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.

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.