Living With Symbols

(an Easter poem, about symbols and religion, by Noah Henderson)

I heard an idea on the radio this morning with which I wholeheartedly agree:

God speaks to us from many vectors (if there is a God, here I call it “he,” this being a sardonic reference to personhood rather than a preference for the male gender).

He comes to us in prayer or meditation, in quiet and with great noise, in peace and in war. He comes to us in an array of beautiful colors, as well as in the distinct specificity of black and white. He speaks to us through ethnicity, geography, the stars, the oceans, and even in mere rivulets of streams in our backyards teeming with life. He is in the vast expanse of the cosmos, which we as humans cannot comprehend, and in the miniscule atoms which we smash, and in the endless tubes and circuits that make up our bodies. Nowhere is he more eloquent, and more present, than in nature. He speaks through prophets, heroes, statesmen, artists, musicians and poets.

The very last place I know in which he speaks, is in churches. These are buildings rendered by man, places in which we gather to commiserate our humanities. If God had built these places, he would have made them for us to reach out to one another, not reach out to him. He’s pretty much ok already, and doesn’t need our vote. It is we who need his, and it is through each other that we can reach him.

How do I know this? In psychology, there is a concept known as archetypes. Archetypes are behaviors that reach across civilizations, nationalities, genders, even across time. They occur similarly in peoples without any visible connection to each other. These are behaviors that seem indelible, as imprinted into the makeup of humankind, behaviors for which we are not responsible and cannot alter. These could be the handprints of God, if no other signs were present. But I have only to look at the destruction caused by religions to know they were made by man and not God.

What is Easter?

It was originally a pagan celebration of the onset of spring, a time of blooming and growth, happiness and survival, a time of fertility. Jesus Christ died during Passover, near Easter, but the early Christians could not let such a time be associated with a pagan ritual, so they renamed it, moved it, changed it. It is said that the name “Easter” is derived from Esther, a nice Jewish name.

Why the Easter Bunny?

Springtime meant re-populating the species, a gift which rabbits have long been known to possess. The Easter eggs were symbols of fertility, of spring. I’m thinking the confusion and dissociation most Americans have with this holiday comes from the earlier religious efforts to usurp it.

Symbols are so deep in our consciousnesses that we no longer see most of them. We don’t ask ourselves why they’re there, or where they came from, let alone what they mean. We promulgate differences between ourselves out of a misguided sense of security, thinking if we band together in a tight community and keep others away, we’ll be safe. That was true for the cave men, but no longer is true for us. We need to adapt and see that our security must now come from allowing others in rather than keeping them out. We cannot undo the politics of our time, but we can change the course of human history. That is why we have free will, and that is what God waits for us to do. We need to understand our symbols, and know that God speaks from many places.

Teachings such as the bible were not meant to be taken literally. They were parables for us to use to try to understand the complexity of nature, which were re-interpreted throughout history for the benefit of each particular iteration of Christianity. We need to step back and see the symbols in our lives, and make what connections we can with the lives we now lead. The understanding of right and wrong is within us all; we have only to look for it, and if there is a church which accomplishes that without undermining other peoples, I will meet you there. Or here, as it were.

Letter to the Editor -printed Feb.5 08

San Francisco Chronicle

Feb. 5 2008

Test of democracy

Editor - If someone takes $100 from you and offers to give you back $1, do you: 1) Vote for this “economic stimulus.” 2) Know you are being swindled.

If your government borrows trillions from two of the most oppressive and heavily armed countries in the world to invade and occupy a country that has no weapons of mass destruction, only oil, do you: 1) Think that this promotes democracy. 2) Know that democracy is for sale.

Salon Letters

http://letters.salon.com/da15f59888d210a4f61cc1f9c1193258/author/

Confessions from the Closet

Confessions from the Closet

 Why I Switched

 

 

For the past twenty years, I have dedicated my life to activism. I have started two nonprofits, testified in numerous Senate Hearings and have convinced legislators to change laws.  I’ve had the incredible good fortune to work with Jessica (Decca) Mitford and Bob Treuhaft (both former communists) on their last book: The American Way of Death Revisited or “Death Warmed Over” as we called it.

 

 Still, even with this resume, the people who have had the greatest impact on my world views have been two Presidents; Nixon and Bush Jr.

 

It was while watching the Watergate Hearings that something deep inside this (then 20 year- old) middleclass housewife changed. A few years later, I left suburbia and headed to Northern California, driven with a need to live a larger life.

 

My activism started when I tried to sell caskets wholesale in San Francisco in a “funerary art gallery.”  The mortuaries refused to allow families to purchase anything from outside vendors.  I went “undercover” in collaboration with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to bring enough evidence for a ruling on restraint of trade. Then in the early 90’s, morticians began charging AIDS “handling fees”.  These obnoxious and scientifically unwarranted charges took me to Sacramento, the capital of California, to protest alongside the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (politics can certainly bring you interesting alliances).

 

 I began to look at the agency regulating the funeral industry and stepped into a hornet’s nest of corruption. I started testifying in hearings and talking with politicians (even odder bedfellows).  I was labeled “The Scourge of the Funeral Industry” by the Boston Globe and was quickly swept up with interviews and exposes for national and international television networks.  I started a nonprofit that distributed consumer information to help people know what choices and rights were involved in purchasing funerals.

 

These activities brought me to the attention of the “Queen of The Muckrakers” Jessica Mitford.  She asked me to be her researcher on updating her national bestseller The American Way of Death.   I found myself in an exciting and heady venue and spent many hours struggling to learn the history of the politics of the left while I lived with Decca and Bob. Their struggles for civil rights made me feel like a dilettante.

 

Because Ms. Mitford died prior to the release of her book, I was thrust into doing the national book tour.  The day I landed in New York, to appear on The Today Show, the scandal of Monica Lewinsky broke. Obviously upstaged, we rescheduled for later in the week. On that day, President Clinton started his assault in Bosnia. Between the Bimbo and the Bomb, my spotlight died out, and I returned to the West Coast.

Still dedicated to battling the funeral industry, I continued to fight in “The Fine Old Conflict” as Decca called the communist theme song of The Internationale.

 

One day I was asked to investigate a homeless shelter by assuming my “undercover” role. It was indeed more of an eye opener than anything I had done previously in my life.  It showed me how intrinsically corrupt government-funded programs are, and how easily “faith based” charities (funded by taxes) can accumulate power and wealth over the powerless and poor.  I confronted the city council with proof of embezzlement and corruption, but was ignored. The only highlight of the event was my being threatened to be arrested for impersonating a homeless person (I actually pulled a rib muscle from laughter). Unfortunately, the people who shared the shelter with me were dumped onto the streets so that they could not testify. Two of them died over the next year and I did a lot of soul searching about my methods and goals.

 

I started my second effort to create change using the internet to search for individuals who tackled major societal problems differently than the standard institutionalized systems.  This is when I furthered my education in how badly government deals with all social issues. The most innovative ideas and real solutions are usually shunned by government, and my contacts were with movers and shakers who were well outside the entrenched government agencies. Learning about the problems in our “justice” system and working for prison reform was nearly overwhelming.  There is something deeply wrong with California when it has the largest prison population (per capita) than any other country in the world. Being tagged the most “Liberal” state in America somehow seems bizarre!

 

When listening to my old comrades of the left talk about what our government should do, I find myself trying to convince them that only programs which work on a local level and are not restricted by the strings that come with government funding have a hope of succeeding.  The response was always that we just needed the government to “fix” those problems too.

 

My greatest example of how impossible this is to do is from my years of trying to work on behalf of consumers against the abuses of the funeral industry. The state regulatory boards were run by the industry they were supposed to be overseeing.  After many exposés and years of victims testifying in hearings, the politicians promised change. They got rid of the public boards and created a Bureau in which the only people who now have access to government are the lobbyists.  To add salt to our wounds, they added more taxes on the cost of death to pay for it.  The FTC, who promulgated the “Funeral Rules” in 1982 after the exposé of The American Way of Death, has handed oversight over to the National Funeral Directors Association, and has promised funeral directors to withhold knowledge of industry wrongdoing from the public if they make “tax deductible contributions” to the FTC.  When my friends protest that this was done by those “damn Republicans,” I tell them they are misinformed- both of these actions were taken by Democrats.  When I have confronted the responsible politicians themselves, they have told me that I needed to be more “realistic” and learn the art of “negotiation.”  More than once I was told they could help me get me a “good paying” job in government.  Having had an insider’s view of government, I couldn’t help but feel insulted by that suggestion.

 

Then Bush Jr. and his neoconservative gang took over the White House.  It was Nixon again, with a better PR machine, and once more something shifted in me politically.  I watched the futility of the left’s struggle against the fast paced erosion of our rights.  The first time I heard Ron Paul speak I felt I must be hallucinating; how could someone whose views so connected with mine be a candidate for president?  And most embarrassing of all - how could he be a Republican?

 

 Research on his ideas brought me to the Libertarian Party.  I roamed the net, reading posts and articles in Libertarian Blogs from all over the world.  I subscribed to Reason Magazine.  I felt a little like I should be reading this stuff in a dark closet with a flashlight.  Many ideas were new to me, and some of them conflicted with cherished beliefs.

 

My first issue of Reason was titled “The Right to Own a Bazooka”.  My husband sneered at it and dismissed it as “rightwing lunacy.”  When I announced to my husband that I was beginning to sympathize with Libertarian views on politics, he was far from pleased.  His mental association with Libertarians was almost synonymous with the Ku Klux Klan. Fortunately for me, he teaches Critical Thinking.  His strong advocacy for reasoning has given me an opportunity to discuss issues and thoughts on politics and liberty in depth.  Here was an open mind against which I could freely bounce ideas and conflicts.  He thinks that the Libertarians have been purposely maligned and that most people do not really understand the issues clearly.  I wholeheartedly agree. Both political parties see government as Santa Claus or God, put there to moralize and/or reward us.  Although I don’t want to own a gun (much less a bazooka), I fear the government’s creation of a private army (Blackwater) more than I fear citizens bearing arms.

 

I still have a great deal to learn, but my trust that government can provide solutions to social problems has been damaged, and my convictions irrevocably changed.  My hostility towards the war in Iraq and the erosions of our civil rights has fueled my exploration and acceptance of different views, ones that in my youth I would have discounted out of hand.  When my friends ask why I am a Libertarian, I explain that it is due to my deep humanitarian leanings.  I have learned that poverty and war are institutionalized conditions that serve governments well.  This gives my friends pause.  As I talk about the failings of the Democrats to stop the war – the largest cause of impoverishment-they nod and lean in to listen. Like my husband and I, most Democrats are frustrated and disenchanted with the politics of the Democratic Party. And like us, they have never studied the diversity of opinions found within the Libertarian Party. There is great opportunity in the present political atmosphere to get solutions and ideas out to those who have fallen into the trap of thinking that Left/Right and Democrat/Republican are the only viable options. The field is ripe for change.

 

 

 

Changing the Constitution

San Francisco Chronicle

Letter to the Editor

 

We the People

 

The two seemingly opposing views on the Constitution presented in Sunday’s Insight are perhaps the most important and controversial articles I have seen in the Chronicle for a long time. These articles were a very wise choice to focus us to address pressing and possibly catastrophic events shaping this country today.

 

First, let me point out that our government has already trampled over and reshaped this precious document. Our feelings of anger and powerlessness are quite justified. But virtually all of the problems that were discussed in these articles were not due to the shortsightedness of the framers of the constitution, but instead due to the constant tinkering done by proceeding generations. These are the amendments that need examination and national debate.

 

If we were following the direction of the constitution today, each state would be able to have the right to experiment with a great many of the ideas that were suggested by Sabato. Virtually all the ills- the extraordinary power of  multinational corporations, the perpetual war machines, the bankruptcy of our national treasury were NOT powers built into the constitution but powers that grew by stealing power away from individuals and their States.

 

Karen Leonard

Tibute to a remarkable woman and friend

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=10-16-07&storyID=28229

My Days as an undercover homeless person

November 5^th, 2002

 

Statement of Karen Leonard to City Council regarding Brookwood Shelter

 

Dear City Council Members;

 

For five days and nights, I lived at the Brookwood shelter as a homeless person. This has given me insights into the living conditions of these residences that I believe is important to those who have rule over their lives.

 

Although people from Catholic Charities refer to Brookwood as these people’s “home” whenever they try to prevent people from the community coming into the shelter to interact and work with the people there, in reality, this place more closely resembles a “halfway house” for criminals. Although they have committed no greater sin than not having enough money to afford a place of their own in Sonoma County, we treat them as though they are the enemy in our midst.

 

Imagine living these realities; you work at night, but you are not allowed in your “home” to sleep during the day. When your children get out from school, they cannot go “home” for many hours, and you cannot afford day care. If either you or your children are sick, you cannot go “home”. Although you are not allowed to have any visitors in your “home”, police are allowed to walk through your room any time they choose. Although a budget for $7,000 dollars has been allotted in monies paid by taxpayers for your phone use, the only phone available to you is a pay phone you must share with 40 other people. Although an ample budget was set for furnishing, the only furniture there is was donated from the sheriff’s jail. Although there is a budget for food, the only food that arrives is food that the grocery stores can no longer sell because it is no longer fresh. You must mop floors while people are walking on them; because you cannot do them when everyone is gone…you are not allowed inside then, either. You may have to come “home” from a long day of work or job hunting and cook for 40 people. You must sleep with the lights on. You are blamed for everything that goes wrong, and told you deserve this because you are homeless. Although you need a good paying job to be able to pay rent, the only well paid people in your “home” are the guards who are not there to keep you safe, but to keep your neighbors safe from you. Even though the waiting list to get subsidized housing is two years or longer, you are told your stay here can only be at most a few months. The stress factors in your life, and those around you are stupendous, and yet you are told in countless ways, every day, you are not worthy of respect and the neighbors loathe the sight of you. And you must constantly remind yourself, that you are the “lucky” one, staying in the best shelter Santa Rosa offers, and complaints can land you back on the street.

 

These were my experiences during my short stay at Brookwood. After that I began showing up at the Brookwood’s Advisory meetings. I was not welcomed, in fact I was threatened to be arrested for impersonating a homeless person, and ordered to leave. When I finished laughing I asked for the statute that makes pretending to be homeless a crime. I stayed and returned again the next month, even though again I was told to leave.

The advisory committee went through quite a lot of commotion during those two visits of mine. After having talked with the “neighbor” who was selected to be on this committee I discovered that this committee has never taken a vote. It has never followed the original guidelines of its conception. Police presence has often outnumbered the people from the public. The public members have been refused their right to see Brookwood’s budget, and have been told they have no business discussing the operations of Brookwood. Although the advisory committee is suppose to be composed of a majority of people from the community and be ruled by consensus, in the six months since its conception it has yet to achieve either of these goals.

 

But one amazing thing did occur. A tenacious woman from the community insisted in being able to interact with the residences of Brookwood. She was told firmly that she would be interfering with the “rights” of the homeless to their “privacy”.  Fortunately, another public member pointed out that Catholic Charities has no authority over the lives of these people once they are outside of the shelter. A magical thing then occurred, the people inside the shelter and the people in the rest of the community organized. They created a wonderful Halloween party for the children inside Brookwood, and began to socialize together. I believe this is the start of something wonderful. This happened in spite of the Advisory committee’s efforts to marginalize and exclude the outside community from participating with the inside community of Brookwood.

 

If the City Council allows Catholic Charities to have complete authority over this public advisory committee there will be no oversight of how this agency runs Brookwood, and oversight is sorely needed. I must also remind everyone here, that the residences of Brookwood are part of our community and are not to be treated like property. The rights of the people in this shelter need to be defended, and respected. Most of the people in Brookwood were born and raised here in Sonoma County; they must be regarded as part of the community and not segregated and alienated from the rest of the community. Changes in policy must be allowed in order to improve the quality of life for these people within our community. There is more to the public’s concerns than simple fear and ignorance, and yet these are the only sentiments being catered to. I fear that caring for the homeless has become big business, both costly and largely ineffective. As a tax payer, whose funds are used in services to the poor, I demand greater accountability and transparency in these operations. It is not the people without houses I fear, but those whose livelihoods come from distributing services to the poor that I suspect of having vested interest in keeping the haves and have-not’s separated.

 

 

Jessica’s Law

Editorial: Jessica’s Law needs work
Ventura County Star
Bigger problems created
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Beware of unintended consequences, especially when voters take the law into
their own hands, as demonstrated by the passage of Jessica’s Law last
November. The law bars sex offenders, released after November 2006, from
living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. It sounded good on paper and
70 percent of California voters approved it.

However, as a result of that law, Ventura County’s first designated sexually
violent predator, Ross Wollschlager, has been living in a tent in a riverbed
since August, after he was kicked out of seven hotels throughout the county.
He was offered a place to stay with a friend, but couldn’t accept because
the friend lives within 2,000 feet of a park.

That is one example of thousands of potentially homeless sexual offenders in
California. That is worrisome on two counts:

- First, studies show the risk of sexual predators reoffending drops when
they have a stable place to live.

- Second, it is much harder to keep track of someone who is homeless.

For instance, if sex offenders have a place to live, their address is listed
on the Megan’s Law site. If they are homeless, no address is given and they
are listed only as “transient,” as is currently the case with Mr.
Wollschlager.

Certainly, Mr. Wollschlager’s living in a river bottom makes it harder to
keep track of him, even though he is monitored by a global positioning
system.

It was just the circumstance those opposed to the law - including The Star -
warned about at the time Proposition 83 was voted on.

Michael Schwartz, Ventura County’s special assistant district attorney, told
The Star in September: “The status of this case with him (Wollschlager)
living in a river bottom is not a good state of affairs. I think the state
has got to come up with a better solution where to house these people where
we can keep track of them.”

The solution the state is employing at the moment is arresting released sex
offenders who live too close to schools and parks. Although the state
Supreme Court last week blocked the arrest of four parolees who claim
Proposition 83 is vague and unfairly punishes sex offenders after they are
released from prison, it declined Monday to expand its ruling to cover all
paroled sex offenders affected by the law.

That is despite the fact state prisons are so overcrowded federal judges
have threatened to release some prisoners before they have served their full
sentences.

In July, it was determined that some 2,100 newly paroled sex offenders in
California were living illegally near schools and parks and they were given
45 days to find new homes. In Ventura County in August, 33 registered sex
offenders were identified by their parole agents as having to move.

Thursday, parole agents around the state were directed to arrest sex
offenders who could not prove they were living outside the restricted zones.

State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, co-author of Jessica’s Law, said in
July that he would be willing to amend the law if housing for sex offenders
becomes a problem.

We think the evidence is in that housing is a problem, as demonstrated by
Mr. Wollschlager’s situation and the ongoing arrests. Those arrests should
be halted at least until the court challenge on behalf of the four parolees
is decided.

Jessica’s Law was well-intentioned, but that does not make it a defensible
law.

Sen. Runner needs to amend his law or the courts, no doubt, will eventually
amend it for him, as they should.

Dear Editor

Knee jerk reactions are the norm when people are confronted with a horror
story such as Jessica’s. Politicians-ever anxious to make a name and rep for
the public eye, throw their cape back and declare themselves “Here to save
the Day!” They quickly score points for the most draconian of laws that
under normal circumstances would at least cause the public to ponder and
debate. Decisions made from pandering to your most volatile emotions
invariably create chaos and injustice. Thus; California imprisons more
people per capita than any country in the entire world. Thus; prison guards
make more than teachers and “Prisons” become our states fastest growing
industry with income from slave labor.

Tryanny of the Tiny Minority

Tyranny Of The Tiny Minority

 

 

 

Wondering why Congress rarely passes anything the public wants? Then grab Thomas Geoghegan’s 1999 memoir, “The Secret Lives of Citizens.”

The book shows that, like the Da Vinci Code, the answers to such important questions are often out in the open, encrypted only by our inability to step back and see them. And when you crack this particular mystery about Congress, you learn not only why Washington is paralyzed, but also where to look for domestic progress, and how stopping bills — rather than passing them — is probably the only way to end the Iraq war right now.

As Geoghegan notes, in the 100-member Senate, just 41 “no” votes kills most legislation with a filibuster. You might think that if 41 percent of our representatives oppose a bill, maybe it should die. After all, civics class taught us that the Senate is supposed to protect the voice of a significant minority.

But here is what civics class didn’t teach: With each state getting two senators regardless of population, 41 percent of the Senate often represents not a significant minority, but an infinitesimal one.

Using Census figures, Geoghegan discovers that the 11 percent of Americans living in the least populated states have enough Senate votes — 41 — to sustain a filibuster. Yes, 89 percent of the population may support a policy, but 11 percent of the population has the senators to block that policy’s enactment. When you go further than Geoghegan and consider the election-focused mindset of politicians, you see the situation is even more absurd.

Lawmakers trying to keep their jobs only need support from a majority of those who turn out to vote. In those 21 least populated states with filibuster power, that majority is typically about 7 million voters, based on turnout data. That’s just 3 percent of America’s total voting-age population wielding enough Senate representation to stop almost anything.

To see how this works, consider what followed a July CBS News/New York Times poll that found 69 percent of Americans support Congress either enacting a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq or defunding the war completely. When the Senate voted on timetable legislation that month, 47 senators voted “no” — enough to filibuster.

Should we be surprised that a policy supported by more than two thirds of America drew opposition from almost half of the Senate? No, not when we consider the math.

Those 47 senators understand they don’t answer to mainstream public opinion.

They rely on merely 16 percent of the nation’s total voting-age population to get elected and re-elected — a miniscule segment of America comprising the hard-core Republican base.

Obviously, small-state senators would block Constitutional amendments making our government more democratic. So why bother to know these numbers? Because they tell us how and where we can achieve progress.

In the Karl Rove age of base politics, this Senate setup means that most domestic reforms will not come from D.C., no matter which party controls Congress or the presidency. Change will come instead from the arenas that are more democratic and have no filibuster: state legislatures.

This isn’t wishful thinking. As energy, universal health care and consumer protection initiatives face Senate filibusters, legislatures are acting. For instance, California already passed one of the planet’s most far-reaching clean energy mandates and may soon enact a universal health care plan. North Carolina passed predatory lending laws that are setting national standards. Such examples could fill a phone book.

Of course, foreign policies like the Iraq War are federal issues and legislating those policies must involve the Senate. But the filibuster hardly means the campaign to end the war is pointless — it just means it requires a new strategy making the Senate’s drawbacks the campaign’s strength.

Specifically, Senate Democrats whine about not having 60 votes to pass Iraq-related legislation. They pretend they are innocent bystanders with no means to act, and some anti-war groups give the charade credence by echoing these excuses. Yet, if properly pressured, those Democrats might be able to muster 41 votes to stop war funding bills.

It is all about comprehending power. Geoghegan’s book exposes the mechanics permitting a tyranny of the tiny minority — one that makes most of us feel disenfranchised. But the numbers also explain which arenas will likely deliver results, and which will not; where we should expend resources pushing for change, and where we should not; and what strategies are appropriate, and what strategies are not.

The question is, will we heed the lesson?

Writer and political analyst David Sirota is the bestselling author of “Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government & How We Take It Back.” His daily blog can be found at www.workingassetsblog.com/sirota. To find out more about David Sirota and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/tyranny-of-the-tiny-minority.html

Prison Reform

66 California Inmate Deaths Preventable According to Prison Receiver Robert Sillen

Karen Leonard September 20, 2007 at 11:03 AM

There are very good studies in Behavioral Science that proves incarceration and punishment NEVER changes behaivor. There are also very successful alternatives to incarceration that are already being incorporated in other countries. But it seems that nothing will sway Americans from just being cruel. The closest we get to any change in our adicctive knee-jerk behaivor concerning crime and punishment is when we follow the bottom line and underline that change will save money. For anyone wanting to see how ridiculously barbaric our country is concerning prisoners, I would suggest reading Kind and Usual Punishment- the first expose on the prison business.