Can we please stop the hate? Or at least the shoddy scholarship? Not to mention a worse offense–a shoddy simile? There are quite a few glaring errors in David Kaiser’s comparison of Obama with the one who should go nameless.

For one thing, Obama doesn’t have a scapegoat that he likes to pick-on. Conservatives would like to think they are Obama’s whipping-boys, but the fact is that while conservatives hate Obama, Obama does not hate conservatives. He even holds some idea (delusion) that he, a liberal democrat, can appeal to conservative republicans with what he thinks are rational arguments and common-sense policies.  If he is guilty of anything, it is his naive opinion that he can bridge the gap between these two groups who do not speak the same language.

Another thing that is missing from the Hitler comparison is the fact that Obama does everything–even his “parliamentary persuasion tactics”–within the confines of American due process. Now you may not like it, but the fact that Obama rushed to pass healthcare reform while there was a majority in congress is a sign that he works within the law. True, he may do everything possible to obtain his goals, but that “everything” is always within the lawmaking process. He has never once tried to expand the powers of his branch of government. We must remember that the largest expansion of executive power in the history of the United States was not on Obama’s watch, but was the doing of one George W. Bush–a conservative republican (not without the help of many on both sides of the political divide).

Why is Obama compared with Hitler, when his administration has really operated no differently than so many others? I sometimes wonder if it is merely because of some half-cocked Bible-thumpers who have decided that a reference in the Book of Revelation to a “dark one who will come,” is a foreshadowing of the President.

Whenever I hear people try to blame all of the world’s problems on one person, it becomes obvious to me that those people have not taken the time to see the part they play in perpetuating the evil in the world. All of us has blood on our hands. So to those who label Obama as Hitler, I say “Shut the fuck up and be quiet. Meditate. Stop your discursive thinking for 40 minutes a day. You will become aware of the part you play in the suffering of the world, the part you play in perpetuating the suffering in your home, in your job, on the highway, in politics, and within yourself. You will become painfully aware of your part in that suffering, and then you will become blissfully aware of how to heal it. As Goethe said, “If everyone swept his doorstep, the whole world would be clean.” Or, as another great thinker and meditator said, “Remove the beam from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Or do we now only read the parts of scripture that get us riled-up and ready to stone a scapegoat like Barack Obama?

The role Post Office creates and maintains a fair and just market. First of all, this tax-subsidized company does not eliminate competition, as evidenced by the successful competitors UPS, FedEx, and others. Secondly, the Post Office sets a fair price for its services, ensuring that FedEx and UPS cannot set an exorbitant prices for their services. When I say that opponents of the health care bill need to follow their comparison through to the end, what I mean is this: Let’s pretend that the Post Office does not exist, and that FedEx and UPS got together and decided to charge $10.00 to mail a letter. What could we do about it? Nothing. What if these companies make an additional $40 billion in profits, and still decide to raise the price of mailing a letter from $10 to $15? What can we do about it? Nothing. And yet this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in regarding health care. We have companies who are beholden to no one–not to customers, not to government regulators, not to their own consciences–they are beholden to no one but their own greed. And there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing, that is, except elect officials who can combat this injustice. And they have. Our elected official have decided that if they create a government option (among other features and safeguards) for health care, it will force these companies to play fairly and justly in the market. And isn’t this a noble use of tax-payer dollars? To defend the rights of tax-payers to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Isn’t health care at the very core of every one of those basic rights?

Another argument I have heard, based on various Fox News polls, is that doctors are afraid of the reform and may decide to stop practicing. They cite that there will be too many patients and not enough money to be made. But since when has adding millions of new customers ever done anything but improve a market? The government is effectively adding millions of new customers–and therewith new earning potential–to the health care market. Are the doctors not able to handle this? Well, then we need more doctors. Where will we get them? Might we actually have to actually consider reinvesting in the dozens of third-world countries we have exploited, scouring them for the potential doctors, nurses, and physician’s assistants we need? Might we have to help these people to build schools in order to train health care professionals for themselves and for us?

Opponents also claim that all of this is a heresy against the sacred free-market economy.  As if the bailouts that began with President George W. Bush and continued with President Obama were not evidence enough that this is not a free-market at all.  I would certainly be a fan of a totally free market economy, if in fact such an economy did not time and again prove itself to fail in every detectable way. A totally free market always results in the exhaustion of the resources of that market, whether it is over-drilling, over-fishing, over-mining, over-polluting, or the over-pricing of real estate and commodities. A totally free market always results in the exploitation of the poor. And, when the government steps in to protect its poor, then the free market results in the exploitation of the poor of other countries. The only logical defense of this in history has been the concept of “Social Darwinism,” the idea that those who can thrive in the market are the ones who are fit to reproduce and carry on the human race. However, this idea is humorously flawed, primarily in two way: First, that those on favor of it almost unanimously give their offspring loads of money, education, and other services with which to start out with. How does this ensure that only the most financially-capable will carry-on the human race? Secondly, we have the myriad occurrences of intelligent poor people being forcefully kept-down by others. Thirdly, we have the myriad stupid people who find themselves rich through various means.

So, opponents of health care reform make a half-assed analogy to the Post Office, and then throw out words like “Armageddon,” and “Hitler” to paint images in our minds that this health care reform is the biggest mistake the U.S. has ever made. Any time someone uses the word Armageddon, they reveal themselves as one of three things: A fundamentalist Christian waiting for the end of the world, a fan of cheesy Bruce Willis movies featuring Aerosmith songs, or someone trying to use the politics of fear as a weapon against people who are trying to make things better. Or, all three. Any time you smell the politics of fear, I would suggest steering-clear. President Obama wanting to partially socialize medicine has nothing to do with National Socialism (Naziism), despite the fact that they share a word in common. If anything, the more resonant analogy would be Hitler’s use of the politics of fear to accomplish his designs–something I have heard from only one side of the health care debate.

1. Everybody agrees that the health insurance companies are making much too much money, are making life too difficult for doctors, and also they hinder patients from getting the care they need. (For example, I pay $7000 per year for coverage for me and my family, even though I, a former cancer patient who always needs regular check-ups and flu shots and stuff, only uses a small percentage of that money on a yearly basis. If they are making money off of me, then they are making even more money off of someone with no medical history. Also, I would use even less of that money if I were paying my expenses out-of-pocket, since the prices would be cheaper. The prices for doctor services are high because it’s a bartering game between the doctor and the insurance company. If the doctor says “$100″, the ins. co. says “no. only $75″ So, the next time the doctor bills for that service, he says “$125″ and the insurance company says “no, only $95″. Finally, you have the situations like my flu shot. I got one, and my insurance company refused to pay for it. I had to write a letter that said “I am a former cancer patient. My oncologist told me I need to get a flu shot every year. You can either pay the $40 for the flu shot, or you can pay the $1000 when I get hospitalized with the flu because I no longer have a spleen to help me fight infection. Please direct any further correspondence to my lawyer.” Of course, once they read this, they paid it. But should I have to defend myself like that?

2. People who have satisfactory coverage don’t mind reform, except that they are worried that it will affect their good coverage.

3. Many people have no coverage or they have terribly expensive coverage. These people would like to see reform…

4. However, the proposed ways to fix these problems of no coverage and expensive coverage are being ridiculously and almost violently opposed. The problem with expense has been linked to the lack of competition (since most people don’t have a choice of companies, but have to go with the one or two companies their employer offers. The reason for this system is that, in the old days, the employer was able to get better and cheaper coverage by working out a deal with the insurance company, saying that they would only offer this one plan to their employees if the plan would cost x amount of dollars). To fix this competition problem, the government either has to step-in and tell employers they can’t “hook-up” with insurance companies any more, or the government has to step-in and create an affordable health care plan that employees (like me) could buy if they don’t like the options offered by the employer.
Opponents are calling this a “big-government” take-over and saying that it is the government overstepping its bounds. But for some reason they don’t seem to have that same outrage for the insurance companies, who are making money like crazy off of the health of people. These opponents are going so far as to label this “Socialism” or “communism,” which shows how ignorant and stupid they are, and that they don’t even know what those words mean. Come on! Health Insurance companies themselves are “socialist,” for God’s sake! We all pay the same amount and then we each take what we need for our health care. THAT IS SOCIALISM! No…wait…that is not how our system works. That is true socialism, and it might actually work!. Our health insurance system does not work. It is “we all pay the same amount, we are allowed to take 75% of what we need, and the rest goes to making some asshole CEO rich.”

5. Another solution, that is already being used in Massachusetts, is to issue tax money to people who have insurance but can’t really afford to pay for it. (I benefit from this one). This method is actually socialist, but the state of Massachusetts claims that it is better for everyone to have insurance, even if it has to be subsidized by tax-money, because it means that everyone will be healthier and will use the emergency room less (see #6 below), which will cost tax-payers less in the end. Apparently, people who don’t have insurance use the emergency room when they need a doctor, and this is expensive. Then, they can’t afford to pay, and so it costs tax payers even more money. So, Massachusetts wants everyone to have insurance and will even help people pay for it because it means everyone will be healthier and it will cost less in the end.

6. In the wake of plans like the Massachusetts one, which requires everyone to buy insurance, or else pay a fine, there are many people who believe you shouldn’t have to have coverage if you don’t want it. Apparently, it is our right not to have to have coverage if we don’t want it. I kind of agree with this in theory (because some days I would just like to put my $7000 in a bank and just use it when I need it), but in practice it doesn’t make sense. The people who complain about this are the same ones who go to the emergency when they have a virus because they don’t have insurance to go see a regular doctor. Also, the $7000 sounds like a lot of money, but not compared to the $100,000 it costs for some crazy surgery you might need. And, the $7000 I pay would only be like $4000 if the government were allowed to step in and put an end to all this nonsense.

7.  That being said, I am, at heart, wary of big government. But I am more wary of big business. At least I get to vote for or against the people who are screwing me in big government.  To the others, all I have to throw is this lousy blog-post.

10. Merrry “Shift from egophantic to theophantic horizon” Day!
9. Celebrate the birth of God-consciousness in your soul this holiday season.
8. Happy “Beginning of the Hero’s journey to retrieve the life-affirming elixir from the ever-creating void” Day
7. Rejoice in the victory of light over darkness!
6. Rejoice in the victory of truth over untruth!
5. Rejoice in the victory of good over evil!
4. Rejoice in the victory of your True Self over your Ego Self!
3. Happy Birthday to all of the sons and daughters of homeless carpenters.
2. Go to mass: It puts the “ass” back in “Christmas”
And the number-one demythologized Christmas Greeting for this holiday season:
1. Have a cool yule.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

(A bit early, but I know you are all going to want to use these on your holiday greeting cards)

To all people who are surrounded by the propaganda regarding Islam that is a result of the 9/11 bombings and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  All references are to verses in the Koran.

10.  Islam is not anti-semitic.  The Koran states, “We made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and you have nothing of guidance until you observe the Torah and the Gospel” (5:70, 68)

9.  Allah is not a wrathful God.  God’s compassion and mercy are cited 192 times in the Koran; only 17 references are made to his wrath and vengeance.

8.  Islam does not condone terrorism.  “Defend yourself against your enemies, but do not attack them first: God hates the aggressor” (2:190)

7.  Islam does not seek to convert the world.  “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:257)

6.  Islam is tolerant of other religions.  “To every one we have given a law and a way…And if God had pleased, he would have made [all humankind] one people [people of one religion].  But he hath done otherwise, that He might try you in that which He hath severally given unto you: wherefore press forward in good works.  Unto God shall ye return, and He will tell you that concerning which ye disagree.”  (5:48)  Once, when a deputy of Christians visited him, Muhammad invited them to conduct their service in his mosque, adding, “It is a place consecrated to God.”

5.  Jihad does not mean “holy war.”  It means “struggle.”  Muhammad stated, after returning from a victory against the Meccans who had been hostile and oppressive to his followers:  “We have returned from the lesser jihad, to face the greater jihad.”  In other words, jihad primarily refers to the struggle against the evil within oneself.

4.  Islam is a religion of peace.  Whenever Muslims great people, it is with the arabic phrase “as-salamu ‘alaykum,” which means “Peace be upon you.”

3.  Ibn ‘Arabi, a popular and revered Islamic mystic, stated: “My heart had opened unto every form.  It is a pasture for gazelles, a cloister for Christian monks, a temple for idols, the Ka’ba of the pilgrim, the tablets of the Torah and the book of the Koran.  I practice the religion of Love; in whatsoever directions its caravans advance, the religion of Love shall be my religion and my faith..

2.  Islam is misrepresented by the American media and American emails.  A recent Smithsonian article documented how 300,000 people gathered to celebrate the message of peace and love during the festival of the Islamic saint Qalandar.  Meanwhile, about 300 people gathered to witness a beheading advertised by a group of Taliban.  Which one of these gatherings did you hear about in the news?

And the number one reason I know that Islam is not a militant religion…

1.  All of the Muslims I know were more afraid of me than I was of them when I first met them.

Additionally:

Head Scarfs: This custom is not prescribed in the Koran.  The Koran only says, “Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks closely around them (when they go abroad).  That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed” (33:59) Any culture that demands their women be covered is obeying their culture norm only, not something dictated by Islam.

Women: Muhammad’s wife Khadija was his first convert.  He met her when she hired him to work on the large estate she owned and operated.  They later fell in love and were married.

Marriages: Muhammad states in the Koran, “If you cannot deal equitably and justly with more than one wife, you shall marry only one.”  (He also limits the number of wives to four.)  Most modern interpretations of this statement take “equitably and justly) to include love and esteem as well as material possessions and time, in effect endorsing monogamy.  The only Muslims who typically marry more than one wife are the ones from cultures where that practice existed prior to Islam, such as in some parts of Africa.  The Koran also requires that a woman’s consent be given prior to marriage, that a woman may begin divorce proceedings, and also that a man must provide a wife with a sum of money which she retains should a divorce ensue.  These rules seem even more forward-thinking when we remember that Muhammad wrote them at a time when women were married without their consent and when prostitution was a ubiquitous and accepted practice.

Heaven: “Some of the signs are firm–these are the basis of the book–and others are figurative” (3:5) Many people criticize the Koranic descriptions of heaven and their literal, materialistic impression.  However, the Koran explicitly states that some of its passages are to be read mythically, or as symbolic representations of a reality that is beyond words.  As Thomas Keating has said, “The language of religion is often the language of the bedroom.  The lover tells his beloved that she is the most beautiful girl in the universe, of all time.  Does he truly think this is true?  Probably not.  But what he is trying to convey is the awesome love, esteem, and affection he feels for her.”

Science: Because Islam views the world as the “Cosmic Koran,” or another revelation of God, it has always embraced the discoveries of science.  A discovery about the world is a discover about God.  This is why Muslims were able to preserve and advance the scientific and mathematical discoveries of the ancient world while Medieval Christendom was burning books.  A recent book has hypothesized that if Charles Martel had not beaten the Moors in France, the European Renaissance would have happened in Europe centuries earlier.

The legitimacy of the information stated in this list can be checked directly in the Koran, or in Huston Smith’s The World’s Religions, or in various other books on the subject.

*Analogies are not often used as arguments today, because they are not as respected as argumentation as they were in the ancient and medieval worlds.  After all, an analogy is only as good an argument as its elements are alike.  This limits its usefulness in philosophy.  However, when I saw the absolute exactness of the correspondence between language and religion, I thought that the analogy as a form of argument had to be revived, if only for this one case.  And if someone still wants to question its logic, that is okay; if nothing else, it is at least thought-provoking.

Are you, Liberal, liberal enough to entertain Conservative points-of-view? Are you, Conservative, secure enough in your conservatism to seriously consider liberal ideas? When you are, then and only then can we have a real conversation, a dialogue between two enlightened groups of people.

In China, it was Confucianism as it developed out of Confucius’ ideas. In the late Roman empire, it was Christianity that was the socializing force. Rome eventually collapsed, but reemerged in some sense because of the socializing force of Christianity. The barbarian tribes that caused Rome to fall soon needed a socializing force for their empire, and Christianity again became that force. We call the result Christendom. Of course, the Islamic empire of the Middle Ages had a relatively high level of tolerance for other types of thought, but they were also eventually defeated Perhaps the strongest empire is the least tolerant one? Today, the United States and China provide two examples of large nations that are united without a philosophy or religion as a socializing factor. How is this possible? One might argue that China’s communism is a worldview that has the same socializing power and charisma as a religion, but shouldn’t the United States, with its similar religious tolerance, fall victim to the same fate as the Islamic empire of the Middle Ages? What is the socializing element used by these two nations?

Pictures of Tibet and Korea provided me with an answer. As a watched Jina Kim’s slideshow of Korea during the Japanese occupation, I was struck by the appearance of department stores, billboard advertising, and all of the other indicators of a capitalist consumer economy. I was so overwhelmed because of both the earliness of this phenomenon–that such a consumer culture existed so early in the Twentieth Century, and its quickness–that an invading nation could so quickly assimilate people into a new lifestyle. Similarly, one can see the rapid assimilation of Tibet into the consumer culture of China. Where not so long ago one could find only temples and open-air markets in Tibet, one can now see flagship-style stores like Gap. These two cases have led me to propose that the latest means of socialization, used to great effect by China and the United States, is that of consumerism.

Consumerism is not so much a philosophy or religion, but a non-philosophy. It does not replace Confucianism or Christianity with a competing set of beliefs or ethics. Rather, it keeps people occupied in the production, sale, and buying of massive amounts of goods, accompanied by the advertisement of these goods through television and radio. This constant occupation with buying things and watching TV keeps people from engaging in any type of philosophical or religious thinking that might get in the way of the socialization process. While consumerism does not provide an alternate belief system, it does provide universal rituals. These rituals of making, advertising, selling, and buying–of consuming–are what unify people. They either keep people from philosophizing, or else they make room for any philosophy to which people might gravitate. Resin Buddhas line the shelves of Chinatown and Evangelical Christian books are perennial bestsellers. Religion since the Axial Age has been a response to the human condition of alienation (whereas before that, religion was more about survival and fertility and conquest). People respond to alienation through prayer, or through love and relationship, or through running away from the problem through any number of distractions, including drugs, alcohol, and now, consumerism.

Could one make a case for consumerism as the socializing force of the 20th and 21st century? It sounds sarcastic, but it seems to be everywhere apparent. And what happens when this seemingly all-inclusive socializing force meets with opposition? Can the 9/11 bombings provide a clue to that question? What is the antidote to the ill-effects of rampant consumerism?  I think it is what Thomas Merton called “contemplative living,”  a concept that can only be explored by each of us in our daily, momentous (moment-to-moment awareness) living.  These are issues that I would like to pursue when time and money permits. For now, I will research whether anyone else has explored these ideas.