Pride Justified

PotD / Social Commentary

Pride Justified

June 11, 2016

What is pride? A rocket that emulates the stars. —William Wordsworth

LGBT Pride Month may not be popular with conservatives but as long as hate remains, the love is justified.

After a full day yesterday, we will be dragging the kids from bed in a few minutes, painting their nails, tossing something resembling food in their mouths, then heading downtown for the Cadillac Barbie Indiana Pride Parade. This is a regular thing for us. We’ve done it every year Kat and I have been together. More than any other event in town, this is the one we feel obligated to get up and attend.

Sure, the parade is always a lot of fun. The people involved go out of their way to make it fun. And for the moment, the biggest concern the kids have is, “will there be candy?” because, you know, in their minds that’s what parades are all about.

There are important reasons, though, for attending the Pride parade, even if the kids don’t understand just yet what those reasons are. I’m much happier taking the little ones to a parade rather than a protest, which is the only choice my parents had back in the 1960s. I can promise you there was no candy back then. While they may not understand now, one day they’ll look back and realize how important this time is both for us as a country and as a civilization.

Conservatives erupted with howls of hate when President Obama declared June LGBT Pride Month. The religious extremists among us screamed with fury. We’ve seen this kind of reaction before. They did the same thing with Civil Rights in the 60s and Women’s Rights in the 1920s. Every positive step forward we’ve made has been met with opposition by the same groups of people. They are unable to accept the natural progression and change that comes as we develop more fully as a civilization. They spew their hate and, if allowed to have their way, keep us thinking like Neanderthals.

With all the hate we’ve seen this year directed toward transgender people (the T in the LGBT acronym, in case you didn’t know), attending this year’s parade and supporting Pride is as important as ever. While the little ones may not even fully understand the concept of sexuality yet, it is important to know that there is no room for hate, no room for exception, no room for discrimination because of any difference, no matter what that difference might be.

Ideally, that should be enough, but I know some people that I’ve known since my own childhood are not yet convinced. So, here are a few reasons why Pride is justified:

LGBT people are human. Just like anyone else, one’s sexuality does not take away their human card. Being human endows one with unalienable rights, not the least among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You know where that phrase originates. If we are not supporting human rights for everyone we are not supporting human rights at all. I will go even further in saying that any candidate, for any office that does not fully support human rights for everyone, without exception, cannot legitimately be a true representative of the people.
Ignorance kills. Too many people who have grown up accepting who they are have been bullied, beaten, and even killed because of the ignorance of others. That such behavior continues is beyond shameful. The only way to stop these acts of hate and violence is to address the ignorance behind them. LGBT people are your brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and all any of them want is love.
For those who didn’t make it. When I was in high school, being out as being gay wasn’t cool. Everyone who now can stand proudly with their same gender spouse was firmly in the closet back then. While most made it out and are living beautiful lives, not everyone did. AIDS claimed the lives of a number of people who had been forced to stay in that closet during the 70s and early 80s. Even if help had been available, finding it in rural Oklahoma would have been impossible. As we think of those lost lives we must be committed to making sure that environment of fear never exists again.
For those who did make it. I had to smile this week as I scrolled through my Facebook feed and saw a picture of one of my favorite high school friends standing with his husband next to the Democratic nominee for president. Again, we all grew up in an extremely closeted environment unwelcoming of anyone who was different. The number of friends from high school and college who are now out and either married or in happy long-term relationships is joyous. Even more are those who are out and choose for their own reasons to remain single. They are all incredible people who have struggled with acceptance and both social and legal limitations. They all deserve to be celebrated.
Because love wins. If there is an ultimate lesson for the little ones to learn, it is this: love wins. Love, in all its glorious and fabulous forms, is not confining. Love does not tell you that you must behave one way or another. Love does not limit who you are or who you can become. Love accepts everyone. Love takes you to the top. Love conquers even the most vile and orange hate.

Everyone loves a parade and this one today will be louder, prouder, and more fabulous than any other to hit the streets of Indianapolis. We’re excited to attend and will be equally excited to post pictures in two or three days. But lest anyone think this a mere frivolity, be quite certain, this Pride is justified. Do not deny. We’ve told you why. No time to cry. We’re gonna fly.

Bye.

Art / Photography

All About The Pictures

May 31, 2016

The world today doesn’t make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do? —Pablo Picasso

May Day gives us an option: we can either dance, or we can protest. Which is likely to do us the most good?

Why do you come here? Is it for the pictures or for the articles? Most of the time I assume you’re here for the pictures, but according to our stats for this past month, more of you have been reading the articles. At least, that’s what we assume since it takes you longer before leaving the page. We’re also keenly aware that not many of you visit every day. We don’t blame you. Few people have time or inclination to visit any website every day. So, it’s just natural that you’re going to miss something cool from time to time.

We decided, since it’s the last day of the month and I’m so freaking tired of talking around political topics without getting too horribly involved, that we would give you a chance to catch up on some of the pictures you’ve missed. The is a bit one-sided since I’m not linking you to the articles at the same time. I thought about that option, but that would mean leaving this page or opening a new tab/window, any of which could become very confusing. So, this one is for all the people who come here for the photos. We’re posting all the main images from this month’s articles; not the header images and none of the images contained in a slide show.

In case one of the photos strikes your curiosity and you want to see exactly what we were talking about, you can go to our blog page and scroll down. We began the month with Dance or Protest and continued through topics ranging from moms to using god as an excuse to the absence of free will to more talk about nipples. Oh, and a BUNCH of people got upset about this post, but nearly ignored this one and this one, either of which are more important. That just shows how different our priorities are.

This is for all our photography fans. Thank you for visiting. We hope to see you more often in June.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Just For Fun / Mythology / PotD

A Non-Traditional Wedding

May 31, 2016

The most dangerous food is wedding cake. —James Thurber

Nothing about a wedding should be traditional. The marriage is new so everything about it should be also.

Tomorrow is June, the official wedding month. Yay. Whoopee. Yawn.

Anyone who knows me understands that I don’t like weddings all that much. I’ll attend them for really close friends, but I don’t like shooting them at all and generally find them to be a giant waste of cash. All a wedding does is reinforce a centuries-old concept of patriarchal society in which women were considered nothing more than property.

That whole walking down the aisle thing? Comes from an ancient tradition of sealing a contract. The seller would walk with whatever was being purchased between the two halves of slaughtered cattle as a symbol that should the seller not be honest and the goods not live up to their promise, the seller would become like the cattle: split in two. If a daughter was being sold, which often happened, she would be walked by her father between the pieces of dead animals. Talk about a bloody wedding! Why in the world would we want to perpetuate that imagery?

Weddings do have a legal advantage, of course, which makes them necessary in more cases than not. That may well change in the future, but for the moment such a reality is in place and even has Kat and I planning a wedding somewhere in the future. While government may demand we legalize our union in order to receive increasingly questionable benefits, we might as well make it a party.

There is no need to keep with the traditional concept of a wedding, though, which is why I have taken the drastic step of becoming a member of the clergy. I kid you not. Here is a copy of my official ordination certificate:

For those of my older friends who might be confused, yes, I was once-upon-a-time licensed (not ordained) by a Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma, but I’m pretty sure they’ve long since rescinded that particular piece of paper.

The nice thing about being a Dudeist priest is that I can pretty much make shit up as I go. There’s no orthodoxy, no traditions, no commandments, nor any regulations to follow. The ordination is legal in all 50 states, so I can officially perform weddings anywhere and make them as original and non-conformists as is appropriate to the situation. If you want a wedding that defies convention, I’m your man. That’ll be $50 plus airfare and accommodations. Photos are extra; a lot extra.

I understand you may still be skeptical. I would be. So, to help calm your fears (or stoke them even more) here is a copy of the wedding ceremony that I’ve written. That means it’s copyrighted, jerks, so don’t try stealing it. We are gender neutral at the Church of the Latter-Day Dude, so we’re using the terms Spouse A and Spouse B rather than bridge and groom. We really don’t care who takes which role. Here’s the ceremony:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here with friends, family, and a couple of people no one likes but the couple felt obligated to invite anyway, to unite these crazy love birds, Spouse A and Spouse B, in legal matrimony. If you were looking for Holy matrimony, you hired the wrong Dude.

Spouse A and Spouse B have decided to join their lives and a portion of their worldly possessions together not only for the tax and spousal benefits but because they believe in this crazy little thing called love and were looking for a good excuse to throw a party. It is their hope that this expression of love and sappy sentiment will ignite in each of you a passion for something other than crappy macramè and cheap bottles of wine.

While marriage itself is a long-standing representation of male domination, both Spouse A and Spouse B are vanilla and kindly ask that you save your rope and ball gags until after the cake has been served.

Spouse A and Spouse B, you stand here together as a symbol of your acquiescence to social morès and traditions established by people who could not have anticipated the degree of fabulousness you share. In entering this union, the coolness between you also joins, then splits violently like a hydrogen atom creating a romantic energy that will brighten your darkest days, the fallout from which will cause the disenfranchised to wretch slightly at the sight of your public displays of affection. With such incredible power between you, this marriage may well inspire others to write books, or love poems, or at least a documentary for Netflix.

Marriage is not an easy road and many have fallen into the potholes and never been seen nor heard from again because heaven forbid this stupid state spend a dime on infrastructure. You will face many challenges, from trying to remember the date of this auspicious event to trying to not commit murder when you find out Spouse A’s cousin voted for the downfall of the free world. You have to power between you to overcome these challenges. Remember to update your calendar daily and compare family notes before holidays.

The vows you exchange today are not legally binding and are not meant to enslave or unreasonably obligate the other. They are an expression of your commitment to each other at least through the end of the reception. So, will you please join hands and, Spouse A, please repeat after me.

I, Spouse A,
Do take you, Spouse B,
to be my lawfully wedded other
to hold and to snuggle but not too tight
to cherish on the good days
and tolerate on the bad;
when you’re healthy and
when you’re puking;
to listen when you’re correct
and not tease you more than three days when you’re wrong again;
from this day forward until one of us becomes intolerable
or is convicted of a Class A felony.

Spouse B, here’s your equal time. Please repeat after me, loud enough for you mother to hear because she never thought she’d live to see this day.

I, Spouse B,
do take you, Spouse A,
to be my lawfully wedded other
to embrace and to fondle
to celebrate your achievements
and quietly dismiss your failures
not matter how frequent and public they may be;
to remind you to take your meds
and to scream at the insurance rep
when the pharmacist says they’re not covered under our new plan;
from this day forward
until one of us is deported
or becomes mentally incapacitated
and becomes a ward of the state.

That wasn’t so bad, was it? Now, may I have the fiery brands of ownership, er, I mean, the rings, please? [Receives rings from Best Dude and holds them above his head because no one has ever actually seen rings before.]

These rings that I hold symbolize roundness because no one has ever had square fingers. Rings can be powerful. They can activate the Wonder Twins or grant wishes if inhabited by a genie. Both of these rings seem to be void of any supernatural presence, but they will give you a tan line so that strippers know to give you a fake cell number.

Spouse A, place the ring on Spouse B’s hand and repeat after me:

With this ring
I summon the power of the ancients
that they may bestow upon you
enough cash to pay for the honeymoon.

Spouse B, place the ring on Spouse A’s hand and repeat after me:

With this ring
I call upon the powers of the cosmos
that they may instill upon you
the knowledge to always know when to duck.

That’s it, you’re legally stuck with each other. By the power invested in me by the Church of the Latter-Day Dude and the state of abject horror, I now pronounce you married with all the rights, benefits, and depositions due you. What this Dude has joined together, let no jackass try to split.

Feel free to make out now.

See? Nice, easy, and a hell of a lot shorter than my first wedding. We are more than happy to provide this non-traditional wedding service to all our friends. All we ask is that you give us plenty of time to work out the details. Some states have some really strange laws that require a fair amount of hoop jumping.

You know, you’re not entitled to a copy of your partner’s death certificate if you’re not married. As stupid as that is, there are a number of reasons why you might want to have a non-traditional wedding. Sure, there’s that whole love thing, but even if you just barely tolerate each other you might want to consider giving it a go. Who knows what manner of horrors await us after this next election. You might as well flee the country together, married, just to be safe.

Book your 2017 wedding with us now. You’ll have a whole year to talk yourself out of it. Deposits non-refundable.

Mythology / Social Commentary

Religions Against Progress

May 24, 2016

charlesi. letbetter - religion against progress

Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex. —Karl Marx

charles i. letbetter - religions against progress

Religions that attempt to control sexuality slow the progress of that society

Religion is bad for society. At least, that’s the correlation one finds when comparing the level of sexual oppression to the amount of control a religion, any of them, has on government. Where there is over-abundant religious control there is no sexual freedom and where there is no sexual freedom society, as a whole, takes a giant step backwards.

A lot of people have control issues, and a lot of those people try to hide their control issues by encoding them in a set of rules. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that major religions, which have more rules than any other organizations, might be full of control freaks. What’s especially bad about that, though, is in their attempt to maintain control, they are inhibiting the grown and progress of the societies of which they are a part.

I’m not going to bother linking to any of the three different stories I saw yesterday regarding some pastor or church leader being caught in a sex sting (two with underage children). At this point, we’ve seen those headline so many times I’m rather surprised that confidence in the clergy is holding together at all. While I know many pastors are genuinely good people, we are seeing headlines such as these almost every day now. For me, that’s a little unsettling and I question why it’s not that way for more people.

Then, there was this article in Sunday’s Daily Beast describing how Muslim women are mistreated if they dare show their hair. Specifically, there has been a crackdown on Instagram models from Iran who posted pictures with their hair uncovered. As repressive as Christianity can be, Islam can be even worse and the consequences can be severe, all as a means of control.

Hindu women are not much better off as 85% identify with a caste system in which women are not only subject to beating and abuse by the male members of the family, but are restricted by the constructs of the caste system with rules seeking better opportunities for themselves. Women are taught at an early age to not ask questions, to not expect better, and to obey their husbands.

While sexual oppression is common across all three of the world’s major religions, we have to realize that sexuality isn’t the problem. The problem is a desire for abject control and sexuality is the tool religions use for exerting that control. They tell you when sex is right (within very strict guidelines established by the church for the specific purpose of retaining its dominance) and when sex is wrong (which is anything the religious leaders can’t control). They define who can and who can’t have sex and then enforce those rules with laws that are cruel and often violent.

But the rules and laws against sexuality have nothing to do with devotion to a deity or set of deities. Sexual oppression, just like rape, is about control and patriarchal religions are not anxious to give that up, even when they know what they’re doing is wrong. Male theocrats across all three religions are the loudest voices in opposition of sexual openness and liberations. You can see it in the likes of Texas Senator and former presidential candidate Ted Cruz. You can see it in the election of Ahmad Jannati to Iran’s Assembly of Experts. You can see it in just how close far right-wing candidate Norbert Hofer came to winning Austria’s presidential elections this week. You can see it in the political actions of India’s ultra-conservative Prime Minister Narendra Modi. All are looking for religious control and all are, to one degree or another, using sexual oppression as a means of getting it.

Increasingly, sexual freedom has become a sort of litmus test for whether a society is open and progressive or closed and regressive. To the extent that the most conservative elements of any religion have any voice or say in a government, the more closed and restrictive that society is likely to be and open displays of sexuality are punished. The more secular a government, the more open and sexually liberated is the society likely to be, which also correlates in social progressiveness in other areas.

This leaves us with the logical conclusion that religion, in its desire for complete control, is against any form of progress that might allow people, women especially, to be in control of their own bodies, their own thoughts, and their own actions. If we are to move forward, we must take more of a hard line against religion in government. Interestingly enough, the very first amendment of the United States Constitution addresses that need.

So, how does sexuality relate to a progressive society? Because where we are open to exploring the advancement of sexuality, we are also open to exploring the advancement of other things, such as food, art and creativity, literature, human development, intellectual disabilities, and a host of other areas. Our attitudes toward sexuality impact almost every other aspect of our lives. Progress does not come in just one area on its own, but as awareness and openness in one dimension of our lives impacts others and pushes us toward the improvement of those conditions. Interestingly enough, though, progress in all those areas comes without acknowledgement of or any connection to religion. Religious control in such fields as the arts and sciences would be limiting at best and destructive at its worst.

I know religious moderates will object to such a strong anti-religion stance. “Not all religions are dominating and controlling,” they will say. To some extent they are correct. More moderate to liberal theologies are open to multiple views of sexuality. However, none of those religions are attempting to control the conduct of entire countries, either. Moderate religions don’t even dominate religion. Those on the far right end of the religious spectrum are the ones with the control issues, and, much to the detriment of everyone else, we’ve allowed them to have increasing amounts of control to the point they use that power to deny us the most basic of freedoms.

Note: we’re not picking on any one religion here. Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are all equally guilty. Together, they are attempting to hold back the progress of two-thirds of the world’s population and they are doing so by attempting to control matters of sexuality.

The struggle against religious control is not one of just LGBT rights, or feminism, or reproductive rights, or anything else affected by the control religions attempt to exert over society. The struggle against religious control is a fight for humanity, a fight for progress, and a fight for reason. We should be alarmed. We should be vocal. And as much as anything, we should support sexual freedom and exploration in every culture and civilization around the world.

PotD / science

Intercourse No More

May 21, 2016

Love is something far more than desire for sexual intercourse; it is the principal means of escape from the loneliness which afflicts most men and women throughout the greater part of their lives. —Bertrand Russell

Sexual intercourse may not be required for the perpetuation of the species, but that doesn’t mean it can’t still be fun

Intercourse, that aspect of sexual relations performed primarily for and to the end of creating more little people with which to overpopulate the planet, is a problem. There are, globally, too many of us for the planet to sustain. Yet, due to uneven distribution of that population we, as Americans, don’t see the effects that come from having an excessive amount of copulation. We don’t see the overcrowding. We don’t see the poverty. We don’t see the disease. There’s a tremendous problem and, for the most part, we’re keeping our eyes shut.

Our children and grandchildren, however, may not have to deal with many of the consequences that come from our insatiable desire for sex. Earlier this week, we discussed how that, given that free will is a myth, we might one day be able to map the chemicals and neuron combinations that lead to inappropriate behaviors, such as murder, rape, and threat, and turn those off. Imagine how much better the world will be when we turn off that inclination and desire to kill people and do them harm.

Then, I was reading last night an article concerning how close we are to taking the sex out of procreation. With advances in in-vitro fertilization (IVF), not only is it safer to procreate without intercourse, the world’s longevity may soon require that to be the only means through which children are born. We may not have a choice.

Here’s the thing: procreating the old-fashion way of picking a mate and shagging until you’re purple carries with it a load of dangers. Not only is there the threat of sexually transmitted diseases, there’s an even greater likelihood that both of you are passing along genetic traits and tendencies that lead to even worse outcomes. The intercourse with which we are most familiar allows us to pass on to our children the entire gene structure of our ancestors, including their inclination toward male-pattern baldness, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and over 250 other potentially fatal conditions that can already easily be eliminated with IVF.

As research continues, we may eventually be able to completely eradicate genetic disease and quite possibly build immunities against other forms of illness as well. Within four or five generations, we could have a population that is stronger and healthier than we have ever been. The downside to that, though, is that we won’t die off as fast, making the overpopulation problem even more critical than it already is.

Somewhere within the next one hundred years, overpopulation cannot help but become a front line issue that politicians and governments can no longer ignore. You think government interference in your sex life is bad now, it could get a lot worse. Requiring children to be conceived only through IVF or some similar method does two things that are important for the future. First, it makes our offspring healthier, wiser, and safer. If we drop genetic diseases and eliminate the chemicals and synaptic combinations that lead to crime, we have the healthiest and safest society ever. Second, by using only IVF, the rate of procreation can be controlled. We can effectively bring population numbers down in the most heavily populated areas of the world, and boost them in those regions where underpopulation is also a problem.

At this point, we no longer need intercourse. In fact, one has to wonder if, among all the other impulses we filter from human existence, we might not eventually elimination sexual desire altogether. After all, how many really good science fiction movies have you seen where the characters showed any inclination toward boinking each other? We might see a passionate kiss here and there because we can’t imagine expressing deep emotion any other way, but that’s about all we get in the future: a kiss. That prospect would be rather sad and disappointing.

However, if we don’t need intercourse but can still have intercourse, what that does is open the door toward exploring sex simply as an elevated means of physical pleasure. If we no longer have to worry about disease or accidental pregnancies, we are free to explore and allow our sexual lives to be more open. Proclivities we have hidden behind the term “kink” would more likely be brought out into the open, become more socially acceptable, and explore means of physical pleasure from which we currently shy away. Not using sex to have babies has the potential to be very freeing.

With such developments, we could also see a significant shift in power control as gay and lesbian individuals, whose sexual activities don’t produce children already, become the preferred leadership around the world. This would follow a line of reasoning wherein those who can still procreate naturally are seen as a threat to world security. Same-gender sex could very well become the dominant form of sex, which just might make the world a more fabulous place to live.

Of course, there’s a downside. Stolen genetic material might be manipulated in such a way as to create a race of super villains the like of which no one at Marvel or DC Comics has ever imagined. I assume the appropriate response from some future grandchild of Tony Stark would be to create a combative race of superheroes to keep the rest of us safe. The world would likely never be perfect, but it would definitely be interesting.

For better or worse, all of these possibilities still lie reasonably well into the future. I’m not expecting to walk into my doctor’s office one day and be told, “Hey, we can cure you of all that old-age grumpiness.” I’m not sure I would want that to happen. But if they can make intercourse better, then sign us all up! The future could be very pleasurable.

Mythology / PotD

Life Without Free Will

May 19, 2016

Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven. —Charles Spurgeon

We are so comfortable with the concept of free will, can we even begin to imagine life without it?

Free will. You’ve used it as an excuse. You’ve used it as a tool of judgement and condemnation. But this morning we’re stepping right off into the deep end of the pool by considering the possibility, and quite likely the fact, that free will has never existed. Sounds like I’m off my rocker, doesn’t it? Kat might as well reserve me a room in the old folks home, strapped into a rocking chair so I can’t hurt anyone. Bear with me.

Back in 2002, there was a movie starring Tom Cruise called Minority Report. The underlying premise of the movie was that a very “special” group of triplets had the ability to see into the future and know who was going to commit a crime before it was committed. Law enforcement found a way to tap into that gift and use it to stop those crimes (mostly murders) before they happen. Things get dicey, though, when the condition of the triplets begins to deteriorate and a false positive accuses a cop (Cruise) of committing a murder. The movie was interesting, in part, because it raised the question of what happens when one’s free will is interrupted, even though that interruption might save a life.

Our society, as it is currently constructed, depends on free will, the presumption that one makes, and is, therefore, responsible for one’s own decisions. Our entire justice system and our concept of guilt and innocence hinge upon free will. Religions around the world fall to nothing if there is no free will determining morality. Without free will, what’s the point? If we have no choice in the matter, what keeps us from being the most base and loathsome creatures possible?

Yet, for all the arguments one might make to the contrary, there is considerable evidence that there is no such thing as free will. This is a problem; an existential and perhaps merely academic problem at this point, but nonetheless a problem.

What I encourage you to do, just as soon as we’re finished here, is to jump over to The Atlantic and read the article by philosopher Stephen Cave, There’s No Such Thing As Free Will. He goes a lot deeper into the details than I have space to do here. He does a very good job of breaking down all the science into a language that is almost understandable. Appreciate his effort. When I drop back to look at the base research material even my head begins to hurt. He’s doing you a favor. Sort of.

The challenge in even bringing up this topic is that it causes us to question our motivations, our morality, and our very place in the universe. Almost to a person, our initial response is fatalistic: if I’m not in control of my life, if my choices are predetermined, then fuck it, I’m going to do whatever the hell I want. People who take such a fatalistic approach are more likely to steal, less likely to help someone else, and less likely to be happy with their lives. If that is how life is without a belief in free will, then maybe we’re better off living with a lie. Some scientists, theologians, and philosophers are willing to go with that theory.

But do we really want to live under the umbrella of a lie? As we are better able to map the activities of the brain and observe neurons and chemicals involved with specific activities, we can actually observe how our brains prepare us for an action before we’ve made the conscious decision to act. Stop and let that sink in a minute. We’re not just seeing the brain activity that comes post-decision, what we’re observing now is how our brain anticipates and actually guides us toward what we like to think is a decision of our own doing. There are specific transmitters that fire, certain chemicals that are activated, to correspond with everything we do, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent.

While the prospects may seem frightening (determinism is a very scary thing), being without free will may ultimately be in everyone’s best interest. Cave uses the comparison of how we responded to the atrocities of 9/11 versus how we responded to the atrocities of Hurricane Katrina. We look at 9/11 as being something that someone caused: someone made a willful and deliberate decision that resulted in horror. As a result, our first response was one of anger and retribution. By contrast, we look at the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and, because we don’t consider weather to be an act of anyone’s doing, we skip the blame game and go straight to healing the hurt, addressing the loss of life and property, and moving on with our lives. Where there is no free will fueling our anger, we get to a more appropriate response much more quickly.

There is also the prospect that as we learn even more about what causes us to do what we do, we might then be able to address anti-social problems, especially those involving violence, before they ever become an issue. Whereas the approach in Minority Report was to imprison people before they committed a crime, we may be able to one day completely eliminate the need for prisons by altering whatever chemical/neurological combination leads to those specific actions.

In the end, the world could ultimately be a much better place as we wean ourselves away from the concept of free will and take steps to address the real cause of our inappropriate behaviors. The same science is also likely to lead us to cure diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. Our future could be very bright and wonderful.

But in the meantime, there are some critical questions regarding our dependency on free will and religion that need answering and those answers are not going to come easily. We’ve relied on free will for so very long, it is almost impossible for us to imagine life without it. But if we start looking at those questions now, by the time science can fully explain our actions then perhaps we’ll have some moral and philosophical answers.

Current Issues / Fashion / Mythology / pop culture

Modesty Doesn’t Become You

May 16, 2016

It is strange that modesty is the rule for women when what they most value in men is boldness. —Ninon de L’Enclos

charles i. letebetter - modesty doesn't become you

Modesty should never be a mandate, but only a personal choice for those who understand their own power

Modesty is a topic that tends to get my dander up, so to speak, because I see it misapplied and inappropriately mandated and used as a bullying weapon far too often. Modesty has been used to shame, to subjugate, to imprison, and to deny rights to women for centuries and that we continue to put up with such nonsense leaves me angry. There are three specific instances that are raising my blood pressure this morning, even though not all recent.

In fact, the first happened a couple of months ago. Kat, as you may or may not have noticed, has relatively small breasts. We’re both cool with that. They have their advantages, one being that she doesn’t typically need to wear a bra. In some cases, wearing a bra can even be painful. So, she doesn’t. However, during a performance review at work a couple of months ago, she discovered that one of her co-workers, not a client or anyone of authority, but a co-worker had complained that sometimes the shape of Kat’s nipples are visible beneath her clothing. Normally, we call such an attitude petty and let it go.

Then, this past Saturday, KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan was going through the morning weather report when morning news anchor Chris Burrous, a man whose own hair style was stolen from a 1950s evangelist, handed her a sweater during the live broadcast because, “we’re getting emails.” This is just so incredibly foul one has to see it for it to be believed.

https://youtu.be/NuhXbGwcUwo

Chan, who know that those who complain lose their jobs, laughed off the whole episode and Burrous later apologized, but neither is sufficient to excuse both the behavior and the reasoning behind it.

Finally, we published an article yesterday, Life Isn’t That Bad, and shared it with a few friends who expressed feeling a little hopeless about all the bad news in the world. In one instance, a woman, who is not a mutual acquaintance, commented: “Smart message. Terrible blouse.” I had to drop back and take a look at the article. I chose yesterday’s imagery because of Ella’s smile, not what she was wearing. Turns out, she’s wearing a sweater, not a blouse, and had chosen to leave it unbuttoned, daring to show some cleavage.

Modesty is a big thing among many religious zealots and in certain parts of conservative culture as a whole. Some entire countries demand that women dress modestly and provide for severe punishment if they don’t. Even the Puritans who inhabited the English settlement at Jamestown held some pretty tyrannical views. Mandatory modesty is global and a part of everyday life for many.

There’s just one HUGE problem with all this forced modesty: Everywhere you see it, without exception, it is being done in an attempt to shame, dominate, subjugate, and objectify women. Women are not told to cover up because doing so empowers them. Women are not told to be modest because it gives them more authority. Women are not told to be modest because it helps their voice to be heard.

No, women are told to be modest because they are “distracting,” which demeans them to being nothing more than shiny, pretty objects. Women are told to be modest because their dress style is “inappropriate,” which means someone is shaming them. Women are told to be modest because “only your husband should see you like that,” which is both dominating and subjugating. Every time women are told to be modest, in inference is that they are doing something wrong, even if all they are doing is existing.

What especially sickens me is that this disempowering nonsense is being taught to young girls from the moment they first learn to dress. There is an absolutely disgusting movement among conservative evangelicals called Secret Keepers. I was concerned the moment I heard the name, because keeping secrets is a tool used by rapists, specifically child molesters who are trying to keep their victims silent. “Secret Keepers” immediately sounds to me a group of children who have been molested. What it is, though, is a movement designed to impress girls as young as eight years old with the concept that their bodies are not their own and that modesty helps keep them “pure” for their eventual husbands. Get a load of some of their nonsense:

Bellies are very intoxicating and we need to save that for our husbands!

Lean forward a little bit. Can you see too much chest or future cleavage? Your shirt is too low.

It all depends on whether God has chosen to bless you with breasts or not.

There you go. Already, girls are being told that not only are their bodies not their own, but that they are little more than objects to be possessed by husbands and that their budding sexuality is distracting. Where this leads, ultimately, is the concept that victims are responsible for their own rape. They were “asking for it” because of how they dressed, or how they walked, or how they otherwise were sufficiently immodest.

We already have more than enough trouble combating the pervasive rape culture that has dominated our society for centuries. Women everywhere need to know that they can wear whatever they hell they want, where and whenever they wish, without being placed in physical danger. Women, and young girls, need to know that they can stand up for themselves and their ideals without the threat of violence against them.

Furthermore, women need to know that they, at the very least, have the same right to be dominant, to be forceful, to be bold, to be adventurous as any man who ever lived. If that boldness means one needs to take off their shirt to make a point, go for it. There is absolutely NO reason women should be shamed for doing exactly the same thing that we encourage men and boys to do.

I know there are already countless articles on this topic all over the Internet, so I won’t go on at length. Those were just the things stuck in my craw this morning.

Ultimately, though, I’m looking forward to the day we can view something like the video below as just another weather forecast. Fair warning, if you’re viewing this at work you probably do not want to scroll down.

Current Issues / Mythology / PotD

If Puritans Were Treated Like Muslims

May 16, 2016

All too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be lenient towards others and to understand their value systems, knowing that these are tolerated by Islam as a religion. —Abdurrahman Wahid

What if Native Tribes were as xenophobic toward Puritans as Americans today are toward Muslims?

xen·o·pho·bi·a

[ˌzenəˈfōbēə, ˌzēnəˈfōbēə]

NOUN

intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

America, we have a problem. The name of that problem is xenophobia. We can no longer ignore our problem. We can no longer tolerate the blatant and distasteful exhibition of our problem. We need to address this matter head on and put it to an end. Muslims are not inherently bad. Immigrants are not inherently bad. Believing that they are is not American and is not acceptable in an intelligent and progressive society.

I realize that these are tough words to start on a Monday morning, but we need the focus and determination that Mondays provide. Xenophobia has gotten out of control and needs to be stopped.

A prime example of xenophobia was made public in court documents last Friday when it was revealed that a North Carolina man (why is it always the Carolinas?) on a Southwest Airlines flight decided he needed to rip the hijab off a Muslim woman and scream, “Take it off! This is America!” The man was convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, but this is just one small symptom of a wider disease.

After reading of this account, I began to wonder: What would have happened if native tribespeople had been xenophobic toward the Puritan separatists that landed at Plymouth in 1620? We know the Powhatan tribe that initially encountered these strangely dressed white people were suspicious, and they had good cause to be. European-based diseases left behind by Columbus and his crew had already made their way up the East coast from Florida and were wiping out millions of native peoples. In fact, some have wondered that, had the tribes not been decimated by disease, they might not have been willing to tolerate the newcomers at all.

When we think about it a bit, one can see similarities between how the Powhatan might have viewed the Puritans compared to how many people today view Muslims.

The Puritan separatists who followed William Bradford were refugees. They were considered traitors in England and unwelcome rabble rousers most everywhere else in Europe. Only the very liberal Holland offered to take them in, and Bradford found the social structure there too “ungodly” for his brand of religious extremism. They had nowhere else to go. Many Muslims know exactly how that feels.
Puritan women dressed funny, at least in the eyes of the Powhatan. Puritans were very concerned about modesty and a woman could be imprisoned, whipped, and even killed for dressing immodestly. Puritan women wore no fewer than ten different pieces of clothing and having too few petticoats or not covering her head in public was considered scandalous. For native peoples looking on wearing little more than deer skin, such costuming certainly seemed ridiculous. Similarly, few Americans today understand why Muslim women dress so modestly.
Puritan women had no rights; they were considered the property of their husbands. They could not own property or speak in church, and they dare not challenge their husbands. Native peoples who respected and elevated women found this treatment quite strange, just as modern Americans find the different relationships of some (not all) Muslims to be unusual.
Puritans had a strange religion that native peoples did not understand. Native tribes were spiritual to be sure, but they saw their deities as benevolent whereas the god these Puritans worshiped was fearful and angry. Likewise, large numbers of Americans view Islam and any other non-Christian religion as “strange” and some would even deny Muslims the right to worship openly.
Puritans didn’t speak the native language. Communication was difficult and challenging. Muslims and other immigrants struggle with English now. Is there really any difference?

The similarities between the Puritan separatists we know as Pilgrims and modern Muslims immigrating to these same shores is striking. Both chased from the lands of their birth, neither understood, both disadvantaged, and both trying to hold true to their spiritual beliefs while surrounded by a people and culture that did not and does not understand them.

What if the response of the Powhatan had been to turn Bradford and his followers away? Certainly, there were more than a few opportunities to completely wipe out these pale settlers and be rid of them. What if the tribes had decided to build walls, fencing the pilgrims off and limiting their access to food and water? Perhaps the Powhatan might have forced the immigrants to learn their language. If so, we might all be speaking Algonquian languages now.

Had the Powhatan been as xenophobic as we’ve become, we would not be the country we are now. While speculating on how we might have developed is futile, the willingness of the tribes to tolerate those early religious refugees in the strange clothes, to the point of the tribes’ own doom, was critical in shaping what we have become.

In his commencement address at Rutgers University this past weekend, President Obama addressed the problem of xenophobia in our country.

Isolating or disparaging Muslims, suggesting that they should be treated differently when it comes to entering this country. That is not just a betrayal of our values. That’s not just a betrayal of who were are — it would alienate the communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism. Suggesting that we can build an endless a wall along our borders and blame our challenges on immigrants — that doesn’t just run counter to our history as the world’s melting pot. It contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been driven by our ability to attract strivers from other parts of the globe. That’s how we became America — why would we want to stop it now?

[You can read the full text of President Obama’s address here or watch it here.]

If we are going to continue to be the America we think we are, if we are going to continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, if we are going to continue to be the world’s leaders in economics and innovation and science and discovery, then we cannot tolerate xenophobia within our ranks. We must challenge those who speak disparagingly against immigrants, against those who do not speak English, against those who think we must all be Christian, and against those who would turn people away and erect walls along our borders. We must embrace those who are fleeing from political and religious persecution. We must welcome those who come in search of hope. We must put our arms around those looking for the success we have already found.

We cannot live in fear, any fear, whether it is fear of Muslims or Jews or Hindu or Southern Baptists. We cannot live fearing people who arrive on our shores from Syria, Honduras, Mexico, or Guatemala. We cannot live in fear of change, of different cultures, languages, and styles of dress.

We are Americans, damnit. Fear has no place here. Stand up and welcome them to their new home, just like the Powhatan did for a bunch of sea-weary religious extremists in 1620.

Advertising / Current Issues

Nationalism Is Not Patriotic

May 11, 2016

charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotism

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first. —Charles de Gaulle

charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotic

Patriotism does not mean being a jerk about being an American

The photos I’ve chosen for this topic are intentionally cheesy. I didn’t have any pictures of a bikini-clad model waving a flag or any similar nonsense, but I do have pictures of fireworks and models in bikinis so I put them together with sufficient results. I could easily slap a red, white, and blue “USA” over the top and pass them off as something patriotic, but to do so would be wrong and devalues the concept of patriotism. Instead, this cheese plays more to the concept of nationalism and an attitude that, long term, is rather problematic.

My stomach turned a little yesterday when I saw that the leading “domestic” beer brand, Budweiser (which isn’t American owned, by the way), had changed its name to America through the presidential elections this fall. You can now drink America, become inebriated on America, piss America, puke America, and be arrested for driving under the influence of America. That creates a lovely mental picture, doesn’t it? While Budweiser execs claim that they’re being patriotic, what they’re doing is pandering to a level of nationalism, the same nationalistic ideals that have a leading presidential candidate claiming he can bring America back to greatness. I have some bad news for you: both are full of male bovine excrement.

Many people hold the mistaken belief that nationalism and patriotism are the same, but that would be far from the truth. Nationalistic fervor is rooted in power and exclusion. Patriotism is rooted in emotion and responsibility. While the two can look similar, they are, at their core, quite different. Furthermore, Americans are among the few who don’t already have a good grasp on the concepts. European and Asian countries see nationalism as a power play, often a political stance appealing to pride in national domination. Patriotism, on the other hand, is seen as an act of service, a responsibility one has for living in the country.

One of the best distinctions between nationalism and patriotism comes from the pen of George Orwell some 70-plus years ago. What he said then still holds just as true today, so let’s look at what he had to say:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Interestingly enough, nationalism wasn’t even much of an issue until the rise of the Romantic period in the early 19th century. Prior to that point, patriotism ruled even in power struggles; people took the dominant perspective that it was their responsibility to defend their country against external attack, but were polite and accommodating toward others. With the Romantic period, though, nationalism, that concept that one country was great to the exclusion of all others, became dominant. We not only see in it the political struggles of the time, but literature, art, and music. Once it took hold, nationalism never left. Unchecked and taken to its extreme, nationalism was a primary factor in the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Seeing the United States being pushed toward, and embracing a nationalism bordering on extremism is frightening. Actions are being taken in the name of patriotism that are not patriotic at all. Those who support such nationalistic ideals are using that sentiment to establish a dominating power that, left unchecked, cannot help but lead to horrible crimes against humanity. We need to understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism and realize how dangerous the wrong attitude can be. Consider:

Patriotism celebrates diversity; nationalism finds strength in a single race and single religious belief, to the forced exclusion of all others.
Patriotism honors those who help others; nationalism preserves all resources for their own use.
Patriotism recognizes the responsibility of serving; nationalism exploits the strengths of a strong military.
Patriotism learns from criticism and looks for ways to improve; nationalism is insulted by criticism and attempts to dominate those who are critical of the nation’s behavior.
Patriotism admits that we make mistakes and learns from them; nationalism attempts to justify one’s actions and admits no wrong.
Patriotism values peace and is willing to compromise to avoid conflict; nationalism prefers military domination over everyone.

I love the United States as much as anyone, but as a patriot, I have to see our shortcomings, I have to recognize that we are not perfect, and I have to take responsibility for my participation in that imperfection. While I have no problem defending this country, I have no need or desire to see her dominate the world or outer space in order to be great. As a patriot, I see the greatness that has always existed in this country and I know that greatness comes in part from our diversity and our ability to, since the moment the Mayflower landed on these shores, accept those who are not wanted anywhere else.

There is always room for greater patriotism, but this current nationalistic bullshit needs to stop. And change the name of the fucking beer back to Budweiser. America is better than some two-bit, watered-down, weak-ass excuse for a lager. Please.

Current Issues / Mythology / PotD

God Is Not Your Excuse

May 6, 2016

charles i. letbetter - god is not an excuse

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. —Richard Dawkins

charles i. letbetter - God Is Not Your Excuse

Trying to use God as an excuse for bad behavior not only dishonors your deity, but makes you look incredibly stupid.

Standing at the bus stop outside a busy mall the other day, I watched as a bus driver put a man off the bus. He had ridden the entire route twice, the driver said, and he had to at least get off and wait for the next bus on the route before riding again. So, he took his small suitcase and sat down on the bench and waited.

The weather had been rather nasty earlier in the day, with plenty of rain and a few storms passing through. As the middle-aged man sat there, he’d mumble something about it being a nice day, then laugh to himself. There were some obvious mental health challenges but he was high functioning enough to be able to reasonably take care of himself. After a few minutes, the clouds broke and a ray of sunshine filled the parking lot. The man said, to no one in particular, “Oh look, there’s the face of God. You should always say hello to God.” This started him on a stream of consciousness wherein he repeated the few elements of faith that lingered in his mind. They weren’t many. One was that God would not flood the earth and that something in Thessalonians said Jesus was coming back. That’s all he had, all his mind could comprehend at that moment. The bus soon came and he was quiet again.

I try to not be too hard on matters of faith, partly because I used to be among those who believed without question and know the spell-binding effect on those who either don’t have the ability to reason at a higher level, or simply choose to not do so. When one gives oneself wholly to faith, reason can seem silly at best and an aggressive challenge at worst. People whose faith runs deep defend their position the most fiercely because that is their foundation for reality. Chipping away at their faith is like pulling a rug out from under them.

Yet, there are others for whom faith is merely a convenience, an excuse for justifying antisocial behavior without consequences. These are people whose faith is shallow. They don’t really understand the tenets of their religion and all for which it stands. Rather, they have latched on to a handful of concepts and built their own separate belief system around those concepts that just happen to be loosely based upon the religion. They call themselves Christians or Muslims or Hindus, but they are, in truth, none of those things. They are imposters who are simply trying to use deity(ies) as an excuse for their behavior. Let me give you some very recent examples of what I mean.

Missouri state representative Tina Hulbrect said this week: “It is not up to us to say ‘no, just because there was a rape, they cannot exist.’ Sometimes bad things happen — horrible things — but sometimes God can give us a silver lining through the birth of a child.” The statement was made in defense of a bill currently before that state’s legislature that attempts to define life as beginning at the moment of conception. What her statement effectively does is use God as an excuse for both the rape and the unwanted pregnancy, saying that God uses bad for good.
The Washington Post published an opinion piece by Chris Nye yesterday (May 5) encouraging Christians to keep their prayers to themselves. The opinion came from having observed too many large, grandiose public prayer gatherings for yesterday’s National Day of Prayer observance. The author challenges the public displays with Jesus’ instruction in Matthey 6:6 to keep one’s prayers private, even to the point of going “into the closet.”
In North Carolina, where people seemed inclined to check with God about everything, including going to the bathroom, a tow truck driver left a disabled woman stranded on the side of a road because the car had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. The tow truck driver, who is actually from South Carolina but apparently does business over the state line, told the woman, “I’m a conservative Christian, I’ve just drawn a line in the sand.”
Then, RawStory published an article on Wednesday claiming that the Dugger-related cult, Quiverful, was planning a retreat expressly for the purpose of marrying off teenage daughters. The movement bases their actions on a passage in 1 Corinthians 7:36 that they translate to be encouraging young people to get married. Interestingly enough, since that article was posted, the organizers of the retreat have removed the event from their calendar and added a banner at the top of their website claiming they aren’t doing anything illegal.

By the way, that passage of scripture on which they’re basing their actions can sound a little creepy:

If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

It’s that line about, “he should do as he wants” that is misused to justify some incredibly unacceptable behavior.

Every one of those examples, from Rep. Hulbrect’s support of rape, to the public prayers, to leaving a disabled person stranded, to marrying off teenagers, uses God as an excuse for their actions. I’m afraid I have some bad news for those people: God’s not in your corner. No deity actually supports such behaviors and it is this very twisting of religious ideologies that causes people of reason to find your religions distasteful. But here, let me try to put this in a language you can better understand.

God does not need your help. If God is omnipotent (Genesis 18:14, Psalms 33:6-9, Nahum 1:3-6, Jonah 1:4, 11-13, 15) then he is perfectly capable of handling things without your interference. He does not need you interfering, interceding, or generally fucking things up because you, for some stupid reason, think you are a warrior for your deity.
God is not buying your bullshit. Matthew 7:21 specifically states: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. You can call yourselves whatever you want, but your deity can see right through your crap.
God would just as soon you stay out of the way. 1 Chronicles 20:15 makes it clear that the battle against evil isn’t even in your hands, but those of your deity. “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God’s.” The more you interfere, the more you try to “help,” the more you are effectively stating that you don’t trust God to handle the situation. Sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way.

Using God as an excuse does not justify your actions. Ever. Exodus 20:7 makes God’s position very clear: You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

There is no excuse for anyone, of any religion, to behave anti-socially. God (however you define deity) is not here for your convenience. Your actions are not acceptable. Not by society, and not by God.

Current Issues / Experimental / PotD

Waking To A Nightmare

May 4, 2016

All our best men are laughed at in this nightmare land. —Jack Kerouac

We awaken this morning to a nightmare of our own doing, a horrible and noxious reality that may haunt us forever

I may have told a lie during the night. Little man woke up about a quarter to three, crying from a nightmare. I pulled him up into my lap, gave him a big hug, and tried to reassure him. “Dreams are only pretend,” I said. “And bad dreams are not real.” Another big hug and he was able to go back to bed and sleep soundly the rest of the night.

But that part about bad dreams not being real? Yeah, I may have fibbed a bit on that one. Nightmares can be all too real.

Let’s fast-forward four years to the year 2020. There are 10 million driverless cars on the road, which has reduced the number of traffic fatalities; but those cars don’t always take us where we want to go as governments have the ability to override our instructions and force us to go where they demand. Everyone you meet is aligned with one group or another and even something as simple as buying a soda can result in you being charged as a spy. Few people gather at bars anymore and even fewer at churches. Quantum computing on the cloud has our entire lives connected to and controlled by the Internet of Things. Unchecked global warming has accelerated the acidification of the oceans to the point the Florida Keys and other coral-based islands are dissolving into the sea.

Racism is rampant and segregation is mandatory. People of religious faiths wear identifying badges and don’t intermingle. Those with no badge are regarded with suspicion but are the larger group and travel the most freely. Healthcare is available only to the rich and many hospitals have closed, their halls lying empty after the entire payment system collapsed. Living without debt is impossible because inflation wasn’t held back by plummeting wages. Women and LGBT groups have joined forces in an attempt to thwart efforts at minimizing the rights of both, with an increasing militantism necessary to protect both groups from armed right-wing militias running rampant. 80% of the US population takes required anti-depressants in an attempt to hold back rising suicide rates.

As incredible as that situation may seem, every last bit of it is a simple extrapolation based on current events and sentiments. While none of the scenarios are certain, each are possible given current developments and prevailing attitudes. The United States has always prided itself on being a country where anything is possible, but included in that “anything” is the opportunity for a nightmare such as the one described above.

Don’t say it won’t happen. Just six short months ago no one was taking the candidacy of a loud-mouthed, egotistical New York real estate billionaire seriously, either. No one thought he’d last through the first few primaries. Now, he’s the heir-apparent to his party’s nomination and should he actually win (don’t say it can’t happen) every one of the nightmare scenarios mentioned above could become true, based on his past and current rhetoric.

No one likes a nightmare and when we are small we take comfort in the fact they are just bad dreams. This is one nightmare, though, that could all too easily become a reality that not only fails to make America great but endangers our very future. We can put a stop to this nightmare, but only if those who are apathetic and lazy, those who think their voice doesn’t count, those who hold the opinion that fate is out of their hands, begin to speak up and make noise and participate in the public discussion at such levels as to not be ignored.

Life will almost certainly go on, no matter what the future holds, but do you really want to live in a nightmare?

Current Issues / PotD

Taking Over The World

May 3, 2016

The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do. —Sarah Ban Breathnach

charles i. letbetter - taking over the world

Taking over the world may be as simple as taking one single action: voting

One of my favorite cartoons ever originated the same year my oldest son was born. Warner Brothers’ Animaniacs holds a place of nostalgic importance within our family for many reasons, but one of those is the concept that anyone with the right determination, effort, and a little luck, might take over the world. Where did we get that idea? Pinky and the Brain. In every episode, Pinky asks, “What are we going to do tonight, Brain?” and Brain answers, “The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world.” They’re mice, and more than once they come quite close to succeeding.

Given the interconnectedness and interdependencies among nations, taking over the world is probably a more realistic goal now than it ever has been. The solution is rather simple and I’m not the only who has noticed, I’m sure. Affect the stock market in one major country and watch all the others respond in kind. This makes gaining economic control easy. World food supplies are largely controlled by a handful of companies. Control the food supply and you control people. The entire world, including governments and the global power grid, are connected by computers. One well-written virus and you control who has electricity and who doesn’t.

Perhaps most frightening is the realization that one intelligent individual could probably achieve that level of control without the aid or knowledge of their own government. Fortunately, controlling a stock market and the global food supply requires a substantial form of capital and not many people have access to that wealth. Still, it is a very real danger. Who has access to that kind of wealth and power?

The President of the United States.

Whether we like it or not, we cannot deny that the US is a global power and that the decisions made here affect events and people around the world. For example, the United States is the sole source for a number of life-saving drugs. Should we decide to shut down production of those drugs, especially those for fighting diseases like Ebola and Malaria, the results could be devastating on a global scale. Were our government to enact a policy that makes it impossible for international companies to make a profit in the US, the global economy, including our own, would crash overnight. Where we decide to put troops affects the safety and well-being of millions of people. Pull the Marines from Okinawa and that region of the world would almost certainly collapse as North Korea’s insane leadership would see that as an opportunity to assert domination.

The President could affect all of those situations and more.

When we’re considering for whom we are going to vote, or whether we’re going to vote, our tendency is to look at domestic issues, specifically, “What’s best for me?” As such, our vision tends to be incredibly short-sighted. We too often want a President who will encourage and enact policies we think will make our lives better, even if it is to the detriment of someone else. We are as selfish in our voting as we are in our use of money.

What might have a greater effect on our longevity and quality of life, however, is how we relate to the world. Even our domestic policies such as health care and minimum wage affect things such as immigration and foreign investment. We like to think we’re all big and mighty and powerful on our own, but the fact is we hold a lot of debt and in many ways are just as dependent on other countries as they are dependent on us.

One of the first stories to slap me in the face this morning is evidence that Syria’s President al-Assad is coordinating efforts with Daesh. This is bad news for the entire world as Syria appears to be directly funding terrorism. Both the economic and military strength of the United States are principal aspects in stopping this atrocity.

Oh, and there’s more evidence that China’s economy lacks a solid foundation. China influences the US economy in three ways: investment, debt, and trade. Should their economy crash, they could easily take down ours and the European Union at the same time. US foreign policy is critical in helping keep the Chinese economy stable.

Then, there’s the increasingly worrisome matter of North Korea. Not only have they now limited movement in and out of Pyongyang, but they’ve banned weddings, funerals, and any other form of assembly ahead of their party congress next week. This increases speculation that the country may attempt a nuclear demonstration during the event. Even North Korea’s one reluctant ally, China, is depending upon US intelligence information in helping to form an international response should the rogue nation decide to do something stupid.

The United States is tied to events all over the world, which makes the US president a key component in how those events are resolved. While we don’t need a president who is going to be overly aggressive and intimidating toward foreign leaders, we also don’t need someone who fucks it all up with a religious-based ideology or a hesitant approach to taking action. We are dogged by the hindsight that had we taken a more forward and active role in foreign matters prior to WWII, we might have prevented at least some of the atrocities committed in both theaters of that war. We don’t have to like being a world power, but the world depends on us stepping up and taking that responsibility.

Okay, so maybe it’s a stretch to say that the US rules the world entirely. We have our vulnerabilities. Still, whoever we elect as President wields incredible power over the lives not only of Americans but the seven billion plus citizens of this planet. We should take extra care in deciding how we’re going to cast our ballots. After all, Pinky, we know taking over the world is possible. We need to be careful about which lab mouse we select to do so.

Advertising / Current Issues / Fashion / Mythology / PotD

Predicting The Future

May 2, 2016

Never make predictions, especially about the future. —Casey Stengel

Sure, trying to guess a future that is, at best, blurry is risky, but some things are more certain than others.

I’ve met a lot of shysters and con men over the years. I hate to admit I’ve even been taken in by a couple of them. Those who know how to read people well can easily manipulate them. One of the most common, and obvious, cons is predicting a person’s future. We know when we sit at the small, sparsely-adorned table that what we’re about to hear is fake, but still there is a part of us that wants it to be true, especially when the fortune teller says things we want to hear.

There have been a few times, though, I have come across people who seemed to have an unusual amount of insight, and at least a couple of them were wearing suits. They had an uncanny sense of the future; where markets were heading, which technologies would live, which would die, and the unexpected ways in which those technologies would affect society. The business world prefers to call them futurists. Then, there was that strange person who walked up to me at a Starbucks in Atlanta, unprovoked, and said, “You’re going to lose everything.” Yeah, that’ll leave an unsettling feeling in your stomach.

Even futurists don’t get everything right, but I think there are some things that are more certain than others and we can tell simply by watching trends and adjusting our actions accordingly. While there is still no accurate indicator of when you’ll find love (scam, every time), we stroked the fur of our black cat this morning and came up with some predictions for the future we think we pretty accurate.

Men’s Fashion Week is doomed and androgyny will slowly take over fashion. In some ways, the handwriting would almost seem to be on the wall with this one. An article in this morning’s WWD discusses yet another major label, Gucci, combining both men’s and women’s fashion on their runways. To some degree, the move just makes financial sense. However, over the next few years what this is likely to set up is a greater amount of androgyny across fashion. We’ve already started seeing it in some of the younger, more “street” labels such as Public School and Alexander Wang, but don’t be surprised when the transition reaches the point that couples can shop not just at the same store, but off the same rack.
A major South American war seems inevitable and the US will largely ignore it. Yeah, that’s a little vague, because there are multiple countries where revolution seems ripe. At the moment, food shortages in Venezuela have that country high on my list. People who are hungry do desperate things and Venezuelans seem to be reaching that tipping point quickly. They’re not the only ones, though, as both Brazil, for whom this summer’s Olympics may be an economic bust, and Columbia, where unrest among cartels and the government is simmering, could erupt as soon as this fall. Unfortunately, and somewhat inexplicably, the United States has never taken the interest in South American humanitarian conditions that it does with Europe and elsewhere. One might almost think we’ve forgotten our neighbors to the South. I don’t see that attitude changing.
Straight, monogamous sexual relationships will become the minority preference. We’re already well on our way toward this one. As social acceptance of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered lifestyles reaches a sense of normalcy, other “alternative” sexual preferences inevitably begin to rise as well. New York Magazine published an article last week with findings from a Kinsey Institute study, the largest of its kind, showing that roughly 21 percent of adults in America have engaged in “consensual non-monogamy and kink” at some point in their lifetime. Kat and I talked this one through a bit and feel that this surprisingly high number is tilted toward younger generations where alternative lifestyles in general face less social stigma than they do with those my generation and older. Combine these people with the LGBT crowd and, even allowing for some overlap in the two groups, that number is likely nearly 40% already. Upcoming generations are likely to embrace that trend and grow the numbers even more. The social and political impact of this will be considerable.
Children currently under the age of ten are most likely to be affected by a full-scale cyber war during their lifetime. Yes, it’s easy to make such projections on the very young, but the future almost seems inevitable on this one. If you’re not familiar with the term “Internet of Things (IoT)” then you might want to start reading. The basic concept is that soon everything will be connected digitally, including manufacturing. While that may be a challenging concept to comprehend, one of the side effects is that wealth and power and likely to become even more concentrated, which means when they are primary targets in the future of warfare. Those who successfully hack the IoT will be able to disrupt food supplies, access to basic services, and completely shut down banking, leaving people stranded from their money. Traditional warfare with Marines landing on beaches goes out the window and a handful of people will have the ability to bring mighty countries to their knees.
Religions will fall out of social favor and will be seen more as cults. This is a pendulum swing that seems to happen every few hundred years and we can see it coming. Nearly 30% of Americans now list themselves as religiously unaffiliated. Again, the trend is being driven by younger generations who are less accepting of religious precepts and totally deny any religious authority. Historically, this ushers in a period of severe secularism where those espousing any form of visible religious observance are labeled as extremists and religions themselves as cults. This trend isn’t just among Americans, either, as similar trends have been noted in Europe and Australia and is driven not only by violent extremists in the Middle East but right-wing political involvement as well. The arc historically takes 200-300 years to complete and by my estimation, we’re still at least a generation or two from that arc reaching its apex.

Now, all that being said, we are obligated to add the caveat that the future is never written until it is past. Are there actions that could disrupt these predictions? Sure, but these are strong trends and I’m giving these predictions around a 90% chance of coming true. If I’m wrong, you are more than welcome to remind me. However, when I’m right ….

Yeah, I’m going to say I told you so.

Art / Mythology / Photography

Random Naked People

May 1, 2016

It is necessary to fall in love… if only to provide an alibi for all the random despair you are going to feel anyway. —Albert Camus

Even if nudity were legal, we all know damn good and well that very few people would ever just go waltzing down the street naked. Still, the chance that someone might decide to take such a stroll should encourage more people to walk

I passed an alleged statistic somewhere this week, one of those that I can never go back and find when I need it, which said something to the effect that 20% of all American couples in a long-term relationship had experienced a three-way sexual triste or “some other form of kink.” I didn’t have time to stop and read at the moment and didn’t think to save the link, so I have no idea who is making that claim. If it was the Kinsey Institute, which is entirely possible, then I really want to read that study and find out what they mean by “some other form of kink.” I have a feeling their definition is broader than mine.

Human nature is funny in that we all, to one degree or another, are drawn toward those things which we are told are off limits. Even the most ancient mythologies about the beginning of human civilization involve some form of “disobedience” whether it be Adam and Eve in Abrahamic mythologies or Izanami and Izanagi in Japanese mythologies. With both, as well as many others, there is some random “fruit” that someone eats when they’re told it’s forbidden. We all want what we can’t have.

Yet, if we had what we think we want, would we be happy? Probably not. We are motivated by the pursuit of things, even if we don’t know how best to use them once we have them. That includes mates. Ancient bedouins, for example, considered the number of wives had to be a symbol of their wealth. King Solomon, circa 970 – 931 BCE, allegedly had 700 wives and 300 concubines and they called him wise. I might want to challenge that assertion. Do you think he actually knew the names of all his wives, their birthdays, or their country of origin? Ancient misogynists collected wives like trophies. They didn’t know what to actually do with them once they had them and trying to keep them all happy was undoubtedly a nightmare.

That’s why I don’t think allowing for more open, casual nudity in public would actually result in much, if any, change. People are too into fashion, too self-conscious of their bodies, and too afraid of being shamed to just run around naked all the time. Sure, there would be some, here and there, who would take advantage of the opportunity, and that might provide a momentary thrill for a neighboring 15-year-old. But random naked people isn’t likely to set off any kind of a crime spree; incidents of rape aren’t likely to increase (because it’s not about sex, moron), communicable diseases aren’t likely to spread (that would involve some form of contact and they’re really just not that into you), and Beelzebub will not suddenly appear and take over the world (too many have already voted for him in the Republican primaries).

There’s nothing wrong with a little random nudity. So here, enjoy some I pulled from the catalog.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Mythology / PotD / Social Commentary

Dance Or Protest

May 1, 2016

Come Fairies, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame! —William Butler Yeats

May Day gives us an option: we can either dance, or we can protest. Which is likely to do us more good?

Happy Easter!

Yeah, I know, that wasn’t exactly what you were expecting, was it? But yes, this is the Greek Orthodox Easter. Enjoy the highly decorated eggs.

For everyone else, Happy May Day! You now have a choice for how to spend your day: will you dance or will you protest?

One of the few memories I have of first grade is our May Day celebration. The music teacher organized the event complete with a Maypole, and flowers, and dancing, and May baskets. I remember the bright colors of the Maypole and how much fun it was to dance with all my classmates to the cool music of the lute. We were really into lutes when I was six. I also remember how proud I was of the woven construction paper basket that, somewhat unbelievably now, the teacher filled with candy and flowers with instructions for us to take them home and give them to our mothers. What’s unbelievable about that is not only that the teacher gave us fresh-cut daffodils and candy, but that the candy actually made it home!

There really is no accurate dating of when May Day celebrations began. They are unique to the Northern Hemisphere because if one lives in the Southern Hemisphere one is getting ready for winter, not Summer. The general consensus seems to be that by May 1 all of the plantings would have likely been done and it was a good day for everyone to take a break, celebrate life, and, oh yeah, sex. Pagans tended to be rather big on that part, even though there is some debate over whether that was an actual ritual or not. They called the day Beltaine and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

After centuries of dancing, though, the day took on new meaning during the 19th century when workers chose that day to strike for better working conditions and ultimately a 40-hour work week. Those protests have expanded over the years to include most every form of political statement one would want to make. All over the world today, marches are scheduled in protest of government action, government inaction, and a lack of basic rights and living conditions. Some of the strongest may come in Venezuela where the government ordered clocks set 30 minutes ahead, among other measures, to help save electricity. Greece also seems to be a likely target for protests as the combination of economic and immigration problems keep the country in distress.

The difference between the two ways of commemorating the day is striking. One, the oldest, has a positive message and attitude, one born of joy and celebration, anticipation for the future. The other is born of anger, resentment, and frustration at one’s condition. The two don’t remotely go together. This means we have a choice. Are our efforts best served in the pursuit of dance and happiness and maybe even a little frivolity? Or is our time better spent raising our voice against injustice?

Personally, I choose to dance for a couple of reasons. One, dancing in circles is the one dance I can do well. Give me a brightly colored piece of ribbon tied to a pole and I’ll dance until we’re both dizzy. Second, I’m not convinced smaller protests matter any more. Politicians are too dismissive. The only time a protest seems to work is when the crowd is large enough to be genuinely threatening, and no one in Indiana is quite that passionate about a damn thing. So, dancing seems to make a lot more sense, doesn’t it?

I invite you to dance with me, if you will. We actually have wood in the fire pit, but after yesterday’s rains, I’m going to assume it’s all soaked. And I don’t have a pole or brightly colored strips of cloth. We can still dance, though, even if it decides to rain. Dancing is never a bad use of a Sunday.

Go ahead. Indulge. Dance.

Advertising / Current Issues / Just For Fun

Friday Follies

April 29, 2016

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies – it is the first law of nature. —Voltaire

Oh, wait, we forgot to talk about a few things

Oh geeze, it’s Friday already. How did this happen? The lawn needs to be mowed, the house is a mess, the laundry is piled up and I don’t have anything thawed for dinner. I’m so behind on editing I don’t even want to think about it at this point. On top of that, there are no fewer than a dozen topics on my board that we haven’t had a chance to talk about this week. Writing takes up a lot of time and there just hasn’t been enough of that time available.

So, since most everything is somewhat timely, let me see how many of these follies I can reduce and get into one article. You can click the links for full stories in most cases. Or not.

Leica announced a new stripped-down version of its digital camera that sounds exactly like what I need. No LCD screen, no stupid video eating up battery, no wildly high ISOs, none of the stupid filters and shit that all the amateurs think make their cameras cool. This is a real photographer’s camera. One has to know what they’re doing and not rely on presets and the “auto” setting. I like the look and sound of this camera. What I don’t understand, though, is why the damn thing costs over $5,000! With all the nonsense stripped down I would expect a price significantly lower. I was all ready to put one on my shopping list until I saw the damn price tag.

I’ve always thought that, being a child of the 60s and 70s, we grew up with some of the best music ever written. Now, there seems to be some evidence that as, for the first time ever, older catalog music is outselling new music. Some are trying to blame this on streaming services while others say that the whole retro vinyl thing is a factor. To an extent, both arguments may have some validity to them. But, the bottom line, and we all know it, is that older music is just better. Only a fool would choose Taylor Swift over the Beatles or Stones, One Direction over AC/DC or Three Dog Night. We had the best music ever, and now even the kids are beginning to recognize that fact.

Durham, NC ad agency McKinney has the perfect response to their home state’s controversial HB2 law: flush it. To make that action more accessible to people, they’ve printed HB2 on toilet paper. The rest should be self-explanatory. The only problem with the concept is they didn’t seem to make any provision for it being widely accessible. If you write the company, they might send you a roll. You should know what to do with it.

Funniest thing I’ve seen on Twitter all week:

Today I overheard someone say, while on the phone, “well, who took your underpants? Do you have more?” No context given.

— VSESLAV (@Coffinsyrup69) April 27, 2016

Speaking of funny, if you’ve not followed Berkeley Breathed’s Bloom County on Facebook this week, you’ve missed a special collection of real gems. Since Breathed decided to publish his work on Facebook rather than through the creative-squashing syndicate, we’ve seen some delightfully wonderful strips, but this week has taken the hairball (so to speak) as the cartoonist stretched Monday’s World Penguin Day into a full week. Well, almost. Bill the Cat got his dues in today. Still, this week’s strips have been a prime example of why Breathed is a treasured talent.

There, that clears out the most important stuff. Follies are best on Friday, I suppose. That’s the only way the alliteration works. There are still a couple of scraps lying around, but I’ll leave those in case I get desperate over the weekend. The grass on the lawn isn’t getting any shorter with me sitting here. Not that I’m going to cut it. I just need to find someone in the neighborhood who can use an extra $4.37.

Follies. Hehe.

Advertising / Current Issues / PotD

Get With The Game

April 29, 2016

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few. —George Berkeley

The world has changed. Either get with the game or be prepared to be left behind. We’re not going back

Lika a lot of creative people, I had a tendency to daydream when I was a child. I could get lost in my own thoughts no matter where I was or what I was supposed to be doing, which often meant I wasn’t doing anything at all. Those would be the times, after calling my name multiple times and getting no response, one parent or the other would take hold of my shoulder and give me a firm shake, then say, “Charles, you need to get with the game. You’re holding everyone up.”

Yesterday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) essentially told the entire United States the same thing: You need to get with the game. The “game” isn’t anything with a ball or rings or mats or fields, though. The game they’re talking about is equal protection for everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The message was blunt and firm that cities hosting, or even bidding, for any manner of NCAA event, whether an educational conference or a major game, has to ensure that everyone gets equal treatment. No exceptions. The statement from the NCAA reads, in part:

The board’s decision follows the recent actions of legislatures in several states, which have passed laws allowing residents to refuse to provide services to some people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While proponents of the laws focus on how they protect religious beliefs, critics have voiced concerns that they create an environment of sanctioned discrimination.

Here’s the thing: the NCAA isn’t exactly known as a bastion of liberal or progressive thought. If anything, they tend to see themselves as protectors of tradition and legacy, taking more conservative positions on the majority of issues. The Board of Governors is made up largely of university presidents who tend to be more concerned with not upsetting major donors, who also tend to be rather conservative in their positions. One can’t blame the influence of liberal media nor liberal academics as the NCAA stands quite separate from either. For the nation’s governing body over collegiate sports to make a statement such as this indicates something very important: society has changed, whether you like it or not.

Oh, but the NCAA wasn’t content to just let it go with sexual orientation and gender identity. They’re taking on some other very important issues. The statement also reads:

The Association now prohibits championships events with predetermined sites in states where governments display the Confederate battle flag, and prohibits NCAA members from hosting championships events if their school nicknames use Native American imagery that is considered abusive and offensive.

In case you’re head is spinning and you’re just not sure what all just happened, let me make it very clear: anti-gay and/or anti-transgender laws and blatantly racist symbols are no longer acceptable. Anywhere. Period. Under any circumstances. Get with the game.

Hold on, we’re not done.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)announced yesterday that it is launching an investigation into gender stereotyping in advertising. Again, we’re talking about a traditionally conservative body, one that has at times been accused of being too knee-jerk in its reactions, taking a surprisingly progressive move demonstrating a significant shift in what contemporary society considers acceptable. ASA Chief executive, Guy Parker, said as part of the statement:

We’re serious about making sure
we’re alive to changing attitudes
and behaviors. That’s why we’ve
already been taking action to ban
ads that we believe reinforce
gender stereotypes and that are
likely to cause serious and
widespread offense, or harm.

While the ASA’s announcement legally applies only to the UK, advertising is expensive and while some regional changes are often made, global campaigns that run in the UK as well as other countries will still have to meet those same standards. So, word to all the misogynists out there, especially those in advertising: Get with the game. Gender stereotypes are no longer acceptable.

Morals are not something that can be legislated, nor can they be strictly dictated by a mythology. As a society progresses and moves forward, those morals, those social norms, are going to change. Some change willingly. Others foolishly fight change with their last breath. Boycott all you want, protest all you want, elect all the religiously intolerant, inbred, closed-minded legislators you want, society will move forward. Your best move is to get with the game.

To review, the following are no longer acceptable, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances:

Anti-LGBTQ legislation of any kind
City or venue policies that do not protect race, gender, and sexual orientation
Confederate flags
Offensive Native American imagery
Gender stereotypes

I realize, for some of you, that is a lot of change in one fell swoop. Too bad. Get with the game and start moving forward. You’re holding everyone else up.

Advertising / Current Issues / video

It’s Not Easy Being Mom (Video)

April 27, 2016

charles i. letebtter - it's not easy being mom

My mother was a single mom, and most of the women I know are strong. —Regina King

charles i. letbetter - it's not easy being mom

Being a mom has always been tough, so let’s skip the platitudes and recognize them for the tough, persevering people they are.

We tend to think of mothers as being tender, gentle and nurturing creatures who kiss away our boo-boos when we’re little, mend our broken hearts when that first crush dumps us, and cries when we finally get around to leaving home. Certainly, moms are all those things. But your mom is so much more. In fact, I’ve not known a mom who isn’t just as tough, as hard-working, as creative, and as persevering as any man she might come up against. Moms not only know how to get the work done, they know how to clean up the mess when everything explodes in your face. They’re due a bit more respect than what they’ve been getting.

I don’t like losing jobs, but when I see positions in advertising that have traditionally gone to men not only going to women, but going to a mom, I don’t feel I have any room to complain. Not only does that mom deserve the same opportunity as old white guys like me, chances are pretty high she can do the job better and is going to leave all us old white guys in the dust. As we’re beginning to see more women in top executive roles at ad firms, the tenor of ads both for and about women has changed. Slowly but surely, that condescending tone of ads that permeated advertising through the 90’s and well into the early part of this century is beginning to change perspectives and put in its place is one more real and understanding of women’s lives.

For example, with Mother’s Day coming up in a couple of weeks, we’re seeing ads from the usual places beginning to crop up but they’re not all sweet and smarmy as they’ve been before. This ad from Teleflora does a much better job of depicting exactly what all a mom does. Take a look:

In case you don’t recognize the voice, that’s the late NFL champion coach Vince Lombardi’s famous speech on what it takes to be a winner. All those words about grit, being tough, never giving up, and doing whatever it takes have traditionally been applied to football players. What this ad shows, though, is that they apply just as much to your mom, my mom, and every mom who’s ever given birth to a child. The road isn’t easy.

Even in cultures where women have traditionally been treated as little more than slaves, we’re beginning to see some change. I was struck by an ad from India, a place where patriarchy and misogyny still have a strong hold on the culture. Taking on the perspective of a father who sees late in his life just how hard his daughter works both as a mom and a business person and takes on the stereotype of men not helping around the house. Every father-to-be, in every country, needs to see this:

As we pass from a male-dominated perspective to one that is hopefully more balanced, one of the things we begin to realize is that just the act of becoming a mom is more than we’ve ever imagined. Not only is it painful to become a mom, it’s dangerous. A statistic of which I was not aware until late last year is that almost 300,000 women still die every year from complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Think about that a moment and do some math. That means someone is losing their mother at least once every two minutes.

Don’t go thinking that statistic is limited to third world countries, either; it’s just as applicable here in the United States and every time some goddamn holier-than-thou politician introduces yet another idiotic bill limiting women’s access to free and/or low-cost healthcare and birth control, he’s ratcheting that number higher. Fortunately, there are organizations like Planned Parenthood and Christy Turlington’s Every Mother Counts (EMC) program who are there to address the issue of mortality among mothers. EMC operates in seven countries, including the US, to not only bring awareness of childbirth issues, but to partner with organizations to address issues such as poor education, transportation to doctors and hospitals, and supplies. They’re directly meeting the needs of moms like yours and mine every day, and not only do they get little thanks for it but often they are ridiculed and bad mouthed and even threatened because they dare to further the cause and life quality of women.

Seeing more women in traditionally male roles, such as advertising, communications, medicine, technology, and pretty much everywhere else is good for us all, good for our society, and good for our economy. Let us not lose sight, though, that many of those strong womens are also the people someone calls mom. They deserve more than flowers. They deserve our respect.

Current Issues / PotD / science

Suicide Has Our Attention For Now

April 26, 2016

Our nation has not made the level of investment on a federal level that can have the positive effect on suicide that has happened for the other leading causes of death. —Dr. Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

charles i. letbetter - suicide has our attention now

We’ve callously tried to ignore suicide for years but as the numbers go up we have to pay attention

We’ve all known someone who didn’t make it. Suicide hit close to home again a couple of weeks ago when the owner of the restaurant where Kat and I have our infrequent lunch dates decided he couldn’t go on. That was not the first such incident either of us has encountered, though, and the numbers are going up.

Suicide has our attention now. With the release of the CDC’s latest report last week, news and media outlets jumped on the unexpected and alarming news that suicides in the United States have jumped, overall, by a whopping 25 percent since 1999. Statistically, that 25 percent is frightening enough, but when the numbers are broken down into specific groups the fear factor spikes. Just take a look at some of the larger increases:

Suicide among Native Americans increased a dramatic 89% among women, 36% among men.
Suicide among white women increased by 60%.
Suicide among white men increased by 28%.
Suicide among girls ages 10-14 tripled.
Both women and men between the ages of 45-60 saw increases of 63% and 43% respectively

There almost seems to be one bright spot in that deaths among black males is one of the few areas that saw a decrease. Oh, but wait, that group has seen a severe increase in homicide over the same period, which more than offsets the suicide statistic.

There’s also a disturbing shift in the mode of suicide. While firearms and poisoning (which includes drug overdose) are still the most common methods, suffocation (hanging) incidents increased by 25 %.

When faced with this topic, the first question out of our mouths is almost always, “why?” The truth is, we don’t always know, but looking at the economic divisions we see that suicides were higher in all age and gender groups where income and economic opportunity were lowest. Even with the passing of the Affordable Care Act, which wasn’t fully implemented until after the study’s end date, availability of mental health care among the poor is exceedingly scarce. The entire psychiatric field relies almost entirely upon insurance receipts and mental health care is one area where insurance companies risk significant loss because of the need for ongoing treatment. Insurance looks to cut its losses by limiting coverage and raising rates, which, in turn, means that those most at risk are least likely to get the help they need.

We also know that there is an increased sense of desperation across the country and social media may be feeding into that problem. Young adults seem to be especially prone to this problem as pressures from parents are high to get a job, even though entry-level positions can be difficult to find. An increase in the importance of standardized testing at school increases the emphasis on academic performance. Meanwhile, when looking at Facebook and Instagram all one seems to see are photos of other people going to concerts and on expensive vacations and buying expensive clothes. This isn’t motivating. Instead, feeling that they are the only ones in their group not succeeding leads to a sense that they never will succeed and might as well stop trying.

Depression is a well-known factor in one’s decision to end their own life, but what we can extrapolate from this study is that the causes of depression are increasing and the depression itself is more severe. Women suffering through long periods of gender and pay inequity increases rates of depression. Repeated loss of employment, long-term unemployment, and seeing their skill set become irrelevant are among the major causes of depression among middle-aged men. General concerns about safety, ability to care for families, pressure to conform to societal standards and the feeling that government isn’t helping are all contributing factors.

With this, our attitudes toward suicide are slowly changing. The death of comedian Robin Williams brought the topic to the forefront of conversation for a moment and we slowly began to realize that the conversation we were having wasn’t the right one. Still, we find ourselves unsure what to do, how to help, or what to say when we fear that someone we know may be suicidal. Based on what we are beginning to understand, here are some tips to keep in mind.

Keep the number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in your phone: 1-800-273-TALK (8255)
Be aware of any signs of abuse and/or bullying as these are leading factors across multiple groups
Don’t be afraid to say something. Posting “I wish I had known” on Facebook after the fact doesn’t help anyone.
Learn how to listen. Listening, keeping your mouth shut, avoiding platitudes or empty advice, are valuable traits.
Know what to say. There are numerous resources online to help. You already know someone who needs help. Be ready.
Suicide is not “the cowards way out,” nor does it negatively affect one’s spiritual situation. Don’t even go there. Guilt doesn’t help.
Consider how your own actions may be making someone else’s life difficult. The words we say, the way we treat others, are all factors.

Now that suicide has our attention, let’s do what it takes to reverse course. I’m not naive enough to think that every suicide is preventable, but there is a lot we can do to reduce the number. We can no longer feign ignorance or pretend that the issue doesn’t apply to anyone we know. We have an obligation, if not to society, at the very least to our friends to put this issue on the front burner. We don’t have to wait for medical science to come up with a cure. For a significant number of people, we are the cure.

There’s no downplaying the severity of suicide any longer. Now, we do something.

Current Issues / Mythology / PotD

Take Your Boycott And Shove It

April 24, 2016

I can say unequivocally that the boycott does not work. It’s never complete enough to have impact unless it’s backed by force, and I don’t think anybody in America seriously proposes that. —Helen Suzman

charles i. letbetter - take your boycott and shove it

There are literally hundreds of boycotts going on right now and none of them matter because, by and large, they don’t work.

There is a very real chance that I am going to offend some people today, and, according to comic Ricky Gervais, that’s not a bad thing. The man who has made the better part of his living off hurling insults at people and making them feel bad thinks we all should stop trying to be so damned politically correct and speak our minds. Of course, the danger in such a statement is that not everyone’s mind is running on all cylinders which could end up being a dangerous thing that ultimately leads to this stupid thing called a boycott.

I follow trends pretty closely, not because I want to adapt them, but from both fashion and advertising perspectives they are important in taking the temperature of a given society or specific demographic group. The latter part of this week I’ve seen a trend emerging quietly, among white people primarily, folks who aren’t necessarily inclined to be terribly upset by Prince’s death, that makes me ill. Some people want to boycott Target stores because they are willing to allow transgender people to use the restroom facilities of the gender with which they identify. Another incredibly insane movement wants to boycott the twenty dollar bill because they oppose the Department of Treasury’s decision to put Harriet Tubman on the currency, replacing one of our worst presidents ever, Andrew Jackson.

Let me state, unequivocally, that if you support either one of these boycotts you are a fucking idiot. The Target boycott won’t work because its based on an unrealistic fear that no intelligent person believes. The twenty dollar bill boycott won’t work because it’s just plain stupid and fueled by ignorance and racism. More than both those factors, though, boycotts don’t work because they’re ineffective and the sooner we stop throwing the word around as though it were some magic tool for getting our way, the better.

Do you have any idea how many different groups are attempting pointless boycotts right now? The website ethicalconsumer.org, which I neither support nor endorse, keeps a list of ongoing consumer boycotts that is about as complete as any. The list is ridiculously long and includes a number of companies that always seem to have someone boycotting them, such as Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Ben & Jerry’s, H&M, Kellogs, and that company everyone loves to hate: Monsanto. Guess what: NONE OF THE BOYCOTTS ARE WORKING! They won’t. They never will.

Why? Because the boycott as an economic tool is fundamentally flawed and even in cases where it might appear that a boycott worked, it was other external factors that likely led to any significant change.

I was impressed by a report done by Stephen J. Dubner over at Freakonomics this past January. The report, originally done for radio, takes a look at one of the most famous boycotts of modern times: The Montgomery Bus Boycott. If ever there were a boycott that seemed to work, that would be it, right? That one would appear to be a shining example of what can happen when a group of people exerts their economic force onto a situation. But Daniel Diermeier, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, doesn’t think it was necessarily the boycott that led to the desegregation of buses. He states:

Being able to identify the actual causal impact of the Montgomery boycott is very difficult, probably impossible. There are some people that argue, at the end of the day, it was really the legal strategy of the NAACP that really was the decisive component. And it’s difficult to disentangle that. I think most scholars that have looked at this particular case would argue that the boycott became a symbolic event that triggered an entire social movement.

As historians have broken down the event, we come to understand that Rosa Parks was no random bus rider, that Montgomery was no random location, and the boycott was no random activity hastily slapped together by a preacher from Atlanta. Rather, the event was but a part of a longer-term strategy to effect a chance in the civil rights laws across the country. The boycott put a face on a burgeoning movement but it was the strategy of the movement, not the boycott itself, that resulted in change.

The same applies to any other boycott we see that one might consider successful. There has to be an over-arching strategy and organizing force capable of widespread support and influence that understands how boycotting is a very specific tool and, like trying to use a hammer to thread a needle, doesn’t work when applied incorrectly. The vast majority of announced boycotts don’t even come close to having the reason and authority behind them to be successful.

Too often, boycotts such as the ones announced this past week amount to nothing more than an attempt at moral bullying. The same organization that announced the boycott of Target has also tried boycotting Disney multiple times for a variety of reasons. I’m sure you’ve noticed how well that boycott is going [insert sarcastic eye roll here]. Their entire purpose behind the boycott is to force Target into changing their policy for no reason other than to match up with the organization’s right-wing religious-based morality. What they’re doing is nothing more than an attempted “might makes right” tactic that is doomed to failure.

If anything, this week’s boycotts are likely to backfire. Even when the cause is a good one, and neither of these are, boycotts often end up having the reverse effect. Why? No one likes to be told what to do. We especially don’t like to be told where to shop, what to eat, or what to wear. Boycotts that attempt to affect those industries are doomed before they even start.

For boycotts to work, they have to appeal to a matter of conscience that exceeds our commitment to our buying habits. Interestingly enough, there is one form of boycott that might actually have an impact. Note what is happening in the move against North Carolina’s HB2 law, aka the bathroom bill, which prohibits people from using any other restroom facility than the one determined by the gender identified on their birth certificate. This has to be one of the most stupid laws on the planet and people are responding appropriately by leaving the state of North Carolina to wallow in their own ignorance. Not only have a number of entertainers canceled performances in the state, but major corporations that had been planning expansions there have decided to move their operations elsewhere. While not officially an organized boycott, at least, not as far as we can tell at this point, the movement has gained so much momentum that the United Kingdom has warned LGBT tourists against traveling to either North Carolina or Mississippi because of their anti-gay laws. This movement is still developing, though, so we’ll see what it takes to actually get the laws overturned, which is the only acceptable outcome.

Generally speaking, though, and in overwhelming proportion, announcing a boycott is rather like saying you don’t like pea soup because of the way it dribbles down your great-grandmother’s chin. You’re being a stupid, ignorant bully and the rest of the world would kindly thank you to shut-the-fuck-up. Boycotts don’t work. If that offends you, tough. Deal with it.

Music / PotD

Prince, Chyna, and Immortality

April 22, 2016

The key to longevity is to learn every aspect of music that you can. — Prince

charles i. letbetter - prince, chyna, and immortality

Prince changed music. Chyna changed women’s wrestling. But would we want either of them to be immortal?

Here we are again, mourning the death of yet another music legend. If I had any purple left in my wardrobe I might be wearing it today. Maybe. Earlier this week, I listed Purple Rain as one of the top five songs that everyone needs to hear. Now, that’s all anyone wants to play. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when an artist dies.

There’s also a temptation to curse 2016 for being unreasonably evil in killing off people who mean a lot to our culture and in whom we have a great deal of invested emotion. I saw one tweet yesterday that claimed the aliens were calling all their spies back home before the disaster of this fall’s presidential election. While unlikely, that explanation comes about as close to making sense as anything else does at the moment.

Yesterday just plain sucked for everyone except, possibly, Queen Elizabeth II, who turned 90. And even if her day went as badly as everyone else’s, the Queen gets a do-over in June when her birthday is officially celebrated.

The rest of us, however, started the day with news of Chyna’s death. That was bad enough. Chyna was one of those people who always seemed to be struggling against public perception. Few people paid attention to women’s wrestling before Chyna got into the game, and she changed that. She made it more sexy, more entertaining. That wasn’t enough, though, and she kept looking for something I’m not sure she ever found, some level of acceptance that alluded her.

When the news began to filter onto the Internet that Prince is dead, the initial tone was one of disbelief. After all, he’d been the target of false death announcements before and having TMZ break the news is like asking for a giant here-we-go-again eye roll. Only when the Associated Press joined in on the story did the shock and sadness really begin to set in and spread a purple wave of sadness around the globe.

Were it a more quiet news day, we would probably be talking about the death of Brenda Soto, a 16-year-old Fairfax county, Virginia student who was beaten to death by other girls while at school. There are multiple issues there that need to be discussed, including the accusation that multiple students stood by and recorded the beating on their phones instead of doing anything to help.

Our collective attention can’t seem to handle more than one topic at a time, though, and for the moment, all our attention is on Prince. The rock star’s death is bound to become one of those “where were you” moments for a lot of people. I am seeing in the global reaction’s to Prince’s death a pattern similar to what happened when Elvis died unexpectedly in 1977. All the shock, all the despair, mostly coming from people my age and a wee bit younger, those for whom songs like Purple Rain, Raspberry Beret, and When Doves Cry influenced some formative part of their adolescence, is very similar to that of women of a certain age when Elvis died.

I remember being in the car with Poppa, on my way to a piano lesson, when the news of Elvis’ death came on the radio. I wasn’t of the generation that worshipped him, though, so while I appreciated the impact he’d had on music, I wasn’t necessarily a fan (which hasn’t changed). Similarly, teens today are not overly familiar with Prince and the various iterations and changes he went through. Those who are really into music appreciate his impact, but they’re not as likely to be fans and most won’t understand why their parents and the rest of the world are turning everything purple.

What I expect to come next are the conspiracy theories. Prince led a life that is ripe for speculation. After all, since his 2001 conversion to Jehovah’s Witness, Prince had acted less like a rock star and more like a delusional cult member (which is the most accurate way to describe all Jehovah’s Witnesses). Even though he had returned to performing and seemed to be in good form when he rocked Atlanta earlier this month, one has to wonder if the strange religious beliefs, particularly that part about not allowing blood transfusions or organ transplants, might have factored into his death.

There’s also the fact that Prince died a mere two months after one of his more famous girlfriends, Vanity. That there might have been some connection between their deaths is already a tale that is gathering some steam and, given the romantic twist, could quite likely take off.

Or maybe he’s out golfing with Elvis and Bowie in Bermuda.

With the tremendous number of deaths among music legends and other celebrities this year, one might find it interesting that just this past Wednesday The Guardian ran a story about the possibility of digital immortality. The theory here is that while it might be impossible to preserve one’s body forever, given the natural decaying of biological tissue, one might be able to digitally preserve all of one’s memories, experiences, personality, and wisdom in a digital form, and then present that back through some type of chat bot with an avatar resembling the face of the deceased. The name of the company is Eternime and the product isn’t quite ready for prime time. Their website says they hope to be in beta sometime “next month,” without any indication as to which “next month” that might be.

But what if we could preserve the personality, the spirit, and the essence of people like Prince or Bowie or Elvis? Would we really want to keep them around in that form? We have their music, which is influential on their own. Do we really need a digital Prince to repeat back some of his previous questionable statements? Regardless of how great his music was, this was the guy who said, “When I found out that there was eight Presidents before George Washington, I wanted to smack somebody,” and “Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.” Do we really need that nonsense lingering around? I’m not sure immortality suits everyone terribly well.

And that’s why I might not wear purple today, even if I had some. All that was great about Prince happened before 2000. In fact, one could easily, in my opinion, make the argument that after his 1998 album Lovesexy everything else pretty much sucks. To return to an earlier analogy, think young Elvis versus “old” Elvis (he died when he was 42, so “old” is a matter of perspective). With both artists, the songs that made them famous and for which they’ll always be remembered are the ones at the front of their careers. Prince hasn’t had a number one hit since 1989’s Batdance. After that, the highest any song ranked on the charts was The Greatest Romance Ever Sold, which topped at #63 in 2000. He hasn’t had a song hit the top 100 since 2004’s Call My Name.

So, as great as he once was, maybe it’s best that we let Prince and everyone else go. Immortality isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be and sometimes the more we know about our heroes and legends, the less likeable they become. We’ll miss what we liked about them, that part of them that touched our lives, but that doesn’t mean we should keep them around forever.

And hey, maybe the movie Men In Black was right: They’re not dead, they just returned to their home planet.

PotD / science

Beware The Friendly Seduction

April 17, 2016

Most virtue is a demand for greater seduction. —Natalie Clifford Barney

The people who seem the friendliest may not always have your best interest in mind

As salacious as today’s topic may seem, I’m going to start with a story that comes from growing up in church. No, seduction and church don’t exactly sound like they should go together, but you might be surprised at the many ways in which churches are home to some of the most dangerously seductive people on the planet.

Growing up as a pastor’s son, we moved around Kansas and Oklahoma a fair bit. We also visited a lot of churches. When we would first move to a new church Poppa would often warn: “Beware the person who is the first to greet you because they’re most likely to do you the most harm.” His warning proved true every time. The people who would be on the welcoming committee, those who were first in line to offer their help in getting settled in or acquainted with the community had ulterior motives. They wanted us to do things their way and mistakenly thought that they might be able to wield some influence by posing as friends. When we would eventually move, the same ones that seemed most happy to see us arrive were the most delighted to see us leave.

That lesson carried forward into my adulthood and I found it often true in business as well. There is a seduction that takes place when a company is trying to hire someone new; they want their company to appear appealing, friendly, like it would be the perfect place for you to spend the rest of your life. You take the job, though, and discover those “friendly” people are manipulative, back-stabbing, and vindictive. After a while, one begins to look upon this friendly form of seduction with caution. Who do we trust? Who do we believe? Is anyone actually sincere?

Turns out, there’s actual science behind what we’ve been experiencing our whole lives. While that information doesn’t make me feel any better about people we’ve met in the past, especially some of those I experienced when we were children, it does, at least, explain their motivation and gives us all the more reason to be cautious in the future. Friendly seduction is everywhere and is even cultivated by many business seminars. We have good reason to be careful. The question is, are you one of those dangerous people?

Look at your resumè. Do you have the term “people skills” anywhere on there? For years, businesses of every kind, from the fast food joint on the corner to the Fortune 500 company downtown, have been looking for employees with good “people skills.” What they’re looking for, using the appropriate jargon, are prospective employees with a high level of emotional intelligence. The term was first posited in a 1990 study by Peter Salovey at Yale and John D. Mayer at the University of New Hampshire. The findings of that study then became a 1995 best-selling book by Daniel Goldman, who was, at the time, a science reporter for The New Yorks Times. Where friendly seduction had occurred naturally in a few people before, the emotional intelligence movement began cultivating those with “people skills” and promoting them to positions of importance.

Now, let’s be extremely clear: having good people skills does not inherently make one a bad person. The whole premise of emotional intelligence is that being in touch with one’s own feelings and emotions helps make them empathetic to the feelings and emotions of other people and therefore, at least in theory, better able to understand their perspective and respond accordingly. Having a strong emotional intelligence is critical in any people-facing position and some of those qualities are important in developing our ability to get along with others. Emotional intelligence on its own is not inherently a bad thing.

However, since 1990, researchers have found that some of those with high emotional intelligence may not be the nice guys they pretend to be. Two separate studies in 2014, one by Ursa Nagler, et al., and another by Sarah Konrath, et al., built upon previous research to show that those with high emotional intelligence tend to be narcissistic, manipulative, malicious, and exploitative. On the lighter end of this friendly seduction, they are always looking to turn a situation to their advantage. They create and spread rumors, gossip, and misinformation. At its worse, these people use their ability to read others as a means of controlling them, persuading them to do things they otherwise would not, and working situations to the detriment of others. Before you know it, you’re “best friend” at work is behind you getting fired, or losing that promotion, or killing that great project you’re on.

And they do it all with a smile on their face.

While encountering these people at work is bad enough, they can be even more dangerous in social situation. Emotionally intelligent people come across as fun, engaging, often humorous, and charming, everything you might want in a potential mate. On the back side of this friendly seduction, though, they take advantage of that social appeal to rape and batter those who are least expecting such behavior. Highly emotionally intelligent people may cause us to drop our guard so that we’re not as aware of impending physical danger.

Again, not everyone with a high emotional intelligence is a bad person. In fact, they, themselves, are more likely to be duped or misled because of their overconfidence. They often think they have control of a situation when they don’t. Highly emotional intelligent people are just as likely to be the victims of seduction as they are the perpetrators.

Being attracted to friendly people is in our nature and a necessary part of building a workable society. The vast majority of friendly people you meet are sincere and their friendships are worth pursuing. Beware the person at the front of the line, though. The seduction they offer is not in your best interest.

Not even at church.

Fashion

Gucci’s Jesus Shirt Is Flammable

April 12, 2016

Pontius Pilate was the first great censor and Jesus Christ the first great victim of censorship. —Ben Lindsey

Recall of silk products is a concern, but there’s some irony when a deity is thrown into the mix

I know, this isn’t exactly the sort of headline one expects to see on a Tuesday morning. In fact, one doesn’t expect to see this manner of headline ever. I certainly hadn’t planned on writing one. Nonetheless, here we are, and yes, the story is all too real.

The problem begins with how fabric, particularly silk, is being manufactured. We both know good and well that there aren’t this handful of silkworms laboring furiously to provide the world’s luxury apparel makers with the thousands of bolts of silk they use each season. We also know that all fabric has to be processed in such a way that it meets industry and government standards for safety. One of those safety factors is flammability. In short, your clothes should resist catching on fire, not turn you into a human torch.

There’ve been two recent product recalls, however, because apparently there is more than one manufacturer who isn’t giving their product a good coating of the stuff that makes textiles less likely to erupt in flames. One involved some 20,000 rayon scarves sold under a name I’d rather not give any traffic. I found it rather disturbing that the scarves, which are worn around the head and neck, have been sold for two years and only now is someone figuring out that they’re flammable. Fortunately, fewer women are smoking these days and I’m guessing not too many women wear scarves while standing near an open flame. Still, it would only take one instance of a head becoming fully engulfed to make for some very bad publicity.

What really got my attention, though, because I never have trusted Chinese-produced rayon in the first place, was when Gucci’s silk t-shirts were recalled, also because they have this bad tendency to be flammable. There are three t-shirt designs affected, two of which are rather nondescript sheer silk with stripes. Neither are of a style I would drop $700 or more to wear. However, the third shirt isn’t one we normally associate with flammability. Take a look:

Gucci men’s silk t-shirt

Yes, you’re seeing that correctly. Gucci put a picture of a crucifix featuring Jesus Christ himself on one of their silk t-shirts. I’m guessing this one probably retails on the higher end somewhere around $1300 each. I won’t speak to the overwhelming insincerity of paying $1300 for a silk Jesus t-shirt, although that falls right in line with the idiocy of giving to televangelists. Neither do I care to go off on a tangent regarding how incredibly disrespectful and sacrilegious it is to put Jesus on a t-shirt at all, though if one is going to do so, at least it’s silk.

Rather, it’s the fact that this Jesus is flammable that is dripping with irony that I simply can’t pass up. The image of the one who supposedly saves you from the flames of hell could actually erupt in flames itself if one is standing, oh, say around a campfire singing Kum-by-yah a little off key. One just doesn’t expect to find that wearing a depiction of Jesus might result in accidental immolation; we tend to leave that act to radicals, not people who drop $1300 on a damn t-shirt.

Obviously, Gucci didn’t actually intend for its Jesus t-shirt to be flammable and, given that fewer than 60 of the shirts were even in production, the owners are being contacted directly and their money being returned.

Still, maybe this should give Gucci and other fashion labels some pause about trying to use religious symbols to make fashion statements. Don’t. Because if you piss off a deity, there’s no fabric on this earth that can withstand the flames of such wrath.

Or maybe Jesus didn’t like the royalty split.

Either way, the shirts are off store shelves. A rather effective way to say Jesus wasn’t pleased.

[insert evil grin here]

Current Issues / PotD

Trying To Make Sense Of The World

April 5, 2016

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. —Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are so many events that fail to make a lick of sense, one has difficulty trying to not go crazy

Yesterday had more than it’s fair share of challenges. Some were part and parcel of just having kids and trying to take care of them. Others, though, hit deeper. We found out yesterday that the owner of a popular Northside bar & grill that Kat and I occasionally enjoy committed suicide over the weekend. Beyond the immediate tragedy of one feeling so desperate, the move also puts in jeopardy the livelihood of his employees who may now be without a job.

Last evening, an estranged couple, who were under a no-contact order, met in a parking lot in Camby, a small town just East of Indianapolis. The conversation grew heated and in an apparent act of frustration, the man shot his estranged wife in the leg and then the head before exiting the car and killing himself. She’s in stable condition, but be sure that every aspect of her life has been turned upside down.

The world is crazy.

The Tennessee State Legislature passed a bill yesterday making the Bible the state book. Governor Haslam has said he opposes the bill, but there is still some speculation as to whether he may sign it and, if he doesn’t, whether the legislature can override the veto. So much for the separation of church and state. Merely by passing the bill the state legislature has marginalized millions of Tennessee residents who don’t identify as Christian.

The world is insane.

An ex-wife, the one named Ivana, of a leading presidential candidate said yesterday that she supports immigration because, get this, “Who’s going to vacuum our living rooms and clean up after us? Americans don’t like to do that.” Never mind that she, herself, is an immigrant and I dare say has never so much as touched a vacuum cleaner in her overly-advantaged life. Such statements make it clear that 54% of the United States would be marginalized should her ex be elected president.

The world has gone nuts.

Someone hacked the entire citizenship database for the country of Turkey, population 49,611,709, and published all the details online. Everything. Full name, parents’ names, date and place of birth, current address, etc. Everything one would need to completely obsfucate Turkish identities for decades. This potentially places everything related to identity in question. Imagine if the US Social Security records were to be hacked in similar fashion. The website hints that the new US president had better know what he’s doing or we could face a similar attack.

The world has turned on itself.

Reuters is reporting that Daesh militants are using rockets filled with mustard gas in their fight to take over a Syrian military airport. Never mind that the use of chemical weapons violates the Geneva convention. We can’t expect Daesh to abide by any laws, including their own. Such an act demonstrates a complete and total disregard for human life and we should take note that this isn’t the first time the terrorist organization has used the nerve gas. These people are vile, yet France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls says Islamic extremists are winning the propaganda war. Could we be facing an event worse than anything Hitler could have imagined?

What do we do when the world seems to have literally turned itself upside down?

We could worry. We could fret. The truth is, though, there’s not a hell of a lot we can do to actively change the actions of others. We can look forward to voting in November, but then it’s what, 12 to 18 months after that before we could start to see any significant difference that actually effects global actions?

I’m beginning to think that Sally Bowles had it right when she sang:

What good´s permitting some prophet of doom?
To wipe every smile away
Life is a cabaret , old chum!
So come to the cabaret!

What else makes sense? If we cannot create immediate change over such outlandish behavior and events, then we do best to go on with our lives and make the best of them we can. Two friends brought beautiful young lives into the world this weekend (both boys, interestingly enough). We should celebrate. There are advances being made in the fight against Alzheimer’s. We should be encouraged. There was an electrical fire at the Internal Revenue Service. We should be hopeful.

Star by admitting
From cradle to tomb
It isn’t that long a stay
Life is a cabaret, old chum!
It´s only a cabaret, old chum!
And I love a cabaret!

Current Issues / Fashion / Mythology

Can Fashion Separate From Religion?

March 31, 2016

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Religion has always influenced fashion, so what would happen if they were completely separate?

Here’s a question for the water cooler this morning: Would modesty still remain a moral virtue if it wasn’t mandated by religion? Think about that for a moment. All our laws and social expectations regarding the necessity of being clothed in public; the very concept that the activity in which one is engaged determines the appropriateness of what one is wearing is heavily influenced by religion.

We reported earlier this year about Dolce and Gabanna introducing a new line specifically for Arab women. Many celebrated that move as forward thinking and very supportive of a community the fashion industry had largely ignored. However, when Marks & Spencer began selling their burkinis (full body swimwear) in their European stores, including England, not everyone was happy. Most notably, France’s women’s rights minister Laurence Rossignol told The Daily Express:

“What’s at stake is social control over women’s bodies. When brands invest in this Islamic garment market, they are shirking their responsibilities and are promoting women’s bodies being locked up.

“You cannot pass off as trivial and harmless the fact that big brands are investing in a market that puts Muslim women in a situation of having to wear that.

“It is irresponsible on the part of these brands. All those who participate in how society is represented have a responsibility.”

Then, on the heels of that statement, both WWD and British Vogue published stories this morning with comments from Yves Saint Laurent’s co-founder and the designer’s long-time personal partner, Pierre Bergé. Bergé used some rather strong and potentially inflammatory language in denouncing what he sees as fashion designers going for a quick buck. Bergé’s comments were on radio station Europe1 and reported by The Guardian:

“Creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion. Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life.

“These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

One one level, it would seem that both Ms. Rossignol and Bergé are standing up for women’s rights. After all, if the full-body covering commonly attributed to Muslim women were, in fact, a symbol of their unwilling slavery, then by all means, the criticism would be appropriate.

However, such statements are made in ignorance of the fact that many Muslim women choose to wear the burqa and hajib and other modest clothing not because they are enslaved, but as a sign of their faith and devotion to their religion. To Muslim women of faith, dressing modestly is not “abominable” but rather a statement of how committed they are to Islam. These are choices these women have made for themselves, not something that was forced upon them.

If it is “irresponsible” for designers to provide choices for women of Islamic faith, then is it not equally irresponsible to facilitate the choices of women who practice any other religion? One can reasonably make the argument that if one religion’s dress code is practical enslavement, then the dress codes of all religions must fall under that same heading. If religious mandates are restrictive and to be abolished, then the fashion industry should immediately stop making the calf-length denim skirts favored by many conservative Christian women. So too, should they stop incorporating Hindu styles such as chador, kameez, and kurta into their styles, something which has been immensely popular among Indian women. Even traditional pagan clothing, most notably the long cloaks and capes that we’ve seen frequently on runways the past two seasons, would have to be forbidden. Oh, and by all means, let’s do away with those little gold crosses every teenage girl seems to wear.

Fashion has always been influenced by the religions of its wearers because religion influences most every aspect of society and the lives of those who believe. Because a designer may not hold to any one belief system is no reason for them to avoid providing clothing that is popular among women of faith. If anything, it would seem like a fairly astute business decision. Over one and a half billion people are Muslim. More than a billion people are Hindu. Why would a designer not want to provide fashion that speaks to those faiths?

Judging other people because of their religion is easy because judging religion itself is a fairly simple academic exercise. The claims of religions don’t tend to hold up well against arguments of logic and reason. However, while I am not opposed to criticizing religion for a host of reasons, criticizing the people who hold to those religions is absolutely wrong and morally reprehensible. Our failure to tolerate belief systems other than our own is one of the greatest failures of contemporary society.

Fashion designers who provide clothing that meet the restrictions of certain religious guidelines help build social bridges at a time when they are most desperately needed. It is not, as Bergé claims, a denouncing of one’s principals to help someone who believes differently than you. If anything, it is a statement of the strength of one’s faith to work and socialize with those who beliefs are contrary.

Fashion has a chance to help society. There’s no reason to not make the most of that opportunity.

religion

What is pride? A rocket that emulates the stars. —William Wordsworth

Share this:

Like this:

The world today doesn’t make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do? —Pablo Picasso

Share this:

Like this:

The most dangerous food is wedding cake. —James Thurber

Share this:

Like this:

Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex. —Karl Marx

Share this:

Like this:

Love is something far more than desire for sexual intercourse; it is the principal means of escape from the loneliness which afflicts most men and women throughout the greater part of their lives. —Bertrand Russell

Share this:

Like this:

Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven. —Charles Spurgeon

Share this:

Like this:

It is strange that modesty is the rule for women when what they most value in men is boldness. —Ninon de L’Enclos

Share this:

Like this:

All too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be lenient towards others and to understand their value systems, knowing that these are tolerated by Islam as a religion. —Abdurrahman Wahid

xen·o·pho·bi·a

Share this:

Like this:

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first. —Charles de Gaulle

Share this:

Like this:

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. —Richard Dawkins

Share this:

Like this:

All our best men are laughed at in this nightmare land. —Jack Kerouac

Share this:

Like this:

The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do. —Sarah Ban Breathnach

Share this:

Like this:

Never make predictions, especially about the future. —Casey Stengel

Share this:

Like this:

It is necessary to fall in love… if only to provide an alibi for all the random despair you are going to feel anyway. —Albert Camus

Share this:

Like this:

Come Fairies, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame! —William Butler Yeats

Share this:

Like this:

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies – it is the first law of nature. —Voltaire

Share this:

Like this:

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few. —George Berkeley

Share this:

Like this:

My mother was a single mom, and most of the women I know are strong. —Regina King

Share this:

Like this:

Our nation has not made the level of investment on a federal level that can have the positive effect on suicide that has happened for the other leading causes of death. —Dr. Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

Share this:

Like this:

I can say unequivocally that the boycott does not work. It’s never complete enough to have impact unless it’s backed by force, and I don’t think anybody in America seriously proposes that. —Helen Suzman

Share this:

Like this:

The key to longevity is to learn every aspect of music that you can. — Prince

Share this:

Like this:

Most virtue is a demand for greater seduction. —Natalie Clifford Barney

Share this:

Like this:

Pontius Pilate was the first great censor and Jesus Christ the first great victim of censorship. —Ben Lindsey

Share this:

Like this:

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. —Martin Luther King, Jr.

Share this:

Like this:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this:

Like this:

Login

Follow Us