Ridiculous Religious Rhetoric

The Ears have been listening and I must say what they hear is quite interesting.  DW signing on here with what I hope is a transcendentally titillating commentary on work by colleague Daniel Payne of Manufacturing Texas.  Mr. Payne brings up an interesting point in his article (hyper-linked over yonder).  The issue of religions' pervasiveness in our history, despite my own views, is unavoidable.  Up until a certain point in our recent history the majority of cultures and societies seem to have been founded with some kind of God fearing majority holding sway.  That said, as Mr. Payne points out, this is not our primary focus.  What appears to be the focus, if I am understanding what you (Mr. Payne) are saying, is more of an issue you have with religious rhetoric.  I believe you're looking at religious rhetoric and thinking that it actually has meaning.  While I would immensely enjoy the comfort that having a politician say what he means would provide I recognize this not to be so.  I whole-heartedly believe that Governor Perry is talking out of his ass.  He knows his constituents (how can he not, he's been in office for so long).  He is like a circus ringleader ramping up a crowd before a freak show.  He knows what buttons to push, what levers to pull, and in what order.  The way he parses his languages is incidental in this case.  I would hardly get my feathers ruffled at the swearing of oaths upon the bibles, the abdication of our destinies to God embossed into our coins, or the fact that the President (whom I like) ends some speeches with "God Bless."  It's just rhetoric and most of the time I believe it to be just that.  It must be picked apart and chopped down to understand the true meaning

This is not to say, however, that I believe all rhetoric is just harmless rhetoric.  I find it truly fearful when you find people who believe their own extreme language (which they may have learned by example or may genuinely believe - lets look to Mr. Green for example here).  It is difficult to tell if these people are entrenched in their own delusions and truly believe what they are saying or if they are high-commitment con-artists.  Language and ideas are dynamic reflections of each other.  Language affects ideas and ideas affect language.  This brings  us to the question - at what point is the way you have framed your ideas (the language you use to give them shape and form; moving from the abstract to the concrete) detrimentally affecting the idea itself.  This is a question that would do well to be applied to more than just ridiculous political rhetoric.  

Unfortunately, I believe there is a threshold for attention and I must bring this to conclusion.  All-in-all I believe that this article pertains mostly to meaningless rhetoric; however, I think that language we (as humans) choose our words, both consciously and subconsciously, and I find that people, if they listen, can often determine what another person is really thinking by listening to their word choice when they are speaking comfortably (not in a speech setting).  This kind of attention can often lead to terrifying realizations.  You may actually hear what a person is saying - the effect can be sobering.  

This is DW, signing off!

Planned Parenthood Persuasion

Greetings and Salutations humans!  Here we are on the ante-election day.  DW here with a tidbit of information that some may deem propaganda-esque in nature!  I’m going to discuss my view on the pulled funding for Planned Parenthood (PP) in Texas.  I believe it was a decidedly bad decision based on the ideological stance of a particular political party.

In summary, the Governor of the Glorious Empire of Tex- I MEAN of the State of Texas, decided not to accept federal funds for PP.  This is a real kidney-punch for PP.  According to Planned Parenthood's website almost 50% of their funding is from Government Contracts.  The withholding of funds is nothing if not a clear attempt to severely undermine and damage PP’s ability to operate in Texas.  What is the reason for all of this fighting and gnashing of teeth you ask?  It’s a matter ideology.  Those of us in Dr. Seago’s class know how riveting and adventurous an ideological battle can be. 

I can’t argue the morality behind abortion, the notion of conception, or ensoulment because I can’t bring myself to advance capricious, arbitrary arguments based solely on my beliefs.  What I can do, however, is point out that PP is not the fetus-vacuuming factory it is made out to be.  In fact, only 3% of the total services they provide are abortion related (FUN FACT: Some abortions are necessitated by health risks to the mother – The More You Know!)  PP’s primary function is to provide health care and prevention services to women.  Often these women are low-income women.  To provide some hard facts to support my argument I direct your permeating gaze to Planned Parenthood At a Glance.  Now I know y’all don’t want to actually READ the information so I’ll summarize: 770,000 Pap tests (that’s to check for cervical cancer people) provided each year; 750,000 breast exams per year (unlike the ones I perform in concert crowds, these exams ACTUALLY check for cancer); they also provide over 4 million tests for sexually transmitted infections; additionally they provide sexual health care, education, and information to close to five million people each year.  Abortion, the intended target of the attacks, is a tiny piece of the pie - A REALLY TINY piece.  Many hospitals also provide abortion services and I hear no public outcry to remove federal funding (or state funding for that matter) from their pockets!  The mere idea is laughable.  Why, then, does PP have this negative stigma attached to it?  Alas, this is a question I cannot answer. 

What Texas has done, in effect, is make a play to remove the primary family planning and education resource for people (cough cough low-income women and families cough cough).  And, for me, it is difficult not to see that act as anything but unethical.  The arguments to support PP are more focused on the services they provide whereas the arguments against PP are ideological in nature, focus on a single aspect of PP's services and overlook similar ideological breaches in other institutions.

Much like Pi, this argument is never-ending, I’m uncertain that we will come to a conclusion even in the near future; however, for now I respectfully step down off of my piney soapbox and bid you all adieux!

DW Signing off.