offensive potential to, and that's what I'm highlighting.



Sudden Spoiling and Pyroclasm

Effect - Wipes out all creatures a single player controls.
Combo Type - Destruction
Pros - Destroys all the chosen player's creatures. Works even on indestructible creatures, pro black, pro red, hexproof, shroud, and other hard to kill creatures, including the Eldrazi for example. You can play Sudden Spoiling in response to Pyroclasm and wipe everything out at once.
Cons - Only kills everything one opponent controls, but Pyroclasm hits everyone, so makes you a potential target. Doesn't work on untargetable players. Single use, not repeatable. While it will probably alter the board state dramatically, it won't give you the advantage on your own. You still need something else to follow it up.

11. Archetype of the Dragon



Archetype of Imagination and Form of the Dragon

Effect - Creatures can't attack you.
Combo Type - Shield Effect
Pros - Nothing can attack you, and you strike out for 5 every turn.
Cons - Your life total being eternally at 5, you're vulnerable to any spell (or combination of spells) capable of doing 5 damage to you in any one turn. It's also rather slow to implement.

10. Wasting Slash



Waste Not and Mind Slash

Effect - Keep creatures out of opponents' hands and keep your resources stocked
Combo Type - Discard
Pros - Easily reusable against creatures in your opponents' hands, since you can toss the zombie token to do it again. With other creatures, or a token generator, you can keep everyone's hands suppressed.
Cons - Only moves at sorcery speed, so easy to interrupt.

9. Potent Armor
I have seen this in use once, in a Zur the Enchanter deck, but it has more potential than I've seen people achieving with it.



Empyrial Armor and Necropotence

Effect - Put cards in your hand and translate that to a large creature.
Combo Type - Draw, Pump, and Complementary Effects
Pros - Very flexible. Put on a lifelink creature, you could have a huge creature, a lot of life, and an enormous hand all at once. Put on your commander, you could attack for a lethal stroke. On anything really you still have a big creature and cards in hand.
Cons - Vulnerable to all sorts of removal. Life isn't as precious in EDH as it is in other formats, but there are still limits to how many times you can try to use it before you won't be able to anymore. You will probably need to allow for Venser's Journal or other cards to keep everything you draw in your hand.

8. Angel's Scepter



Isochron Scepter and Angel's Grace

Effect - You can't lose the game
Combo Type - Shield Effect
Pros - Of all the various cards you can imprint on Isochron Scepter, Angel's Grace seems to be the most useful. This combo is fast, simple, and once you get it, your opponents cannot win until they deal with it. It's cheap to maintain and easy to use.
Cons - It's got a bull's eye on it, and everyone will want to destroy it (or even steal it away from you).
Like all shield effects, it's defensive, and won't win the game for you. Additionally, you can only use it for one turn in the rotation, so if it's a five-player game, for example, you're a vulnerable target for four turns.

7. Stasis Locker
This is another "classic combo" from my high school days that doesn't see a lot of use anymore. I included Kismet because that was the card to use then. Frozen Æther works just as well, but it didn't exist yet. Turn 2-3, Chronatog, Turn 4, Kismet, Turn 5, Stasis, then you just skip your remaining turns while your opponents are unable to do anything until they run out of cards.



Stasis, Kismet and/or Frozen Æther, and Chronatog

Effect - Lock the Board/Win the Game
Combo Type - Game Winner
Pros - Wins the game, and incredibly difficult to break out of.
Cons - In addition to not doing anything about permanents already on the board when it locks, there are a small handful of very common cards that can short-circuit it. Naturalize, for example, can break it at least long enough for someone to deal with the rest of it.

6. Memnarch's Realm
Another very obvious combo that I just don't see anyone using.

Memnarch, Mycosynth Lattice, Darksteel Forge, and, optionally, Nevinyrral's Disk

Effect - Control and/or destroy everything
Combo Type - Domination/Board Wipe
Pros - You are almost certain to win if you pull it off. With Nevinyrral's Disk, you will keep everyone else's permanents clear, including lands, thereby effectively stopping anyone else from casting spells.
Cons - It's incredibly slow to set up, and will be obvious, especially once people know what your combo pieces are. The more successful it is, the harder people will try to stop it, so you're less likely to combo out in successive games, so you'll need the rest of your deck to compensate both in speed and defense.

5. Maniacal Mirror
The main thrust of this one is both obvious and widely known, so I almost didn't include it. However, I don't know of anyone using it, so it's worthy of the term 'underused.' Also, it seems like I'm the only one who ever saw any potential in Mirror of Fate, so here's a use for it.

Mirror of Fate/Leveler, and Laboratory Maniac (plus any blue instant that lets you draw a card)

Effect - Win the Game
Combo Type - Game Winner
Pros - Almost certain victory
Cons - Vulnerable to instant-speed removers, and may be slow to set up. Also, makes you a target in successive games and when people know what your combo pieces are.

4. Cackling Arcanist

Elite Arcanist, Cackling Counterpart, and any of a number of good instants

Effect - Produces tokens of any creature you control (and especially more Elite Arcanists) allowing you to play reusable instant effects ad nauseum
Combo Type - Token Production
Pros - Allows you to copy pretty much any and all instants multiple times; flexible and customizable;
allows any other colors to blend, and hard to answer.
Cons - Vulnerable target for removal, limited to one use per turn, requires a good percentage of your deck be devoted to maintaining it, and requires a large amount of available mana.

3. Bazaar Persecutor
This is another combo that was so obvious it should have been used more when it was available in standard. I had a heated discussion with someone who insisted it didn't matter if you couldn't lose if you were taking 6 damage per turn. The key part in using it effectively is to make sure you don't give the Persecutor to someone until after they're below 1 life or otherwise in a position to lose the game as soon as it passes out of your possession.



Bazaar Trader, Abyssal Persecutor, and Steel Golem and/or Grid Monitor

Effect - You will try to beat someone to death with the Persecutor, and then give it to them so they lose the game.
Combo Type - Creature Combos
Pros - Bazaar Trader in particular is flexible, and you can send all sorts of weird things to your opponents to deal with. Giving another player Steel Golem or Grid Monitor, for example, stops them from playing any creatures. Jinxed Ring or Jinxed Idol would fit well in the deck too.
Cons - You still have to attack and kill your opponent before giving them the Persecutor, with all the inherent risks. It's also a potential rules headache. I had to look up how this works, but the only way to beat every other player at once is to get them all below 1 life (or any other losing condition) and then transfer the Persecutor. That player will then lose the game, at which point the Persecutor will be exiled (See rule 800.4) and everyone else will then lose the game. Also, the "donate" effect is hard to use in these colors, since the other cards that contribute to it are blue and/or white.

2. "Blacklight" Cluster Combo
This isn't so much a five-card combo as a two-card one that is open to further enhancement. Other cards, such as Northern Paladin, could have fit as well.

Darkest Hour and Light of Day, with Absolute Grace and Celestial Dawn, and featuring Maddening Imp

Effect - Basic Combo - Creatures can't attack or block. Enhanced Combo - Your creatures can, and have protection from everyone else's creatures. With Maddening Imp - Kill everyone else's creatures.
Combo Type - Complex Complementary Effects
Pros - Effective defense in a creatureless deck; these cards fit easily into any white/black deck without disrupting a main strategy; will win you the game if not disrupted; basic combo is simple, cheap, easy to use, and the cards are not hard to get.
Cons - Apart from the obvious difficulty of pulling off multiple card combos, the timing is critical. You can't play Celestial Dawn, for example, until Darkest Hour is already on the battlefield, or your creatures will be as trapped as everyone else's. Put together wrong, creatures will have protection from creatures, including themselves, which means nothing will be able to block.

1. Squirrel Bombardment
The elements of this were mentioned in the last one, but I though I'd put them together this time.

Earthcraft, Squirrel Nest, and Goblin Bombardment

Effect - Kill the other players and win the game
Combo Type - Kill Combo
Pros - Once assembled, you will have infinite squirrels which will translate to infinite damage, and win the game at instant speed. Can't be disrupted even at instant speed because you can produce another infinite tokens and sacrifice them for infinite damage in response to anything. The whole combo requires only 3 lands.
Cons - While not vulnerable to removal once completed, players can shut it down if they see you're about to combo out. Like all the game-winning combos listed, while it might win you one game players are going to be watching for it the second time. Also, without white or black, it'll be quite hard to tutor for the enchantments necessary, giving your opponents time to mount a defense. Players who can't be targeted or damaged will survive.

Bonus: Two Massively Overlooked EDH Cards

Enchanted Evening

Enchanted Evening, seen here with some of its potential combo cards, sets up all sorts of fun stuff that can outright win you the game, or at least improve your position. Combined with Tranquil Grove, for example, you have the whole battlefield hostage with a board wipe on a stick. You can influence players to do what you want under pain of destroying everything. Or you can play and sacrifice an Aura Thief to just straight up steal every permanent in play. Given that it plays into all sorts of different strategies, I'm surprised every deck with white and blue in its commander's color identity doesn't use it.

 



Scandalmonger

Scandalmonger isn't only ignored, but based on the comments I see on various MTG sites, it's positively held in contempt. Now, while it's not all that great in two-player, it mixes with all sorts of things in multiplayer. Think about recursion. The whole point is to get as much stuff into your graveyard as possible, and they all run black. Throw in Heartstone, and you've basically got an unlimited Mind Twist. With Liliana's Caress and/or Megrim, everyone else gets damage for it. Sangromancer, Spiritual Focus, and Confessor turn it into life gain, Madness cards work on their own, and with Library of Leng you don't have to lose anything you want to put back in your library. Everyone hitting everyone else, and only you can benefit. So why not combine it with almost any idea and wreck your opponents?

Political and Religious: Flags, Freedoms, and Heritage

There's been so much about the Confederate flag and other symbols in the news and especially on social media lately, and I haven't really had time to express my views fully until today. As usual, I'm hoping this will serve as my once-and-for-all declaration and I can just link here instead of having to explain over and over again what my position is and why. Also, as usual, my position doesn't really line up with anyone else's.

First off, I'm not offended by the Confederate flag. I was born in Texas, raised in Tennessee, and now live in Louisiana. Except for the year and a half in West Germany when I was a toddler, I've never lived outside the South for any length of time, and I've seen those flags flying everywhere as often as I've seen US flags my whole life. I don't have any more emotional reaction to a Confederate flag than I do to most anything else. It doesn't seem like a racist symbol to me, although I can't recall seeing anyone flying one who wasn't white. On the other hand, it's pretty rare to see someone who isn't white driving a pickup truck too, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to say one's fine and the other isn't on those grounds.

Now, one thing where I pretty much stand alone is my religious conviction that it's wrong to revere any flag. I haven't said the Pledge of Allegiance since I was in 7th grade and arrived at that idea. I'm not anti-American, either. You can read any of my other posts and see how much love I have for my country and how concerned I am that we fix our problems and return to our place as the best country on the planet. But I am still firmly against idolatry. There is nothing in the Bible that arouses God's anger quite like it. From the golden calf in Exodus to the golden image in Daniel, to the death of Herod in Acts (the only time in the New Testament God strikes someone dead without prompting), God is always opposed to the worship of inanimate objects or people. I will never again swear loyalty to a flag or any other man-made thing, although I am still loyal to the republic for which it stands. My problem with the pledge is the separation there, swearing one oath to the country and one, in fact the primary one, to a symbol. I don't support the worship of any symbols, including religious ones. It's just as wrong to bow to a cross, or a stained glass window, or a shrine, or other such created thing, as it is to bow to a flag. They're all the golden calf remade, and God will judge those who worship worldly things.

Separate and apart from the religious issue, I do have a problem with trying to take away anyone's freedoms. I don't think any flag should be worshipped or revered, but I don't think they should be banned either. It's none of the state's business what people want to display like that, and no part of the government, federal or state or local, should be wasting time debating such things, or wasting money pursuing them. I've always said that people have a right to be wrong, and even if you think there is something racist or otherwise offensive about the Confederate flag, you should just let it go and let people be. That's pretty much my opinion on all such issues. Nazi flags are definitely racist, offensive, and come from a culture of hatred and violence, and it's not against the law to fly them. Why make it a crime to fly one that only might be representative of those things?

I want to make two other points, though, related to how a person ought to behave without having laws passed one way or the other. First of all, the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern Heritage. Now, my big problem is with the fact that it's a symbol, as discussed, but you can't ignore the fact that it's still offensive to people - whether you think it should be or not. If we were talking about something else that's potentially offensive, but still legal, would that make it right? Let's look at something that I have a lot of fond memories of - slasher movies. They were a big part of my teens, and definitely a representation of freedom since they were the first sort of R-rated movies I was allowed to watch. I don't really watch them anymore, but I definitely have some good memories of the first time I popped some popcorn and sat down in my mom's bedroom to watch the first Halloween movie. I can still remember John Carpenter and Moustapha Akkad's names from the credits, and the chill I got when the pumpkin opened up to reveal the blue-gray skull inside. It was a big thrill, and it probably influenced the kind of person I am today.

That said, if I started posting movie posters for them all over my car, and wearing Jason, Michael, and Freddie t-shirts everywhere, and even put a TV in my apartment window showing the movies to any child who walked by my apartment, people might not like that. Why? Did I do anything wrong? Did I break any laws? I'm just celebrating my teenage heritage. Why would anyone have a problem with that? Or suppose instead of slasher movies we went with pornography, which was a similar thrill, and taste of freedom in my late teens. Would people think there was something wrong with me screening hardcore sex to anyone who looked towards my window? Can't I wear provocative but non-explicit T-shirts of Jenna Haze, Amee Donavan, and Ashley Long?  Why should they care? I'm just enjoying my heritage. My father watched porn before me, and his father before him. It's a tradition, and something that connects me to people all over the country and the world. What am I doing wrong?

As you can see, there's something different about such things when they're done privately versus when they're public and overt. There doesn't have to be something inherently wrong with what you're doing to make it wrong when you know other people don't like it. People wouldn't have to try to ban so many things if other people would be more considerate with when and how they use their freedoms. Let's go over-the-top the other way. Imagine in the privacy of my room I have Confederate flags everywhere - Confederate flag sheets, bedspread, pillowcases, rugs, curtains; big flags on every wall; Confederate flag bath towels, bath mat, washcloths; Confederate flag stickers in the corners of the bathroom mirror and on the entertainment center by the TV. No matter where you look in my room you're seeing Confederate flags. Is that still offensive? No, because it's my room! If you don't want to see them, stay out of my room. If I start putting them up in your room - or perhaps in public - then I'm being a jerk about it. Again, if you substitute posters of horror films or porn stars, the argument lines up the same way.

The last thing I want to address, which is probably more personal than anything else, is the idea of Southern Heritage. Now, as I stated, I've lived in the South pretty much all my life; certainly all of my adult life. In fact the older I get the deeper in the South I find myself. Still, I can't for the life of me understand just what Southern Heritage is supposed to mean. Let's leave out the history of racism and slavery for a minute. Every "true" Southerner - which apparently I am not, despite being born and raised here - is keen to point out those existed in other parts of the country too. That's sort of missing the point, but there's no progress to be made on that front. But okay, we'll leave that out. Now, what are the good things the Confederate flag represents exactly? That the South is a haven of rebels and stubbornness, as near as I can figure. It stands for a simpler life, which never really existed but the same sort of people who think Leave It to Beaver was a documentary want to think it did. It stands for a rebel spirit, which is a bad thing in my book. It stands for being slow to change, as well, which is neither good nor bad on its own, but historically it frequently means that the South just refuses to get with the program. When the whole world's decided it's going to do something, and your area's the one saying no, that's not really a source of pride or positive feelings.

So if you take the racial issue out of it, the Confederate flag stands for people who stubbornly resist change and refuse to get along with anyone else, for no reason other than that it's traditional in this area to stubbornly resist change and refuse to get along with anyone else. That's our heritage? Well then keep that flag flying. I still support your right to be wrong.

Single Issue: Doing Nonsense Better

What with all the heavy topics I've been doing lately - I think the adjective most used to describe me is "intense" - I thought it might be time to lighten up a little with a soft topic I've been thinking about for a few months: Horoscopes.

I don't believe in horoscopes at all, but I always wonder how newspapers get theirs. I've always thought somebody just makes them all up right before they go to press, but they might have some sort of psychic astrologer or something consulting who makes them up for them.

The thing is, astrology was once a respected field. There wouldn't be any such study as astronomy if not for it. There are old manuals on reading the stars and making predictions that go all the way back to Ancient Greece when people used to lie out at night and try to see things in them. It's a little like medicine in that they got most of it wrong, but an actual study came out of it.

My idea is for a syndicated horoscope column that various newspapers could use, but the thing is my team of astrologers would - in no sort of serious way - actually sit up all night and look at the stars and then look at some of these existing guides for reading the stars and give predictions based on what was once considered evidence. I'd want three or four of them so there's going to be some disagreement on what things mean. One of the disclaimers they always have to give for astrology is that it's for "entertainment purposes only" and it's bound to be more entertaining reading a column of three people disagreeing about the horoscope than it is now. It's also probably going to be more accurate giving three or four predictions for every sign as well. What's more every now and then the column will have to say something like "It was cloudy last night, so we couldn't see anything. Here are last year's results. See if they're any use."

If my three full-time stargazers could sell the column to enough papers, they could do that for a living. They only need to do the five-day version too. For Saturday and Sunday I'd have readers write in with some predictions of their own which the 'professionals' would run with their thoughts and criticisms. Maybe even have a celebrity edition - Stars watching the Stars - for Sundays where this week's actor or singer takes a stab at it.

Here's an example of how my horoscope column would look:

Pisces (Feb 18-Mar 20): MERLIN: Well, I saw a meteor go through your constellation not long after sunset last night. According to my reference book, you've probably had some sort of change in your life lately, and you ought to take the opportunity to use some of your free time to take up a new hobby. CASSANDRA: Merlin would be right about that except he missed the fact that Mars is in opposition right now, so my book says you've probably had a new person enter your life. Watch out for them. They're going to be trouble. NOSTRADAMUS: You two really need to update your references. Of course that's what you'd think if you're reading the ancient Greek books, but according to mine from the Middle Ages meteors are trying to call attention to something, so there's something Pisces have been ignoring that they should pay attention to.

 

Aries (Mar 20-April 20): CASSANDRA: Things don't look good for you today. Your constellation was nearly obscured by clouds, so your future is dark and fuzzy. MERLIN: Well listen to miss gloom-and-doom! Clouds don't necessarily mean bad news. Maybe we're just not meant to know what's going to happen today. NOSTRADAMUS: Guys, I'm pretty sure clouds don't mean anything. According the computer images of the sky from the other side of the clouds, nothing happened in Aries tonight, so they will probably have a nice stable day like any other.

 

Taurus (April 20-May 21): NOSTRADAMUS: Good old Taurus. That's my sign. We're in for a nice financial windfall today, I think. Check the sidewalks for twenty-dollar bills. MERLIN: What's that based on? I didn't see anything in the sky that indicated money. Where's your proof? CASSANDRA: You didn't see anything? You didn't see that Pluto, the god of wealth, was moving towards Taurus today? I think Nostradamus is right.

 

Gemini (May 21-June 21): MERLIN: First of all, Pluto was god of the underworld; Plutus was the god of wealth. Didn't you ever read Dante? Secondly, Gemini is probably the one who's going to come into some money today because the Pleiades were close to Gemini and they represent the Muses, who inspire people. So Gemini might be getting a new job or something, and get some money from that. CASSANDRA: The Pleiades are always close to Gemini, Merle. They're on Taurus's shoulder. You can't really draw any conclusions from that. The fact that Saturn was in Gemini indicates some sort of change. NOSTRADAMUS: Hey, earlier you two agreed that meteors meant change. Now Saturn does too? Saturn was specifically the god of time and death, not just change. Maybe Geminis are going to have a death in their life. Or maybe just now's a good time for them to buy a new watch.

 

Cancer (June 21-July 23): CASSANDRA: It looks like a lucky day for Cancers. I'm not sure if it was just a clear sky or something on my telescope, but those stars seemed to be glowing extra bright tonight. NOSTRADAMUS: For once I agree with Cassie, but I couldn't really tell if it means good luck or bad luck. My books didn't agree. They might just stand out from the crowd today. MERLIN: I couldn't tell from that either, but I did check my crystal ball as well and it looks like a good day for them. Gee, we all agree. I hope we get this one right!

 

Leo (July 23-Aug 23): MERLIN: Now, with Mars in opposition to Pisces of course means it's in Leo. We've never agreed on what Mars indicates. According to letters from past readers, we've been quite wrong to insist it means some sort of personal conflict. On the other hand, that is what it says in the book. CASSANDRA: It could also mean someone else is going to have a conflict with a Leo, but I guess you can't have a conflict with a Leo without the Leo having conflict as well. NOSTRADAMUS: Guy, guys - Remember that meteor? Maybe Pisces and Leos ought to pay attention to each other. This might be a good time to resolve a conflict rather than watch for one.

 

Virgo (Aug 23-Sep 23): CASSANDRA: Always looking on the bright side, huh Nos? Well things don't always turn out so nice and rosy. On the other hand, Virgos look like they're going to have a nice day. With all the stuff going on in the rest of the sky, they don't look any different from yesterday. NOSTRADAMUS: Look, you read your own signs and I'll read mine. I did notice a change from yesterday, because Virgo wasn't visible until a few hours later. Maybe Virgos are going to oversleep. MERLIN: How is that helpful? By the time they read this, they're going to know whether they overslept or not.

 

Libra (Sep 23-Oct 23): MERLIN: All right, I didn't really have anything to offer on Virgo, but boy have I on Libra! Venus set in Libra so it looks like it might be the end of a relationship soon. Let's hope all goes well there. Maybe it won't be an important relationship. CASSANDRA: Merle you dope, that wasn't Venus; it was Jupiter. How can you get them mixed up? Jupiter setting is like the sun setting. It doesn't mean anything. I don't think Libras are going to have anything special happen. NOSTRADAMUS: Cassie's right; it was Jupiter. Sometimes Jupiter means happiness or freedom, though, so it could mean something's going to change their. Libras, lets hope you're not about to "become free" by losing your job, or you might lose a relationship along with it.

 

Scorpio (Oct 23-Nov 22): NOSTRADAMUS: Cassie, I know Scorpio's your sign, so watch out. There wasn't anything special in it last night, but there's something big coming next week. I can't tell what it is yet. I'll give you more details as they develop. MERLIN: Are you sure it was Jupiter? Venus is usually the one you see right after sunset. CASSANDRA: Yes, it was. Venus is brighter and whiter, and it was in Capricorn. For my fellow Scorpios, I didn't see anything big coming. Cite your evidence more, Nos. I didn't see anything in Scorpio myself, so let's hope it's an ordinary day.

 

Sagittarius (Nov 22-Dec 22): MERLIN: Late in the night I saw a second meteor in Sagittarius, so same as Pisces, you've probably had some sort of change in your life lately, and you ought to take the opportunity to use some of your free time to take up a new hobby. CASSANDRA: Really? I must have missed it. I was going to say Sagittarius has been stable for a few days now so if you're bored you might try to do something to get out of your rut. NOSTRADAMUS: Like take up a new hobby? They would both work. Bottom line, Sagittarius, you need to get out more.

 

Capricorn (Dec 22-Jan 20): CASSANDRA: Venus, known to Merlin as Jupiter, set in Capricorn, not Libra. As Merle said, this might signify the end of a relationship. I hope you're not afraid of loneliness. MERLIN: That's it? Off you go into the lonely bleak future? Geez you're a bring-down. If you do lose a relationship, maybe it won't be an important one, and even if it is, maybe it's because it wasn't right for you in the first place. Don't give up hope! NOSTRADAMUS: You know, Venus was goddess of other things besides love. Maybe something beautiful is about to come into your life. Don't panic about your relationships.

 

Aquarius (Jan 20-Feb 18): NOSTRADAMUS: Finally we get to your sign, Merlin. Are you feeling sick? If so, it looks like better health is on the way! If not, well, maybe you're just going to feel a little better than usual. MERLIN: Yes, I have had a cold, but then it is winter. I hope it gets better soon. I couldn't see Aquarius last night because my neighbor left the porch light on and the light washed it out, so I'll rely on your observation. I guess they don't care that my job requires me to be able to see the sky at night. CASSANDRA: Depending on how often your telescope is pointed near their house, they might have done it on purpose. I didn't see anything affecting health, but I did read some good fortune for Aquarius in my own crystal ball, so maybe everything's going to be all right.

 

That's all for today! Keep those telescopes focused and your crystals clear!

Political: Buying Our Way Out

I had at one time planned to do an entire post where I laid out all of my political opinions on every subject, all the way through the spectrum, and it might be 100 pages long but it would save me ever having to explain a political opinion again unless I changed my mind on something (and more importantly, defuse any temptation to jump into a political discussion if I knew my views were already out there). In laying the groundwork, I started compiling a list of terms that I would need to define before I ever started trying to explain anything, and that list was going to be longer than any post I've done to date without taking in any of the other factors I'd like to discuss.

So, what's going to happen instead is that when I have a political idea (and the time, with my now 65+ hour workweek) I'm just going to have to put them up one at a time. I will try to label my posts whether they're political, or religious, or personal, or what have you from now on. I don't have a regular following so I can't imagine there are a lot of people who care. You'll never find me apologizing for not writing anything. I haven't had time and I've not been pressured with requests or comments.

That said, one of the political topics I get discussing more than anything right now is how we ought to implement the sort of changes people think ought to be made. I've said before, I think, that one of our biggest obstacles right now is that there is NO consensus at all about what our country ought to do, or ought to stand for, or ought to adopt as policies. I blame some of that on the government - a) they're not doing anything about that complete lack of direction because it means they can do whatever they want, and b) most of us have had so little control or choice for so long that it's no surprise people aren't thinking like voters and aren't voting like it matters. I blame even more of it on the population in general, though, because we're the ones who got so distracted by the "bread and circuses" that we turned into the metaphorical population of sheep that begets its government of wolves.

It's a good thing, in my opinion, that people are starting to wake up to just how powerless we are. A lot of it has to do with the degree that our government is doing things in our name that are so far removed from what we want. Even the most overstimulated entertainment junkie (and I include myself in that group) can't help but notice that our representative system hasn't represented us for a long time now. Even though we aren't really sure what we'd like them to do, we have identified a few problems that are stopping us from doing anything at the moment. One of them I don't see a way around is our absentee president. I voted for Obama the first time, although I learned my lesson pretty quickly. My line on him is that he promised change, and we thought he meant turning the steering wheel but it turns out he meant stepping on the gas. The continued selling out of the government to special interests has gone so fast the veneer has torn away, and they can't even try to hide it anymore.

I recognize that our system is nearing the corruption tipping point, but I see a glimmer of hope that might get us back to a working model again. The thing is, counter intuitively, we need to legitimize and endorse some of this corruption in order to contain it. Let me explain:

We can't get out of the Middle East in particular but a lot of foreign countries the US people have no interest in because US businesses have a lot of interest in them. We can't stop drilling for oil and find something more efficient because the oil industry has a century of profits tied up in it. We can't stop interfering in other countries politically and militarily because Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" has way too much tied up in it. We're bogged down in three wars, of dubious justification, that we'll admit to and at least two more we won't because there's no national justification. And because there are some very powerful people who are making a lot of money on them.

Now this is where the conservatives start complaining about government waste and pork and where the liberals start screaming about corporate greed and profiteering, and they've both got good arguments but they're both missing one thing: the guys with the gold are friends with the guys who make the rules. My hero Henry Kissinger can definitely see that there's no way even an overwhelming majority are going to separate those groups, because they're the ones who control that ability. He's got his own consulting business in it as much as anyone else, and you can't blame him. Free markets and free societies have a hard time telling people, even bad people, what not to do. I really don't think the people running things are all that bad either. They're at the top because they're the best at playing the game and most of the people who are complaining about how crooked that game is wouldn't be if they had a better score.

We really don't want to change that system, either (a few extremists aside) because the ability to gain money and power and influence is the hallmark of every social and economic institution in history. Ours is really much better than most of the previous versions because no one's stuck in the box they're born in. Look at how rare that idea was prior to the 1720s when the social contract philosophers first starting writing down their ideas. But that system has gone a little awry in the past 60 years in this country because it turns out that when business and government work together they can tie up that invisible hand of the market and make it do whatever they want.

Really, what seems to be the best solution is the most elusive, and it's the title of the post. We are going to have to buy our way out. The only way we're going to divest oil companies of their billions in overseas interests is to give them billions to let them go. That's true almost across the board - we need to give the military contractors a few billion to stop picking fights; give the financial companies a few billion to stop trying to figure out how to squeeze every last decimal point of interest out of everything; give the pharmaceutical companies a few billions so they can stop producing their pointless meds and focus on the real ones.

Why would we do that? That really just sounds like it's making the problem worse, doesn't it? I don't support just writing them a blank check, because that certainly would, but I propose a few thoughtful and active measures to get the forces that are holding us in place to let go. It has to be done or we're never going to move forward, and there are both real and idealistic reasons to do so.

Let's start with why we as the people ought to give the money to the industries in question: They earned the money we're trying to get them to leave. People have different opinions about what a prescription ought to cost or what a barrel of oil should cost, but remember that the systems didn't just spring out of the ground like that. Businesses built things and made things and manufactured and refined and did a full century worth of work to get the money they have. They don't want to let that go because they built and earned their ability to continue to make money doing what they're doing. We ought to vote them at least some of the money that they would have to give up because, let's face it, we have been swimming in oil, and coal, and steel, and glass, and security, and food, and medication, and everything else those giants produce for years. They're going to keep making those things because we demand it and it's the only way they have to sustain themselves. So changing that dynamic means saying "Thanks for providing us with everything we could ever want for the past 100 years; here's 10 years' worth of income as our way of saying thank you for that, but we need you to stop now."

We are definitely going to have to put some severe measures in there to make sure they do stop, though, or they really will just pocket the money and keep going. Again, that's not such a bad thing. If your job accidentally gave you two paychecks one week, would you come clean and give one back? If you can't say for certain that you would, don't be so quick to condemn people as greedy when they take something they think they've earned. I've not really addressed the topic of "entitlement" because I just can't do it without losing my temper, but I can quote you a citizen during the healthcare debate a few years ago who said "I don't know a thing about healthcare, but I know it ought to be a right, and available for free to everyone." If that's the attitude we the common people have, what makes you think the people who do know all about healthcare (or any other industry) are going to be any less selfish?

The first safeguard we need is an expiration date. The details need to be worked out by the lawyers and the industry insiders and, yes, even the lobbyists, but the law needs to read like "the government agrees to pay [controversial dollar amount] to [list of controversial companies] every year until [controversial expiration date]. That date needs to be unalterable and strictly enforced. In fact, anyone in business or government who succeeds in getting it extended should be arrested for treason because they are deliberately gaining personally at the expense of the nation. There's nothing more treasonous than that.

The second safeguard is the ironclad guarantee, again with penalty of treason, for businesses who take the money and don't alter their operations in the specified ways. If the people vote that one of the conditions is we drop what we're doing in military involvement in other countries and bring our troops home, then the paramilitary groups don't get to stay over there on patrol at public expense. If we're writing you a check to get out, then get out. If you want to stay on your armed vacation in a dirt poor country, then do it without the USA's official endorsement.

The final safeguard that will have to be written into the law is perfect transparency. Nothing gets hidden; no backroom deals or under-the-counter-payments. We're effectively paying you not to work because we need that type of work to stop. It's a small concession on your part that your money is publicly visible. The amount, date, time, etc. of every payment needs to be on the public record. The companies involved need to list the details of each one on their corporate tax returns. The corporate officers who get any of that money personally need to have all of that visible as well. Just for good measure, I would say all the banks handling the transfers need to have those records publicly visible as well, even if it's just a weekly newsletter or something that's published specifically for that purpose. If you're getting free money from the taxpayers, you don't have any right or need to hide where any of it is going, and again anyone who hides some of it or takes it when they're not supposed to should be arrested for treason.

If this plan were put into action tomorrow, our financial problems would be pretty much solved.
Look at this infographic: 2013 Billions
That info is a few years old but still quite relevant. If we took a giant bite out of that tax haven block, foreign debt block, military spending block, and war on terror block, just look how much money that's basically being wasted would be put back into the economy. The fact that businesses wouldn't have to keep doing the things they've been doing would mean they could focus on entirely different areas, and the global economic crisis would melt away. Nations could stop hemorrhaging trillions at the cost of a few billion in stitches. The money to do what I'm proposing is already there.

Who loses? The government doesn't have to stop propping up business, and the businesses don't suffer any losses. The people are paying substantially less to support government/business activity, and other countries don't have Americans wandering around looking for things to exploit. There's absolutely no reason we can't do this. We just haven't yet.

If only our president (and others) would get back in their offices and do their jobs. Don't blame me this time; I voted Libertarian.