As the end of daylight savings time (DST) approaches, let us reflect upon its utter futility and ask that most prosaic of questions, "wha?" For those of you who are lost in a parallel universe, the US has decided that we change our clocks twice a year by an hour, where we remember to "fall back" in the autumn by one hour, and "spring forward" in the spring, ostensibly to assist farmers by giving them the appearance of having an extra hour in which to farm as the days grow short. Instead of changing the time nationally, whereby an expensive media campaign is needed to remind everyone of those important days, farmers could just set their alarm clocks to an hour earlier and simply change their work hours, but no, it was conceded that farmers must be too stupid and lazy to manage that task, so the Government in its infinite wisdom, made this Federal policy in 1918, then it was repealed, then re-instated in 1921, according to Wikipedia, one of the finest websites in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_Savings_Time).
When extra-terrestrials finally come visit, they will be missing many an important meeting because of the remarkably arbitrary 'features' of DST. One alternative would be to just always stay on Eastern Standard time in NY, an hour later in the Central time zone, and so on as we move west across 24 vertical (or longitudinal) bands of evenly spaced-out geography. If you can't figure out how to program your day accordingly (and that goes for employers, too), then shame on you for being tied so to a flawed system that, while intended to address the faltering psychology of humanity, is more of a cultural tradition than a solution. But there IS another way! There's always another way - although the shitless media would have you believe otherwise. So in the spirit of the band Chicago's "Does Anybody Really Know What Time it is?", I would like to propose a new system of time. I call it "Earthtime." Why?, and how will it work?
I recommend we set all clocks to a single time (how about Greenwich Mean Time?) across the entire planet, so when it's 1PM in Paris, it's 1PM in Shanghai. Just because Jaques is having an late breakfast while Chang Hong is peacefully sleeping at the same hour means nothing. It's purely a psychological difference. Naysayers will predictably jump on such a radical concept, claiming that it won't work, cost too much, and eventually conclude that the people behind the effort are crazily creative. Such praise by pundits is what drives me crazy, so instead, the task should be rolled up (or into) a large, slow burning joint, and blissfully treasured. Or not. The ideal outcome is to get a bunch of international academic and cultural superstars to embrace and invest in the project to get the world thinking again before we run out of time. Else we can try to reverse the madness of our hyperspeed culture, where we "fall forward" over one another, drunk from irrational exuberance and greed. Then, we "spring backward" to get ot of the way of that incoming missile, targeted at some bleak future. If we don't create Earthtime soon, we can forget about the clocks and focus on the worldwide alarms ringing in the end of days. But don't worry! "Stay tuned to the same 'bat' time, same 'bat' channel, Adam will return from the West, turning Bruce Wayne into Jesus. Every Tuesday at 1PM Earthtime.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Everyone's a Pimp
Chris Matthews, the cackling host of MSNBC's Hardball, pushed his new book "Life's a Campaign" recently on The Daily Show, declaring everyone should manage their life like politicians. It seems the key to success (the old glories of power and wealth) is to run your life like a politican campaign, or at least, act strategically to get what you want. It's all about YOU and YOUR wants, you see.
This is the basic attribute of the human species - we are genetically encoded to put ourselves first. Darwin called it "survival of the fittest," although some folks may consider it "selfishness". While there are exceptions (Christ, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King), most of us are simply pimps, pimping our friends, our charitable activities, our avocations, indeed, ourselves.
Perhaps this is the inside joke of religion, asking you to emulate the selflessness of Christ or Buddha. In doing so, the rest of us can grab the land, oil, and control. The curious behavior of some wealthy people is that once they get the wealth, they give it away. Is that to assuage their conscience? Do they feel guilty about how they got to where they are? Apparently giving feels good.
The human condition is a kind of consciousness battle between the ego and the collective - do you serve yourself or others? Do we, as Matthews suggests, manage one's life as a campaign, because the old adage that "money can't buy happiness" is plain wrong? Does money, indeed, buy happiness? Matthews would have us believe that.
We either accept the concept that money creates happiness and accept our inner pimp, and spend our lives in pursuit of getting. For those who do, Matthews' advice is quite sound. However, if your mind is wired another way, where you seek something else, some other reward, perhaps life doesn't need to be a campaign. That doesn't make you a sucker. That makes you a Buddha (or Christ).
This is the basic attribute of the human species - we are genetically encoded to put ourselves first. Darwin called it "survival of the fittest," although some folks may consider it "selfishness". While there are exceptions (Christ, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King), most of us are simply pimps, pimping our friends, our charitable activities, our avocations, indeed, ourselves.
Perhaps this is the inside joke of religion, asking you to emulate the selflessness of Christ or Buddha. In doing so, the rest of us can grab the land, oil, and control. The curious behavior of some wealthy people is that once they get the wealth, they give it away. Is that to assuage their conscience? Do they feel guilty about how they got to where they are? Apparently giving feels good.
The human condition is a kind of consciousness battle between the ego and the collective - do you serve yourself or others? Do we, as Matthews suggests, manage one's life as a campaign, because the old adage that "money can't buy happiness" is plain wrong? Does money, indeed, buy happiness? Matthews would have us believe that.
We either accept the concept that money creates happiness and accept our inner pimp, and spend our lives in pursuit of getting. For those who do, Matthews' advice is quite sound. However, if your mind is wired another way, where you seek something else, some other reward, perhaps life doesn't need to be a campaign. That doesn't make you a sucker. That makes you a Buddha (or Christ).
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Next September 11
Watching the C-SPAN coverage of the Sept. 10 hearing on Homeland Security assessment, I couldn’t help thinking how lame the US government is at accomplishing important goals like fighting the sons of bitches terrorists. Six years later, we’re still talking about things we need to do, like “securing general aviation.” These are the corporate-type planes that fly outside the usual security channels, or the ‘light aircraft’ that fly from small airports. A terrorist could take over a corporate jet with international range (say, a Gulfstream G5), load it with a nuke, and as they say in England, “Bob’s your uncle.” It would be a challenging task, but if Michael Moore’s film “9/11” is correct in the statement that the Bin Laden family, which is one of the wealthiest Arab families, has been in the oil business with the Bush family, it might be easier than we imagine that one of Osama’s friends could have inside information about accessing such a jet. Hopefully, getting a hold on a nuke would be much more difficult.
Does our government seem incompetent to you? My personal experiences with it have actually been more positive than negative, such getting a visa for my wife’s mom (she’s from Colombia), or getting a passport at the last minute so we could make our vacation flight. But six years later, there are still issues with intelligence databases and inter-departmental cooperation. And what if the truth was that 9/11 was a type of “Operation Northwoods”? Google it - is there anything more heinous than “False Flag” operations to create a reason for American imperialism? Personally, I find such conspiracy theories a bit over-the-top, but then, human greed and megalomania know no bounds. If there are indeed such people in our government that can rationalize and execute such a plan, then they must be found and prosecuted.
Fighting terrorists has always been a difficult task, and in our free society, unless we let Big Brother rule us with an iron glove, the terrorist will always have the upper hand. I want to know why we are not looking at the causes of terrorism, to better understand how to stop this desire for fear and government disruption. Who are the prospects to become terrorists, and what is the sales pitch that can make someone sacrifice their life for such a cause? Most people - even if poor or depressed, can’t imagine giving up one’s life in a cause of evil, and yet, the numbers of terrorists are rising. Why? These people have nothing to lose, and they have a hatred for those who do. Instead of fighting these people with guns, what if we fought them with money instead? What if we took the $500 billion and gave it to 50 Million Muslims? That’s $1000 each, and I would imagine that would go a long way in the Middle East. Then, they wouldn’t hate us, they would look at us as the kind friend who tried to help. But no, we have to use the fist, and beat these poor folks into submission.
As we continue the War in Iraq - a clusterf*@K if ever there was - we continue the same old bullying tactic of hegemony, and the perception of America from abroad will continue toward the negative. Everyone hates the boss - especially when the boss is a dick. And the powers that be want to continue the fear, so they can take more of our money. Why catch Osama bin Laden when the Bogeyman funds your second house and Mercedes? The sad reality is that, unless we have a social revolution with our citizens in ideological synchronization, changing our unhealthy behavior, as well as ridding ourselves of this materialistic corruption, we will see no decline of terrorism. The next 9/11 is going to happen, because either the power-mongers want it that way, or because the mission of Islamic fanaticism has a point to it. Unless we understand such causes of terrorism, changing ourselves and our tactics in the process, continue to be vigilant. Continue to ask yourself, “Who am I afraid of?” Between the Muslim and the corrupt oil lobbyist, I’m more afraid of the guy who wants to take my money. He has something to lose.
Does our government seem incompetent to you? My personal experiences with it have actually been more positive than negative, such getting a visa for my wife’s mom (she’s from Colombia), or getting a passport at the last minute so we could make our vacation flight. But six years later, there are still issues with intelligence databases and inter-departmental cooperation. And what if the truth was that 9/11 was a type of “Operation Northwoods”? Google it - is there anything more heinous than “False Flag” operations to create a reason for American imperialism? Personally, I find such conspiracy theories a bit over-the-top, but then, human greed and megalomania know no bounds. If there are indeed such people in our government that can rationalize and execute such a plan, then they must be found and prosecuted.
Fighting terrorists has always been a difficult task, and in our free society, unless we let Big Brother rule us with an iron glove, the terrorist will always have the upper hand. I want to know why we are not looking at the causes of terrorism, to better understand how to stop this desire for fear and government disruption. Who are the prospects to become terrorists, and what is the sales pitch that can make someone sacrifice their life for such a cause? Most people - even if poor or depressed, can’t imagine giving up one’s life in a cause of evil, and yet, the numbers of terrorists are rising. Why? These people have nothing to lose, and they have a hatred for those who do. Instead of fighting these people with guns, what if we fought them with money instead? What if we took the $500 billion and gave it to 50 Million Muslims? That’s $1000 each, and I would imagine that would go a long way in the Middle East. Then, they wouldn’t hate us, they would look at us as the kind friend who tried to help. But no, we have to use the fist, and beat these poor folks into submission.
As we continue the War in Iraq - a clusterf*@K if ever there was - we continue the same old bullying tactic of hegemony, and the perception of America from abroad will continue toward the negative. Everyone hates the boss - especially when the boss is a dick. And the powers that be want to continue the fear, so they can take more of our money. Why catch Osama bin Laden when the Bogeyman funds your second house and Mercedes? The sad reality is that, unless we have a social revolution with our citizens in ideological synchronization, changing our unhealthy behavior, as well as ridding ourselves of this materialistic corruption, we will see no decline of terrorism. The next 9/11 is going to happen, because either the power-mongers want it that way, or because the mission of Islamic fanaticism has a point to it. Unless we understand such causes of terrorism, changing ourselves and our tactics in the process, continue to be vigilant. Continue to ask yourself, “Who am I afraid of?” Between the Muslim and the corrupt oil lobbyist, I’m more afraid of the guy who wants to take my money. He has something to lose.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The God Illusion
I used to be an atheist, but have since, over 40 some years, have come to believe in conscious beings of pure energy that permeate the universe, which I'll call Angels and God. While the languages of the human race are limited in their ability to properly describe many aspects of the extremely complex system of life energy, let us agree on some terms first:
God: The single conscious being that initiated the universe
Consciousness: The ability of a living being to recognize its own existence
Infinity: A symbol representing a never-ending, limitless space (or sequence of numbers)
The disturbing diatribe between creationists and evolutionists is evidence that the human mind has an unresolvable schism in its understanding of the world it inhabits. The scientific body seeks data that establishes repeatable proof of a particular aspect under consideration, while faith requires no such rules. Thus, when compared, the scientific path will always provide more accurate analysis.
In the case of evolution, the faithful who limit their thinking to Biblical writings, are necessarily wrong, because they cannot explain why 60 million year-old dinosaur fossils exist on a planet that is only 6000 years old. However, the scientific community has limited tools in which to capture information used to establish laws of physics, and often fail to realize that the mathematical equations used to model laws of nature often require a degree of faith, as in the belief that 1 divided by zero equals infinity. But scientific thought allows itself to evolve, as is the case with Newton's Laws of Motion, which were later updated with Einstein's discoveries. The faithful who refuse to accept new knowledge are the cause of much human suffering, as is the case with the misogyny of Islam, or the Jewish belief of being "the chosen ones," Christianity's persecution of witches, and so on.
In the case of God, even among the faithful there is no consensus of what it truly is, beyond vagaries like a “Supreme Being” (or beings), “the Creator," and so on. Our species has to accept the fact that humanity created the concept of God, and throughout our history, religions have formed around the concept that this supreme being is responsible for creating our universe, and has some interest and influence over our individual lives. I believe that God exists, but I can’t prove it, and in fact, religion does more to dispel my belief in God than it does to enhance it. It is science that has encouraged my belief in God. But instead of bringing science and religion, philosophy and spirituality together in order to find a definition of God that works for the scientist and the faithful, and then pursue a path towards the truth, we find ourselves increasingly divided over our beliefs, and we let the media segment us into that same old ‘us versus them’ mentality in the creation v. evolution argument. This kind of bi-polar thinking won’t reconcile, in which case, perhaps the Taoist dualism is the ultimate truth.
I prefer to think of God in terms of “The Force,” where we exist in an infinite energy field, where consciousness lives in everything, from the atom of sand to the sum total of the universe. This consciousness, when perceived through our limited human senses, is divided into individual brains, and it is the God inside us that gives us life. Our separation from one another, manifested by our individual egos, continues the error of ‘me versus you.’ We are a system, a family; from the ant to the zebra; from the sandpiper to the solar system; from the groundhog to the galaxy; from humanity to the Earth to the Universe. We exist, either by being designed and produced, or by simply allowing infinity to unfold. We created God as a symbol to represent that which we cannot possibly understand. Can we not have a species that embraces the pursuit of truth, using science as the preferred tool of understanding, and let the old arguments go? Where is the point of view that believes in Creation AND Evolution, as I do? If the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct, and matter (which Einstein said equals energy times the speed of light squared) can neither be created nor destroyed, then since it exists, it must have always existed. That means the energy of the universe is eternal. Perhaps the Hindus have it right with their “Breath of Brahma,” where the universe is created, expands, and is then destroyed, only to repeat ad infinitum. Now that’s a God I can believe in - even if it is only an illusion.
God: The single conscious being that initiated the universe
Consciousness: The ability of a living being to recognize its own existence
Infinity: A symbol representing a never-ending, limitless space (or sequence of numbers)
The disturbing diatribe between creationists and evolutionists is evidence that the human mind has an unresolvable schism in its understanding of the world it inhabits. The scientific body seeks data that establishes repeatable proof of a particular aspect under consideration, while faith requires no such rules. Thus, when compared, the scientific path will always provide more accurate analysis.
In the case of evolution, the faithful who limit their thinking to Biblical writings, are necessarily wrong, because they cannot explain why 60 million year-old dinosaur fossils exist on a planet that is only 6000 years old. However, the scientific community has limited tools in which to capture information used to establish laws of physics, and often fail to realize that the mathematical equations used to model laws of nature often require a degree of faith, as in the belief that 1 divided by zero equals infinity. But scientific thought allows itself to evolve, as is the case with Newton's Laws of Motion, which were later updated with Einstein's discoveries. The faithful who refuse to accept new knowledge are the cause of much human suffering, as is the case with the misogyny of Islam, or the Jewish belief of being "the chosen ones," Christianity's persecution of witches, and so on.
In the case of God, even among the faithful there is no consensus of what it truly is, beyond vagaries like a “Supreme Being” (or beings), “the Creator," and so on. Our species has to accept the fact that humanity created the concept of God, and throughout our history, religions have formed around the concept that this supreme being is responsible for creating our universe, and has some interest and influence over our individual lives. I believe that God exists, but I can’t prove it, and in fact, religion does more to dispel my belief in God than it does to enhance it. It is science that has encouraged my belief in God. But instead of bringing science and religion, philosophy and spirituality together in order to find a definition of God that works for the scientist and the faithful, and then pursue a path towards the truth, we find ourselves increasingly divided over our beliefs, and we let the media segment us into that same old ‘us versus them’ mentality in the creation v. evolution argument. This kind of bi-polar thinking won’t reconcile, in which case, perhaps the Taoist dualism is the ultimate truth.
I prefer to think of God in terms of “The Force,” where we exist in an infinite energy field, where consciousness lives in everything, from the atom of sand to the sum total of the universe. This consciousness, when perceived through our limited human senses, is divided into individual brains, and it is the God inside us that gives us life. Our separation from one another, manifested by our individual egos, continues the error of ‘me versus you.’ We are a system, a family; from the ant to the zebra; from the sandpiper to the solar system; from the groundhog to the galaxy; from humanity to the Earth to the Universe. We exist, either by being designed and produced, or by simply allowing infinity to unfold. We created God as a symbol to represent that which we cannot possibly understand. Can we not have a species that embraces the pursuit of truth, using science as the preferred tool of understanding, and let the old arguments go? Where is the point of view that believes in Creation AND Evolution, as I do? If the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct, and matter (which Einstein said equals energy times the speed of light squared) can neither be created nor destroyed, then since it exists, it must have always existed. That means the energy of the universe is eternal. Perhaps the Hindus have it right with their “Breath of Brahma,” where the universe is created, expands, and is then destroyed, only to repeat ad infinitum. Now that’s a God I can believe in - even if it is only an illusion.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Why Owen Wilson Should Kill Himself
The recent Hollywood tail of self-indulgent self-loathing comes not from Paris or Brittany, but Owen Wilson, the talented, nasal-challenged actor who has done some truly remarkable work in his quick rise to superstardom. He's rich, gets to have sex with practically any beautiful woman he pleases, and everyone likes him. So really, what else is there for him to accomplish? He might as well kill himself, and make room for someone else.
THAT SPOILED BASTARD! F**K HIM.
If he can't figure out all the superficiality of Los Angeles, and can't think of others instead of himself (for example, using his millions for charity or business investment to help someone else achieve their dream), then I could care less about his depression and drug use. The entire US is depressed and addicted to drugs - look in the mirror, be honest, and admit it. But no, we lie to ourselves as easily as we lie to others, trying to pimp ourselves and others in every aspect of our culture.
We've become pathetic, godless hedonists, and maybe that's what society should be focusing on. The propaganda machine wants us to believe that that is what Muslim fanatics hate about us. It's not the truth - the truth is, they hate US Imperialism and hegemony, as we've continued to influence oil-producing countries since WWII. Instead, the media says that these so-called 'terrorists' hate our way of life. Well guess what, I'm not too crazy about unfettered consumerism and empty materialism either. Owen Wilson has enough of a conscience to realize the emptiness of fame and our cheap, pointless existence. Seeking help through church, filled with hypocrites who don't have a clue, who are seeking their own fiefdoms of power was no absolution. With the understanding that the world (as seen through the lens of media) is one big Wal-Mart, Owen wanted out, as many of us do. Instead of using his fame and capital to help the world help itself, he tried to create the tawdry Hollywood tear-jerker ending. Poor Owen! Let us share his pain. We can heal you!
I say, let him on his way. If he hasn't the guts to fight for a better world, to appreciate the gifts God gave him and use them for “the light side of the Force”, cultivating meaningful relationships (instead of Hollywood glam, whores and false friendship), then Owen Wilson Should Kill Himself. It'll make a great movie.
BTW - if you don't appreciate irony and see the sub-text of what I'm saying, then you should probably kill yourself too. But praise Allah first.
THAT SPOILED BASTARD! F**K HIM.
If he can't figure out all the superficiality of Los Angeles, and can't think of others instead of himself (for example, using his millions for charity or business investment to help someone else achieve their dream), then I could care less about his depression and drug use. The entire US is depressed and addicted to drugs - look in the mirror, be honest, and admit it. But no, we lie to ourselves as easily as we lie to others, trying to pimp ourselves and others in every aspect of our culture.
We've become pathetic, godless hedonists, and maybe that's what society should be focusing on. The propaganda machine wants us to believe that that is what Muslim fanatics hate about us. It's not the truth - the truth is, they hate US Imperialism and hegemony, as we've continued to influence oil-producing countries since WWII. Instead, the media says that these so-called 'terrorists' hate our way of life. Well guess what, I'm not too crazy about unfettered consumerism and empty materialism either. Owen Wilson has enough of a conscience to realize the emptiness of fame and our cheap, pointless existence. Seeking help through church, filled with hypocrites who don't have a clue, who are seeking their own fiefdoms of power was no absolution. With the understanding that the world (as seen through the lens of media) is one big Wal-Mart, Owen wanted out, as many of us do. Instead of using his fame and capital to help the world help itself, he tried to create the tawdry Hollywood tear-jerker ending. Poor Owen! Let us share his pain. We can heal you!
I say, let him on his way. If he hasn't the guts to fight for a better world, to appreciate the gifts God gave him and use them for “the light side of the Force”, cultivating meaningful relationships (instead of Hollywood glam, whores and false friendship), then Owen Wilson Should Kill Himself. It'll make a great movie.
BTW - if you don't appreciate irony and see the sub-text of what I'm saying, then you should probably kill yourself too. But praise Allah first.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Will Petraeus Betray Us?
Prediction: When General David Petraeus speaks to Congress about the highly-touted "September Report," we will hear business as usual in Iraq - that some progress is being made, but there are continuing "terrorist threats" and if we leave, there will be an all-out Civil War and regional instability. Yawn.
To betray can be defined as being "unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling," and I don't really think General Petraeus is going to consciously be doing that. I don't know the man, but I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I choose to believe that the US Army has men of character leading it. However, the same can NOT be said of the whitewashing Whitehouse. Our Executive Branch is currently staffed by men of no character. Every policy decision they make seems counter-intuitive. The lying about so many of their actions would be laughable, if it were not so depressing. Their tactics, while politically crafty, go against logic, history, and even sanity. They are the real betrayers.
Perhaps we'll experience a social epiphany, where people in the know will start putting the interests of the majority in their consciousness, and will realize that ideals without action are nothing more than imagination. Wouldn't it be something if General Petraeus stood up to political pressure and spoke truth to his real boss - the American People? Unfortunately, as I learned after 20 years in corporations, the truth will set you free (from employment). The leadership doesn't want truth, they want power, and power is achieved through profit. These same principles guide our government at the executive level. It's this elitist mentality that plagues America in the 21st century.
If the public knew all of the facts, we might be shocked at how morally corrupt the Bush administration truly is. I don't know why I think that is the case, but nonetheless, I do. And I'm no prophet, but I have studied history, and I can read people. Regardless of what General Petraeus reports, we will hear the same old rhetoric. Bush has hijacked our country, and won't be held accountable. At least in corporate America, a board of directors can out a corrupt or poorly performing CEO, but in our country, impeachment is our only option, and Congress doesn't have the stomach for it. They call that "gutless." I call it a betrayal.
To betray can be defined as being "unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling," and I don't really think General Petraeus is going to consciously be doing that. I don't know the man, but I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I choose to believe that the US Army has men of character leading it. However, the same can NOT be said of the whitewashing Whitehouse. Our Executive Branch is currently staffed by men of no character. Every policy decision they make seems counter-intuitive. The lying about so many of their actions would be laughable, if it were not so depressing. Their tactics, while politically crafty, go against logic, history, and even sanity. They are the real betrayers.
Perhaps we'll experience a social epiphany, where people in the know will start putting the interests of the majority in their consciousness, and will realize that ideals without action are nothing more than imagination. Wouldn't it be something if General Petraeus stood up to political pressure and spoke truth to his real boss - the American People? Unfortunately, as I learned after 20 years in corporations, the truth will set you free (from employment). The leadership doesn't want truth, they want power, and power is achieved through profit. These same principles guide our government at the executive level. It's this elitist mentality that plagues America in the 21st century.
If the public knew all of the facts, we might be shocked at how morally corrupt the Bush administration truly is. I don't know why I think that is the case, but nonetheless, I do. And I'm no prophet, but I have studied history, and I can read people. Regardless of what General Petraeus reports, we will hear the same old rhetoric. Bush has hijacked our country, and won't be held accountable. At least in corporate America, a board of directors can out a corrupt or poorly performing CEO, but in our country, impeachment is our only option, and Congress doesn't have the stomach for it. They call that "gutless." I call it a betrayal.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Obama / Clinton - The Ideal Ticket?
The Democratic Presidential candidates are selling themselves as the 2008 race heats up, and the media has us convinved that Hillary Clinton is the front-runner, with Barack Obama a close second, and then a bunch of other guys, from the more "conventional" types like John "pretty boy" Edwards, the older Dodd and Biden, to the fringes of Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, and the token Hispanic Bill Richardson. The propaganda machine seems to want Hillary to get the nomination, so Karl Rove's strategy of playing off her "high negatives" will allow further Republican rule from "America's Mayor" Rudy G, or the hunky bimbo Mitt Romney. Oh vey!
As I listen to the positions of each candidate, I can't help but be further pulled in by Barack. I was understandably disappointed with "The Audacity of Hope," because Hope is not Audacious - it's Desperate - and he was on the fence on every position. But now as he matures, Obama is the one candidate that makes sense to put our nation back on course after the destructive Bush run of corruption. But can he win, a mulatto (mixed-race) president? And I mean no disrespect - mulattos are some of the most beautiful-looking people on the planet, and you can read my blog to get my position on race. For me, race is irrelevant, and any American who makes an opinion about a person because of their skin, shame on you! But because of his ethnicity, Obama will be a tough sell to the voting America (so African Americans - get registered!)
Hillary poses other challenges, but her political savvy is first-rate. My wife and I actually got to meet her, and she's actually a lot more likable in person than how she comes across on TV. She has a sharp mind, and she seems to be able to handle the Republican mud machine well - BUT, I think her desire for power may overshadow her true concern for the public, and raises the specter of her 'electability' in the general election.
The Democratic Party is trying to data mine people's opinions, in order to come up with a winning party ticket. So much will depend on what George Bush does in the next year, and the white-washed Whitehouse results he presents. If Hillary gets the nod, who will 'shore up her weaknesses?" John "pretty boy" Edwards to get the poor south? Obama to get the Black vote? Dennis Kucinich for the folksy intellectual demographic? Ah, the American presidential race - let the games begin!
I'd like everyone to consider the following ticket: Obama/Clinton. Obama brings a fresh perspective, with the opportunity to get America united bringing JFK-like idealism and enthusiasm. Hillary as VP would bring her own brilliance (and you still get Bill on the side, like those tasty curly fries). Vision and Experience by a Black and a Female! Is America ready? If Hillary would concede her ego to the best interest of the country, and agree to be VP (which somehow I don't see happening), what a ticket that would be! It would certainly get my vote, and I would hope that it would get most Americans to see the possibility of healing the wounds inflicted by Bush's reign of foolishness. Now if only this idea could get traction in the press, polls, and the Democratic party. If only....if only...a New America....with real truth, real justice...if only.
As I listen to the positions of each candidate, I can't help but be further pulled in by Barack. I was understandably disappointed with "The Audacity of Hope," because Hope is not Audacious - it's Desperate - and he was on the fence on every position. But now as he matures, Obama is the one candidate that makes sense to put our nation back on course after the destructive Bush run of corruption. But can he win, a mulatto (mixed-race) president? And I mean no disrespect - mulattos are some of the most beautiful-looking people on the planet, and you can read my blog to get my position on race. For me, race is irrelevant, and any American who makes an opinion about a person because of their skin, shame on you! But because of his ethnicity, Obama will be a tough sell to the voting America (so African Americans - get registered!)
Hillary poses other challenges, but her political savvy is first-rate. My wife and I actually got to meet her, and she's actually a lot more likable in person than how she comes across on TV. She has a sharp mind, and she seems to be able to handle the Republican mud machine well - BUT, I think her desire for power may overshadow her true concern for the public, and raises the specter of her 'electability' in the general election.
The Democratic Party is trying to data mine people's opinions, in order to come up with a winning party ticket. So much will depend on what George Bush does in the next year, and the white-washed Whitehouse results he presents. If Hillary gets the nod, who will 'shore up her weaknesses?" John "pretty boy" Edwards to get the poor south? Obama to get the Black vote? Dennis Kucinich for the folksy intellectual demographic? Ah, the American presidential race - let the games begin!
I'd like everyone to consider the following ticket: Obama/Clinton. Obama brings a fresh perspective, with the opportunity to get America united bringing JFK-like idealism and enthusiasm. Hillary as VP would bring her own brilliance (and you still get Bill on the side, like those tasty curly fries). Vision and Experience by a Black and a Female! Is America ready? If Hillary would concede her ego to the best interest of the country, and agree to be VP (which somehow I don't see happening), what a ticket that would be! It would certainly get my vote, and I would hope that it would get most Americans to see the possibility of healing the wounds inflicted by Bush's reign of foolishness. Now if only this idea could get traction in the press, polls, and the Democratic party. If only....if only...a New America....with real truth, real justice...if only.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Are you a Socialist?
People often debate whether we are a capitalist society, or something else. When the issue of national health care comes up, people cry "socialist!" America is generally capitalistic, but why do we fear socialism? We have a number of socialistic aspects to our society, for example the DMV, which is a state-owned system. The FCC supposedly regulates private broadcast corporations, and the utility companies are also regulated by the Fed. So why do we fear national health? Sometimes, a nation should nationalize part of its infrastructure for the betterment of its citizenry, and health care may be one such industry.
A Capitalist believes in an economic system controlled by individuals, and a Socialist believes in a government-controlled economic system. The words “capitalist” or “socialist” are nothing more than symbols that represent certain values - and values one embraces must be lived, and occasionally fought for, (and that fight is not in Iraq, it's here at home). The fight is inside all of us.
America is an inclusive nation that in its ideal represents personal freedom, but those freedoms are being necessarily challenged. We don't deserve the freedom to kill one another, nor do we deserve the freedom to steal. But do we deserve the right to make the world in our image? Before we tackle that mission, shouldn't we get it right here first? In order to do that, we need a separation of business and state, and we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and seek self-improvement. A Global economy without compassion will create a planet without purpose, a species without a conscience.
Plato believed that power and wealth should be separate. He thought if you wanted wealth, you could chase money, and if you wanted power, you could be a Senator, but you couldn't be both because he believed that these two aspects of a society when combined led to too much corruption and immorality. We've seen this play out again and again throughout our history, from the decadence of Rome to our current social ills. The apathy of a wealthy state is predictable, as we let someone else try to solve (or hide) our social problems, but the fact is, folks - it’s up to US.
We need a new vision for ourselves, for our nation, for our species and our planet. Perhaps a new word can be created to describe an American economic system that is worth promoting globally. We don’t need to be capitalist, socialist, nor communist, fascist, or any other “ist”. If we live the values of the meanings of the words, we could become a “globally compassionate socio-capitalistic inclusivity,” or ‘Glocom-socapinclusist.’ How about if we just become decent Human Beings?
A Capitalist believes in an economic system controlled by individuals, and a Socialist believes in a government-controlled economic system. The words “capitalist” or “socialist” are nothing more than symbols that represent certain values - and values one embraces must be lived, and occasionally fought for, (and that fight is not in Iraq, it's here at home). The fight is inside all of us.
America is an inclusive nation that in its ideal represents personal freedom, but those freedoms are being necessarily challenged. We don't deserve the freedom to kill one another, nor do we deserve the freedom to steal. But do we deserve the right to make the world in our image? Before we tackle that mission, shouldn't we get it right here first? In order to do that, we need a separation of business and state, and we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and seek self-improvement. A Global economy without compassion will create a planet without purpose, a species without a conscience.
Plato believed that power and wealth should be separate. He thought if you wanted wealth, you could chase money, and if you wanted power, you could be a Senator, but you couldn't be both because he believed that these two aspects of a society when combined led to too much corruption and immorality. We've seen this play out again and again throughout our history, from the decadence of Rome to our current social ills. The apathy of a wealthy state is predictable, as we let someone else try to solve (or hide) our social problems, but the fact is, folks - it’s up to US.
We need a new vision for ourselves, for our nation, for our species and our planet. Perhaps a new word can be created to describe an American economic system that is worth promoting globally. We don’t need to be capitalist, socialist, nor communist, fascist, or any other “ist”. If we live the values of the meanings of the words, we could become a “globally compassionate socio-capitalistic inclusivity,” or ‘Glocom-socapinclusist.’ How about if we just become decent Human Beings?
America - Democracy or Republic?
When you think of America, what images come to mind? Do you think of the original founding fathers fighting the British, or killing the native Americans? Do you think of winning World War II, or losing Vietnam? Do you believe that you should keep all the money you make, or should you share it with others? When you vote, what side of the political fence do you think you fall on, and why?
In the political media, a lot of words are thrown around that seem to be mis-understood. Some say America is a Democracy, others call it a Republic. Do you know the difference? Look these words up. There is very little difference, and the difference is the Electoral College:
Democracy - "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Republic - "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Our government is supposed to be a reflection of who we are as individuals, where the majority's values are expressed through our nation. When you look at the Bush administration, you are looking at the (supposed) majority of American values, but given the flaw of the Electoral College, they may not represent the majority view. But do they actually reflect what Americans are becoming? Are we megalomaniacal, holier than thou, imperialistic, selfish, lying, petty hypocritical cheats? How did we let this happen?
All Americans can vote now, but the founding fathers set it up where only land owners could vote because they believed if you had a stake in the land, you would have a vested interest in the nation's success. If we updated our Constitution to allow the right of all to vote, we can update it to remove the flawed Electoral College. After all, don't you want your vote to count?
In the political media, a lot of words are thrown around that seem to be mis-understood. Some say America is a Democracy, others call it a Republic. Do you know the difference? Look these words up. There is very little difference, and the difference is the Electoral College:
Democracy - "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Republic - "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Our government is supposed to be a reflection of who we are as individuals, where the majority's values are expressed through our nation. When you look at the Bush administration, you are looking at the (supposed) majority of American values, but given the flaw of the Electoral College, they may not represent the majority view. But do they actually reflect what Americans are becoming? Are we megalomaniacal, holier than thou, imperialistic, selfish, lying, petty hypocritical cheats? How did we let this happen?
All Americans can vote now, but the founding fathers set it up where only land owners could vote because they believed if you had a stake in the land, you would have a vested interest in the nation's success. If we updated our Constitution to allow the right of all to vote, we can update it to remove the flawed Electoral College. After all, don't you want your vote to count?
Monday, August 20, 2007
Fighting Political Divisiveness
Americans,
How do we proceed as a nation united against terrorism, in favor of promoting our ideals of "truth, justice, and the American Way," unless we lead by example? When we bicker like children (as many politicians do, sinking to name-calling), we expose the weakness of a democracy - that a schism exists in our personal views on many issues. But is that premise true? Is this schism a weakness, or is it a democracy's greatest strength?
In America, we have an implicit "agree to disagree" policy, and it largely works. We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious society, and in 98% of the people (this statistic is a pure guess), we all get along pretty darn well. Shouldn't we be focusing on this as a positive?
In fact, that is what is missing in the political discussions presented through the mainstream media - the positive view. But kudos to the recent Dem's debate (ABC News Aug. 19, 2007), where they tried to stay on a positive theme and keep from 'dissing' each other, even though George Stephanopoulos tried to get them to argue amongst themselves. Can the Republicans keep their civility when the general election campaigns begin?
Let us stand proud of our strengths, and work together to solve the complex problems before us by applying the best thinking - regardless of who posits the idea. Let us show the world that America has the best system by empowering our freedoms instead of taking them away (as the Bush adminsitration and NeoCon Republicans continue to do).
The only way we can win abroad is to win at home. We seem to be winning here, because to date, we have had very few suicide-type actions here. The current Republican agenda is to use tactics that divide us (and to prove the point, let me quote two Nazis so you can see how the Republicans have embraced that ideaology):
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering
Read your history as "those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." - anonymous
The issues schism between our two parties is based on the divide between the rich and the poor, the egotist and the selfless, the isolationist and the imperialist. We're going to get into a debate between good and evil (which depends on how you define "Good" and "Evil"). These traits have a subjective quality that may be debated on the extremes. But staying within the sane, centrist, and accepted definitions, we can agree that while the actions of terrorists are 'Evil," how we fight it requires a serious debate, with the best research, data, and logic we can get, with potentially no 'good' solution. This cannot be limited to one party's choice. The only way America can address these challenges is to find the common ground, and put political divisiveness behind us.
When we get side-tracked by other issues, we fall into the tactic of "divide and conquer" that politicians use to win elections. But it's no longer about which party wins, it's about what kind of person we give the power of the world's greatest economy and military force to. At present, the Democrats have a few good people (Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Edwards), and the Republicans do as well (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee). The problem is that the Republican party has become too obsessed with power, so I encourage Republicans to recognize the failure of their party to remain true to their good principles. By losing in '08, perhaps the Republicans will get a reality check, and toss out the garbage that has polluted their party. America will survive, and Americans will win. We HAVE to keep the political power in check, and the only way we can do that is to fight political divisiveness and find the best people, ethics, and tactics.
How do we proceed as a nation united against terrorism, in favor of promoting our ideals of "truth, justice, and the American Way," unless we lead by example? When we bicker like children (as many politicians do, sinking to name-calling), we expose the weakness of a democracy - that a schism exists in our personal views on many issues. But is that premise true? Is this schism a weakness, or is it a democracy's greatest strength?
In America, we have an implicit "agree to disagree" policy, and it largely works. We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious society, and in 98% of the people (this statistic is a pure guess), we all get along pretty darn well. Shouldn't we be focusing on this as a positive?
In fact, that is what is missing in the political discussions presented through the mainstream media - the positive view. But kudos to the recent Dem's debate (ABC News Aug. 19, 2007), where they tried to stay on a positive theme and keep from 'dissing' each other, even though George Stephanopoulos tried to get them to argue amongst themselves. Can the Republicans keep their civility when the general election campaigns begin?
Let us stand proud of our strengths, and work together to solve the complex problems before us by applying the best thinking - regardless of who posits the idea. Let us show the world that America has the best system by empowering our freedoms instead of taking them away (as the Bush adminsitration and NeoCon Republicans continue to do).
The only way we can win abroad is to win at home. We seem to be winning here, because to date, we have had very few suicide-type actions here. The current Republican agenda is to use tactics that divide us (and to prove the point, let me quote two Nazis so you can see how the Republicans have embraced that ideaology):
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering
Read your history as "those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." - anonymous
The issues schism between our two parties is based on the divide between the rich and the poor, the egotist and the selfless, the isolationist and the imperialist. We're going to get into a debate between good and evil (which depends on how you define "Good" and "Evil"). These traits have a subjective quality that may be debated on the extremes. But staying within the sane, centrist, and accepted definitions, we can agree that while the actions of terrorists are 'Evil," how we fight it requires a serious debate, with the best research, data, and logic we can get, with potentially no 'good' solution. This cannot be limited to one party's choice. The only way America can address these challenges is to find the common ground, and put political divisiveness behind us.
When we get side-tracked by other issues, we fall into the tactic of "divide and conquer" that politicians use to win elections. But it's no longer about which party wins, it's about what kind of person we give the power of the world's greatest economy and military force to. At present, the Democrats have a few good people (Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Edwards), and the Republicans do as well (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee). The problem is that the Republican party has become too obsessed with power, so I encourage Republicans to recognize the failure of their party to remain true to their good principles. By losing in '08, perhaps the Republicans will get a reality check, and toss out the garbage that has polluted their party. America will survive, and Americans will win. We HAVE to keep the political power in check, and the only way we can do that is to fight political divisiveness and find the best people, ethics, and tactics.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Political Issue Hypocrisy - Abortion
In my 20-odd years of following politics, I am continually irked at the framing of complex social issues into a 2 perspective diatribe from opposing political camps and their dogmatic agendas. Instead of the media freak show of interrupting, yelling, and the childish rantings of otherwise mature persons, where is the sane discussion including the views of our best minds in academia: historians, philosophers, sociologists, economists and scientists? And should religion be left out of the discussion? Isn't religion a personal choice which is supposed to be precluded from our political decisions?
Perhaps it is our cultural lack of attention span, but for once I'd like each issue to be discussed from multiple viewpoints by intelligent and erudite proponents, where the common ground is sought, with logic, reason, and our experience learned from history used to dissect each issue into its relevant parts. But no, we let the issues be manipulated by powerful media execs with financial ties to special interest groups like the Oil industry and other so-called consultant/ lobbyists who are pimping their agenda to give them the most revenue and thus, control of the dialogue. But I'd like to learn about each issue more clearly. Let me exemplify:
Issue 1: Abortion
Most folks agree that abortion is a form of killing, and the majority of us oppose abortion on principle (including true spiritual people who don't necessarily need the 10 Commandments to tell them "Thall Shall Not Kill." When a Christian opposes abortion, how can they then support war or capital punishment? After all, killing is killing, whether it's murder, suicide, manslaughter, or casualties. This is a pseudo-schizophrenic view that is clearly hypocritical. So the arguments for specific forms or conditions of killing are introduced in our language and the emotional buttons these words push.
Instead of debating when a fetus becomes life, let us recognize the ideal of non-violence to all life, from rats to cats, cattle and bats, to birds, deer, bears and us regular law-abiding folks. What about the wheat, carrots, and corn? Either all life is sacred, or it's not, but drawing a line somewhere is subjective, and few people have ‘objective subjectivity’ that is going to be fair to everyone. By being subjective, these choices are open to interpretation. Perhaps we should exclude the anti-killing law from serial killers, lawyers and politicians, but then start to qualify specific life and the value of it. There is the argument that we might abort the next Einstein, but history shows us that’s not the case. While the Wright Brothers get credit for the airplane, there was also Santos Dumon of Brazil who invented one at the same time. Then, there was Marconi and Tesla who co-invented the wireless radio, and Salk and Sabin created the Polio vaccine, so it is likely that these breakthroughs, “if not Einstein, then Goldberg” (or whomever). Ultimately, there may be no absolute truth about killing. Even in the Bible, it should be updated to say "Thou shall not kill, unless someone is trying to kill you first, in which case, you may defend yourself by killing your assailant". But let's get real.
In the world, human life is mostly treated cheaply - from the exploitation of the poor and uneducated, to soldiers forced to fight for “their country” because they accept the rationalization (or doublespeak) by their national political leadership’s agenda (Imperialism? Retribution? WMD’s? Al Qaeda? Which one is it again?) Then there is the perversion of religion by extremists who justify their actions using God as their excuse. The God I believe in may not look or sound like your God, whether it's Jesus, Allah, Elvis, Santa Claus, or Kal-El (Superman), but I can tell you, God has created life as a death sentence, and it's up to us to chose NOT to Kill one another and let God (or DNA) set your expiration date. If you believe the Bible, I thought Jesus died for our sins so we could live like him, forgiving everyone for their sins, whether it was Mary’s harlotry or Judas betrayal. All this culturo-religious violence should be over by now. Look what Gandhi accomplished through non-violence - the Brits left India (*hint* Iraqi’s - try this tactic)! Humans kill one another for power, lust, hate, greed, mental illness or psycho-spiritual dysfunction, so if you agree that abortion as killing, then accept humanity is damn good at it. And we allow murder in certain cases of self-defense, crimes of passion (which are treated as temporary insanity), or, if you are black, famous and wealthy and play the race card (remember OJ? ..Murderer..), murder is tolerated.
For an unborn fetus, several factors contribute to deciding whether to keep the child or not. It seems if a child is to be born into a poor crack house, his chances for survival are pretty low anyway, so perhaps by terminating a pregnancy, we are in fact saving the life of the mother. In cases of rape, I imagine the mother not wanting the child of some dubious and unwanted sperm donor. It boils down to the lesser of two evils. If our social system would pay for the pregnancy through term to adoption, then perhaps some of these cases could be avoided, but in our current social crisis, there may always be SOME reason in which abortion is justified, just as we justify occupying Iraq killing thousands of innocent persons in our vain attempt to stop ‘terror’.
In every situation where we make rules, there are ALWAYS exceptions which have to be handled in violation of the given rule, whatever it is. Complex issues are never black and white, and it's unfair to force our citizenry into this "code of divisiveness" that is so pervasive in our thinking today. God (or Moses) should have included that commandment "Thou Shalt be Fair." I will be making other examples of complex issues whcih should be considered from multiple perspectives, with the underlying theme of maintaining our American Freedom, which was earned through colonial insurgents killing many British and French people, not to mention the patricide against the indigenous Americans.
If we're not careful, we'll forsake our reason for our emotion, and our science for religion - in other words, we'll lose our objectivity to subjectivity, and when that happens, then there will be even more problems that we have today. We need look no further than Iraq to see what happens when humans give away their mind to religious nonsense instead of dedicating their life to God's common ground: Don't kill innocent life, unless their are extenuating circumstances, and those circumstances are.....
Perhaps it is our cultural lack of attention span, but for once I'd like each issue to be discussed from multiple viewpoints by intelligent and erudite proponents, where the common ground is sought, with logic, reason, and our experience learned from history used to dissect each issue into its relevant parts. But no, we let the issues be manipulated by powerful media execs with financial ties to special interest groups like the Oil industry and other so-called consultant/ lobbyists who are pimping their agenda to give them the most revenue and thus, control of the dialogue. But I'd like to learn about each issue more clearly. Let me exemplify:
Issue 1: Abortion
Most folks agree that abortion is a form of killing, and the majority of us oppose abortion on principle (including true spiritual people who don't necessarily need the 10 Commandments to tell them "Thall Shall Not Kill." When a Christian opposes abortion, how can they then support war or capital punishment? After all, killing is killing, whether it's murder, suicide, manslaughter, or casualties. This is a pseudo-schizophrenic view that is clearly hypocritical. So the arguments for specific forms or conditions of killing are introduced in our language and the emotional buttons these words push.
Instead of debating when a fetus becomes life, let us recognize the ideal of non-violence to all life, from rats to cats, cattle and bats, to birds, deer, bears and us regular law-abiding folks. What about the wheat, carrots, and corn? Either all life is sacred, or it's not, but drawing a line somewhere is subjective, and few people have ‘objective subjectivity’ that is going to be fair to everyone. By being subjective, these choices are open to interpretation. Perhaps we should exclude the anti-killing law from serial killers, lawyers and politicians, but then start to qualify specific life and the value of it. There is the argument that we might abort the next Einstein, but history shows us that’s not the case. While the Wright Brothers get credit for the airplane, there was also Santos Dumon of Brazil who invented one at the same time. Then, there was Marconi and Tesla who co-invented the wireless radio, and Salk and Sabin created the Polio vaccine, so it is likely that these breakthroughs, “if not Einstein, then Goldberg” (or whomever). Ultimately, there may be no absolute truth about killing. Even in the Bible, it should be updated to say "Thou shall not kill, unless someone is trying to kill you first, in which case, you may defend yourself by killing your assailant". But let's get real.
In the world, human life is mostly treated cheaply - from the exploitation of the poor and uneducated, to soldiers forced to fight for “their country” because they accept the rationalization (or doublespeak) by their national political leadership’s agenda (Imperialism? Retribution? WMD’s? Al Qaeda? Which one is it again?) Then there is the perversion of religion by extremists who justify their actions using God as their excuse. The God I believe in may not look or sound like your God, whether it's Jesus, Allah, Elvis, Santa Claus, or Kal-El (Superman), but I can tell you, God has created life as a death sentence, and it's up to us to chose NOT to Kill one another and let God (or DNA) set your expiration date. If you believe the Bible, I thought Jesus died for our sins so we could live like him, forgiving everyone for their sins, whether it was Mary’s harlotry or Judas betrayal. All this culturo-religious violence should be over by now. Look what Gandhi accomplished through non-violence - the Brits left India (*hint* Iraqi’s - try this tactic)! Humans kill one another for power, lust, hate, greed, mental illness or psycho-spiritual dysfunction, so if you agree that abortion as killing, then accept humanity is damn good at it. And we allow murder in certain cases of self-defense, crimes of passion (which are treated as temporary insanity), or, if you are black, famous and wealthy and play the race card (remember OJ? ..Murderer..), murder is tolerated.
For an unborn fetus, several factors contribute to deciding whether to keep the child or not. It seems if a child is to be born into a poor crack house, his chances for survival are pretty low anyway, so perhaps by terminating a pregnancy, we are in fact saving the life of the mother. In cases of rape, I imagine the mother not wanting the child of some dubious and unwanted sperm donor. It boils down to the lesser of two evils. If our social system would pay for the pregnancy through term to adoption, then perhaps some of these cases could be avoided, but in our current social crisis, there may always be SOME reason in which abortion is justified, just as we justify occupying Iraq killing thousands of innocent persons in our vain attempt to stop ‘terror’.
In every situation where we make rules, there are ALWAYS exceptions which have to be handled in violation of the given rule, whatever it is. Complex issues are never black and white, and it's unfair to force our citizenry into this "code of divisiveness" that is so pervasive in our thinking today. God (or Moses) should have included that commandment "Thou Shalt be Fair." I will be making other examples of complex issues whcih should be considered from multiple perspectives, with the underlying theme of maintaining our American Freedom, which was earned through colonial insurgents killing many British and French people, not to mention the patricide against the indigenous Americans.
If we're not careful, we'll forsake our reason for our emotion, and our science for religion - in other words, we'll lose our objectivity to subjectivity, and when that happens, then there will be even more problems that we have today. We need look no further than Iraq to see what happens when humans give away their mind to religious nonsense instead of dedicating their life to God's common ground: Don't kill innocent life, unless their are extenuating circumstances, and those circumstances are.....
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Live Earth Review: a dead event?
7/07/07 was supposed to be a magical day where the corrupt American leadership - from its politicians to corporate thieves and the oil oligarchy would be dealt an ideological blow by the liberal intelligentsia through Al Gore’s Live Earth concert to raise awareness of the global warming issue. Unfortunately, NBC's coverage of Live Earth was so completely dreadful, it became un-watchable after the first 5 minutes. Was it because of their producer’s hatchet job edits, or were the acts just uninspired and irrelevant? From Ann Curry’s antiseptic interview of Sting and Trudy, to Carson Daly’s complete lack of talent as an MC, not only did the musical acts fail to deliver any real passion, even Gore’s 3 minute speech on his “7 step pledge” was delivered in his usual wooden style in such a hurried fashion I can’t recall what the pledge was.
If global warming is such a big deal, why didn’t Al get someone with vision and clout to produce the event? Whoever he hired was talentless on just about every level, from production design to talent acquisition. I was hoping for at least the aspiration of a Woodstock or the impact of Live Aid, and all we got was watered down MTV. Only Metallica had a sense of edge to it with a solid performance. Watching Madonna sing off-key, and The Police (with Kanye’ West) butchering “Message in a Bottle” was about exciting as having a good bowel movement. It’s a sad day when pop media figures like Alicia Keys or Cameron Diaz are used to speak on complex issues like global climate change. Couldn’t they find one decent climatologist with charisma to talk about the state of the science? Is this the best we can do?
Starting with the stage design - where those supposed to be used tires in the background? Where was the video backdrop presenting educational messaging to educate the crowd on global warming and the actions that can be taken to make a difference? According to NBC’s coverage, it all begins with changing a light bulb. Where was Robert Redford and the Apollo Alliance? And NBC couldn’t donate 3 hours of tv time? They had to sell advertising time, where we found out that American cars can get 30 miles per gallon (Buckminster Fuller had a patent in 1929 for a car with those specs). At least Live Aid was an all day event, which was only 2 international stadiums, and it had real passion.
The execution of this event was amateur, the musical acts irrelevant, the message obfuscated, and NBC’s coverage disgraceful. I understand it’s a step, but considering all the energy and promotion spent on it, if this is the best we can do, we might as well say to hell with it. It shows that Al has less leadership capability than Bob Geldoff (the Live Aid executive producer for all you youngsters), so I pray he chooses to stay out of politics. Perhaps Gore’s heart is in the right place (although one can’t deny the hypocrisy of the wealthy and their extended carbon footprint). Perhaps his efforts will have a positive impact on people’s attitudes so that they make a serious effort to change their lifestyle and their economic choices, which is the only power the American citizenry has.
Popular music has lost all sense of message, musicianship, and balls. While Joss Stone was the only other decent musical act, where was Prince, dressed to kill, playing a Hendrix-like ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ guitar on fire, with photos of George and Dick with their evil smirk, then dead and wounded soldiers in Iraq with oil fields ablaze in the background and Halliburton’s annual report in black and white for all to see? We need to look in the mirror to see the real reason our country is hated. As the greatest contributor to this threat to our planet, we need to start taking responsibility for our actions and treating these issues with the seriousness they deserve. For me, Live Earth was a limp effort bordering on the absurd. It was so completely uninteresting, I didn’t even feel disappointed - I felt nothing at all.
If global warming is such a big deal, why didn’t Al get someone with vision and clout to produce the event? Whoever he hired was talentless on just about every level, from production design to talent acquisition. I was hoping for at least the aspiration of a Woodstock or the impact of Live Aid, and all we got was watered down MTV. Only Metallica had a sense of edge to it with a solid performance. Watching Madonna sing off-key, and The Police (with Kanye’ West) butchering “Message in a Bottle” was about exciting as having a good bowel movement. It’s a sad day when pop media figures like Alicia Keys or Cameron Diaz are used to speak on complex issues like global climate change. Couldn’t they find one decent climatologist with charisma to talk about the state of the science? Is this the best we can do?
Starting with the stage design - where those supposed to be used tires in the background? Where was the video backdrop presenting educational messaging to educate the crowd on global warming and the actions that can be taken to make a difference? According to NBC’s coverage, it all begins with changing a light bulb. Where was Robert Redford and the Apollo Alliance? And NBC couldn’t donate 3 hours of tv time? They had to sell advertising time, where we found out that American cars can get 30 miles per gallon (Buckminster Fuller had a patent in 1929 for a car with those specs). At least Live Aid was an all day event, which was only 2 international stadiums, and it had real passion.
The execution of this event was amateur, the musical acts irrelevant, the message obfuscated, and NBC’s coverage disgraceful. I understand it’s a step, but considering all the energy and promotion spent on it, if this is the best we can do, we might as well say to hell with it. It shows that Al has less leadership capability than Bob Geldoff (the Live Aid executive producer for all you youngsters), so I pray he chooses to stay out of politics. Perhaps Gore’s heart is in the right place (although one can’t deny the hypocrisy of the wealthy and their extended carbon footprint). Perhaps his efforts will have a positive impact on people’s attitudes so that they make a serious effort to change their lifestyle and their economic choices, which is the only power the American citizenry has.
Popular music has lost all sense of message, musicianship, and balls. While Joss Stone was the only other decent musical act, where was Prince, dressed to kill, playing a Hendrix-like ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ guitar on fire, with photos of George and Dick with their evil smirk, then dead and wounded soldiers in Iraq with oil fields ablaze in the background and Halliburton’s annual report in black and white for all to see? We need to look in the mirror to see the real reason our country is hated. As the greatest contributor to this threat to our planet, we need to start taking responsibility for our actions and treating these issues with the seriousness they deserve. For me, Live Earth was a limp effort bordering on the absurd. It was so completely uninteresting, I didn’t even feel disappointed - I felt nothing at all.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Penalties for Politicians?
The Chinese have the right idea on how to fight political corruption:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-China-Tainted-Products.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Even if we convict the white collar bad guys (Scooter), they get away with it. And our gutless Congress, where are they? I'd make a good bet that Cheney is guilty of crimes worse than bribery. Even if the Congress tries to get that sonofabitch, he'll get pardoned.
We've let America become the land of the entitled ultra-rich, where they can do any damn thing they want with impunity (murder in OJ's case). As history proves, the people will eventually become enraged over this misbehavior and eventually revolt, overthrowing our system, which has become increasingly corrupted by greed and megalomania. We’ll end up losing the idealistic values so beautifully expressed in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (documents we should all re-read).
Maybe the terrorists are simply those socially dis-enfranchised, economically challenged and frustrated souls with enough insight to understand the hypocrisy of America’s policy actions, where our lust for money has taken precedence over a belief in God (or simply Good).
As we debate God's existence, we rationalize our egoism and justify elitist attitudes of superiority over our fellow humans. If God doesn’t exist, then the satisfaction of our individual desires and the disintegration of our consciences becomes an inevitable outcome, which is being reflected by the behavior of the popular culture. If it does exist, then one could make an argument that the Jihad is the correct course of action, just as the Christians believed in their Crusades. Personally, I see a distinction between God and religion, and it is humanity’s perversion of religion that is often used as justification for war.
Instead, let us have a belief in Good, and empower our government to act in the behalf of that ideal. If we don’t, what principles do we have worth upholding? Without moral values worth upholding, the cycles of history indicate that ‘Rome’ will burn again.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-China-Tainted-Products.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Even if we convict the white collar bad guys (Scooter), they get away with it. And our gutless Congress, where are they? I'd make a good bet that Cheney is guilty of crimes worse than bribery. Even if the Congress tries to get that sonofabitch, he'll get pardoned.
We've let America become the land of the entitled ultra-rich, where they can do any damn thing they want with impunity (murder in OJ's case). As history proves, the people will eventually become enraged over this misbehavior and eventually revolt, overthrowing our system, which has become increasingly corrupted by greed and megalomania. We’ll end up losing the idealistic values so beautifully expressed in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (documents we should all re-read).
Maybe the terrorists are simply those socially dis-enfranchised, economically challenged and frustrated souls with enough insight to understand the hypocrisy of America’s policy actions, where our lust for money has taken precedence over a belief in God (or simply Good).
As we debate God's existence, we rationalize our egoism and justify elitist attitudes of superiority over our fellow humans. If God doesn’t exist, then the satisfaction of our individual desires and the disintegration of our consciences becomes an inevitable outcome, which is being reflected by the behavior of the popular culture. If it does exist, then one could make an argument that the Jihad is the correct course of action, just as the Christians believed in their Crusades. Personally, I see a distinction between God and religion, and it is humanity’s perversion of religion that is often used as justification for war.
Instead, let us have a belief in Good, and empower our government to act in the behalf of that ideal. If we don’t, what principles do we have worth upholding? Without moral values worth upholding, the cycles of history indicate that ‘Rome’ will burn again.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Ted Nugent - Stoned Rock Star
Ted Nugent’s redress of the ‘Summer of Love’ in the July 3 edition of the Wall Street Journal is not without its merits, but Mr. Nugent’s perspective could use a bit of debate. Indeed, a psychologist could have hours of fun exploring Ted’s need to prance around a stage in front of thousands of stoned fans who ‘worship’ at his altar of half-naked, self-flagellating pretentiousness and egocentric guitar hero archetype, which has long since faded from the limelight, but let’s forego any further criticism of the musical innovation of ‘Cat Scratch Fever’ and explore his hippie drug culture condemnations.
First of all, for one who has never taken a drug, Ted Nugent has formed an opinion based on a bias which is missing some key data. Besides the fact that there are many more functional and successful recreational drug users than there are excessive cases such as Hendrix (for example Paul McCartney, Richard Branson, Edgar Allen Poe, Miles Davis, and on), Nugent doesn’t understand the difference between ingestion of substances and the psychological problem of addiction. Addiction is what causes drug users to OD (or megalomaniacs to invade other countries or money addicts to commit crimes in the name of greed).
Ted’s argument errs in that typically polarizing narrow-mindedness that has become endemic to our American culture. If he would take the time to read Timothy Leary’s autobiography “Flashback,” he might learn that Dr. Leary had success in rehabilitating criminals, and it was for this success that the FBI destroyed Leary’s career and reputation (because he threatened their power base - imagine a world where people didn’t commit crimes - the FBI would have its funding cut substantially). But Nugent prefers to shoot defenseless animals who, in his view, are there for his consumption. I’m sure that dead doe is ecstatic to lose its life so Ted can go “uhhhnghh!” like our primitive ancestors who had to hunt to survive. If Nugent had any compassion, he might become vegetarian, or at least accept that those who choose to ingest certain God-given plants - for whatever reason - may have reasons other than to “turn on, tune in and drop out.” Although if the current generation is any indication, we’re “turning on more, tuning in more (garbage) and dropping further out” by hiding behind our iPod ear buds, cell phone calls and internet avatars.
This is the real American challenge for the current and future generations. We have to give up this extremist black and white thinking that ignores our common ground - that the Earth is a system of life, and all of its species has a need (and should have basic “life rights”). We can debate the effects of drug use on the human race (and if history is the judge, taking hallucinogens was originally about invoking a spiritual experience, and has not always led to a useless life); we can debate the behavior of twenty-year olds and a generation which had been sexually and morally repressed for decades, with the guilt of the atomic bomb and McCarthyism trying to understand the hypocrisy of the megalomaniacs in Washington that sought global power through American Imperialism under the guise of ‘fighting communism.” But forming opinions without the experience, data or knowledge of an issue and the historical, cultural and political overtones that influence the issue is the kind of dimwitted attitude expressed with such flair by the talking heads in the media. Perhaps the next generation of Hippies will learn from the mistakes their parents made and be sober most of the time, and understand that an occasional dalliance into a recreational drug is probably less harmful that the national alcohol abuse problem. May they attain the wisdom that Ted Nugent’s peers neglected, and use it to create a world that is safe, just, and fair - even to the animals, before it’s too late.
First of all, for one who has never taken a drug, Ted Nugent has formed an opinion based on a bias which is missing some key data. Besides the fact that there are many more functional and successful recreational drug users than there are excessive cases such as Hendrix (for example Paul McCartney, Richard Branson, Edgar Allen Poe, Miles Davis, and on), Nugent doesn’t understand the difference between ingestion of substances and the psychological problem of addiction. Addiction is what causes drug users to OD (or megalomaniacs to invade other countries or money addicts to commit crimes in the name of greed).
Ted’s argument errs in that typically polarizing narrow-mindedness that has become endemic to our American culture. If he would take the time to read Timothy Leary’s autobiography “Flashback,” he might learn that Dr. Leary had success in rehabilitating criminals, and it was for this success that the FBI destroyed Leary’s career and reputation (because he threatened their power base - imagine a world where people didn’t commit crimes - the FBI would have its funding cut substantially). But Nugent prefers to shoot defenseless animals who, in his view, are there for his consumption. I’m sure that dead doe is ecstatic to lose its life so Ted can go “uhhhnghh!” like our primitive ancestors who had to hunt to survive. If Nugent had any compassion, he might become vegetarian, or at least accept that those who choose to ingest certain God-given plants - for whatever reason - may have reasons other than to “turn on, tune in and drop out.” Although if the current generation is any indication, we’re “turning on more, tuning in more (garbage) and dropping further out” by hiding behind our iPod ear buds, cell phone calls and internet avatars.
This is the real American challenge for the current and future generations. We have to give up this extremist black and white thinking that ignores our common ground - that the Earth is a system of life, and all of its species has a need (and should have basic “life rights”). We can debate the effects of drug use on the human race (and if history is the judge, taking hallucinogens was originally about invoking a spiritual experience, and has not always led to a useless life); we can debate the behavior of twenty-year olds and a generation which had been sexually and morally repressed for decades, with the guilt of the atomic bomb and McCarthyism trying to understand the hypocrisy of the megalomaniacs in Washington that sought global power through American Imperialism under the guise of ‘fighting communism.” But forming opinions without the experience, data or knowledge of an issue and the historical, cultural and political overtones that influence the issue is the kind of dimwitted attitude expressed with such flair by the talking heads in the media. Perhaps the next generation of Hippies will learn from the mistakes their parents made and be sober most of the time, and understand that an occasional dalliance into a recreational drug is probably less harmful that the national alcohol abuse problem. May they attain the wisdom that Ted Nugent’s peers neglected, and use it to create a world that is safe, just, and fair - even to the animals, before it’s too late.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
American Bi-Polar Disorder
Watching the media these days is like watching a therapy session of dysfunctional bi-polar schizophrenics. They way political analysts try to simplify complex issues into Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, where complex issues are talked about in such tiny sound bytes of a minute or two, makes it difficult for a logical opinion to be formed. It seems to prove the point that the people running the media are less intelligent than their audience. Then, there is the government's press department, which uses 'divide and conquer' tactics, applying Orwellian "dis-information and double speak." By keeping the intellectual and economic classes separated ("you gotta' keep 'em separated"), the voting public seems to have a great difficulty figuring out the truth. But the truth is there, once you get past the black and white.
Most people I know have beliefs or positions somewhere in the grey. I'm sure many of your friends are in the grey as well, yet the media continues to show a "bi-polarized view" of our nation. Who do you know that can be so easily compartmentalized into black or white (and I'm not talking about race - there's only one of those - it's called "the Human Race")? The tv talking heads are produced in such a way as to play on your' emotions by circumventing your intellect. It's worked for years, but thanks to this medium - the internet - alternative points of view are getting expressed and freedom of speech is alive and well, at least for the time being.
As popular blog and innovative website audiences grow, accurate and easily understandable information should rise to the top. Eventually, the powers that be will get wise and try to either buy their way back into control (the media), or regulate it through law (the government). It's up to us to stop them. So don't give in to the black and white - keep the grey going. It's where most of us live, it's how most of us think. We can stay on the fence. Divide and conquer? How about "join and love?" Bi-polar disorder is a real disease, and it's affecting our nation. Let's try to find the cure together.
WP
Most people I know have beliefs or positions somewhere in the grey. I'm sure many of your friends are in the grey as well, yet the media continues to show a "bi-polarized view" of our nation. Who do you know that can be so easily compartmentalized into black or white (and I'm not talking about race - there's only one of those - it's called "the Human Race")? The tv talking heads are produced in such a way as to play on your' emotions by circumventing your intellect. It's worked for years, but thanks to this medium - the internet - alternative points of view are getting expressed and freedom of speech is alive and well, at least for the time being.
As popular blog and innovative website audiences grow, accurate and easily understandable information should rise to the top. Eventually, the powers that be will get wise and try to either buy their way back into control (the media), or regulate it through law (the government). It's up to us to stop them. So don't give in to the black and white - keep the grey going. It's where most of us live, it's how most of us think. We can stay on the fence. Divide and conquer? How about "join and love?" Bi-polar disorder is a real disease, and it's affecting our nation. Let's try to find the cure together.
WP
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Greetings From Warren Peace
Greetings fellow Humans,
This is the place where I'll rant and rave, expressing my ideas on astrophysics and ancient history, comedy or cosmology, metaphysics and philosophy, politics and social commentary, religion and science, and whatever else suits my fancy. If you want to comment on my 'radical thoughts,' feel free to be intelligent and passionate, but let's agree to leave out profanity (it shows a weak mind - unless it's absolutely necessary). I'll try to keep each idea short and to the point, unless it's a complex issue. Let your comments be as equally thoughtful. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
"Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans." - John Lennon
"DA DA DA DUM! DA DA DA DUM!" - Beethoven
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." - Oscar Wilde
"If you reduce me to a bit - off or on, black or white, plus/minus, liberal/conservative, yin and yang, you miss the truth - we are multidimensional mobius spheres in millions of colors." - Warren Peace (WP)
"There's one race - the human race. There's one planet we all must share. Will you let go of your greed, your need, your speed, your weed? The answers are there, you just have to look." - WP
This is the place where I'll rant and rave, expressing my ideas on astrophysics and ancient history, comedy or cosmology, metaphysics and philosophy, politics and social commentary, religion and science, and whatever else suits my fancy. If you want to comment on my 'radical thoughts,' feel free to be intelligent and passionate, but let's agree to leave out profanity (it shows a weak mind - unless it's absolutely necessary). I'll try to keep each idea short and to the point, unless it's a complex issue. Let your comments be as equally thoughtful. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
"Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans." - John Lennon
"DA DA DA DUM! DA DA DA DUM!" - Beethoven
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." - Oscar Wilde
"If you reduce me to a bit - off or on, black or white, plus/minus, liberal/conservative, yin and yang, you miss the truth - we are multidimensional mobius spheres in millions of colors." - Warren Peace (WP)
"There's one race - the human race. There's one planet we all must share. Will you let go of your greed, your need, your speed, your weed? The answers are there, you just have to look." - WP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
