Allison Bricker

In past conversations with colleagues and friends, I have often commented that some day soon the internet our generation has come to know, the wealth of information available via the click of a mouse, will cease to exist. That in the place of this unfiltered and uncensored access to information, will come a government controlled, censored version of the world wide web under the auspices of the FCC or some other bloated failure of a bureaucracy.

Many have replied to me stating that this was “Henny Penny” or “Chicken Little”, that this simply could not happen here in the land of the free. My counter has been and remains that this will come wrapped in the veil of “protecting the children” or “net neutrality”. We have already seen internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T implement “bandwidth filtering” and “I.P Blocking” as a means to restrict access or to make viewing videos difficult or next to impossible.¹

The technology to accomplish complete filtering already exists and is being used in China with the help of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco. These American companies are co-conspirators with the Chinese government in constructing what is now known as “The Great Firewall of China”. This censorship completely removes hyperlinks from search engine queries/blog posts and includes any and all websites the Chinese government deems “inappropriate”. Websites such as Falun Gong, the Tibetan government-in-exile, and critics of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, just to name a few.²

Further, just this past summer during the Beijing Olympics, athletes staying in the Olympic Village found their own internet access censored, uncensored, then censored again from going to websites like Amnesty International, Wikipedia and the BBC.²

Additionally, for those readers who think its just the Chinese government, think again. Australia is joining in mandatory internet filtering for all of its citizens after first suggesting that the censorship would be optional. The impetus behind this fascist move? You guessed it, the scare tactics of Child pornography and child predators.³ Nevermind, that perhaps parents should consider monitoring their own child’s activities online. Hell, why bother when you can just have the government do the parenting for you? - ah the nanny state.

In fact, Human Rights Watch states:

“…there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it”

With the coronation of President Obama just around the corner and the likely enlarged Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, we are already beginning to hear calls for a reimplementation of “The Fairness Doctrine” echoing the halls of Congress. The “Fairness Doctrine” implemented in 1949 mandated holders of FCC “Broadcast Licenses” covering political or controversial topics to supply “equal time” to the other side of the issue.⁴ Finally, In 1987, during the Presidency of Ronald Regan (R-CA), “The Fairness Doctrine” was finally abolished⁵

Some statists would love to see government mandate what and how we hear specific issues. However the funny thing is,”The Fairness Doctrine” only applied to radio and television broadcast which contained an opinion, it did not cover newspapers. It is my opinion that if the newspapers were not specifically mentioned via the 1st Amendment, they too would have fallen under the iron fist of “The Fairness Doctrine”.

The pull-peddling bureaucrats gained control over radio and television by vomiting up the socialist epoch that “the airwaves are collectively owned by the public and thus under government domain.” Well fellow readers I say bullsh!t, the airwaves are no more public than a newspaper company’s printing presses are public or that somehow Smargus.com is owned by the public.

Do we think for a moment that had radio, television, or the internet been realized at the time of the Bill of Rights that the founders would have limited the inherent right to free speech and opinion to newspapers? It is my opinion that the Founders would have not truncated our inherent right to free speech solely to the printed word. The underlying principle of the 1st Amendment is that we are born with the gift of communicating our opinions to anyone willing to listen, my right to share how I feel on a topic is not mine by government license, it is mine and yours simply by our breaths.

Do we think this very simple principle will halt the control freaks in Washington from reinstating “The Fairness Doctrine”? In my opinion, no. Only this time as the economy begins to collapse further and that “international crisis”⁶ that Senator Biden carelessly quipped forces President Obama to make those “unpopular decisions”⁷ we will see a new more vigorous “Fairness Doctrine” implemented by the plutocratic scoundrels in Washington. It is also my opinion that this “Fairness Doctrine” will seek to implement “internet filters” vis a vis China and Australia, and perhaps some sort of “Internet Domain Licensing” as they have as well.⁸

Source(s): ¹Converge Network Digest • ² The London TeleGraph, Online •³The Herald Sun• ⁴Donald P. Mullally, “The Fairness Doctrine: Benefits and Costs”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Winter, 1969-1970), p. 577 • ⁵United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Syracuse Peace Council v.FCC • ⁶The Washington Post • ⁷ABC News Blog ⁸Administration of China Internet Domain Names Procedures

Mandy Hyndman

Today I find myself wondering if the American people have suddenly taken leave of their ability to comprehend symbolism. I suppose I could find my answer by simply looking into the public education system and taking note of the number of art, music, and other creative programs being pared away to make room for Math, Science (insert derisive laughter here), and Army recruitment periods.

Perhaps I could dip into the glorious world of religion and take a poll to find out how many people think the Bible is an instruction manual for life that is to be taken literally word for word.

Maybe I have “Joe the Plumber” to blame. Is he just a plumber or is he the face of a political party ready to break up the nasty hairball of the economy and plunge the clogging turd of the war in Iraq? Is “Joe six-pack” really an allusion to Tom Cruise’s sexy body in Top Gun? Hey…Maverick! I finally understand! I simply need to buy more things from Wal-Mart and everything will be alright.

I really only need to look so far as West Hollywood, CA to prove my point, though. West Hollywood resident Chad Morrissette decided to exercise his first amendment muscle by hanging Sarah Palin in effigy (GASP!). Apparently, unlike Senator Obama whose likeness has been hanged all over the country, the spunky and adorable pit-bull…er hockey mom from Alaska is off limits for the kind of age-old message a hanging or burning effigy sends, i.e.: We are appalled and offended by your political leanings, be gone with you!

It wasn’t long before enraged protesters marched onto the scene and declared the effigy an act of hate and violence. The reaction was so impassioned that Chad decided it would be best to remove the dummy.

Well you know what protesters? I declare the effigy an act of symbolism much like burning a flag or lighting dog-poopy on a mean neighbor’s doorstep. It may be unpleasant, but it sure does get the point across, and I’ll be damned if Chad Morrissette of West Hollywood, CA doesn’t have the right to do it. I would venture to say that he is more patriotic than most Americans for having the guts to. I only wish that he had not allowed the angry taunts of an ignorant group of protesters to deter him from continuing to display his message–but it does speak volumes about the lack of individualism infecting our nation today.

Kelly

Fortunately, I don’t live in China and therefore I do not have to worry that the Chinese Government will kill my family for writing this post. Instead, I have to worry that the Chinese Government and United States Government together will kill my family because of their complete failure to ensure the safety of the food supply coming into this country.

It all starts with a chemical known as melamine. The same chemical used in plastics, heat/flame resistant materials, and filters. Melamine is in our counter-tops, the upholstry of our furniture, and apparently it is what makes Mr. Clean’s Magic Eraser work so well on those scuff marks.¹ However, melamine is also known to be the culprit of the contaminated pet food that sickened and killed thousands of dogs and cats beginning in early spring of 2007. Nearly one hundred brands of dog and cat food were affected and recalled. But, the use of melamine by the Chinese manufacturers has not stopped and our government has continued to accept shipments of tainted food into this country.

You see, melamine is added to a powder, be it milk, wheat, or soy powder, ”because it can make diluted or poor quality material appear to be higher in protein content by elevating the total nitrogen content detected by some simple protein tests.”² We have seen the recent effects of this manipulation of “protein tests” via the tainted baby formula that made over 50,000 infants critically ill in China just last month.³

Recent reports indicate that adding so-called melamine scrap has been the standard practice for Chinese food suppliers for the past five years.

Chemical plants used to pay companies to treat and dispose of melamine scrap, but about five years ago began selling it to manufacturers who repackaged it as “protein powder,” the Nanfang Daily reported, citing an unidentified chemical industry expert.

The inexpensive powder was first used to give the impression of higher protein levels in aquatic feed, then later in feed for livestock and poultry, the report said.

“The effect far more exceeds the milk powder scandal,” the newspaper said.⁴

And, just this week, several more reports on the discovery of melamine in several more food products, ranging from a variety of candy(some of which has already been found to be in the United States and Canada), to animal feed that is distributed worldwide by China. The FDA has yet to alert you or I as consumers that melamine tainted candy sits on our store shelves, but was kind enough to issue a letter to food manufacturers.

The FDA’s letter indicated that seven Asian countries plus Australia and Canada report they have found melamine in a variety of products including candy, flavored milks and cakes. A variety of candies including Cadbury, Snickers, Kit Kat, M&M’s and Dove have been recalled from China, Hong Kong, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea and the United States.

Additionally, the letter indicates an extensive list of products that could potentially contain melamine: “Milk and milk products that could originate from China include condensed, dried and non-fat milk, condensed and dried whey, lactose powder, permeate powder, demineralized and partially demineralized whey powders, caseins, yogurt, ice cream, cheese, whey protein concentrate and milk protein concentrate.”

The letter, which is directed at food manufacturers not consumers, went on to explain there are many unknown factors the FDA has discovered in attempting to understand the extent of the contamination. For example, soy-based products may also be tainted with melamine.

“In addition, it would be useful for manufacturers to be alert to the possibility that non-milk-derived ingredients from China that are or may be sold on the basis of protein content, such as soy protein, also could be contaminated with melamine,” the FDA said.⁵

This is unacceptable. Very few American newspapers are reporting this story. It seems the election between ‘Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumber’ alongside ‘Joe the Plumber’ and the Dow Jones have kept the news media much too busy to inform the American people that there is a seemingly strong possibility that any products containing ‘milk powder’ and made in China could be tainted with melamine.

Attempting to rid our cabinets of food containing milk powder made in China is no easy task, it seems most food labels only specify who the distributor is and not who the actual ‘maker’ of the product is. But, bear in mind that researching food brands on the internet or simply calling a distributor is of the utmost importance when feeding your family. The FDA continues to refuse to test our food supply for melamine since small doses are not lethal, though the ridiculousness of this speaks for itself, as I cannot find anyone who would actually eat melamine in any dose. It is not meant to be consumed regardless of parts per million. I urge all of you to pay attention to the food you buy and if at all possible, boycott all food made in China. I also urge you to link to this blog or re-post this blog on Digg, MySpace, orStumbleUpon.

Lastly, below you will find the video that has sparked much of this conversation. As Americans we do ourselves a disservice of serious consequence when we sit back and expect that the government will keep us safe. It is our duty to keep each other informed.

Source(s): ¹WiseGeek • ² The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products • ³ World Health Organization • ⁴ The Houston Chronicle, “China’s animal feed tainted with melamine” by Anita Chang • ⁵ The Bulletin

Joseph Marohl

Next month I’m going to Barbara and Shane’s wedding. I’m excited. For the first time in my life, I’m attending a wedding where both bride and groom are good friends of mine. The wedding will take place in a historic church not far from the Old Town Square in Prague, a city I’ve been itching to visit for years.

The ceremony will be religious, and the happy couple will have to renounce sins they don’t believe are really all that bad to receive absolution they don’t really believe in.

Still, they will be joined together in the eyes of God, the IRS, Social Security, Medicare, local law enforcement, and, most importantly, the Mormons and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, who take seriously the superstitious mumbo-jumbo that the happy couple will repeat good-naturedly for the sake of a pretty and personally significant occasion in their lives.

For most of human history, marriage has been a private matter, between two families or between two individuals.

Until the seventeenth century, the Church accepted the validity of a marriage so long as a couple claimed that they had exchanged vows, even in private without witnesses—though “licit” only if they were confirmed in and by the Church (1).

In the Renaissance, some European nations began to require “legal” or civic recognition of marriage, mainly to maintain the authority of parents over their children’s destinies and thus keep inheritable titles and estates under a patriarchal thumb.

For most of US history, states required marriages to be “registered,” like births or deaths, but exerted little or no management over who was officially or legally married. Later, in the early twentieth century, some US states began to “license” marriage as a means to prevent or de-legitimize interracial unions (1).

In the 1950s, when most adults of a certain age were married, licensed marriage became an expedient way of qualifying individuals for legal privileges and institutional benefits (1). The downside of this practicality was that these privileges and benefits were denied to those who were unmarried … or whose relationships fell outside a state’s legal definition of a marriage.

Forty-one years ago, Loving v Virginia (388 US 1) ended all race-based discrimination in state marriage laws—thus ending a 40-year history of anti-miscegenation laws, principally in the South.

It is now time for marriage to be loosed altogether from its ties to the state. Individual places of worship should be able to consecrate whatever relationships they deem sacred, without government interference, provided the arrangements are consensual. Such matters are the business of the congregation and religious hierarchy … and should not be subject to public scrutiny or approval.

Neither should the government deny civil rights and legal privileges to individuals who have no such relationships—or whose relationships are entirely secular, unblessed by any God.

Current state ballots contain proposals for new and stricter legal hoops that states can require ostensibly free individuals to hop through before they are allowed the same privileges and rights a favored few can acquire at the comparably cheap price of $50 (in North Carolina, less than I pay annually to own a dog).

This is unjust and un-American.

Proposition 8 in California and the Florida Marriage Amendment seek to perpetuate legalized inequality, denying lesbians and gays the right to marry whom they please.

Even if these propositions fail, state marriage laws in general remain discriminatory against the single and “illicitly” coupled.

I urge everyone in every state to vote against statutes that would make current injustices more firmly entrenched—and work towards a system of distributing benefits without regard to one’s marital status, religious affiliation, or conformity to community standards of behavior.

Vote no on Proposition 8. Vote no on the Florida Marriage Amendment. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

(1) Coontz, Stephanie. “Taking Marriage Private.” New York Times 26 Nov. 2007.

Allison Bricker

We unfortunately are forced to send our boys to the public government school just down the road.  If we were not having $2,800.00 per year stolen from us in property taxes rent to the king, we would be in a better place to send our children to the private school of our choice, but that is for another post in and of itself.

Our boys attend what many would call a “good” public school, four-stars, all sorts of extracurricular activities, a new high school (which resembles a university in size) complete with a gigantic football stadium.  Yesterday, however when our 3rd grader arrived home, he excitedly took out his folder from his Bears backpack and quickly rifled through his papers to show us that he received an A+, 100%-with a smiley face, on his social study quiz.  As we place a high priority on education in our home, we praised him for his dedication to maintaining good grades.

As the hectic afternoon wore on, I went to pick up the smiley faced social study quiz, now laying on the kitchen table, when I noticed something that caught my eye.  After glancing over the questions it was obvious that this smiley faced quiz was not 100% correct after all.  The error unfortunately, was in the curriculum itself and how the Department of Education sees fit to teach our children about their government.

It is shameful in my estimation that we are teaching children from an early age a wholly incorrect structure as it relates to our Federal government. This is not a matter of the question being over simplified for the benefit of a 3rd grader, as one can think of several different ways to appropriately ask the question.

The President is not the person who “leads” our “national” government, the President is simply the face of the Executive Branch, but has no more power Constitutionally than Congress or the Supreme Court.  It is the lynch pin of our Republican form of government that all three branches are “co-equal” in the sense that they were specifically designed to check and balance one another to prevent abuse.

This structure was a wholly unique difference at the time of Constitutional ratification.  Regardless if our current President has abused Executive Authority, teaching children that the “President” is the “leader” creates an improper picture in their impressionable little heads.  One in my estimation that elevates a “leader” too closely to “King”.

Who knows, maybe it is me, maybe as a total nerd for our country I am over reacting,  and in the end the error was corrected by me.  Fortunately, I caught this error, but it does beg the question as to how credible  the overall government “approved” curriculum has/will be as our boys continue their education.

When I was 5, the following video made it easily digestible to my developing intellect that all 3 branches are co-equal:

Allison Bricker

With Election Day only one week away, voters in 3 states, Florida¹, California², and Arizona³ will again be voting on whether same sex couples should be allowed to “marry”. The debate regarding whom can marry is yet another example of politicians creating and fostering a wedge between Americans.

Marriage as an institution, is a purely religious ceremony conducted by a church to bless the union of two individuals under the eyes of that religion’s deity and theocratic dogma. Whereas, a “Marriage License” is merely a conglomeration of 1600+ legal benefits, liabilities, and tax designations, i.e. “CIVIL-RIGHTS” granted by a state.

Since CIVIL-RIGHTS are granted de jure (in law) they are subject to the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution. Ergo, CIVIL-RIGHTS fall directly under the principle affirmed by Brown v. Board of Education⁴. Currently, states are maintaining two separate unequal civil institutions by allowing heterosexual couples to obtain a singular license containing the 1600+ legal designations via the courts, whilst requiring same-sex couples to piecemeal together the numerous legalities ad hoc. Thus what costs a heterosexual couple approximately $40.00 can cost thousands of dollars for same-sex couples in court costs and attorney’s fees.

The two very distinct paths in securing these civil rights quite laughably, does not even rise to the legal standard extolled under Plessy v. Ferguson⁵ which found that governments could only sustain separate civil institutions if they were of no difference in quality. The current structure is indeed separate, but is nowhere close to equal when contrasting the time, research, and monies spent by heterosexual couples against the time, research, and monies spent by same-sex couples.

Moreover, the state’s “marriage” license really has nothing to do whatsoever with sanctifying or blessing either union. As such, labeling the aforementioned a “marriage” license is nothing but an attempt by politicians to use the fear of “redefining [theocratic] marriage” as a wedge in order to secure their own slime ridden seats in public office.

It is far more accurate and unduly less divisive to call the license what it indeed is for both heterosexual and same-sex couples; a civil contract of partnership. Any arguement to the contrary regarding the accuracy of a marriage license would result in the government affirming a unique religious philosophy, thus breaching separation of church and state.

If an individual church wishes to refuse “sanctifying” a ceremony between same-sex couples then they, as a private institution are free to do so visa vi their inherent right to free association. Their action has no legal consequences whatsoever. The debate over the recognition of same-sex couples needs to be debated amongst the church itself and its congregation. Individual members of the congregation are free to form their own congregation in “protest”, interpreting the scriptures as more inclusive and less exclusive much in the same spirit of Martin Luther. Regardless, the debate over the sanctity of unions is best left to the four walls of a chapel, whilst the legality of said partnerships is best left confined within the four walls of a statehouse.

Additionally, governments previously acknowledged the necessity of legally securing partnerships whether by common law or same-sex. In the 19th century, “Boston Marriages”⁶ as they were called, secured the rights of women living with one another under the same roof, much in the same way today’s “marriage” contracts secure the ability of probate and fiduciary responsibility. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century when modern “marriage” licenses came into existence⁷ that Politicians first used the wedge of “traditional marriage” as a way to prevent interracial marriage. One would hope, that 100 years later we would not be fooled by the same ruse yet again.

However, until we call bullsh!t on these politicians carelessly throwing around the word “marriage”, they will continue to use the word solely as a tool to divide the people against one another.

Source(s): ¹Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, Proposition 2 • ²CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE to ELIMINATE RIGHT of SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY, Proposition 8 • ³PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA BY ADDING ARTICLE XXX; RELATING TO MARRIAGE, Proposition 102 •⁴347 U.S. 483 BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Argued December 9, 1952. Reargued December 8, 1953. Decided May 17, 1954. • ⁵ PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) 163 U.S. 537 • ⁶ Psychology of Women Quarterly, Volume 18 Issue 4, Pages 627 - 641, Published Online: 28 Jul 2006 • ⁷ “Taking Marriage Private”, New York Times, Published: November 26, 2007

Kelly

Proposition 8, for those of you not acquainted, is the California ballot initiative that will appear on the voting ballot of millions of Californians this November 4th in order to give the voters of the state a say in matters of civil rights. In this case, I’m speaking of the fundamental civil right for same-sex couples to be granted the benefits of a marriage contract, just as hetero-couples have done for centuries. A “yes” vote is intended to stifle the California Supreme Court’s ruling and ban same-sex marriage, while a “no” vote is intended to keep things as they have been since the court’s decision this past May.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.¹

However, before the ink was even dry, opponents of the ruling were up in arms to say the least, and determined to push through the ballot measure now known as Proposition 8. If the supporters of Prop 8 have things their way on Election day, the California Constitution will eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, providing that only marriage between a ‘man’ and ‘woman’ be valid in the state of California.

Now, I could go on to list the theological and political arguments of both sides of this issue. I could rail on and on about the Christian zealots of the Family Research Council, Dr. Dobson and Co., and the Catholic Pope. I could trash their viewpoints and shoot holes through their theories, but that will not alter these views or theories in any way. Open dialogue and education I’ve always believed could work wonders, but I’m less and less convinced of this, especially when dealing with people hiding behind a religion. Not that those in support of same-sex marriage are interested in listening to other side either, they are not. Neither side is coming to the table any time soon in hopes of hammering this all out to reach a compromise of some sort. And why should they? I’m not saying that they should. But something is wrong, in my opinion, when a concerted effort by proponents of both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ vote can raise 60 million dollars to be spent mainly on advertisements in hopes of persuading the California voters.

At least 64,000 people from all 50 states and more than 20 other countries have given money to support or oppose a ban on same-sex marriage in California, reflecting broad interest in a race that some consider second in national importance only to the presidential election.

That would be a record nationally for a ballot initiative based on a social rather than economic issue, campaign finance experts say. It also eclipses the combined total of $33 million spent in the 24 states where similar measures have been put to voters since 2004.

Ten days before the vote on Proposition 8, campaign finance records showed that total contributions for and against the measure had surpassed $60 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.²

I do not mean to dumb down the importance of civil rights, because marriage is as fundamental and pertinent and sacred to the the millions of families headed by gay parents as it is to those headed by straight parents. But, I find it sickening that amidst all the clamoring, people would collectively come up with 60 million dollars that will not feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, research cures for you name the disease, teach people how to read and write, or any number of things that could make a positive difference. Private contributions are amazing. People who donate and lend a helping hand make miracles happen for families all over this country on a daily basis, a million fold over what the government will ever do. And though the 60 million that has gone to funding both sides of Proposition 8 is a drop in the bucket when compared to the ridiculous amounts of money raised and spent in our thank-god -it’s-almost-over Presidential election, it still makes me wince.

SOURCE(S): ¹L.A. Times, “California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban”, By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff,May 16, 2008 • ² Associated Press: “Same-sex marriage ban nets big bucks;
Donations for and against Proposition 8 surpass $60 million” By: Lisa Leff, Article Last Updated: 10/27/2008 06:26:00 AM MDT

Mandy Hyndman

Nothing drives home a good warm fuzzy feeling like a family member realizing his or her lifelong dream. That is why I’m overjoyed to announce that my cousin “Anne” has achieved the coveted status of ‘Playboy Bunny’! That’s right! She will now, for $250 every night, strut around a casino floor in practically nothing in order to inspire men to award their patronage to the Palms Hotel and Casino’s new Playboy Club. Not only will she be a scantily clad piece of ground chuck in the strictest “Women are objects, seriously” tradition, but also a walking advertisement for drunk, horny gamblers to ogle. Imagine how envious other women will be knowing 65 year-old Asian men, Texas oil magnates, touring rock bands, and general Joes The Plumber/Six Pack, will be spilling their precious man-seed all over the gaudy floral bedspreads of their respective suites while thinking of “Anne”.

Perhaps in five years when she is forced to retire at the ripe old age of 26 (that is if she hasn’t been rape-murdered or married off to Hugh Hefner for the year) she can do a tour of grade schools along with a 25 year-old ex Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, and a 23 year-old ex Calvin Klein model in order to express to the little girls of the world the importance of placing looks before brains, and embracing their own future objectification. They could weed out the fatties and the four-eyes and round up all the little JonBenet’s letting them know that for special little princesses like themselves, the future holds at least two or three possibilities other than housewife or Alaskan Governor. All it takes, besides keeping a Stain Stick handy, is being a mindless mass of T & A who shows up in the right place at the right time.

I’m sure you can see why I’m positively bursting with pride.

Joseph Marohl

[The following is a part of an online conversation I'm having with Tim, a friend from 30 years ago who now teaches in a seminary in the Midwest, with whom lately I've engaged in long discussions of faith, religion, reason, knowing, connecting, etc.]

One problem with being intuitive is (1) you learn to repress it as you learn that reason and logic are the preferred tools for convincing others you’re right (unless you’re blessed in being surrounded only by people who trust your gut instincts as much as you do), and (2), despite the way that the SciFi Channel and new-age, transcendental philosophies portray intuition, it seems to be no less fallible than any other way of knowing.

My “wiring” may be intuitive, but my programming is linear, detail-oriented, fact-based empiricism.

And while my attempts to make choices “by the book”–drawing up pro/con columns and weighing evidence–have been mixed in their results or accuracy, so have been my attempts to follow intuition. Successes and failures, both ways.

I guess what I mean by “knowing intuitively” is that I let intuition have the last word. This is different from letting intuition have the first word–which basically is to start with a prejudice and then attempt to rationalize it.

Let’s say I have a “feeling” about someone I’ve just met–a feeling of distrust and uneasiness. What I do next is run through all the available evidence about that person’s trustworthiness, evaluating as I go. But in the end I go with what seems “truest” to my “heart”–though this impression is not necessarily the same as the “feeling” I started with–rather than simply weighing the proofs on some sort of scale and going with the preponderance of evidence.

Does that make sense? (Possibly the question I ask others most frequently.)

As I said, my intuitions prove wrong at times–but nevertheless they are the things I go with. In the end. On many occasions I have been presented with all kinds of sensible evidence that would suggest a certain course of action–but because somehow the evidence doesn’t “click” or “ring true” to me, I willfully take a different–even opposite–course of action, which seems to fit …

… kind of like when I shop for shoes. I have high insteps, so occasionally all the usual measurements indicate I should wear a size 9.5 shoe, “C” width or whatever. But in the process, rather than simply trusting the math, I try on four or five different pairs of shoes of different sizes, and end up buying the ones that feel right to me, regardless of the size label–though the measurements do provide guidelines, but only up to a point, and never all the way up to the moment of decision.

So 25 years ago I quit a teaching job in my second year because, in the nicest way possible, the administration asked me to stop using a textbook which some religious conservatives found offensive (because, in an essay I never assigned, the words “clitoris” and “vagina” appeared in support of an anti-pornography argument). Suddenly, and in spite of the fact that the administration was happy to back down and do just as I pleased to address the complaints, it no longer felt right for me to be there.

So my decision was based, ultimately, on what suited me at the moment I had to make a decision … even though I was very aware of how foolhardy it is to quit a job without even a prospect of another one waiting behind it. (In fact, my next job took its sweet time showing up–I got hired and moved just 10 days before the beginning of the fall semester. Still, at no point did I have second thoughts about the rightness of this decision.)

I would like to add, though, that apart from personal choice, it seems entirely right to me that reason and sound argument should rule the day. As a private individual, I would trust my intuitions as to whether I should, say, participate in a war. But as a member of the public, I think it’s my obligation to make a clear, well-qualified statement of my position on the war and then put it to the test by examining relevant facts and possible counter-arguments.

This is my duty as a citizen of a democracy. But as a subjective free agent I will ultimately go with what “feels right” to me.

And, as I have already suggested, my feelings are no more accurate than my arguments–but, to this day, I have never regretted an action made on impulse, but I have had occasions where I came to regret doing the sensible, reasonable thing based on a clear-eyed understanding of my circumstances.

I think the reason is that reason and caution tend to say “no,” while imagination and impulse tend to say “yes”–and “yes,” almost always, for me anyway, is the right answer.

Rob Obringer

As a lifelong political junkie I’m a little surprised at myself that during the homestretch of this Presidential election I’m getting fatigued of it all. Sure, it’s gone on forever, a good year and a half now. There was a lengthy primary battle which was interesting, but then it lasted until June so we didn’t really get a break before the general election shenanigans started. And now, 8 days away, I’m dreaming of watching the news or reading the paper without seeing one of the candidates at a podium spewing the same old lines we’ve heard already.

I’m even sick of the comedy shows. I used to live for Saturday Night Live, and the skits skewering each of the candidates. But I’ve seen it, and am now done with it.  Even Tina Fey, she’s great as Sarah Palin, but I’m done.

Anderson Cooper 360, Larry King, Hardball, Keith Olberman…Blah Blah Blah. Done with them all.

Something needs to be done about the elections for our politicians in this country. It’s too long of a process. It’s too much money. It’s too much time. Some politicians, like our House Representatives, are constantly running for office because their terms are only two years.  I don’t even remember Senator Obama being my Senator, he’s been running for office for so long. John McCain has been running for the last decade, and he looks a little too comfortable doing it.

The length of this election has turned excitement into apathy for me. It’s turned promise into bitterness. The excess of this election as our country suffers an economic collapse makes me sick. Hopefully I will be able to walk to my voting place and cast my vote on November 4th. It won’t be the pundits, the attacks, and the unending election season that gets me there. In many ways I will be voting to end the election cycle, so we can move on.