Hmmmm.....
Once upon a time, this blog was supposed to be here because some parts of my life were interesting, comical, and out of control-but all in good ways-the stuff of good stories. But it seems as if all I've done here is go off on random tangents and bitch about this or that. Faced most recently with the ghosts of Puritans present, I don't have the energy to write any more. Or to do much of anything. See Sarah's blog for more info. Link on the sidebar.
||
posted by mW @ 8:22 AM
What do we really know about "In God We Trust" and not throwing stones?
Most people think that the reference to "In God We Trust" is a very innocent, innocuous phrase, emblazened on our U.S. money as a tribute to the past, others as a tribute to God. What most don't know is that in the legal world, the only reason it is allowed--that is, it does not violate the Constitution, which mandates no state establishment of religion--is because it is considered a "ceremonial deism." That is, the phrase which is so commonplace on U.S. money has now become trite: a historical reference, which celebrates only the traditional ties of the founders of this nation to a belief in god. Thus, despite the great importance this phrase has to many people across the world, it only is permitted to be printed on U.S. money for its intrinsically non-religious significance.
I think this knowledge offends people of religion, just as much as much as its very presence offends people of non-monotheisitic religions or of non-religion. Unfortunately, too many short-sighted proponents of religion, see only a court victory, not the reasons behind the victory. So when you are disappointed that students at your local school cannot sing Christmas carols any more, and such a result just seems silly or you ask what is the harm? Instead rejoice. You now have the right to celebrate the individual mandates of your conscience with your family and chosen religious community. You do not have to suffer the degredation of your beliefs as something merely "historical." They mean something.
But of course, the above is only so relevant as it is true, that is, that such a phrase placed on money is indeed innocuous. Consider the following passage from page 25 of William V. Spanos' recent book, America's Shadow, An Anatomy of Empire:
This seems to leave a discrepency between the words of some founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, who argued vigorously for a "wall of separation" between religion and state, and others, who would have the Christian empire extend its roots into the fibers of this country. The idea that is America is a truly great idea: that all are created equal, and that all may live their lives as they choose, so long as they hurt no other in doing so.
Religion can be a great strength to many people. But this can only be true when one follows one's own heart or conscience to whole-heartedly embrace that religion. What faithful congregation wants people forced to follow them? Hopefully none. If that is so, then those of true faith must remember that when they turn to their legislators to ask him or her to outlaw things that go against their faith, regarding topics of prayer in school, public religious displays, abortion, and teaching creationism in a science class: we must remember to respect those with different beliefs. It is not fair for the state to practice a tyranny of the majority. For as the Supreme Court of the United States has emphatically declared on more than one occasion, most recently in 2000: "fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election.” See Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe .
Doesn't it make more sense to simply love your neighbor, even though he or she may have different beliefs than you? Do we really believe as citizens in a free American society that some of us, even a majority of us, have the right to tell people what to believe, and what moral code they can live by, beyond simply the secular norms that define a civilized society? Because what comes next? Shall we ban pork as a sinful food? Will we outlaw all work on Sundays? Will we reinstate prohibition? America is no theocracy. The Founding Fathers could have set up this country as such. Yet, with Protestantism fresh in their blood, they knew well the corrupting potential of a Theocratic Empire. Indeed, most Protestants railed against the first Catholic president of this nation, John F. Kennedy, believing he would turn this country over to the pope.
Have we come full circle? Will we deliver our nation straight to god and cut out the middle man of this equation by cutting out the singular political figurehead? Does the formless mass of Christian bodies accomplish what a Pope or Holy Emperor could not? But is it any different?
Perhaps instead of such nonsense, the Christian majority should dedicate their lives to goodness, rather than screaming out to others how one should live one's life. Remember the words of Jesus, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." John 8:7. Because those that believe in this god, must surely believe that he knows the difference between living your life according to Christ, and in others not doing so. As Jesus also said, "when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." Matt. 6:5.
Let the state worry about the multiplicity of beliefs inhering to its citizens, and to legislate accordingly, taking into account all of the nation's beliefs. You and yours take care of your beliefs. Because only by working together, living together, and accepting each other, will we all find peace and harmony.
Otherwise we'll have more blood and death, harbinged by brimstone: modern Crusades, people that preposterously invite and justify natural disasters to "hotbeds of sin" like New Orleans, and suicide bombers looking for the next "Great Satan" lurking in shopping malls and wedding parties. But if that's what your faith dictates, then I'm sure you'll get it.
||
posted by mW @ 5:10 PM
I think this knowledge offends people of religion, just as much as much as its very presence offends people of non-monotheisitic religions or of non-religion. Unfortunately, too many short-sighted proponents of religion, see only a court victory, not the reasons behind the victory. So when you are disappointed that students at your local school cannot sing Christmas carols any more, and such a result just seems silly or you ask what is the harm? Instead rejoice. You now have the right to celebrate the individual mandates of your conscience with your family and chosen religious community. You do not have to suffer the degredation of your beliefs as something merely "historical." They mean something.
But of course, the above is only so relevant as it is true, that is, that such a phrase placed on money is indeed innocuous. Consider the following passage from page 25 of William V. Spanos' recent book, America's Shadow, An Anatomy of Empire:
[O]ne also finds this central and concentering panoptic eye figured in the Great Seal of the United States, which also appears on the American one-dollar bill: a pyramid enclosed by a circle, at the apex of which is an all-seeing and all-encompaassing eye (and its bright rays) and at the base of which, the Roman numerals MDCCLXXVI (the entire temporal history of the Christian world over which its providentially ordained commanding gaze presides). This resonant image bears the Virgilian mottoes ANNUIT COEPTIS (God has favored our beginnings) at the top and, especially pertinent for the purposes of this study, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM (New World Order) at the bottom...This [all-encompassing eye] was, of course, the "diagram of power," according to Foucault, that became the structural model of the modern disciplinary society.
This seems to leave a discrepency between the words of some founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, who argued vigorously for a "wall of separation" between religion and state, and others, who would have the Christian empire extend its roots into the fibers of this country. The idea that is America is a truly great idea: that all are created equal, and that all may live their lives as they choose, so long as they hurt no other in doing so.
Religion can be a great strength to many people. But this can only be true when one follows one's own heart or conscience to whole-heartedly embrace that religion. What faithful congregation wants people forced to follow them? Hopefully none. If that is so, then those of true faith must remember that when they turn to their legislators to ask him or her to outlaw things that go against their faith, regarding topics of prayer in school, public religious displays, abortion, and teaching creationism in a science class: we must remember to respect those with different beliefs. It is not fair for the state to practice a tyranny of the majority. For as the Supreme Court of the United States has emphatically declared on more than one occasion, most recently in 2000: "fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election.” See Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe .
Doesn't it make more sense to simply love your neighbor, even though he or she may have different beliefs than you? Do we really believe as citizens in a free American society that some of us, even a majority of us, have the right to tell people what to believe, and what moral code they can live by, beyond simply the secular norms that define a civilized society? Because what comes next? Shall we ban pork as a sinful food? Will we outlaw all work on Sundays? Will we reinstate prohibition? America is no theocracy. The Founding Fathers could have set up this country as such. Yet, with Protestantism fresh in their blood, they knew well the corrupting potential of a Theocratic Empire. Indeed, most Protestants railed against the first Catholic president of this nation, John F. Kennedy, believing he would turn this country over to the pope.
Have we come full circle? Will we deliver our nation straight to god and cut out the middle man of this equation by cutting out the singular political figurehead? Does the formless mass of Christian bodies accomplish what a Pope or Holy Emperor could not? But is it any different?
Perhaps instead of such nonsense, the Christian majority should dedicate their lives to goodness, rather than screaming out to others how one should live one's life. Remember the words of Jesus, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." John 8:7. Because those that believe in this god, must surely believe that he knows the difference between living your life according to Christ, and in others not doing so. As Jesus also said, "when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." Matt. 6:5.
Let the state worry about the multiplicity of beliefs inhering to its citizens, and to legislate accordingly, taking into account all of the nation's beliefs. You and yours take care of your beliefs. Because only by working together, living together, and accepting each other, will we all find peace and harmony.
Otherwise we'll have more blood and death, harbinged by brimstone: modern Crusades, people that preposterously invite and justify natural disasters to "hotbeds of sin" like New Orleans, and suicide bombers looking for the next "Great Satan" lurking in shopping malls and wedding parties. But if that's what your faith dictates, then I'm sure you'll get it.
Consumer fraud, Entergy, and other pre-bankruptcy skullduggery
Anyone out there frustrated with your gas & electric monopoly? Anyone feel cheated or robbed by the one company that you likely cannot select around in our supposedly free market? How about victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? Haven't you already felt violated enough without your energy company screwing you?
Here are some facts.
So with these facts in mind, I encourage anyone who is a Louisiana resident and subject to Entergy's monopoly, to scrutinize your bills. If you find something that does not appear accurate, I encourage you to call Entergy first, but likely you will get nowhere as Sarah and I did. If that happens, you may choose to file complaints with both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision at http://www.ferc.gov/cust-protect/complaints.asp and the Louisiana Public Service Commission at http://www.lpsc.org/complaints.asp
I am no lawyer, so I cannot say whether you are better off not paying your bill and risking a mark against your credit rating (thus implying a dispute over the bill), or paying, protecting your credit rating, and protesting nonetheless (but risking that your payment indicates an acceptance of the bill). Personally, I think I will pay the bill, but will also send a written letter of protest. Regardless of what you do, it is clear that for Entergy-a company who is about to go into bankruptcy to reduce the amount of their debt they actually have to pay-to extort funds out of the real victims of these horrible situations, is just WRONG.
As people in a social multicultural democracy, we need to stop talking, to stop complaining. We need to start acting. It doesn't take that long to send an email or write a letter. But you'd be amazed at the power enough letters and emails can invoke in the form of the state or federal government, and subsequently bring down upon any actor who thinks the people of this country are beneath them, and that their company is above the law.
So yes. You will hear from me Entergy.
||
posted by mW @ 11:13 AM
Here are some facts.
My recent "estimate" for ten days of usage was $51.62. Let's assume that a 30-day month is a full month. That would make a full month's bill $154.86. Yes, this would have been for the end of August. However, my previous two full-month bills (of actual usage) were $121.22 and $131.57. It was $106.90 the month prior to that. That makes Entergy's "estimate" pretty damn generous.
Let's take another example. Sarah's estimate was worse. When you extrapolated a full month's payment from her partial month bill, it would end up as $244.97. Consider two things: first, that this four-person apartment never eked out a bill over $155 because they all are so conscious about watching their bills (and that bill was only so high because their roof was ripped off in Tropical Storm Cindy, and was leaking cold air while that room was repaired, and was high to pay for the tools used to fix it-their next highest bill was like $125); second, that they have individual AC units in their rooms, not central AC, and only two of the four girls were there in the summer.
So with these facts in mind, I encourage anyone who is a Louisiana resident and subject to Entergy's monopoly, to scrutinize your bills. If you find something that does not appear accurate, I encourage you to call Entergy first, but likely you will get nowhere as Sarah and I did. If that happens, you may choose to file complaints with both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision at http://www.ferc.gov/cust-protect/complaints.asp and the Louisiana Public Service Commission at http://www.lpsc.org/complaints.asp
I am no lawyer, so I cannot say whether you are better off not paying your bill and risking a mark against your credit rating (thus implying a dispute over the bill), or paying, protecting your credit rating, and protesting nonetheless (but risking that your payment indicates an acceptance of the bill). Personally, I think I will pay the bill, but will also send a written letter of protest. Regardless of what you do, it is clear that for Entergy-a company who is about to go into bankruptcy to reduce the amount of their debt they actually have to pay-to extort funds out of the real victims of these horrible situations, is just WRONG.
As people in a social multicultural democracy, we need to stop talking, to stop complaining. We need to start acting. It doesn't take that long to send an email or write a letter. But you'd be amazed at the power enough letters and emails can invoke in the form of the state or federal government, and subsequently bring down upon any actor who thinks the people of this country are beneath them, and that their company is above the law.
So yes. You will hear from me Entergy.
Are you F*@#ing Kidding Me?!?
Okay. About two weeks ago the big ugly stupid black Lincoln Towncar parked next to me in our assigned parking spots at my temporary Boston apartment building backed out and ripped into the side of my car. He doesn't live in my building, rather he rents the spot from someone who does. Apparently, he was of the belief that I would not call my insurance company and the police and the managment of the building and track him down, or that I would create a comprehensive photographic record (including pictures of matching tape measured marks) of the damage. It is my first new car. I love it. I am proud to have gotten to where I am in life that I can afford it. And this person thought I wouldn't care?
Okay. This morning I went outside only to find a scratch alongside the other side of my car. Are you f*@#king kidding me? For a thorough discussion of my frustration, see the above paragraph. Of course, the only thing more incredible then my disbelief in general is my lack of disbelief in specific. Let me backtrack.
When I was looking for the car that damaged my driver side, I looked at the car on my passenger side, a white something with NY plates. Every single corner and side of the car was dinged, scratched, or dented. I almost gave up right then. Then again, what jury wouldn't believe he/she did it? I can just seethis person at the Massachusetts DMV right now.
And yes. This is the person who hit my car the second time. At least in New Orleans they have the common courtesy to total your car. At least then you get compensation for pain and suffering.
||
posted by mW @ 1:54 PM
Okay. This morning I went outside only to find a scratch alongside the other side of my car. Are you f*@#king kidding me? For a thorough discussion of my frustration, see the above paragraph. Of course, the only thing more incredible then my disbelief in general is my lack of disbelief in specific. Let me backtrack.
When I was looking for the car that damaged my driver side, I looked at the car on my passenger side, a white something with NY plates. Every single corner and side of the car was dinged, scratched, or dented. I almost gave up right then. Then again, what jury wouldn't believe he/she did it? I can just seethis person at the Massachusetts DMV right now.
"Excuse me sir, can you drive?"
"Yes"
"Can you park?"
"Maybe."
"Well, that's good enough for me. Here's your license and registration."
And yes. This is the person who hit my car the second time. At least in New Orleans they have the common courtesy to total your car. At least then you get compensation for pain and suffering.
[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010