Revelations about Weiner "sexting" even after resigning

1.  I could not care less about politicians' personal lives, which I regard as no one's business. I wish Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and Anthony Weiner (not to mention even a whole host of Republicans) had just said, in effect, "I don't see how that's any of your business. Next question."
2.  The media (and some consumers of media) are, nonetheless, incurable gossips.
3.  Politicians can't afford to be seen as having "loose" sexual "morals."
4.  Anthony Weiner is out of control, in terms of these maxims.
5.  I worry about the ruboff effect on Spitzer, who's a good guy with a career worth saving... I'm not so sure about Weiner. 

Why should we care about the British royal heir?

OK, I'll risk being labeled a grumpy old cynic.

I COULD NOT CARE LESS about the British monarchy or its new No. 3 heir. Our forefathers fought a revolution to be rid of the odious curse of monarchy. Why should we have any interest in it?

Pretty good speech not good enough

Not to rain too much on the parade, but I'd like to tell Pres. Obama we don't need a "pretty good speech" on the economy (sched. for Wed.), we need to face facts, and he needs to propose and fight for a bold pro-working people policy... even if the stranglehold of the obstructionists in Congress cannot be overcome, the Democratic party needs to stand up for ordinary Americans now so as to make crystal clear the choice that voters face in 2014 and 2016.

Yellen, not Summers, for crying out loud!

Haven't dropped a comment on the White House comment line in a while. Today's was simple:

Strongly oppose rumored nomination of serial liar and arrogant elitist Larry Summers for Fed Chairmanship. Such a move would be totally out of step with the direction in which the Democratic party and this administration need to move. A much better choice would be Fed Vice-Chmn. Janet Yellen.

Is Star Trek Warp Drive possible?

For a whole host of reasons, I have been and remain a "FTL* skeptic." (See this, for example). But this in the NYT shows that there are serious scientists and engineers out there who actually believe that something like the Star Trek warp drive may actually be possible some day. 
--
*"Faster than Light"

John McCain, Moderate?

Several times recently I have thought that John McCain, who is sometimes not the worst of Republicans, had pretty much lost it... re: Benghazi, going to Syria and saying stuff that just befuddled US policy there, etc.

But then, even more recently, he stood with Elizabeth Warren in calling for the restoration of Glass Steagall (which even the clueless new Obama Treasury Sec. referred to as "outmoded"), and today we hear he's calling for a "review" of Stand Your Ground Laws.

So credit where credit is due, although I don't think "review" is necessary. Try "repeal."

Detroit Bankruptcy

Krugman's piece this morning is the Voice of Reason, (as is often the case). I listened to a news report about how Detroit may "have to" sell off the Detroit Institute of Arts' collections with dumbfounded incredulity. These fiscal naysayers are incredibly stupid and clueless. (Not to mention the little problem that, fortunately, the City does not own the collections).

We as a nation just have to suck it up and deal with the consequences of economic decline in one of our formerly great manufacturing cities. I would think that this would be so blaringly obvious to rational human beings that it would require little discussion, but apparently I was foolishly naive, as usual.

Christian Nation?

Christian Nation?

Currently reading Christian Nation by Fredreric C. Rich. Premise: financial crisis was delayed a couple of months in 2008 and McCain won. Then died shortly thereafter. Palin invites in Christian Dominionists, who engineer Christofascist take-over that by around now in the alternate history timeline is on the verge of becoming full blown totalitarianism (there’s a civil war and very creepy 1984 like total information state that emerges).

The book is polemical and not really entirely plausible, but it does remind us, as when he keeps referring to Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here (1935), that those who think that are wrong… it could, and we have to remain vigilant to make sure it doesn’t.

Anti-gay spiral bad strategy for Rightist Party

I may not have my finger on the national pulse quite right, but unless I’m very mistaken, and if this piece in Salon is right and the Rightists are going to double down on their “gay hatred spiral” for 2016, I predict this is going to backfire for them, and badly.

Bwoo-hah-hah-hah-hah!

Voter ID violates VRA

Maybe I’m a little dense, but isn’t the Penna. GOP chair’s admission that VOTER ID reduced the Democratic margin in that state an admission that the law is a per se violation of the Voting Rights Act? Even without the statistical methodology which the SCOTUS declared unconstitutional, state laws which are deliberately and avowedly designed to prejudice certain groups of voters are illegal under the act.

My comment to TPM: Filibuster Reform, not "Nuclear Option," if you please

Hey, TPM~

Why do you adopt the Rightist Propaganda framing of filibuster reform as "nuclear option"? This just buys into the Right Wing view that this is some kind of radical suggestion, when, in fact, supermajorities to end debate are not in the Constitution, and haven't been used in the House in over a century. Please consider just calling it "Filibuster Reform," which is the correct term.

I guess my belief that the "aversion" today of going forward with a very limited reform is not good news. Democrats may lose the Senate in 2014 (not if we work harder to avoid it, but realistically the possibility cannot be denied), so it's undeniable that such reform could inure to the disadvantage of progressive politics in the future. But here's the thing: the Rightists have repeatedly shown they have no principles when it comes to maneuvering to obtain power. Conclusion: they're going to do this anyway as soon as they have a majority, so Democrats should do it now (and for judges and legislation), both for political reasons, and because it's the right thing to do to make the Senate more democratic.

Reforming the Senate: IT IS TIME

I have made clear my belief that the non-democratic rules of the Senate are so serious an impediment to the functioning of our national government that whatever considerations may militate in favor of retaining some kinds of supermajorities, they are greatly outweighed by the need to prevent the Minority from having the power to completely obstruct all governance.

Thus, the story in the NYT today about filibuster reform is a must-read. I quote the opening: 

It was October 2011, and Senate Republicans were trying to interfere with a bill addressing China’s currency by offering a series of amendments that had little to do with China or monetary policy, a favorite tactic of their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

But Democrats surprised Mr. McConnell by using a parliamentary maneuver that quashed the amendments. The process went like this: Harry Reid, the majority leader, asked for a ruling from the Senate’s parliamentarian about whether the amendments were in order. The parliamentarian ruled that they were.

Mr. Reid then moved to overrule the parliamentarian. And he did so with a simple majority vote of 51 to 48.

That seemingly mundane twist of the Senate’s intricate rules gave Democrats the precedent that they believe they need to change how the filibuster can be used, a move that has infuriated Republicans.

Of course they're infuriated. They want to exercise minoritarian obstructionism. But they shouldn't be allowed to. The Senate is profoundly flawed already, by the working out of the now obviously seriously detrimental Connecticut Compromise (during the original Constitutional Convention), whereby states like North Dakota that have fewer people than one of California's cities' suburbs have 2 senators while the whole of the largest state in the union... fully 13% of the nation's population, also has just two. This system makes the Senate intrinsically undemocratic. But adding the arcane, obstruction-enabling, and deeply undemocratic supermajority rules on top of that makes the Senate, despite its august trappings, a disgrace. It is not an exaggeration to say that America is a not-quite republic, with a not-quite constitutional system responsive to its people. And the lack of even plausibly democratic governing rules for our upper house is one of the reasons this is the case.

This debate is over a relatively narrow rules change... affecting only presidential appointments other than judges. I advocate eliminating the filibuster ENTIRELY, and now. Simple majority to pass anything not actually specified in the Constitution, simple majority to end debate and force votes, any Senator can introduce bills or measures, and none can place "holds." IT IS TIME. By the same procedure as the rule change under discussion, a simple majority vote could make all of these changes. And I believe once they were made, and the greater fairness that results came to be a subject of commentary and discussion, the Republicans would be unable to either change them back or introduce other non-democratic rules to replace them in the future.

Of course at some point in the future these changes could BENEFIT the Rightists. But that isn't a good enough reason not to make a change NOW towards greater democracy. Progressive people believe in democracy as a matter of principle, and calculating whether a particular undemocratic maneuver or mechanism might conceivably hurt you politically in some unspecified future is not an acceptable counterargument to reform.  

UPDATE: (Comment on Republican leadership integrity, as in zero):
I have a simple, and I think undeniably true, retort to those who would say that if Democrats change Senate rules with a simple majority vote, the Republicans will change the rules to their own advantage when next they have a majority. Consider the trustworthiness of Republican leadership and its representations, as demonstrated by Mitch McConnell's recent actions. Zip. So, no matter what they say, no matter what Democrats now do, they will do that anyway. So Democrats should seize the opportunity now to change the rules, and not just for appointments... and use the ability to pass more legislation to actually benefit the country, which will have the effect of making it a little easier to hold on to a majority in the Senate in 2016 and beyond. 

Sensible Reform proposals on cloture, advice and consent on nominations

The Senate could, in principle, adopt a cloture rule of simple majority, and it already takes only a simple majority to approve appointments. As I read the "Advice and Consent" Clause, this is perfectly harmonious with the intent and letter of the Constitution.
Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2:

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I think the plain language here makes it pretty damn clear that the Senate has NO DAMN BUSINESS holding up nominations. The clause says the president shall appoint, "by and with" advice and consent.

Even without an amendment to the constitution, I think a very reasonable rule change would be this:

Nominations must be proposed for vote of cloture within [let's say] 20 days of receipt of nomination.
Cloture vote simple majority. Debate must end within 40 days of nomination, regardless of whether cloture motion proposed or passed, and a vote on the nomination must then take place. Failure to vote up or down by the end of the applicable period under the rule will result in the automatic scheduling of a vote on the nominee without (further) debate, to take place within five days thereafter. 

This to be in conjunction with a rule change that says that any Senator at any time may propose cloture (Cutoff of debate and scheduling of vote) on any measure, which motion on second must receive a vote forthwith. Simple majority cuts off debate. And, except where the Constitution explicitly provides otherwise, simple majority passes any measure. Veep, of course, breaks ties, which is in the Constitution anyway.

This procedure, as I am envisioning it, would apply only to nominations, although conceivably something like it could be made to apply to presidentially proposed legislation, too. That, however, almost certainly would require an amendment to the Constitution.

Matthew Yglesias: punish working people by eliminating affordable parking... yeah, that'll work!

I mentioned the other day that I frequently disagree with Matthew Yglesias, who used to write for TPM and now writes for Slate, among other places.

So here's a good example. His solution to congestion and pollution? Eliminate parking for working people. (Hey, Matt, you idiot, how about funding public transportation infrastructure investment instead of punishing working people for working and needing to get to work?)

This is so typical of the elitist "we, the privileged and arrogant, know better" attitude. This kinda thing just pisses me off.

Will the Supreme Court stop the trashing of the Federal Govt. by the Rightists? Hmmm.

Chris Hayes had a really quite excellent report last night on MSNBC on how the Republicans have sabotaged the Federal government wholesale, using the NLRB has an example. It's two-pronged. Legislatively, really for the first time in history, they simply refuse to approve any nominees to a board which the law mandates. Great. Such civic-mindedness. Actually, it's totally depraved: they hate government so they intend to wreck it.

The other prong is Rightist Ideologue judges who have ruled on the DC Circuit Court that the president can't make recess appointments, even though presidents of both parties have been doing it for close to two centuries. Nothing like the persuasive weight of precedent.

Result? There is no NLRB, even though the law requires it. The situation is no better at the Consumer Finance Commission, and will soon be much the same at the FCC.

So we have to wonder, what will the Supreme Court do? The issue will be before it next year (the recess appointment issue, that is). It is split, and its swing member is a pretty radical libertarian (Kennedy), so there's no basis for confidence. But, come on, surely there are five justices who believe it's just not reasonable to allow one party to manipulate two of the three branches of government not to exercise the powers vested under the constitution, but simply to trash the system of government entirely. Surely?

Don't count on it.

R I P Immigration Reform?

It's being reported that the Teapublicans are cooking up some voodoo scheme to blame the failure of Immigration Reform on Democrats.

They apparently think the majority of Americans are idiots. But they're wrong. Some, sure, but not a majority. Hey, Boehner, this ain't gonna work.

Note the foregone conclusion, now being acquiesced in even by some Senate Democrats: Immigration Reform is apparently indeed dead. 

And, here's some news (well, hardly): Republicans will take the blame. For the really quite simple reason that they caused it. Wow, cause and effect. What a concept. 

LAT reports Americans exercising more, but still not losing much weight.

LAT reports Americans exercise more, but still not losing much weight.

Mpff. This is an example of how no one in the media ever seems to learn anything from science. Scientific investigation, as reported in detail in Good Calories, Bad Calories, and Why We Get Fat (and what to do about it) by Gary Taubes, has clearly demonstrated that exercise is almost entirely ineffective as a weight loss method. Sure, it's good for you, but it doesn't affect weight loss hardly at all.

Wanna lose weight? Eliminate sugar and cut starch from your diet. That's about it, in a nutshell. There are people for whom there are other factors, but for most people, that's it. 

Palin running for Senate?

Report: Palin: "people have requested me considering" running for Senate.

Right. We don't have enough cretinous right wing nutjobs in the Senate.

Gotta wonder, though, could this ridiculous figure, who couldn't even finish one term as governor, win such an election, even in Alaska?

Spitzer running again in NY (Comptroller)

Agree with Matt Yglesias (with whom I often disagree): Great Eliot Spitzer's returning to politix, but he never shouldda left (i.e., never shouldda resigned). Voici.

How come Wiener (who lied, but even so) and Spitzer resign in disgrace, when guys like Vitter are still going, and guys like Craig get to serve out their terms and slither into the Sunset? Double standard anyone?

Environmental Patriotism

There was a very interesting discussion on Ian Masters's Background Briefing on July 4 (ianmasters.com) with Robert Jensen, author of a piece in YES! magazine called Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal. 

The thrust of Jensen's views, I think it's accurate to say, is that while the conventional wisdom in the United States is that there is a juxtaposition, or rather opposition, between "radical" and "realistic," but that, in reality, it is the conventional wisdom which is unrealistic, and radical solutions which are the only realistic path forward, given the environmental sustainability issues facing our civilization. Masters explored the question of whether real patriotism should not be seen as loyalty to a sane view of sustainability and even survival of our people, as opposed to knee-jerk jingoism. Generally, of course, I am very sympathetic to this overall worldview.

There is, however, one point that Jensen made more than once, and that seems to be a truism among people who take the kind of long-term, sustainability oriented view of our place in the world in the 21st century. Not only did he stress global climate change, loss of water and soil resources, loss of wild habitat, loss of stability of ecosystems, all of which I think is totally on point, but he kept saying we have to learn to live with less energy production and consumption.

Here, I question the assumptions and conclusion. Why, necessarily, should this follow? In fact, I believe that the Sun and the solar-driven natural processes such as wind and water, as well as chemical storage of energy ultimately derived from the sun, can and will eventually provide our civilization with all the energy it can possibly need, and that, in fact, abundant energy resources will be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Technology must adapt or die, but the solution to modification of a global civilization of seven to ten billion people, which is what we are surely looking at, so as to reverse our headlong rush to climate and ecological catastrophe, is not to all act like the Amish or prehistoric agriculturalists, because the fact is that there aren't enough land resources for that. We must adapt technologies to produce food hydroponically in artificial environments, produce energy that doesn't use fossil fuel, and set aside sufficient areas of our planet as "fallow," where natural systems are left unmolested, if we are to give our Earth a chance to recover from the insult it's been subjected to over the past hundreds (or even thousands) of years, and for human beings to find a way to live sustainably and indefinitely on its surface.

4th Amendment Rights: Snowden and a local concern about illegal searches in subway stations

Two things.

First, I want to clarify my comments on Edward Snowden. I AGREE with folks who say that by doing the job that Congress should be doing, i.e., calling out illegal surveillance in wholesale violation of the fourth amendment, he was doing the American people a service.

What I questioned, and still question, was whether it wasn't going too far to then expose other matters, including intelligence on foreign surveillance, to review and debriefing by semi-hostile foreign intelligence services such as China's and Russia's. And it's hard not to infer that this is exactly what happened.

I also agree that when Snowden was interviewed at length by Glenn Greenwald, he was talking almost exclusively about the US public's right not to be subjected to illegal surveillance, and of the danger of the government using these powers in secret, and using unconstitutional prosecutorial powers to suppress and punish those who would reveal the government's own lawbreaking. To that extent, Snowden was worthy of respect and admiration; and had that been the whole story I would have (and did) acclaim him as a modern day Paul Revere.

But after that, it became clear that potentially damaging information that had nothing to do with domestic warrantless surveillance was being jeopardized, and the whole tone of his position and communication became about asylum, not whistleblowing. This was less than a profile in courage.

Having said that, the keystone kops affair of the US violating all diplomatic protocol by pressuring European countries to deny the Bolivian presidential plane airspace rights on the (apparently unfounded) suspicion that Snowden might be aboard was foolish and disgraceful. I cannot imagine what administration officials were thinking in authorizing that; and it totally destroys any moral credence their position vis-a-vis Snowden might conceivably have had.


Second, apropos widespread violation of the 4th Amendment in our country today, and our citizens' dangerous and foolish acquiescence in it, I wrote the following to the MTA here in LA. (Tilting at windmills, you say? I say, somebody's gotta do it).

David Studhalter North Hollywood, CA   July 5, 2013

Mr. Jason Campbell, Esq.

Customer Relations

MTA

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA   90012

Dear Mr. Campbell: 

I am writing as a concerned citizen to protest the use of illegal search procedures in Metro Stations (as a condition of entry), in outright violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of our nation. I was advised by a MTA customer service representative that this illegal police activity is being undertaken on the recommendation and with the participation of the Sherriff’s Dept.

As I feel sure you are well aware, the 4th Amendment prohibits the illegal search or seizure of persons or their effects without probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed. The historical background of this critical component of our highest law was as a reaction against the prior practice of the British colonial government of issuing so-called “Writs of Assistance,” which allowed precisely the kind of general dragnet searches as are being conducted by the MTA and Sheriff’s Dept. right now, in the 21st Century. Such practice is completely illegal and must be stopped.

The notion that government agencies have a right to conduct such search without probable cause as a condition of using taxpayer-owned utilities or facilities is without any legal basis, and is no more than a subterfuge for violating the supreme law of the land.

And what is the supposed justification for this wholesale violation of the public’s constitutional rights?  We are told we must give up fundamental rights on which our nation was founded because of a supposedly unacceptable risk of terrorism. But, the actual facts are these: since 1970, more Americans have been killed by vending machines toppling over on them than by terrorism. Far, far more have been killed by the flu, and by car accidents, respectively. We must treat this risk with some perspective.

Of course there is risk, and vigilance and police work is needed to lessen that risk. But this must not come at the cost of respect and adherence to the Constitution, which is the Law, or of our fundamental rights and freedoms as citizens, the very basis of our Republic. I seriously question whether there is a scintilla of evidence that this search procedure has ever prevented any crime, in any case.

Once usurpation of Constitutional rights goes without protest; once it is acquiesced in; it will never end, until any vestige of our Republic and the crucial principles on which it was founded are no more. So, I raise my voice in protest, and demand that this illegal practice must stop immediately.

The favor of a response will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, 

/s/

More on L'affaire Snowden

I have opinions on L'affaire Snowden which depart from what I imagine to be the "progressive norm," that I think of as somewhat kneejerk. 

I am as opposed as the next liberal to warrantless surveillance and illegal search and seizure of Americans' information and communications without probable cause, and I supported the civil disobedience qua civil disobedience of Edward Snowden on that issue at the outset. But he has gone well beyond that, and I can think of no honorable basis to seek asylum in Russia, which is unquestionably worse in all these respects than the US. (Putin even referred to the surveillance Snowden revealed as having taken place here as "normal". They certainly do it, and worse). I suspect the Russians are actually very uncomfortable with this guy and will treat him more or less as under house arrest if he ends up staying there. And my sympathy for the notion that the US trying to get other countries not to grant him asylum is somehow a violation of his human rights is zero. He, or anyone having knowingly violated laws on principle (which is what civil disobedience is) must expect the state to try to come down on him; and in fact, if he were really as noble as he claims, he would not have put data in his possession, that apparently went well beyond the civil liberties issues which were the rationale for his actions, in jeopardy of coming into the possession of foreign governments. (Best estimation: that's exactly what happened). After all, it's not just an issue of the US overstepping constitutional authority, where there clearly is justification to what he revealed. He also has access to, and data concerning, sources and methods and legitimate foreign intelligence that, as someone sworn to preserve secrecy, he is legitimately charged as a criminal if he reveals. Which he apparently has done.

So, I have gone from celebrating his revelations to regarding him as a bit of a rogue element, who has overstepped any reasonable expectation of support from the American populace, and who has no realistic basis to expect not to be prosecuted by the American government if it is able to get custody of him. And he should expect that they will take all legal steps, including pressuring other governments not to help him, to achieve that.

All in all, I think it's really unfortunate that Snowden, who seems to have more than a streak of narcissism, was the one to focus attention on PRISM and all of the degradation of the 4th Amendment that has occurred. His revelations, of course, were not really new, they were a filling in of detail and a refocusing on the fact that in the wake of the unconstitutional PATRIOT act, the US government has been violating the 4th and 5th amendments against its own citizens wholesale, and still is. This is a serious issue that I'm worried the somewhat tawdry end of this affair will allow to be simply swept under the rug. And that's really, really unfortunate, because it's supremely important that constitutional civil liberties protections be defended and restored. If anything, the full unfolding of this affair may well make that less likely. And that's a tragedy.

KPFK and Pacifica governance (mostly local L.A. concern)

A friend of mine, Sue Cohen Johnson, is an activist and volunteer at Los Angeles's premier public radio station, KPFK, Los Angeles. KPFK is decidedly not an NPR station, but rather is the preeminent station in the Pacifica Network. It isn't the original original Pacifica station (KPFA is) but is unquestionably preeminent because WBAI and KPFA (Berkeley) are so fractionated and ill-managed that they fail in their mission where KPFK, sometimes with great difficulty, does manage to fulfill it to a large extent.

But there are problems. KPFK's revenue from its lease of "side channels" (and other funds) go to the national Pacifica management, which tries to control local decision making even though they are rather obviously unqualified, and illegitimate, to do so. It is unclear to me even what benefit the national network provides to the local station at all. KPFK is also burdened with a legacy of undesirable financial arrangements (including a relationship with one of the worst Big Banks, B of A), and governance problems.

As yet, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive reform movement, but the beginnings of one are apparent. Local control (both of policy and finances), streamlined and local democratic policy making, environmentally and socially conscientious action and finance; these are the key issues.

I want to go on record as supporting fundamental reform at KPFK, and for effective financial and policy independence for the station. Exactly what that would look like is still somewhat inchoate, but it's clear that change is needed, and it's a-brewin'. 

Full Faith and Credit Clause and the aftermath of the Supreme Court marriage decisions

Perhaps I am deficient in subtlety of reasoning, but I just don't see how anyone can possibly square the Full Faith and Credit Clause, from Art. IV, sec. 1, with some states disrespecting the valid marriages of others, or the Federal government basing anything on the domicile of the married couple if they were legally married in another state.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Two small subtleties. The second sentence is conjunctive, "and," so it does not provide that Congress has the power to qualify or restrict the first sentence from having full legal force. The Congress can prescribe manner and effect, but cannot preclude the import of the first clause, which is that the "acts", "records" and "judicial proceedings" of one state are deemed valid in every other. Marriage is all of those things.

«The Unwinding»

I started to read The Unwinding by New Yorker writer George Packer, but found myself less than thrilled with the anecdotal/episodic structure. It purports to tell the story of the gradual displacement of the elements of our society that gave it cohesion, once that unity born of the New Deal and World War II had run its course, but there is no unifying analysis or insightful commentary. Similar themes are treated much better in Gar Alperovitz's What Then Must We Do? and Richard D. Wolff's Making Democracy Work: The Cure for Capitalism, both recently appearing.

Materialism and Buddhism; how it is I can lay claim that I am still a Buddhist

The post below may have been too precious in its attempt at irony, but this one will be more straightforward.

As can be seen from earlier posts on here, I have for some years identified as a Buddhist, an identification which I still embrace, although my honestly held beliefs have changed.

Some will argue, just as some self-identified Christians argue that they are entitled to be Christians without believing in the divinity of Jesus or in the Trinity, that Buddhism is not in any case a religion at all, but a philosophy.

I address that below. Buddhism very definitely is a religion, for most of its practitioners, because they have faith, (definable as belief in precepts defining reality that is not based on inference from falsifiable evidence but on authority or subjective experience), in transcendence. Enlightenment, nirvana, whatever you want to call it. Some even make claims for miraculous events arising from the powers of those who have gone beyond a certain point in the 'path to enlightenment.' For most Buddhists, this transcendence of suffering and extinction are, in fact, the point. 

Having said that, I believe that there is a core of philosophical precept in Buddhism which is not, in fact, essentially religious, and which is a precious treasure of distilled experience. Because philosophy is not limited to the study and understanding of what is real, it is also experiential, i.e., the acceptance of precepts based on the experience of our progenitors as to what makes life better, for ourselves and others.

Some of these things are nearly universal in philosophical systems, and in religions, like the golden rule. The extolling of compassion, of the practice of wishing others happiness, and of taking delight, rather than envy, in the happiness of others; the practice of giving for its own sake; the virtue of truth as opposed to deception; of not taking what is not given; of respecting and preserving life; of not using one's body to cause harm to others; of, as Christians put it, of not appropriating unto oneself more than one's due portion. In these things, Buddhist ethics and mind training is not unique, but its specific techniques for clearing the mind of distracting thought and harmful emotion, of concentrating the mind and of bringing the object into the path, which I think of as using the power of the mind to visualize a goal of self-improvement as a means of achieving it; these things are particularly well-developed in Buddhist tradition and are of literally incomparable value.

But, here, I will maintain that none of that requires a religious perspective. Stephen Batchelor, author of Buddhism Without Beliefs, has argued for something similar. One can, indeed many do, stick to a scientific understanding of the world, and yet embrace all of the key elements of Buddhist teaching: there is no intrinsic reality to material form; attachment to the transient and impermanent nature of form creates suffering; suffering is reduced by decreasing attachment and anger, and seeing things as clearly as we are able to do. All of these precepts, and the techniques associated with them, can be practiced without adopting a world view that goes to the further reaches still associated with Buddhism as a religion: the doctrine of rebirth; a form of belief in karma that necessitates accepting a mechanism that transcends ordinary matter and energy; the doctrine of everlasting englightenment, even after the death of the body. These are the soteriological aspects of Buddhism as religion which, if they are true, obviously are greatly important and much superior to the more limited secularism of a philosophical Buddhist.

But some of us just can't go there; we don't experience the subjective "reality" that makes us change our view. And for us, the good news is that there is still much of great value in the Dharma, or preceptual system, of Buddhism.

Which is why, while I profess no religion nowadays, I remain, at least in my own mind, a Buddhist.

The Noöscape of Soteriolical Ontology, or, may we not choose to just say no?

I have been thinking a good deal lately about the borderline between religion and philosophy, and whether, as someone who is rather profoundly inclined towards empirical skepticism, there is anything that can be politely and respectfully said that, well, excuses people like me from the whole issue of religion.

It seems to me that makes something religio as opposed to philosophia is soteriology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology). Basically, as I understand it, the goal of a view of reality that embraces soteriological precepts is not merely to give meaning to life but to establish immortality and ultimate salvation (or, in the case of some Eastern religion, transcendence of delusion-based reification of karma so that the only reality is clear light, or the luminosity which is the essential nature of what is real). Either way, escape from the suffering and extinction which are the lot of earthly life, is seen as not only possible, but the goal, sometimes for oneself, sometimes, one is tempted to say in more advanced form, primarily for others and only secondarily for oneself.

To an Epicurean materialist (which is how I think of myself these days), who insists that only that which can be reliably inferred from evidence-based ratiocination should be admitted as “reasonably certainly real,” the whole issue of soteriology is a dead letter. The subjective experience which is defined only in terms of itself that is necessary to experience meditative transcendence, or the “grace” that leads to “salvation” in Monotheistic religions, are simply not inferable from evidence based reasoning.

So, I tend to say to those who cite authority, or subjective experience, for the basis of their view of reality, “Bon Voyage. I wish you well, and if you are right, I am sure you will benefit in ways that I am too dense to appreciate… but, unfortunately, my own self-respect and honest belief keeps me from going there with you.”

Is it asking too much to expect others to respect that?