Will Gay Marriage Bring An End to Special Privileges for Christians ?

Currently the Roman Catholic Church is aging a war against civil marriage equality for same sex couples on a global basis, with particular open warfare raging in America, Australia and the the UK.    While the Catholic Church of has never enjoyed official special privileges as the established church in any of these countries, there has always been a de facto granting of of special rights and privileges to conservative forms of Christianity in all three countries.  Now, the Church of England - which has long been the established church in the UK - has joined the Catholic Church's anti-gay jihad.  In the final analysis, the battle comes down to whether or not the promise of religious freedom in all three countries will triumph over the the demand for special rights that have either been officially recognized as in the UK and by tacit approval in America and Australia.  A piece in The Telegraph  conjectures that in the UK the anti-gay agenda of the Church of England may lead to the end of the official privileges of the Church of England.  One can only hope that a similar demise may overtake the special rights too long granted to conservative Christianity in America.  Here are story highlights:

Two people meet and fall in love. They want it to be for life, so they get married. Simple, isn’t it? Theresa May, the Home Secretary, thinks so: “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.”That’s why May wants to allow couples of the same sex to marry on exactly the same terms as a man and woman. The Government has asked for opinions on how this should be done, but not whether it should be done at all – which has upset those opposed to the move.

The Roman Catholic Church says the Government has no right to make such a fundamental, irreversible change, and it does not believe the Home Secretary’s promise of legal protection to ensure no priest is forced by European law to carry out a gay wedding: “As no Parliament can bind its successors, the Catholic Church and other religious bodies would be at risk indefinitely.” The Muslim Council of Great Britain has called the proposal “unhelpful and unnecessary”. 

The Church of England’s official response comes close to fury: “Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.” Launching the response paper last week, senior figures predicted a clash between the laws of the Church and the laws of the state that is unprecedented since the Reformation nearly 500 years ago. 

On the face of it, then, the ground is set for a battle between the Church and the state. But it’s not as simple as that. Despite the impression given by the official paper, the Church is divided. Many priests and lay people are sympathetic to the idea of equality. 

Why is David Cameron persisting with this? There are several potential reasons: to keep the Liberal Democrats happy; to repay perceived debts; to help the Conservatives seem modern and caring; and simply because he believes in it. “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us, that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other,” he said last year. “So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”
What, though, will the change actually mean? Firstly, complete equality. Civil partnerships give almost the same legal rights as marriage, but not quite.

The Church of England is unique in seeing gay marriage as a threat to its existence. It was built to care for every soul in every parish, with priests who automatically become agents of the state. They have a legal duty to marry anyone in the parish who wants it and is eligible. Now, for the first time in 500 years, there could be a difference between the Church definition of marriage and the way it is defined in English law. The Church leadership believes this will undermine its unique position, rights and privileges as the established church – deeply ironic considering it was only created so that Henry VIII could defy the Pope and remarry. 

Frankly, though, it is as if those who speak for the Church can’t see what is really going on. Or else they’re playing politics, desperate to hold on to their last remaining threads of influence. If the end is nigh, it’s not because of gay marriage. That may be a snip in one of the ties that bind, but they’ve been snapping for a long time now.

Society has changed dramatically over 30 years. We no longer want to belong to anything much; we’re disenchanted with authority of all kinds; we have a remarkably improvisational approach to family life; and are open to cultural influences from all over the world.   At the same time, as congregations have shrunk and church leaders have been careless with their money, the Church of England no longer has the cash, the clergy or the people to carry out its historic mission in the same way. 

The Government is very clear that it has other voices to listen to as well, as it attempts to reflect the dramatic recent changes in who we are as a people, where we come from and what we believe in. 

In all three nations, the awarding of civil legal rights should not be controlled by archaic writings no matter how long revered which in the final analysis were authored by ignorant nomads who were devoid of modern knowledge.  If individual citizens want to hold on to old superstitions and what some view as mere myths, that's their prerogative.  They should not, however, be allowed to force those beliefs on others or limit the civil law rights of others. 

European Adventure - Barcelona and Back to the USA

Of the cities that we saw on our journey, the one that we most fell in love with was Barcelona. The city is beautiful, clean and definitely full of great looking men. Add to that the fact that Spain recognizes full same sex marriage and it made for a great experience. Unfortunately because of our flight schedule we were not able to fully experience Barcelona's vibrant gay night life. All in out group would love to make a return visit and focus our visit on the city and its resort areas to the north and south. The boyfriend and I had a great lunch in the Gothic District after visiting the Picasso Museum and walking around the district and viewing its many shops and amazing architecture, including the city's cathedral the construction of which was commenced in 1291. We also visited Gaudi's masterpiece, Sangrada Famillia (pictured above), which was commenced in the 1880's and is still under construction. As an added note, Barcelona's beaches are beautiful.

On the trip back today, we were struck by how poorly the USA's passport check points and Customs operations compared to what we experienced in Europe. Coming through Newark was a nightmare and while we could re-check our bags without too much difficulty, we ourselves had to go through the security check points - which were chaos - again even though we'd already been through security before. As for United/Continental Airlines, I will have more to say in a future post and none of it good.

As for being back in backward Virginia, let's just say that I am less than thrilled.

The Danger of the GOP's Refusal to Reject Ignorance and Obama's Refusal to Lead

Increasingly the USA - which once lead much of the world industrially and at times politically - seems to reject any concept of planning ahead. In business, all the focus is on the numbers for the next quarterly report and in politics, no one looks beyond talking points and slogans for the next election - if even that. Often it's the next news day cycle that represents long term planning. The myopia seems to be intensifying even as the USA has growing challenges from China, India and other rising nations that DO look at things with a longer view. Adding to the threat to stability and economic prosperity is the fact that one of the two major political parties seems to increasingly embrace ignorance and be focused solely on looking back in time trying to reprise a social model that never even truly existed. Compounding the problem is a president who refuses to be a leader on anything. He merely punts to Congress which does nothing. Thomas Friedman has a column in the New York Post that looks at this frightening reality. Here are some highlights:
*
At a time when Japan is suffering a nuclear catastrophe that is likely to make the world even more dependent on oil and gas, at a time when the world’s top oil and gas producers are entering what will be, at best, an unstable, and, at worst, a viciously violent transition from autocracy to, one hopes, democracy, and at a time when the combination of the two could slow down global growth while we’re still trying to climb out of recession, America has no energy policy, no climate policy and no long-term plan to deal with its unsustainable deficit.
*
[O]ur two political parties would rather focus on winning the next election and blaming the other guy than making hard choices.”
*
President Obama has the right convictions on all these issues, but he has not shown the courage of his convictions. The Republicans have just gone nuts. If you listen to Obama, he eloquently describes our energy, climate and fiscal predicaments: how we have to end our addiction to oil and cut spending and raise revenues in an intelligent way that also invests in the future and doesn’t just slash and burn. But then the president won’t lead.
*
[T]he president has never gotten in the G.O.P.’s face on this issue [energy policy]. He has not put his own energy plan on the table and then gone out to the country and tried to sell it. It is what a lot of Obama supporters find frustrating about him: They voted for Obama to change the polls not read the polls.
*
Republicans, by contrast, are insisting that we can somehow drill our way out of our energy problems, and House Republicans just reported out of committee a bill that would block the E.P.A. from taking any action to reduce greenhouse gases, while also slashing government funds to keep air and water clean. So far, the G.O.P. is calling for cuts in the things we need to invest more in — like education and infrastructure — while leaving largely untouched things we need to reduce, like entitlements and defense spending. A country that invests more in its elderly than its youth, more in nursing homes than schools, will neither invent the future nor own it.
*
The picture is bleak indeed. Many of us hoped for a transformational president in voting for Obama. We did not get what we wanted. Instead we have a spineless, equivocating follower. As for the GOP, having sold its soul first to the Christian Right and then the Tea Party, I see little hope for an intelligent, rational leader emerging. So what will happen? We will likely follow the path Britain did prior to WWII - being perceived as strong militarily even as the changes needed to sustain that power were ignored and/or turned back.

U.S. and Allied Forces Fire Back on Gadhafi's Forces

After the Chimperator's fools errand in Iraq I will concede that I am a bit gun shy on more additional U.S. involvement in the Middle East or North Africa. That said, I have real problems with the use of military forces against civilians and unconscionable brutality by a tyrant who shows signs of insanity and a total disregard for the lives of his people. At this point in time, I therefore hesitantly support the actions of the USA and its allies to stop the slaughter of civilians by megalomaniac Moammar Gadhafi. I shudder at the needless loss of lives and damage to Libya's infrastructure. It speaks volumes when a so-called leader is willing to murder civilians and destroy his country in order to maintain personal dictatorial power. CNN has these developments on events in Libya:
*
Explosions and anti-aircraft fire thundered in the skies above Tripoli early Sunday, but it was not clear whether they resulted from another round of cruise missile attacks by allies determined to stop Moammar Gadhafi's offensive against Libyan opposition forces.
*
American, French and British military forces, convinced that Gadhafi was not adhering to a United Nations-mandated cease-fire, hammered Libyan military positions with missiles and fighter jets in the first phase of an operation that will include enforcement of a no-fly zone.

More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, U.S. Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing.
*
The U.S. will conduct a damage assessment of the sites, which include SA-5 missiles and communications facilities. A senior U.S. military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the cruise missiles, which fly close to the ground or sea at about 550 miles per hour, landed near Misrata and Tripoli.
*
The salvo, in an operation dubbed "Odyssey Dawn," was meant "to deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people," said Gortney.
*
U.S. Navy photos showed flashes of light and smoke funnels as missiles soared from a destroyer into the night sky.
*
Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle Saturday, the first strike against Gadhafi's military forces, which earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
*
An eyewitness in Misrata said Gadhafi's forces are targeting fuel and power stations in an effort to make citizens believe the damage is being done by coalition forces. The eyewitness, who was not identified for security reasons, said people celebrated allied airstrikes on loyalist positions in the city. CNN could not verify the account.
*
Shortly after the first missile attacks, U.S. President Barack Obama informed the American people of the efforts by a "broad coalition."
*
"The use of force is not our first choice," the president said from Brasilia, Brazil. "It is not a choice I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his own people that there will be no mercy."
*
I have little confidence in Obama. However, from the news reports I have seen to date, I believe that intervention in Libya is perhaps the right thing to do. I shudder to think what Gadhafi will to those deemed rebels should he prevail. Where it will all end is anyone's guess.

Is Religion a Force for Good in the World? The Answer is No, in My View'

In Canada, former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens debated the question of whether or not religion is a force for good in the world. Blair argued that it is while Hitchens - who won the debate based on the audience - argued that it was not. I'd go further and say that all too often, religion is a completely toxic force for downright evil with its most devote followers best identified by their complete intolerance and hatred toward those who do not subscribe to their particular belief system. Indeed, throughout history countless millions have died because of religion. A large 23 nation poll ironically showed Saudi Arabia - where religion is a particularly noxious force - as the nation where the population most said religion was a force for good. Laid back and tolerant Sweden had the lowest percentage of respondents that viewed religion favorably. Yes, there are good people in every religion, but overall, I see the world as a better place without religion or at least where religion is barred from intersecting with the civil laws. Here are highlights from the BBC on the debate and survey:
*
Mr Blair, a Catholic convert, said faith was a force for good and it was "futile" to attempt to drive it out. But Mr Hitchens, who is terminally ill with cancer, argued religion forced people into doing terrible things. In a vote after the debate, the audience voted two-to-one in Mr Hitchens' favour.
*
Mr Hitchens, who has previously described Christianity, Judaism and Islam as the "real axis of evil", said religion was "a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and ordered to be well". Humans gained little, and compromised their freedom, by acting like sheep, said Mr Hitchens.
*
He said religions created a "celestial dictatorship" which was "greedy for praise from dawn to dusk". He won a laugh from the audience and Mr Blair when he compared such an authority to the North Korean leadership. In the end, the audience seemed more impressed, and perhaps more entertained, by Mr Hitchens, says our correspondent, and he won the debate by a margin of two to one.
*
The Ipsos poll, conducted in September, found that Europe was the region most doubtful about the benefits of religion, with just 19% in Sweden agreeing that it was a force for good. At the other end of the scale, in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, it was seen as a positive force by more than 90% of those questioned.
*
Within North America, there was a pronounced divide. In Canada, only 36% agreed with the positive view of religion whereas 64% saw it as a negative force - figures almost exactly the reverse of those in the US.
*
I find it noteworthy that far less religious Canada has a better social safety net for its citizens than does the far more religious USA. One would think that if Christians truly practiced what they claim to profess, it should be the exact opposite. This fact alone shows the falsity of the claim that religion is a force for good - especially since in the USA it's the conservative Christians who seem to most oppose government social programs for the poor and less fortunate.

Surf's Out - DNA Looks at GaySurfers.net

Not too long ago I posted about a new website/group for gay surfers - a site that I've joined myself as an out gay surfer. I hope the site in time dispels the macho image of uber-heterosexual surfers. As members of gaysurfers.net are finding out, there are far more of us than anyone knew. Now DNA Magazine - a major Australian gay magazine (subscription required) has picked up on the website and has put together a great article that includes interviews with some of the new group's members. Like many sports, surfing is a sport where homophobia needs to cease being acceptable and a sport where one is judged on your ability, not who you love or sleep with. The article is lengthy, so I encourage you to read the full article. Here are some highlights via the gaysurfers.net site:
*
Gay men have long been absent from surfing thanks, in large part, to homophobia that permeates the sport. However, a new website proves there are far more gay surfers than anybody suspected, opening exciting new possibilities for the blossoming gay surf sub-culture.
*
Gays have always been so conspicuously absent from surf culture that Matt Warshaw, author of the San Francisco-based Encyclopaedia Of Surfing, has wondered aloud if there are any. “If there was going to be a place where there are openly gay surfers, this is it, but you just don’t see it,” he says. “I’m baffled whether it’s a sport that has happily or unhappily closeted surfers or if it’s so staunchly hetero that it’s like a force-field to keep gays out.”
*
That question has been resoundingly answered by a new website, gaysurfers.net, which has proven that gay surfers definitely exist and in far greater numbers than anybody suspected. The website is a social network that’s allowing gay surfers to connect with each other in a way that’s never been possible before and they’re flocking to the site. It came online in February this year and within weeks had more than 250 members, a figure which climbed above 600 in the fortnight we were watching it. Members create profiles – often anonymously – and then get in touch with each other as they check out the gay surfing articles and lists of gay-friendly surf spots. It’s obvious from the almost overwhelmingly superlative praise it’s received from grateful members that the site has met a very real need.
*
Robbins Thompson, who spent four years rated in the top five on the American professional circuit, . . . is the site’s creator. He says he built it because he found it impossible to meet other gay surfers anywhere else. “In the past I have met about two or three and they were not out. They were all very scared of being outed and rejected by the surfers from their community,” he says. “I believe there is a surf culture beyond the macho young man and there are things we want to share with other gay surfers beyond dating. I was hoping someone out there would build this community, but it never happened. So I decided to do it myself.”
*
Changing the homophobic attitude among straight surfers is one of the website’s key goals. “We have two main objectives,” Thomas says. “To bring gay surfers together, because meeting other gay surfers with similar issues across the world will help those in need, and to help change public awareness. Letting the world know about such a community will help fight against homophobia and discrimination. It will hopefully help to reach the more closeted surfers who need this website the most.”
*
It seems the experience of gay surfers depends largely on where they are in the world. While most of those we spoke to from Australia and America reported some degree of anti-gay sentiment, those in Europe said they had suffered virtually no homophobia. “I never have felt hostility to me on behalf of other surfers, except when I prick them waves [cut in line while surfing],” says Guillaume, who surfs in southern France. “I don’t know gay surfers. I am the kind of solitary surfer. I focus on my sport. In reality, the fact of surfing with straight or gay surfers worries me little.”
*
Now that gay surfers have a way to find each other, to realise they’re not alone and that their sport isn’t as hostile as they might have thought, that’s hopefully what will happen.

Europe's Gay Leaders: Out at The Top

With Portugal on the way to allowing gay marriage and a number of European countries already providing forms of civil unions/partnership rights for same sex couples, "Old Europe" is moving to the future while the backward thinking, religiously bigoted USA slides more and more into the past socially. Besides fighting for legal discrimination against LGBT citizens, the other frightening aspect of the strong Christianist movement is that it is so strongly anti-knowledge. One need only look at the lunatic Creation Museum that has humans and dinosaurs interacting to release that the Christianist want the equivalent of a national lobotomy so that nothing challenges their increasing fragile and non-reality world view. These forces are truly just as anti-knowledge and anti-modernity as the Islamic extremists of the Middle East. It baffles me at times that more people can't see the exact parallel. Time has an article that looks at Europe's movement towards the social future while the USA lags behind. Here are some highlights:

*
When Iceland installed Johanna Sigurdardottir as Prime Minister last February, newspapers around the globe printed variations of the same headline: ICELAND APPOINTS WORLD'S FIRST GAY LEADER. Everywhere, that is, except Iceland. The Icelandic media didn't mention Sigurdardottir's sexuality for days, and only then to point out that the foreign press had taken an interest in their new head of state — a 67-year-old former flight attendant turned politician whom voters had consistently rated Iceland's most trustworthy politician. Sure, she was gay and had entered a civil partnership with another woman in 2002. But Icelanders hardly seemed to notice. . . . "Being gay is a nonissue here. It's considered unremarkable."
*
Buoyed by liberal attitudes such as those, politicians across Western Europe are stepping out of the closet and into their country's highest political offices. Eleven openly gay men and women now serve in the British Parliament, including two in the Cabinet. Last June, Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Frédéric Mitterrand, a gay television presenter, to the post of Minister of Culture. Paris' Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, tipped by some to contest the 2012 presidential race, is gay. And Guido Westerwelle, chairman of Germany's Free Democratic Party, has just become his country's Foreign Minister, joining a gay élite that includes the mayors of Berlin and Hamburg, Germany's two largest cities. That's a far cry from the climate in most of the U.S., where — despite the recent election of Annise Parker, a gay woman, as mayor of Houston, America's fourth largest city — honesty can still end a gay politician's career.
*
David Rayside, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He believes that the relative strength of incumbency in the U.S. creates a barrier to the corridors of power, as does "the strength of religious conservatives." Of the 511,000 elected offices in the U.S. — from local school boards way up to President — openly gay men and women occupy just 450 of them
*
The gap between the U.S. and Europe doesn't just exist at the top: 49% of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center in 2007 believed that society should "accept" homosexuality. Contrast that with attitudes in Europe where more than 80% of French, Germans and Spaniards had such a view. Only Catholic and conservative Poles felt as uncomfortable with the idea as Americans.
*
The same year [1007] in Exeter, a constituency in southwestern England, Conservative party candidate Adrian Rogers attacked his openly gay opponent Ben Bradshaw by describing homosexuality as "a sterile, disease-ridden and godforsaken occupation." Voters awarded Bradshaw the seat, in one of the biggest swings away from the Conservatives in the country that year. "He tried to use my sexuality as a political weapon and that blew up in his face," says Bradshaw, now the U.K.'s Minister of Culture. "That election was a huge sea change in our politics. Since then we've been in a new world."
*
Gay-baiting has proved equally ineffective in Germany. Andreas Heilmann, a social scientist at Berlin's Humboldt University, believes that a politician who discloses his sexual orientation is insulated from criticism. "They embody a certain authenticity and credibility because they're open," he says. By contrast, opponents who make sexuality an issue are typically viewed as mean-spirited and politically incompetent.
*
It helps that Europe's liberal laws — 18 European countries allow gay marriage or same-sex civil unions, and gay couples in nine countries can adopt children — have largely normalized perceptions of gays. Christophe Girard, the deputy mayor of Paris, believes the legal framework for gay partnerships has "forced respect."
*
For a group fighting for the right to marry and serve in the military while openly gay, success in politics is about more than pride. "We need to have people at the table of power when decisions are being made about our lives," says Dison of the Victory Fund. "Our straight allies and nonallies get to know us as human beings, and that tends to affect hearts and minds."
*
It goes without saying that the goal of the Christianists is to continue to depict gays as sub-human, thus making it easier for anti-gay bigotry. Meanwhile, study after study shows that talent and creativity is drawn to areas with tolerance and diversity. Mush of the USA is sending a message for talent to stay away or leave. Not a wise trend in my opinion.

Jamaican Acts Finding it More and More Difficult to Get into Some Countries

I have done a number of posts about the vile homophobia contained in some of the lyrics of Jamaican reggae singer Buju Banton - who is currently cooling his heels in a federal lockup in Florida on charges that he sought to purchase cocaine for distribution. Indeed, I have been attacked by some Banton supporters for my commentary. However, Banton is not the only Jamaican performer who has sung about anti-gay acts in songs and now, it would seem that other Jamaican acts are having increasing difficulty getting booked for performances in the USA and Europe. While Jamaican citizens and the Jamaican government may be willing to close their eyes to the toxic lyrics of some top Jamaican performers, apparently other countries and their citizens are not. A story in the Jamaica Gleaner looks at the fall out/backlash that is occurring against other Jamaican acts. I realize that not all Jamaicans are homophobes and I know from personal experience what a beautiful place the country is in many ways - I visited Jamaica several times in the early 1980's and even attended a meeting at Government House sitting across the table from the then Prime Minister. But, one can only hope that non-homophobes in Jamaica will get a message from this circumstance and seek to rein in the country's vile anti-gay thug performers. Here are some story highlights.

*
The lengthening rap sheets of some Jamaican artistes may prevent them from touring countries including the United States and most of Europe. Music industry analyst Clyde McKenzie, who helped fashion the careers of dancehall stars Beenie Man, Tanto Metro and Devonte, told a December 22 Editors' Forum at The Gleaner's North Street offices, that recent incidents involving dancehall acts in Europe and North America have hurt the genre's image. Several Caribbean countries have also slammed their doors on Jamaican acts, including Vybz Kartel, Bounty Killa and Mavado.
*
[M]ore and more doors are closing on our artistes, and that is a significant problem," McKenzie commented. Dancehall acts have run afoul of the law in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom in the past four years. Protests by gay-rights groups against Beenie Man, Buju Banton and Sizzla resulted in the cancellation of some of their shows, but this has failed to satisfy the homosexual community, which wants a full ban on the artistes. Banton's run-ins with gay groups in the US this summer, and his arrest on cocaine charges in Miami on December 10, have complicated matters.
*
"The doors are being closed as far as immigration is concerned, whether it is the perception about violence or homophobia. You find that some Caribbean territories are refusing to have artistes from Jamaica on their soil," McKenzie said. With record sales taking a dive due to the growing digital market, touring has become invaluable for Jamaican performers. Those prospects were dealt a big blow recently in the US, which remains the most lucrative live-show market for many dancehall and traditional reggae acts. In November, the United States citizens and immigration services announced stringent requirements for visa approval.
*
McKenzie is concerned that the Economic Partnership Agreement, signed by the European Union and Caribbean countries in April 2008, may have similar implications if dancehall artistes do not stay clear of controversy. . . . "The Europeans are finding a number of reasons and setting up a number of different structures to prevent our artistes from going there," McKenzie said. "So the days when a guy (artiste) had some immigration issues but a promoter had money to spend (to get them in the country), those days are gone because they (promoters) now have to be licensed."
*
Jamaicans remain free to perform whatever they want in their country, but they have no inherent right to travel to other nations and sing about violence against citizens of such host countries. Just maybe, the Jamaican government will get its head out of its ass and wake up to the fact that rampant homophobia is not good for the nation's bottom line. When all else fails, hitting folks in their pocket book tends to get their attention.

In "Prosperity" Finland and Scandinavia Out Rank USA

It is interesting that the Christianist crowd in the USA seems to always like to deride the countries in Scandinavia for being "ungodly" and too gay friendly, yet a new study that looks at the prosperity of nations ranks all those same ungodly countries above the USA in terms of prosperity. It would seem that these countries are doing something right that perhaps we in the USA ought to mimic instead of deride. But then, the far right Christians in the USA cannot see the forest for the trees due to their religious based bigotry. They prefer ignorance, backwardness, and intolerance above all else. In calculating the rankings, in addition to per capita income, the study also looked at safety and security, personal freedom, and absence of government surveillance. And the best of all nations? Finland followed by Switzerland and then most of the rest of Scandinavia. Canada and Australia also out ranked the USA. What is telling is that ALL of the countries ranked above the USA provide citizens with better health care, governance and personal liberty. Here are some highlights from Yahoo News/Reuters (I encourage readers to go to Legatum Prosperity Index to compare their home country with others):
*
For those who value their freedom of expression as much as health, wealth, and prosperity, then Finland is the place to be, with an index ranking the Nordic nation the best in the world. The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, published on Tuesday and compiled by the Legatum Institute, an independent policy, advocacy and advisory organization, ranked 104 countries which are home to 90 percent of the world's population. The index is based on a definition of prosperity that combines economic growth with the level of personal freedoms and democracy in a country as well as measures of happiness and quality of life.
*
With the exception of Switzerland, which came in at number 2, Nordic countries dominated the top 5 slots, with Sweden in third place followed by Denmark and Norway. The top 10 were all also Western nations, with Australia (6th place) and Canada (7th place) both beating the United States, ranked 9th. Britain came in at number 12.
*
The index combines objective data and subjective responses to surveys. More details can be found on http://www.prosperity.com.

*

While the USA still ranks 9th, the results are nevertheless not the best of news for the "America, love it or leave it" crowd that refuses to accept the fact that there are areas where this nation needs to improve markedly.

5 Myths About Sick Old Europe

Living in the Ghent area of Norfolk, Virginia - definitely a blue island in a still largely red state - one hears all too often the egocentric blustering of those who blindly believe that the USA is the most wonderful of nations and more excellent than anywhere else. Having traveled oversees extensively a number of years ago for my job, I came to realize that (1) there are other perspectives on all kinds of issues and (2) while the USA does have things to be proud about (in the past it was its democracy and civil liberties which have been sadly eroded under the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney), not everything is bad or dire in other nations. This article in the Washington Post - which I have set out in full - dispels many of the false bluster against Europe:

In the global economy, today's winners can become tomorrow's losers in a twinkling, and vice versa. Not so long ago, American pundits and economic analysts were snidely touting U.S. economic superiority to the "sick old man" of Europe. What a difference a few months can make. Today, with the stock market jittery over Iraq, the mortgage crisis, huge budget and trade deficits, and declining growth in productivity, investors are wringing their hands about the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, analysts point to the roaring economies of China and India as the only bright spots on the global horizon.

But what about Europe? You may be surprised to learn how our estranged transatlantic partner has been faring during these roller-coaster times -- and how successfully it has been knocking down the Europessimist myths about it.

1. The sclerotic European economy is incapable of leading the world.
Who're you calling sclerotic? The European Union's $16 trillion economy has been quietly surging for some time and has emerged as the largest trading bloc in the world, producing nearly a third of the global economy. That's more than the U.S. economy (27 percent) or Japan's (9 percent). Despite all the hype, China is still an economic dwarf, accounting for less than 6 percent of the world's economy. India is smaller still.

The European economy was never as bad as the Europessimists made it out to be. From 2000 to 2005, when the much-heralded U.S. economic recovery was being fueled by easy credit and a speculative housing market, the 15 core nations of the European Union had per capita economic growth rates equal to that of the United States. In late 2006, they surpassed us. Europe added jobs at a faster rate, had a much lower budget deficit than the United States and is now posting higher productivity gains and a $3 billion trade surplus.

2. Nobody wants to invest in European companies and economies because lack of competitiveness makes them a poor bet.

Wrong again. Between 2000 and 2005, foreign direct investment in the E.U. 15 was almost half the global total, and investment returns in Europe outperformed those in the United States. "Old Europe is an investment magnet because it is the most lucrative market in the world in which to operate," says Dan O'Brien of the Economist. In fact, corporate America is a huge investor in Europe; U.S. companies' affiliates in the E.U. 15 showed profits of $85 billion in 2005, far more than in any other region of the world and 26 times more than the $3.3 billion they made in China.

And forget that old canard about economic competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum's measure of national competitiveness, European countries took the top four spots, seven of the top 10 spots and 12 of the top 20 spots in 2006-07. The United States ranked sixth. India ranked 43rd and mainland China 54th.

3. Europe is the land of double-digit unemployment.

Not anymore. Half of the E.U. 15 nations have experienced effective full employment during this decade, and unemployment rates have been the same as or lower than the rate in the United States. Unemployment for the entire European Union, including the still-emerging nations of Central and Eastern Europe, stands at a historic low of 6.7 percent. Even France, at 8 percent, is at its lowest rate in 25 years.

That's still higher than U.S. unemployment, which is 4.6 percent, but let's not forget that many of the jobs created here pay low wages and include no benefits. In Europe, the jobless still have access to health care, generous replacement wages, job-retraining programs, housing subsidies and other benefits. In the United States, by contrast, the unemployed can end up destitute and marginalized.

4. The European "welfare state" hamstrings businesses and hurts the economy.

Beware of stereotypes based on ideological assumptions. As Europe's economy has surged, it has maintained fairness and equality. Unlike in the United States, with its rampant inequality and lack of universal access to affordable health care and higher education, Europeans have harnessed their economic engine to create wealth that is broadly distributed.

Europeans still enjoy universal cradle-to-grave social benefits in many areas. They get quality health care, paid parental leave, affordable childcare, paid sick leave, free or nearly free higher education, generous retirement pensions and quality mass transit. They have an average of five weeks of paid vacation (compared with two for Americans) and a shorter work week. In some European countries, workers put in one full day less per week than Americans do, yet enjoy the same standard of living.

Europe is more of a "workfare state" than a welfare state. As one British political analyst said to me recently: "Europe doesn't so much have a welfare society as a comprehensive system of institutions geared toward keeping everyone healthy and working." Properly understood, Europe's economy and social system are two halves of a well-designed "social capitalism" -- an ingenious framework in which the economy finances the social system to support families and employees in an age of globalized capitalism that threatens to turn us all into internationally disposable workers. Europeans' social system contributes to their prosperity, rather than detracting from it, and even the continent's conservative political leaders agree that it is the best way.

5. Europe is likely to be held hostage to its dependence on Russia and the Middle East for most of its energy needs.

Crystal-ball gazing on this front is risky. Europe may rely on energy from Russia and the Middle East for some time, but it is also leading the world in reducing its energy dependence and in taking action to counteract global climate change. In March, the heads of all 27 E.U. nations agreed to make renewable energy sources 20 percent of the union's energy mix by 2020 and to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent.

In pursuit of these goals, the continent's landscape is slowly being transformed by high-tech windmills, massive solar arrays, tidal power stations, hydrogen fuel cells and energy-saving "green" buildings. Europe has gone high- and low-tech: It's developing not only mass public transit and fuel-efficient vehicles but also thousands of kilometers of bicycle and pedestrian paths to be used by people of all ages. Europe's ecological "footprint," the amount of the Earth's capacity that a population consumes, is about half that of the United States.

So much for the sick old man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501041.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I hope no one thinks that I am anti-American (other than in terms of its mistreatment of gays and a poor choice in a president). I just wish more Americans would make sure they knew more of the real facts before they go off acting on false assumptions and facts. This needs to start in the White House.

O, Canada! More Americans Heading North - The Number of Americans Moving to Canada in 2006 Hit a 30-Year High

Based on my last visit to Canada - British Columbia to be specific - I can well understand the attraction of leaving the USA as is talked about in this ABC News article (http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3433005&page=1). To me the most telling comment in the whole article is this:

"Things are totally different here because they care about their people here," she says, explaining that she's only been back home once or twice.

Particularly under the current political regime, the leadership of the USA cares little or nothing about individual citizens. If they did, there would be universal health insurance and the tax system would not be geared principally for the affluent. Other highlights of the article are:

Blame Canada! It may seem like a quiet country where not much happens besides ice hockey, curling and beer drinking. But our neighbor to the north is proving to be quite the draw for thousands of disgruntled Americans.

The number of U.S. citizens who moved to Canada last year hit a 30-year high, with a 20 percent increase over the previous year and almost double the number who moved in 2000. In 2006, 10,942 Americans went to Canada, compared with 9,262 in 2005 and 5,828 in 2000, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies.