Do You Want Some Faith With That?

Did anyone else react to Dubya's last line in his inauguration speech, that part about "an angel rides the whirlwind and guides this storm?" What the hell was that all about? I know my Biblical allusions pretty well and I've never heard of angels in the whirlwind. Oh well, bad poetry is the least of our problems. There's a new Resident in the White House and I'm trying hard to get used to it. It's only been a few days and I'm already nostalgic for the Clinton Administration, back when all the keyboards at the White House still had their W's.

Did you hear about that one, how some departing staffers removed the "W" keys from their workstations? What a stupid prank, but more stupid are the calls for an investigation about it. The pay for even three investigators for one day would buy new keyboards for every puter in the place, no doubt. To my surprise Resident Bush was magnanimous about that incident, telling Bob Barr to forget it. That's refreshingly unvindictive for a guy who fried folks back in Texas.

After winning by only one vote I kind of expected him to be timid. No one could say he's got a mandate but he's come out of his corner swinging anyway, just as if he had one. On his first weekday in office he went out of his way to please the Christian fundamentalists by removing US dollars going to family planning efforts overseas. Then he and a couple key Democrats had a love-fest over tax cuts. He even got Alan Greenspan to make affirmative noises on the cuts. He didn't stop there.

This week he called for faith-based organizations to get involved and help the needy. I applauded that at first, that's what they should be doing with the extra dollars from their donations. Then I found he wants to give them public dollars in addition to their donations. Whoa, hold on there, Sparky! First off, let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Faith-based organizations are CHURCHES. This means they are already subsidized by the government. Why? Because churches run by anyone from Seventh Day Adventists to Scientologists are all tax free charities! They don't have to run a "program" to help anyone in any other way, but they can run other businesses and there's no taxes to pay on those either, as long as it's done in the name of Jesus, Hubbard or Gort the Avenging Police Robot. They don't even have to open their books to the IRS. That's right, even if they are raking in cash by moving little packets of freeze dried superstition for a love offering of $69.95 plus shipping and handling. Well hey brother, let's just take a few extra points to the bottom line here, shall we? Is it any wonder why so many evangelists wear Rolexes?

Okay, okay, granted not all churches are like that and many run very worthy programs helping those in need. So let's ignore the ones with non-taxed businesses for a moment and assume it's a perfect world full of good intentions and unselfish charity. Even then you are talking about using mostly amateurs to cure serious problems. Volunteers can only go so far when doing things like helping hard-core drug addicts; sooner or later you need professionals. So why trade a unified national approach for a helter skelter array of organizations with varying degrees of competence? The Republicans used to accuse Al Gore of never meeting a government program he didn't like. I guess Resident Bush never met an opportunity to privatize or de-regulate that he didn't like. Do you need to go back to Reagan's savings and loan disaster to see this? That cost tax payers only, oh, A HALF TRILLION. Maybe we should look to a more recent example--California's public utility de-regulation. Everyone thought it was a great idea to stop regulating the electric companies a few years ago, putting their faith in lower rates through competition. Oops! This has been a real pain in the grid the last few weeks--I even lost an early draft of this column to a power failure! De-regulation and privatization only go so far, maybe our faith in the profit motive was misplaced! The weird thing is that there's plenty of power available, just not enough money to buy it. Guess we learned there's a place for regulation after all; it looks like our state's going to get in the power business to clean the mess up. Government does have some real work to do, Dubya. You can't place your faith in profit driven companies to do what's right for the public, likewise you might have too much faith in a patchwork of churches to cure social ills.

Enough of that. Wasn't there something else faith-based in the headlines in his first few days? Oh yes, the grilling of his faith-based nominee for Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft is the same guy who lost his Senate seat to a dead man last fall, so as a loyal Republican and all-around Christian Soldier, Dubya had to give him a job somewhere. He was the Attorney General for Missouri once, so why not make his the US AG? Well, because he's an extreme right wing third generation Penecostal, that's why not! He doesn't even believe DANCING is a good thing. As an LA Times editorial pointed out, many cabinet officials have resigned when their personal beliefs conflicted with the demands of office, and he is mighty conflicted right from the start. So what's it going to be, John? Enforce all laws like a good public servant or do what your faith dictates? I'm sure we can depend on you to prosecute the Drug War with great vigor. Good luck, break a leg, but there's a much more important issue I have to ask about. You know what I'm talking about! Do you really have the guts to shut down Napster?

Thought I was going to bring up something else didn't you? But I never did weigh in on Napster last year so I'm going to digress long enough to give you my take on it.

Napster is good for the music industry and there's a lot of reasons why. Number One, it helps promote new music. With so many channels operating, and so much corporate control making safe, bland programming choices it's hard to get your music heard these days. Ultimately it's better for business to give some away and Napster users tend to be opinion makers, the early adopters that you need to reach. Seed them. You'll get more people at your concerts. Number Two, downloading music from Napster only sounds free; it is actually very expensive to use. You need to invest maybe $1000 in a computer system and subscribe to a high speed cable hookup at maybe $50 per month--you can buy a lot of CD's for that. You have to invest time downloading and burning CD's too. What's your time worth? Number Three, the product you get over Napster is incomplete. MP3 files have pretty good fidelity, but not quite perfect. Plus you don't get any of the little extra points of information that accompany the store bought product, and that's often the stuff that makes a song really come alive. So that IS Steve Vai on nose flute, I knew it!

Napster is like a public library. Nobody has a problem with borrowing a copyrighted book, do they? Ever notice that they also have videos and CD's available too? Okay, so you probably won't find Puff Daddy there, but Napster's the same idea. The biggest problem is for the little guys, the new musicians who deserve royalties for their recordings, they are not ever getting anything from Napster. Well hey guys, stop making music that appeals to computer geeks and you'll be fine! Consider polka. Seriously, don't worry. Clever programmers will soon figure out a way to milk some royalties out of Napster, just don't expect the same rate you get from the store-bought copies. While you're waiting, treat it like free PR. Have faith that in spite of all the hype, the vast majority of music lovers will never ever figure out Napster and download music. No, the music industry need not fear. You want proof? Did the music industry suffer even a 1% drop in revenue since Napster started? I don't think I have to research the actual figure in Billboard to assert that 2000 was another banner year.

Yes, let's hope that the new Attorney General doesn't get too literal in his reading of copyright law. On a similar note, if he's given new power to censor lyrics I bet he'd approach his job with serious zeal! I'm sure he sees himself as a guardian of public morality.

Hmm, public morality. I guess it's time to end this digression and finally talk about abortion. I avoided confronting it all through the election cycle, but here it is, in our faces. Dubya's cutting off family planning funding is only the start. The new administration will to try to change everything about abortion. Better get into your rationalization-proof rubber suits, there's going to be a lot of splatter.

Now first off, let's stipulate that abortion is UGLY. Triply so. It is a lousy method of birth control. More than lousy, it's the worst. Like most people I wish that it did not happen at all. But is it murder? No, I can't agree to that if it's done early in the cycle, especially if it's the morning after and done with a pill. But there is no convenient date everyone can point to where a ball of cells becomes a member of society. I would tend to say have the baby, but each woman's circumstances are different and personal.

PERSONAL. I must point out here that my wife and I decided to have an abortion once. I am not going to share the exact reason why except to say that it was not done for birth control reasons. It was very painful. I can't recommend it, but we stand by our reason. I'm glad we were able to get it done legally at a hospital.

Regardless, in a population of 250 million, abortions WILL happen and the least we can give a woman is a doctor's counsel, a minister's if she wants it, and then a clean facility to do it in if that's her informed decision.

It's the last thing government should jump into.

To keep the birth control abortions down it would help to educate young people before their hormones get the best of them, don't you think? I'm talking a lot more education than just-say-no abstinence. I mean teaching about condoms and contraceptives, something even C. Everett Koop was for. Tell about the diseases you can get if you are not careful. Here's what to watch out for, here's how to do it safely. You can also teach that monogamy is not a perfect state but it USUALLY works best for people. Tell how some people may even make alternate styles of relationship work and then point out that some of these relationships might even last a couple weeks! Let them know about masturbation too. Anything, so you do not start an unwanted baby in the first place.

But these New Puritans like Bush and Ashcroft say, "No, we can't be teaching birth control! Horrors, if we talk about sex the kids might want to DO IT!" Well guess what, THEY AREN'T KIDS ANYMORE! They are becoming adults, and adults are hard-wired to want to do it. I'll state it in Christian terms if I must--"be fruitful and multiply"--God gave them the hormones! Recognize it! Deal with it! You can't keep them in a protected state of asexual virginity forever. They deserve to know the truth about sex instead of getting rumors on the playground. EVERY generation will have the same abortion problems over and over again if you keep hiding the truth about healthy ways to have sex and use birth control.

The Pro-Life Puritans act like this kind of talk comes straight from the Devil; they will never agree to any sex education. But it will lower the need for abortions. Isn't that what we all want? Why do they have a problem with that? It doesn't make sense.

I think it's because "pro-life" really isn't the prime motivation in their fight against abortion. The real reason they are against both abortion and sex education is because they think SEX IS SINFUL. Thank you, Adam and Eve. They can barely tolerate procreative sex; the thought of two lovers fucking for fun drives them crazy with guilt. What a shame. Sex is safer than drugs; done with caring and respect it can help make a relationship full and lasting. Where is the sin in that? But no, selling the sexual guilt trip has been a successful church ensnarement for centuries; they aren't about to change their attitude. And that takes them straight down the road toward opposing abortion.

Now if they kept that attitude within the church I wouldn't be writing this. But no, the religionists want PERFECTION. Perfection in their image of course. They've decided that no sex education and no abortion is what's right for everyone. Over the years the Republican Party has found this useful too. Abortion's become their favorite boogey man, something they can use to motivate the masses to win elections. But if they succeed in their anti-abortion crusade, they will create a black market for it again and anyone who tries to have it done, even their own daughters (it WILL happen) will be a criminal. Just like Prohibition. Just like the Drug War. Boy, will Ashcroft have found a home then!

I don't know if they can really muster that much political will. It depends on what kind of nominations the Resident makes for Supreme Court. They know if they kill their boogey man, they will also succeed in empowering a new political movement against themselves, a movement that is sure to wage a long and bitter struggle like the one that brought us Roe vs. Wade in the first place. They will lose elections. We'll have to see what happens.

Actually I hope my fears about Dubya are all misplaced and his magnanimous neo-Clinton dance actually does engender the charity and bi-partisanship he said he wants in his inaugural speech. Hope I don't get a cramp crossing my fingers the next four years. Meanwhile stay tuned for the latest on drug rehabilitation scams by folks whose faith is based solely on how much they can wheedle out of Resident Bush's new charity initiative.

But enough of that. Right now it's time to put my rationalization-proof suit back into the closet. I need to clean up real well because--hey, how did all these W-keys get in here? I hope this doesn't mean the new AG is coming after me! Anyway I'm washing up cause I've got tickets to go see that new rock group, The Rolling Blackouts tonight. I hear it'll be all acoustic and unplugged. Gotta go! Thanks for reading and until next month the Closet is closed.

(C) 2001 - Rusty Pipes


Official Disclaimer: Weww, with Washington society weww undew way and Waww Stweet wecovewing nicewy, I think it onwy faiw to pwesent bowt sides of the stowy, and... hey, why awe thew so many W kews on this kewboawd?!! WUUUUUSTYYYYY!!!! WUUUUUUUSTTYYYYY!!!!