An open letter to Indiana and Paula

I have made it a point over the years not to respond to letters sent to my blog.  Many are flattering and more than a few call me names that I probably deserve.  Some even spell those names correctly.

But yesterday I received a letter from a person (Paula) in Indiana who complained at my blog about her state. Let me quote from her note:

            “It is not right to pick on us here in Indiana. We are god people. Christians. We believe in America and in liberty. That is why our legislature and governor created the law that protects Christians like me from having to service those we do not agree with.”

Let me stop there and say, I understand you do not want to make a cake for a gay wedding or take pictures at their weddings. But you placed a shingle out front that said open for business. Now it reads open for business except for gays. (I use the word gay here to be inclusive of the entire LGBT community. Sorry if this is a violation of some weird rule.)  If you are a clinic, you are open for ALL sick people. If you are a gas station, you are open for all cars and drivers needed to refuel. If you are a pharmacist, you are in business to dispense medications prescribed by doctors to All people.

You do not get to decide who is acceptable to serve or not.

Let’s continue with her letter:

            “You people want to take over. (She assumes I am a member of the LGBT      community, which I am not.) Your acts disgust me and I want no part of them         in my business. I should have the right to refuse your business. I should have           the right to decide who I will work for and who I will refuse to work for.”

She makes a powerful argument.  If a band of ball-headed Nazis came in wanting a swastika on an all white cake, she or anyone else, could refuse them and none of us would think her wrong for her decision. But her decision would not be based on her religious beliefs, but rather on the hatred and bigotry of the Nazis, the very thing she is sharing to the world about the LGBT community.

But here is the rub. She based it on hiding behind her religion. Bigotry from the bible.

And that means that the next step could well be ‘I don’t want to serve Blacks. Or Hispanics. Or Texans. Or Democrats. Or Women. Or people with funny eyebrows. Or Muslims. Or people who are left-handed. Or anyone I goddamn well please to discriminate against, because I can claim religious persecution if you do not let me persecute those I hate with vile and vengeance.

Do you see the slippery slope we are on here? It is 1919 all over again. The lynchings have returned in the name of god-fearing white folk. Jim Crow laws have returned.  Hotels can place signs in their windows, No gays. No Negros. No basketball teams from Kentucky. All it takes is the belief that your little black book of Jewish Myths says it is okay. All it takes is your narrow mind to say my religion disagrees with you, therefore I am shutting you off from the commerce of this community.

Should we all drape ourselves in white hoods and march around singing “What a friend I have in Jesus?” Should we burn a few crosses in yards around the state to show these sickos we mean business with our anti-gay/anti-anybody we don’t like religion?

And here is the real dangerous part of all of this. The Official State Government of Indiana has just made all of this legal.

It would be one thing to say, “Hay, Mr. Gay Person, I would prefer not to bake cupcakes for your wedding, but I know another baker who will do you a super job, let me give you her name.” That would be a personal choice. But two problems arise from that. First, is that your state has made it law. And that changes everything. And second, there are those who can’t call another baker and get cupcakes somewhere else. The MD in and ER ward who has to treat HIV patients even thought he detests the gay lifestyle. The pharmacists filling an emergency contraceptive prescription when he doesn’t believe in birth control. The public school teacher with a gay student in her class. This list goes on and on. Who gets to say yes and who gets to say no?

Your state just made it legal to turn your backs on people just because your tiny little notion of your wrathful, angry god is disturbed by a lifestyle, a color or a creed.

That, by definition is discrimination.

So don’t write me letters crying over Christian spilled milk. I know what Christ taught. And it is nothing like you are practicing. And because of that, you can go to hell.

Indiana just enacted the beginning of Sharia law in the name of Jesus.

I spent the afternoon in an on-line debate with a “minister’ who was defending Indiana’s right to allow state-sponsored discrimination in a commercial setting.  At one point I asked him a philosophical questions and his only reply was if I knew Jesus Christ as my personal savoir and did I know where my soul was going to spend eternity. I explained to him that he, like most in his profession, sidestepped the issue we were talking about. And it struck me, that that is always the case.  You back these folks into a philosophical corner and they come back and say it is all about Jesus. Do you know Jesus as well as I do?  Are you going to heaven or hell when you die?

I have decided that if the folks like him (and he seemed nice enough to be concerned about my soul, whatever that is) and the good folk in Indiana who profess their Christian virtue by applauding their state’s action are all going to heaven, I might as well go to hell.  I don’t want to spend eternity with these nitwits.

The argument in Indiana is not about whether or not a person can have a faith in a given religion or not. Never has been.  It is about those who believe a certain way can now run roughshod over those who do not hold to their beliefs. In other countries this is called Sharia Law. The Taliban practices this extensively in Afghanistan.  ISIS proclaims it wherever they invade.  And now it is practiced in its most Christian form in Indiana.

Your religious beliefs do not get to trump my civil liberties. Not here. Not in Indiana and not while we still have the U.S. Constitution covering us. Equality is for all.  If you run a public business, you do not get to decide what minority you will or will not serve.  Today it is the LGBT. Yesterday it was the blacks. Tomorrow it will be another diverse group — perhaps Muslims or even, for God’s sake, Methodists.

This law is a very slippery slope. When you can claim religious persecution if you don’t get to persecute a minority you hate with vile and vigor. It is a strange logic. It was started by the United State Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.  The precedent was set for religion to trump law. Forgive the pun…but God help us.

God is speaking. Are you listening?

I was invited to sit in on a panel of writers the other day and discuss the future of publishing. I thought that was a rather presumptive topic, since none of us can truly predict the future. (Except that the Cowboys aren’t going to win a super bowl as long as JJ is the GM…that one’s got money on it.)

            After introductions, I spoke up and suggested that the topic should be about trends. Things happening today that could influence the near future and therefore shape publishing. Of the six panelists, four agreed with me and one did not. She insisted that the future was easy to ascertain. One of the other participants asked her how she could predict the future. She said, “It’s easy. I just ask God.”

            “God?”

            “Yes. I kneel and pray and ask him to show me the future and he does.”

            Eyes darted about the room. It was a bit uncomfortable. Nobody wanted to slam her as a religious fool, but it was tempting. “What does he say about the future?” Asked one of the other writers.

            “He told me you were going to have trouble finding a publisher.” She said it right to the woman’s face with no qualms about the words, which came out of her mouth. Straight forward — God says you are going to fail.

            “Really?” the woman who was the object of God’s information about not being able to ink a deal with a publisher just laughed. “It seems that God got his notes all confused.  I just signed a three-book deal last week with a major national house. My first book for them comes out in May.”

            There was a pause in the room as the fortuneteller squirmed. “Well, maybe the deal will fall through. God works in mysterious ways.”

            At this point I couldn’t resist jumping into the fray. It was way too good to let it pass. “Did you happen to seek God’s wisdom on the last presidential election?”

            “I did.” Said the woman with complete confidence and affirmation.

            “And what did he tell you then?”

            “That Mr. Romney was by far the best candidate for America. He would lead us away from the darkness Obama had brought to America.”

            “God said those exact words?” I asked, keeping a straight face.

           

            “Yes.”

            “What went wrong?” asked another writer, now enjoying the discussion.

            “I guess God changed his mind.” She never batted an eye about the thought that her theology just fell apart right in her lap.

            “So God tells you that Romney was the choice of his and he would win and then he changes his mind?” That doesn’t say a lot for the omni-power of the deity, now does it?” Not sure if I asked this or someone else did, but I was certainly thinking it.

            “God is free to change his mind. It is called free will.”

            It was at that moment I realized there was no talking to a born-again Republican Tea Bagger about anything. Their religion was so coated with Teflon that no matter what argument is placed before them, it slides right off. Logic included.

            But I had to press the point. “But you said Sally would not get a contract with a publisher. That is what God told you; and yet, she has. And from the sound of it, quite a nice one at that.  Did God just give you some bad intel?  After all, it sounds as if the event happened before God spoke to you?”

            The woman shrugged. “You don’t understand. Because you don’t have faith. Only those with faith can understand the mind of God. He speaks to us and his will is revealed.”

            And like that the argument was closed. God was saved for one more day.

            The rest of the conference went off as scheduled, although I noticed the moderator kept many tough questions away from our resident fortune teller.

            Last night I got on my knees and begged for information about Apple and Chevron and should I buy or sell.  Nothing.

            I guess God doesn’t play the markets.

           

There is no logic to the hatred of Obamacare (except for racism.)

I have tried to make sense out of the GOP’s crusade against The Affordable Healthcare Act. I have tried to understand what they so dislike about making affordable health insurance available to all citizens.

I do not understand.

I do understand they do not like President Obama. I understand most of it is fueled by the fact that he is smarter than they are and he is black and that just makes them hate him to no end.  That racist reaction is easy to trace, especially in lower level GOP members who often speak without thinking when cameras and microphones are around. It can be traced to their sponsors and the right-wing lobbyists who fuel the fires.

But for an entire party to engage in a single-mind attack on a policy that is approved by the majority of Americans and is performing better than even the most strident supporters had hoped for; to try and repeal it dozens and dozens of times, to try every maneuver they can to strip its key portions away, I do not get it. Not when it is helping so many.

And now there are parties suing in the Supreme Court (after numerous lower courts have held in the government’s favor) claiming that they are being disenfranchised by its law and will suffer from its enforcement. They have stated they stand to lose a lot of money due to Obamacare. 

It just isn’t true.  The two sets of parties have no evidence of loss at all.

None.

And without that loss or chance of loss, there is no standing for their argument before the court. (A lower court already threw this out once due to the same argument and finding.) That’s like arguing the immigration statues with the citing that aliens are going to eat my sheep.  The fact that I do not own sheep, eliminates me from moving that argument forward in a court of law. It would have no standing.

It is something Justice Ginsburg argued back at the plaintiff’s lawyers yesterday and they had no recourse or response. They kind of stood there with their legal thumbs stuck of their puckered asses.

But even if the court continues to address the arguments being made in this case, I want to know why the vitriolic response from the right towards this law.  (It was, after all, a creation of the Heritage Foundation to begin with and they are a right-wing Republican think tank. It was designed to keep us away from a single-payer system, which they feared then first lady, Hillary Clinton, was going to try and push her husband to enact. At least with their system {and that of Obamacare} the free-enterprise system and insurance companies stay in the game. Government is not actually providing healthcare in the Affordable Healthcare Act.  It is only providing the rules by which people can get insurance from markets and the rules by which insurance must be made available.)

            But the cries of socialized medicine can be heard from every right wing nut job on radio all the ways to the halls of Congress. And it just is not so.

            So why the hatred for this legislation?  Why the great desire to take medical insurance protection away from so many?  What is the gain?  What is the end game?

            The GOP wants to embarrass the president and his party and bully them around a bit.  “Look, we defeated your key legislation and stuff that in your left-wing pipe and smoke it.”

            They act like petulant little children. They didn’t get to enact the legislation themselves, so they don’t want anyone to have it now. That is something people with small minds and mean hearts do.

            But then again, that is the definition of today’s GOP. Sad.  It used to be a grand ole party.  Today it is a reactionary bunch of windbags.

The printed word just got better...ever so slightly

I have received an advance copy of the New York Times Magazine, due to premiere this Sunday. For all the consternation I felt about giving up an old friend, the new magazine seems to pick up right where the old one left off and continues a tradition of great journalism and wonderful design.

See our fears were needless.  True there will be features and articles I will miss, but overall I give the energetic, young staff of the Magazine an “A” for great effort. To be sure, I am no media expert, although I play one on TV along with Brian Williams (sorry) but I can tell you critics and readers alike should enjoy the new format and the new content. I am still not sure about the typeface, but I am very conventional when it comes to type. Okay, you can just go to Helvetica for all I am concerned.

I applaud the NYT for this change. Anytime a publication takes on a metamorphosis of this magnitude there will always be naysayers and poo-pooers.  Many will turn their noses up at first, but given time, the NYT Magazine will win them back. I am sure of it.

I look forward to this Sunday, with a roaring fire in the fireplace and the dogs lounging beside me, we will be spread out on the divan with the best journalism possible surrounding us and exploring the world. The New York Times on a Sunday is a treat. It is like a taste of Champaign after a race. A taste of caviar before a fine dinner. A swill of single malt scotch…well, you get the idea. It is a treat.

So, treat yourself this Sunday to the new and improved addition to the New York Times Magazine. I don’t think you will be disappointed.  I wasn’t.

The changing landscape (oh when will it end?)

There is change in the air.  And change on the printed page.

The one constant about life is change. That is what my father used to tell me.  And I still find it hard to accept at times.

Take today for example.  I open the New York Times and made my way through the main news, travel and sports, then arts and business — all very comfortable and familiar to me.  Then I opened the Sunday magazine and low and behold the editor has a column about a total makeover of the magazine coming next week.

New York Times readers around the globe are trembling with fear and anticipation. It is like a combination of both Christmas and a trip to the Principal’s office.

President (then candidate) Obama made us sit up and acknowledge change in his first campaign for the White House.  He was going to change the dialog in Washington. Not sure he did it, but the editor of the New York Times Magazine seems set on changing my Sunday reading habit with as much force as a march on Washington.

Columns I have grown accustomed to will be axed.  Crossword puzzles I struggled through will disappear. Will stories be shorter or longer? Will the art still be world-class and avant-garde? “Who Made This”, one of the features I have grown to love — it is history. It is like Playboy taking away the bunnies.

Change is inevitable. But I don’t have to like it.  I can fear it.

And I already fear next week’s edition of the magazine. Oh I hope I am pleasantly surprised.  I hope it is better than my imagination fears it will be. I so looked forward to spending my Sunday mornings with CBS and with the New York Times magazine.  Curled up on the floor in front of a roaring fire (in Texas that is about three weeks, the rest of the time we lounge in front of the AC vents…) with the magazine and the rest of the Times spread out before me. What will happen next week?

Change is going to come.  Governments will change. Baptist will probably start sprinkling instead of full emersion and may even start liking Methodist.  Change in schools’ curriculum are a given — and change in laws will happen — but the New York Times Magazine?  I don’t know.  They even promise a new typeface for God’s sake.

Is nothing sacred?

No excuses will do.

One question.  Where was the United States of America at the anti-terrorism rally in Paris?

Where was the President?  Where was the VEEP?  How about the Secretary of State (who was in the city for god’s sake….?)

This is totally unacceptable and the Obama administration should be brought to task on this. It is totally unacceptable.

Mr. President, get with it. You belonged with the other world leaders marching and declaring we are not afraid of terrorism and we will no longer stand for it.

Where were you?