KennewickMan's Open Salon Blog

Pedestrian Rights!

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:01:32 -0500

I engaged in a little civil protest on my morning walk to the coffee shop. An ice storm 10 days ago has left broken tree limbs everywhere. I found the sidewalk blocked by them--impassable to someone in a wheelchair or walker. I've seen a local walking his dog with a walker, I'd guess he has cerebral palsy.

The roadway was totally clear of impediments. Coming from a long line of walkers, that pissed me off. So I pulled all the limbs out into the middle of the road. Why does the city spend money only on roads, never on sidewalks?

Half a block further on my walk, I repented and thought that I should have thrown all the limbs over the back fence of the adjoining home owner. After all, he owns the land to the middle of the street. The limbs were his responsibility.

Another block along, I repented of that idea. The limbs needed to be in the middle of the road. That will provoke one of two actions. Either a cop will visit the home owner ordering him to pick up the downed limbs, with a warning that there'll be an infraction and penalty next time. Or, the drivers will complain to the city, and all homeowners will be levied with sufficient taxes to keep walkways clear for all us gummers and gimps.

Keep Mexicans Home, Not Out

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:01:28 -0500

North of the Border, we keep fussing about the illegals and their ill-treatment. This is like continuing to fuss over a blister instead of doing something about the shoes.
What I mean is: let's focus on Mexico to make it a place people want to live in and make decent wages. Maybe start with water. If we weren't watering lawns from Colorado to San Fran to San Diego to Phoenix, if we stopped stealing their water, Mexicans would have an enormous agricultural industry.

Next, drugs. We've been fighting the wrong drug war: keeping drugs away from my little Jonnie. We must fight the drug economy by continuing to interdict the traffic but then giving drugs away for free. Or in exchange for information about traffickers.

And then, investments. Put some jobs in Mexico and we can stop fussing about illegals.

Might Islam Be Weak?

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:09:12 -0400

Today being the day our thoughts are brought to it, I've been thinking about Islam. And wondering if the following historical critique might have some validity. In summary, nothing in Islam calls for the terrorism, misogyny, or primitivism associated with it. No, Islam calls followers toward the Sublime. But, could it be said that Islam, while not calling for those things, does a poorer job in quelling them than does Christianity?

In other words, the primitive behaviors ignorantly attributed to Islam are merely human nature. The value to civilization of religion is religion's civilizing influence--when that outweighs religion's exclusivity, bigotry and persecution. A historical critique would give more credit to Christianity than to Islam in providing more uplift than evil. Christianity has done more to lift us a cat's whisker from our killer-ape instincts than has Islam. Both religions have a lamentable history of violence, oppression and exclusion. Both have moral codes that, mostly, are nothing more than religious gloss on older property codes: women are the property of their fathers, brothers, then husbands. But a review of the history of each would rate Christianity over Islam in civilizing the killer-apes.

I exclude Judaism from this discussion for two reasons: It is not a proselytizing religion, and it has not had sufficient history in governing large numbers of people. The civilizing influence of Christianity has come from combining the force of government with the aspirations of its better teachings. Judaism hasn't enough history of doing that. And not being proselytizing, it hasn't a history of changing the behaviors of benighted peoples still governed by animist expressions of our killer-ape proclivities.

The best historical example is slavery. Christian-inspired lobbyists and legislators outlawed slavery throughout the British Empire in the 1830's. British ships then destroyed the embarkation facilities of slavers in Africa. Meanwhile in the Ottoman Empire, it is estimated that ten times as many Africans were enslaved and transported as the number taken by Europeans. Because these were marched overland, the mortality rate was much higher than the rate among those taken by Europeans. The Koran prohibits slavery. But it was the British and their warships that forced the Muslims to stop much of their slave trade--and its concomitant horrors. Has any Muslim government actually outlawed enslavement of non-Muslims?

Female genital mutilation is not called for nor encouraged by the Koran. And yet, in the thousand years Islam has governed the countries that practice it, it persists, unobstructed. It is Christian-dominated governments that have condemned it and criminalized the transportation of girls from their countries back to home countries where the mutilation can be performed. Has any Muslim government outlawed such transportation?

Polygamy has been outlawed and its practice is prosecuted in Christian-dominated governments. Polygamy is permitted in Muslim countries. In India, where birth control is strongly "encouraged" only Muslims may practice polygamy--and have no birth control restrictions.

The examples go on, but the next question would be, "What in Islam or Christianity would produce this difference in civilizing influence on governments?" One guess would be the difference in hierarchy. Most of Christianity has a "papa", Pope, Prophet, or Metropolitan at the top to tell the faithful how to think. I am unaware of any example where one of these papas provided the lead in more civilized behavior and values. But when one of the civilizing movements gained enough constituency, the papas often incorporated the movement to prevent schism. Most of Islam has no such hierarchy.

Another possibility is that Christianity from an early date established a quasi-governmental force in opposition or in tension with secular government. The ability of a Pope to excommunicate a King, and with him all his subjects, may be the primary source of our civil rights today. Instead of this opposition, Muslims have always striven for a government of the Ummah. If religious aspirations are not held in tension against civil government, then they are buried and ignored.

A question I don't have a guess for: Each religion's holy book has a mix of primitive or violent teachings with sublime, civilizing teachings. St. Paul had a chance to condemn slavery, and instead sent a runaway slave back to his master with an exhortation that the enslaved person not be punished, but with no authority to prevent it. Jesus never mentioned slavery. But, abolitionists, Christians all, found inspiration in the teachings of Christ and Paul to persist for decades until they succeeded. Why has Christianity been more successful than has Islam in attracting movements to protest our innate proclivities to abuse, misuse and oppress each other?

Keeping Karzai Kosher

Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:09:21 -0400

I have a serious proposal, but just to keep the metaphors unmixed, the title might also be "Holding Hamid Halal." With that off my chest,

One way to get Karzai's focus onto corruption is to get all concerned nations to announce that should his government fall, he will not be allowed to visit nor reside in any of those countries. Nor will his brother nor their families. Same with the provincial governors.

Corrupt officials usually move their graft to Swiss bank accounts and when the cash cow finally dies, they move somewhere comfortable and live well. We could prevent that.

That which can be bought ought not to be bought with the blo

Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:07:12 -0400

"That which can be bought ought not to be bought with the blood of men" is from "The Book of the Deeds and Good Manners of the Wise King Charles V" by Christine de Pizan.

I believe the context of that statement is the question of whether to bribe the captain of a besieged castle to surrender it.

Today's context is: why buy the peace of the Korean peninsula with blood when it could be bought with money? E.g. if we had the guts to tell China that we would terminate all trade until they took control of N. Korea, they'd have the problem solved in a day.

Want to stop Iranian nukes? Extend the sanctions: everyone who trades with anyone who trades with Iran suffers our sanction. That might bring world-wide economic collapse--but would anyone gamble the life of their son to prevent that? And yet, millions are ready to gamble the lives of their sons on the battlefield.

What if we stopped all aid to Israel, and instead bought all of Israel's exports, oranges, Uzis, etc, BUT only thru Palestinian brokers? And--would only buy a quantity of oranges proportional to Palestinian olives.

How much would it cost to buy the claims of Pakistan and India to Kashmir? Several billion, of course. But if those two start throwing bombs at each other, the whole planet will go into a nuclear winter. What a bargain!

That which can be bought ought not to be bought with blood of our children.