The gestalt and wise eventually arrive at an understanding that material and object value must be put into equilibrium with spiritual value. People must transform to a new way of thinking; new in the way they think, believe, and perceive reality. To understand ones inner world is to understand that the ultimate reality of consciousness is the potency that steers our world.
Those who are wise understand that all experience of sound, touch, smell, taste, sight, and perception are a result of chemical reactions and their interactions that occur within each one of us when sensations are experienced. The fruition of being from non-being in our world only works by way of life within our particular law of physics, which yields the dimension in which we live. And, so, it is only by being that non-being can be contemplated, and that a new way of thinking can be known. An unknown lies beneath our surface reality that may never be fully known, but we must be cognizant of its existence and continually endeavor to understand its ultimate reality.
The fruit rather than the flower are the concern of the wise. Each one of us must decide what it might be that we seek: the outer world flowery trapping of material and object value that comes to fullness first, or the fruit that comes from consciousness and the unknown ultimate reality that is beneath that is apprehended by the flower of knowledge and understanding.
The cosmos and all living things are formed by being, shaped by our creation of environment, and as a result nourished by virtue; the being from non-being. We are responsible for all creation, its direction, and for its health.
Morality and goodness are the result of this understanding. There are things that transcend our outer world reality that are the essence of the cosmos and of all life. We create all there is from this unseen reality. Ultimate reality lies in consciousness, the absolute, in which there is an absence of desire and wanting; within the parameters of this understanding, evil does not exist. Evil is the result of created desire and wanting. We create evil; morality and goodness are innate.
The efficacious, good, beneficial, and powerful force of the absolute ultimate reality is the natural way, in that all things are born of it. This is where the God of all resides.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
All Power, No Influence
Another good article by James Carroll, although a little longer than his usual 700 words at around 844 words; the title “all power, no influence” is right on point.
“… what really endangers the United States today. Arguably, the single largest threat to national security [world peace] is the growing gulf between desperately impoverished peoples [ not only impoverished or poor, people with a loss of self-esteem, but indigent in many other human ways: for an example, the availability of a simple glass of clean water] and those who have what they need to live [only in the sense of affirming, and promoting equal political, economic, social, and civil rights; it does not mean to simply give them money to make them economically equal]. What is the Pentagon budget to that? Environmental degradation is also a massive national security threat. How do aircraft carriers help with that?”
Moreover, I might add, how do we develop an alternate source of energy and make a transformation for domestic purposes to include in that transformation an alternate to oil dependence a fuel for an M1 Abrams or a F-16 Fighting Falcon, or for that matter any of the other military assets that need gasoline, naphtha or kerosene to operate? How does this figure in our reluctance, seemingly (our postulations and desire seem only to be rhetorical), to find an alternate for oil? What would be the cost of transformation to another energy source for our military? Would we have the same capabilities or diminished capabilities? I am not an engineer, obviously, but in reality can it even be accomplished?
In a previous life, an incarnation where I was somewhat belligerent – a time when I thought war was probably necessary -- I operated an M47 Patton tank. It took a ton of diesel to fill it -- around 230 gallons. I would assume that the M1 Abrams is more fuel-efficient than the M47, which was manned by a five man crew and whose firepower utilized 90 mm rounds (weighty in and of themselves, and carried on board at full battle readiness 70 rounds) and a couple of machine guns. Nevertheless, the M1 still must take a ton of fuel to operate. It just makes me wonder how oil calculates into our need for hegemony in the Middle East, and, as a result of that need, the premeditated, preemptive Iraq War. Why our belligerent posture toward Iran? And, please don’t tell me it is because Saddam was a bad man as the reason we are in Iraq, or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler (the same rhetoric was used for Saddam) and needs to acquire WMD’s to dominate the world, therefore there is a need for regime change in Iran. It’s not complicated -- “It’s the oil, stupid!”
I agree that maybe the single largest threat to national security is the growing disparity between desperately impoverished peoples and those who have what they need to live. However, it is not the only threat, the need for oil as an energy source may be, arguably, the largest.
If you do not agree, please let me know.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
“… what really endangers the United States today. Arguably, the single largest threat to national security [world peace] is the growing gulf between desperately impoverished peoples [ not only impoverished or poor, people with a loss of self-esteem, but indigent in many other human ways: for an example, the availability of a simple glass of clean water] and those who have what they need to live [only in the sense of affirming, and promoting equal political, economic, social, and civil rights; it does not mean to simply give them money to make them economically equal]. What is the Pentagon budget to that? Environmental degradation is also a massive national security threat. How do aircraft carriers help with that?”
Moreover, I might add, how do we develop an alternate source of energy and make a transformation for domestic purposes to include in that transformation an alternate to oil dependence a fuel for an M1 Abrams or a F-16 Fighting Falcon, or for that matter any of the other military assets that need gasoline, naphtha or kerosene to operate? How does this figure in our reluctance, seemingly (our postulations and desire seem only to be rhetorical), to find an alternate for oil? What would be the cost of transformation to another energy source for our military? Would we have the same capabilities or diminished capabilities? I am not an engineer, obviously, but in reality can it even be accomplished?
In a previous life, an incarnation where I was somewhat belligerent – a time when I thought war was probably necessary -- I operated an M47 Patton tank. It took a ton of diesel to fill it -- around 230 gallons. I would assume that the M1 Abrams is more fuel-efficient than the M47, which was manned by a five man crew and whose firepower utilized 90 mm rounds (weighty in and of themselves, and carried on board at full battle readiness 70 rounds) and a couple of machine guns. Nevertheless, the M1 still must take a ton of fuel to operate. It just makes me wonder how oil calculates into our need for hegemony in the Middle East, and, as a result of that need, the premeditated, preemptive Iraq War. Why our belligerent posture toward Iran? And, please don’t tell me it is because Saddam was a bad man as the reason we are in Iraq, or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler (the same rhetoric was used for Saddam) and needs to acquire WMD’s to dominate the world, therefore there is a need for regime change in Iran. It’s not complicated -- “It’s the oil, stupid!”
I agree that maybe the single largest threat to national security is the growing disparity between desperately impoverished peoples and those who have what they need to live. However, it is not the only threat, the need for oil as an energy source may be, arguably, the largest.
If you do not agree, please let me know.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Who is the real humanitarian?
I received an email glurge the other day. The email related a simple allegory pointing out the benefit achieved by people helping people. I am sure that many have previously heard the tale; the parable can be found by following this link: The Difference between Heaven and Hell (on earth) .
I thought the message was a good message and so I summarily forwarded the mail to friends and family. However, a good friend had a different take on this parable.
My friend’s email reply: “I appreciate the idea of sharing and taking care of loved ones. There is however some facts that I would like to draw your attention to. Observation over long periods of time concerning human behavior tell us in no uncertain terms that human beings are property acquisitive.They like to acquire all types of property. If you prohibit them from doing so they die. Unfortunately, you see, people are selfish. You may not want to acknowledge that fact but nonetheless it is true. Ann Rand spent the better part of her life trying to show the world that the great civilization that has come into being is a result of the accomplishments of selfishness. Galambos had a great way of illustrating this idea. He hypothesized a situation where two brothers inherited equal amounts of substantial wealth. One brother was an ‘humanitarian’. The other brother was a very selfish individual. The humanitarian brother decided to give all his money to the most needy people he could find. He and his brother had inherited 100 million dollars each. He did a study and turned up 10000 of the most needy people he could find. He gave them each 10000 dollars apiece. A very few invested the money. Most went on a buying spree and spent the money in short order as you can probably imagine. This action put them right back in the condition that they were in the first place. The other brother, being a very greedy selfish person, decided he was not satisfied with his inheritance. He wanted much more. He thought about it and decided that the thing for to do was to do research and find out what the market place would want to buy from him. He finally settled on a product. He acquired production facilities, hired workers, and went into business. Gradually his business increased and he expanded and hired more workers. After awhile he employed 10000 people. These people earned their pay year in and year out. They also earned something else. They earned their self-respect. Now the question is ‘Who is the real humanitarian?’”
There are many values: materialistic values – those values that have monetary value, which is the inference in my friend’s email, the philosophy of materialism of which everyone is familiar; object value – those values that people adopt in egocentrism, narcissism, and idolatry, and are coexistent in the adoption of material values; spiritual values – those values that are colloquially more closely related to religion, as opposed to the authentic relationship to the new paradigm of consciousness; and, then there are human values that attempt to put into balance all of these values in such a way that it benefits the evolution of consciousness and the world environment within the dimension that we live.
Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” is an outstanding metaphor for people helping people, although I am sure that his definition would not be the same as mine. The principle of the “Invisible Hand” should be interpreted beyond the economic scope of its meaning to include those things that people do to promote human values. The “Invisible Hand” principle incorporates material value, object value, and spiritual value into the values associated with human values, which benefit life and not the pocketbook or self-centeredness. It is the concept of the “Invisible Hand” that is metaphorically represented in this story.
I am deeply interested in economic principles because, as by example in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Human Action by Ludwig von Mises as well as on the Ludwig von Mises website, of their close praxeological relationship with human values.
Galambos was one of those selfish individuals of whom the tale speaks. Galambos first came on the scene in the late 50’s or early 60’s, died in 1997, and he or his heirs have not accomplished anything to promote any human value, except for those things that have material and object value. Galambos or his heirs have not even benefited their own cause, except monetarily, because of their selfishness due to intellectual property concerns. It seems they want to keep their grand plan for society a deeply held secret.
Galambos was correct; we never help anyone by simply giving them money.
It is people, such as …
· Jesus Christ (not the bible, but the historical Jesus)
· Henry David Thoreau
· Ralph Waldo Emerson
· Mohandas Gandhi
· Albert Einstein
· Martin Luther King, Jr.
· Noam Chomsky
· Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
· Dr. Helen Caldicott
· Jimmy Carter
· Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
· Muhammad Yunus
and so many others, who are the authentic humanitarians.
Andrew Galambos or Ayn Rand have not intrinsically contributed one iota to benefit humankind, except for those bent on avarice.
I thought the message was a good message and so I summarily forwarded the mail to friends and family. However, a good friend had a different take on this parable.
My friend’s email reply: “I appreciate the idea of sharing and taking care of loved ones. There is however some facts that I would like to draw your attention to. Observation over long periods of time concerning human behavior tell us in no uncertain terms that human beings are property acquisitive.They like to acquire all types of property. If you prohibit them from doing so they die. Unfortunately, you see, people are selfish. You may not want to acknowledge that fact but nonetheless it is true. Ann Rand spent the better part of her life trying to show the world that the great civilization that has come into being is a result of the accomplishments of selfishness. Galambos had a great way of illustrating this idea. He hypothesized a situation where two brothers inherited equal amounts of substantial wealth. One brother was an ‘humanitarian’. The other brother was a very selfish individual. The humanitarian brother decided to give all his money to the most needy people he could find. He and his brother had inherited 100 million dollars each. He did a study and turned up 10000 of the most needy people he could find. He gave them each 10000 dollars apiece. A very few invested the money. Most went on a buying spree and spent the money in short order as you can probably imagine. This action put them right back in the condition that they were in the first place. The other brother, being a very greedy selfish person, decided he was not satisfied with his inheritance. He wanted much more. He thought about it and decided that the thing for to do was to do research and find out what the market place would want to buy from him. He finally settled on a product. He acquired production facilities, hired workers, and went into business. Gradually his business increased and he expanded and hired more workers. After awhile he employed 10000 people. These people earned their pay year in and year out. They also earned something else. They earned their self-respect. Now the question is ‘Who is the real humanitarian?’”
There are many values: materialistic values – those values that have monetary value, which is the inference in my friend’s email, the philosophy of materialism of which everyone is familiar; object value – those values that people adopt in egocentrism, narcissism, and idolatry, and are coexistent in the adoption of material values; spiritual values – those values that are colloquially more closely related to religion, as opposed to the authentic relationship to the new paradigm of consciousness; and, then there are human values that attempt to put into balance all of these values in such a way that it benefits the evolution of consciousness and the world environment within the dimension that we live.
Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” is an outstanding metaphor for people helping people, although I am sure that his definition would not be the same as mine. The principle of the “Invisible Hand” should be interpreted beyond the economic scope of its meaning to include those things that people do to promote human values. The “Invisible Hand” principle incorporates material value, object value, and spiritual value into the values associated with human values, which benefit life and not the pocketbook or self-centeredness. It is the concept of the “Invisible Hand” that is metaphorically represented in this story.
I am deeply interested in economic principles because, as by example in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Human Action by Ludwig von Mises as well as on the Ludwig von Mises website, of their close praxeological relationship with human values.
Galambos was one of those selfish individuals of whom the tale speaks. Galambos first came on the scene in the late 50’s or early 60’s, died in 1997, and he or his heirs have not accomplished anything to promote any human value, except for those things that have material and object value. Galambos or his heirs have not even benefited their own cause, except monetarily, because of their selfishness due to intellectual property concerns. It seems they want to keep their grand plan for society a deeply held secret.
Galambos was correct; we never help anyone by simply giving them money.
It is people, such as …
· Jesus Christ (not the bible, but the historical Jesus)
· Henry David Thoreau
· Ralph Waldo Emerson
· Mohandas Gandhi
· Albert Einstein
· Martin Luther King, Jr.
· Noam Chomsky
· Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
· Dr. Helen Caldicott
· Jimmy Carter
· Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
· Muhammad Yunus
and so many others, who are the authentic humanitarians.
Andrew Galambos or Ayn Rand have not intrinsically contributed one iota to benefit humankind, except for those bent on avarice.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Take Nothing For Granted
“The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination [military-industrial-academic complex] endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.”
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Farewell address, January 17, 1961
This monition of President Eisenhower clearly has not been heeded.
Americans, as far as I am concerned, have embraced the policies of Bush, Cheney, and their cabal. They have signed-off on the doctrine of the Project for a New American Century.
It has not been until recently that Americans have rebuked these policies, and only now, because their perception is that we are not winning the war.
It seems Americans will accept war, torture (but only by America, of course; everyone else would be scolded), suspension of habeas corpus, and give up their freedoms out of fear. Fear that we are not winning the battle, whether that is a war, immigration, or something else.
A fear carefully manipulated by our present government, as well as all previous governments. A real fear, imagined or created to garner support for some impending action they intend to take – Adolf Hitler creating a fear of Jews is a prime example.
For those who may be a naysayer, just look at history. Three examples, but there are so many more: Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, suspended civil law and enacted martial law, imprisoning 13,000 Americans who were simply practicing their right of free speech and freedom of assembly supposedly guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States of America; between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. government forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes, farms, schools, jobs and businesses, in violation of their constitutional civil rights and liberties, incarcerating them in internment camps; the Bush cabal Patriot Act with the issuance of National Security Letters, their policy and practice of extraordinary rendition and torture, the initiation of an illegal preemptive war, and now Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America under the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
What is surreal is that the law has passed the House on a vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate.
Do not take for granted that at sometime, somewhere, when you least expect it that this law will not apply to you.
Please consider these links for information:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
Google Groups
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Farewell address, January 17, 1961
This monition of President Eisenhower clearly has not been heeded.
Americans, as far as I am concerned, have embraced the policies of Bush, Cheney, and their cabal. They have signed-off on the doctrine of the Project for a New American Century.
It has not been until recently that Americans have rebuked these policies, and only now, because their perception is that we are not winning the war.
It seems Americans will accept war, torture (but only by America, of course; everyone else would be scolded), suspension of habeas corpus, and give up their freedoms out of fear. Fear that we are not winning the battle, whether that is a war, immigration, or something else.
A fear carefully manipulated by our present government, as well as all previous governments. A real fear, imagined or created to garner support for some impending action they intend to take – Adolf Hitler creating a fear of Jews is a prime example.
For those who may be a naysayer, just look at history. Three examples, but there are so many more: Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, suspended civil law and enacted martial law, imprisoning 13,000 Americans who were simply practicing their right of free speech and freedom of assembly supposedly guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States of America; between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. government forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes, farms, schools, jobs and businesses, in violation of their constitutional civil rights and liberties, incarcerating them in internment camps; the Bush cabal Patriot Act with the issuance of National Security Letters, their policy and practice of extraordinary rendition and torture, the initiation of an illegal preemptive war, and now Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America under the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
What is surreal is that the law has passed the House on a vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate.
Do not take for granted that at sometime, somewhere, when you least expect it that this law will not apply to you.
Please consider these links for information:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
Google Groups
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Solving the hard problem of evil
Evil is archaistic. It is a carryover from primitive man. Primitive man could not survive without human action that contemporarily would be considered evil. To have the ability to perform an evil act was necessary for survival in that era.
When man first met man, it aroused fear, ambivalence, and then curiosity. Curiosity led to social binding, even though there was no clear way of communicating. That first meeting was intuitive and came solely of the sense one had of the other -- a telepathic interaction; an interaction that was the result of the very essence of consciousness. This first interaction was completely void of any associative material value or objective value consideration. It was purely subjective. At some point, man met woman, or woman met man, and the inevitable resulting copulation was the progenitor of the human race.
After the first copulation, all other sexual relationships were incestuous, and there was inbreeding. Incest is considered immoral by today’s standards. Incest, and in some instances inbreeding is unlawful in our contemporary world. Evolutionary biology and evolved human psychology persisted and we grew out of the existential need of incest and inbreeding to a human aversion to it.
Social binding evolved into groupings of individuals. As these groups evolved and became larger groupings, they split into tribes. Cultures developed. Increasingly the competition for resources came into being. The first acquisition of property was the result of theft. This first acquisition of property may or may not have been violent, but surely, when there was no way of clandestinely acquiring property, coercion ruled the day. Evil and good became cofactors to a viable life.
As man evolved, he acquired knowledge of tool making, and developed language to communicate his knowledge. He developed concepts of law and justice, as well as a means of exchange. As he became more knowledgeable, the choice of evil over good became not as necessary. In our contemporary world, for entertainment we no longer roast a cat or throw men in arenas with lions; burn witches at the stake; embrace blatant misogyny; or embrace blatant racism. However, the psychology involved in some of this evil still persist, but has evolved and taken a different form: the brutality and violence of boxing and in other sports; the incivility we accept and even idolize in our viewing of reality shows and its voyeurism; the acceptance of expressions of incivility, immorality and evil in our music, art, and theaters, and in the decisions we make in our viewing preferences, which are clearly exemplified by the electronic and print media who elicit virulent reaction to maximize viewing or readership.
Exploitation of evil came into being with man’s invention of religion. The parable of Adam and Eve is a perfect metaphoric example of how man got it wrong.
Man created the universe. The first man in our universe created that first image of that other man. Man therefore created good and evil, and so man can eliminate evil if man’s desire is to do so.
So, evil is not a problem associated with free will; nor does it exist to complement good in that evil is the balance for all that is good; nor is it necessary to have the confliction of an omnipotent God, or any other theodicy of evil. A solution cannot be mandated nor can a solution be within the purview of religion, which is in itself archaic. It is going to take the process of evolution to a higher level of consciousness, a greater evolution to complete knowledge that will eventually marginalize evil.
There may be a day, and I am hopeful that there will be that day in the very, very distant future when our evolution has taken humans to a place where evil is not part of the decisional process. A place where man will have complete knowledge, knowledge amongst other considerations that religion (all religion) was, and is, a bad idea, and the evil option will be hopefully nonexistent.
War, in anyway one might define it, is the embodiment of evil. War causes destruction, injury, pain, and suffering characterized by hate, anger, maliciousness, and injustice. All evil by anyone’s definition are cofactors of war. In war, you will find every evil known to man. It is the greatest of all evil because in spite of its inherent immorality, man, whether religious or secular, still support military action as necessary, or will use the reasoning: after all, the bible says there will always be “wars and rumors of wars.” With our allegorical myths of war, we glorify war, and instill in our children that war has a benevolent association with nationalism and patriotism, heroics and idolatry, morality, and glory.
Peace Warriors must imbue in others that evil is a primitive impulse, that there is an underlying reality, a metaconsciousness, a better way, which is beyond and transcendent to our current understanding. A consciousness that was so authentically expressed when man first met man.
Peace Warriors must create an understanding in others that everyone has a different “here and now,” and how important to each of us is the discovery that “I Am.” We are the creator of our Universe. Consciousness is not inherent in the Universe but the Universe is inherent in consciousness.
The solution to solving the hard problem of evil is embedded in a new way of thinking. Evil is a result of not having complete knowledge, and so, because of man’s limited knowledge and therefore limited options, man’s choice continues to be a choice between good and evil, at least for the time being.
When man first met man, it aroused fear, ambivalence, and then curiosity. Curiosity led to social binding, even though there was no clear way of communicating. That first meeting was intuitive and came solely of the sense one had of the other -- a telepathic interaction; an interaction that was the result of the very essence of consciousness. This first interaction was completely void of any associative material value or objective value consideration. It was purely subjective. At some point, man met woman, or woman met man, and the inevitable resulting copulation was the progenitor of the human race.
After the first copulation, all other sexual relationships were incestuous, and there was inbreeding. Incest is considered immoral by today’s standards. Incest, and in some instances inbreeding is unlawful in our contemporary world. Evolutionary biology and evolved human psychology persisted and we grew out of the existential need of incest and inbreeding to a human aversion to it.
Social binding evolved into groupings of individuals. As these groups evolved and became larger groupings, they split into tribes. Cultures developed. Increasingly the competition for resources came into being. The first acquisition of property was the result of theft. This first acquisition of property may or may not have been violent, but surely, when there was no way of clandestinely acquiring property, coercion ruled the day. Evil and good became cofactors to a viable life.
As man evolved, he acquired knowledge of tool making, and developed language to communicate his knowledge. He developed concepts of law and justice, as well as a means of exchange. As he became more knowledgeable, the choice of evil over good became not as necessary. In our contemporary world, for entertainment we no longer roast a cat or throw men in arenas with lions; burn witches at the stake; embrace blatant misogyny; or embrace blatant racism. However, the psychology involved in some of this evil still persist, but has evolved and taken a different form: the brutality and violence of boxing and in other sports; the incivility we accept and even idolize in our viewing of reality shows and its voyeurism; the acceptance of expressions of incivility, immorality and evil in our music, art, and theaters, and in the decisions we make in our viewing preferences, which are clearly exemplified by the electronic and print media who elicit virulent reaction to maximize viewing or readership.
Exploitation of evil came into being with man’s invention of religion. The parable of Adam and Eve is a perfect metaphoric example of how man got it wrong.
Man created the universe. The first man in our universe created that first image of that other man. Man therefore created good and evil, and so man can eliminate evil if man’s desire is to do so.
So, evil is not a problem associated with free will; nor does it exist to complement good in that evil is the balance for all that is good; nor is it necessary to have the confliction of an omnipotent God, or any other theodicy of evil. A solution cannot be mandated nor can a solution be within the purview of religion, which is in itself archaic. It is going to take the process of evolution to a higher level of consciousness, a greater evolution to complete knowledge that will eventually marginalize evil.
There may be a day, and I am hopeful that there will be that day in the very, very distant future when our evolution has taken humans to a place where evil is not part of the decisional process. A place where man will have complete knowledge, knowledge amongst other considerations that religion (all religion) was, and is, a bad idea, and the evil option will be hopefully nonexistent.
War, in anyway one might define it, is the embodiment of evil. War causes destruction, injury, pain, and suffering characterized by hate, anger, maliciousness, and injustice. All evil by anyone’s definition are cofactors of war. In war, you will find every evil known to man. It is the greatest of all evil because in spite of its inherent immorality, man, whether religious or secular, still support military action as necessary, or will use the reasoning: after all, the bible says there will always be “wars and rumors of wars.” With our allegorical myths of war, we glorify war, and instill in our children that war has a benevolent association with nationalism and patriotism, heroics and idolatry, morality, and glory.
Peace Warriors must imbue in others that evil is a primitive impulse, that there is an underlying reality, a metaconsciousness, a better way, which is beyond and transcendent to our current understanding. A consciousness that was so authentically expressed when man first met man.
Peace Warriors must create an understanding in others that everyone has a different “here and now,” and how important to each of us is the discovery that “I Am.” We are the creator of our Universe. Consciousness is not inherent in the Universe but the Universe is inherent in consciousness.
The solution to solving the hard problem of evil is embedded in a new way of thinking. Evil is a result of not having complete knowledge, and so, because of man’s limited knowledge and therefore limited options, man’s choice continues to be a choice between good and evil, at least for the time being.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
There will never be a perfect world
A prudent caveat: a perfect world will never be completely within our reach; however, we must embrace this fact and pursue a world at peace with fidelity as if a perfect world is achievable, even if it is not.
A perfect world will never be achievable because our “internal world” of a conscious, wandering mind will continually contemplate both good or evil human action. This duality of good and evil is an apodictic fact. Nature made it that way. It is an important duality: without evil how would we recognize good; and without good how would we recognize evil. For thinking to be critical and rational, the deciphering of all possibilities must be explored by the mind; it will always include evil along with moral alternatives for human action. However, it will be human action directed toward the outer world of material pursuit, which will most likely dictate an outcome of evil over good.
In paraphrasing Ludwig von Mises: Human action, if successful, attains the end sought. Human action produces the outcomes. This production of outcomes is not an act of creation; it does not bring about something that did not exist before. It is a transformation of given elements through arrangement and combination. [Thought brought to its fruition produces outcomes.] The producer is not a creator. Man is creative only in thinking and in the realm of imagination. In the world of external phenomena, he is only a transformer. All that he can accomplish is to combine the means available in such a way that according to the laws of nature the result aimed at is bound to emerge. (1)
Unfortunately, the means available include this innate duality of good and evil. From a material and object point of view, everything has a beginning and an ending; there is nothing before or after. In the materialist mindset, life has a beginning and an ending with nothing existing before, nothing existing after and that in their afterlife their sins will be forgiven, and they will have the blessing of heaven. This mindset produces a material world of money chasers: money, power, greed, the pursuit of Middle Eastern oil, a large home, and new car are what make the “world go around.” Gathering as many material goods as one can become their passion. “You only go this way once” is their mantra. Most materialist believe in tabula rasa, the unformed at birth, featureless mind in the philosophy of John Locke, a Randian objectivist view of consciousness. An empty mind at nascency is fictional. It is an existential ontic view gleaned from tacit observation of our outer world realities.
These qualities of good and evil are not existentially learned; they are there in existence before any human birth. We inherited these qualities, qualities that are “part and parcel” of our consciousness: a consciousness that has existed since the very first seeds of our existence – at the genesis of all life. In our contemporary world, our human action either is directed at moral and good endeavors, or evil endeavors, based on how our conscious mind has experienced, perceived, and interpreted the external world of material and object values.
Human action that pursues outer world material or object values will more than likely produce undesirable outcomes with no benefit to our world.
There has to be a new way of thinking, for in the world of internal phenomena (recognition of human consciousness is a phenomenon) we are also transformers of an innate, internal noumenon that has existed ever since the genesis of the human species, and in the words of Peter Russell, “the inability of science to account for the existence of consciousness suggests we need a new paradigm, or superparadigm.” (2)
In addition, Peter Russell states: “The foundation stone of the emerging superparadigm is the distinction between the phenomenon, the reality generated in the mind, and the unknowable reality, or noumenon, that underlies it. When this distinction is clear, many anomalies and apparently intractable problems across a broad spectrum of human endeavor either dissolve or take on an entirely different nature.” “I believe it will eventually lead us to a new understanding of God.” (3)
No one should assume that a new way of thinking, a superparadigm, means that we should become ascetics. We will still need to comb our hair and brush our teeth. A new way of thinking does not mean deprivation. It does not mean an abandonment of material and object values.
Material value in the form of money is important as a means of exchange for the acquisition of life’s necessities. Material values such as food, shelter, mobility, and health are important human needs.
Object value is a measure of immediate desire for an object. Object values distinguish one thing from another thing. Object value distinguishes men from women, and identifies the different stages in the processes of aging. These values give humans absolute individual forms of identity that in their entireties never duplicate: fat or skinny; tall or short; brown, black, red or blond hair; yellow, brown, white, or black skinned; eye shapes and eye color differences; different nose shapes; facial qualities that differ; and other phenotypes, and physiological differences in human physical appearance from individual to individual. These values provide identity through our language and ethnicity, as well. These variations are so subtle that we can identify another from any visual perception.
In our life’s particular dimension, material and object values are not meant to be used as targets for our bigotry or reasons for our superiority over others; they are not to define a person’s character. Material and object values benefit and provide identity in our lives.
Superparadigm thought puts into equilibrium outer world material and object values with inner world absolute values of mind and consciousness – our soul.
So, this is the crux of my position: all people of benevolent character who wish to live in a world at peace must provide leadership to attain that end. When we understand the distinct differences between phenomenon and noumenon, the distinction between the outer world of material and object reality and the subjective absolute reality of our inner world, bringing this duality into balance with an understanding that in the dimension of the absolute, we will come to an understanding that we are all equal. Human action taken within the superparadigm mindset will bring solutions to war and we will evolve into a world at peace. Our perceived material and object differences concerning nationalism, patriotism, religionism, and our differences in political view, economics, social agenda, and in civil rights, brings about the violence and incivility we inflict on each other. Religious intolerance to life, chasing money for its seemingly material benefit, and the obsession we have for material possessions (including a perceived need to control other human beings as if they are possessions) can be traced as a source of religious fanaticism, and avarice that threatens the world today. Since these are innate conditions that will always be a condition of human life choice in the taking of human action they will always exist, but within a new superparadigm they can be marginalized.
The meaning of life on earth is our evolution. In the absolute, the realities of life are the ongoing evolutionary processes that are invisible to us. Just as the seasons of each year come and go, the subtleties of their changes, those micro changes invisible to us, are not apparent until that day we experience winter, spring, summer, and fall. Moreover, each subsequent change of season is not an identical copy of the last, even though from all appearances it is the same: “one can never step into the same stream twice.”
Within the context of the superparadigm a world at peace is attainable, but a perfect world is not.
A perfect world will never be achievable because our “internal world” of a conscious, wandering mind will continually contemplate both good or evil human action. This duality of good and evil is an apodictic fact. Nature made it that way. It is an important duality: without evil how would we recognize good; and without good how would we recognize evil. For thinking to be critical and rational, the deciphering of all possibilities must be explored by the mind; it will always include evil along with moral alternatives for human action. However, it will be human action directed toward the outer world of material pursuit, which will most likely dictate an outcome of evil over good.
In paraphrasing Ludwig von Mises: Human action, if successful, attains the end sought. Human action produces the outcomes. This production of outcomes is not an act of creation; it does not bring about something that did not exist before. It is a transformation of given elements through arrangement and combination. [Thought brought to its fruition produces outcomes.] The producer is not a creator. Man is creative only in thinking and in the realm of imagination. In the world of external phenomena, he is only a transformer. All that he can accomplish is to combine the means available in such a way that according to the laws of nature the result aimed at is bound to emerge. (1)
Unfortunately, the means available include this innate duality of good and evil. From a material and object point of view, everything has a beginning and an ending; there is nothing before or after. In the materialist mindset, life has a beginning and an ending with nothing existing before, nothing existing after and that in their afterlife their sins will be forgiven, and they will have the blessing of heaven. This mindset produces a material world of money chasers: money, power, greed, the pursuit of Middle Eastern oil, a large home, and new car are what make the “world go around.” Gathering as many material goods as one can become their passion. “You only go this way once” is their mantra. Most materialist believe in tabula rasa, the unformed at birth, featureless mind in the philosophy of John Locke, a Randian objectivist view of consciousness. An empty mind at nascency is fictional. It is an existential ontic view gleaned from tacit observation of our outer world realities.
These qualities of good and evil are not existentially learned; they are there in existence before any human birth. We inherited these qualities, qualities that are “part and parcel” of our consciousness: a consciousness that has existed since the very first seeds of our existence – at the genesis of all life. In our contemporary world, our human action either is directed at moral and good endeavors, or evil endeavors, based on how our conscious mind has experienced, perceived, and interpreted the external world of material and object values.
Human action that pursues outer world material or object values will more than likely produce undesirable outcomes with no benefit to our world.
There has to be a new way of thinking, for in the world of internal phenomena (recognition of human consciousness is a phenomenon) we are also transformers of an innate, internal noumenon that has existed ever since the genesis of the human species, and in the words of Peter Russell, “the inability of science to account for the existence of consciousness suggests we need a new paradigm, or superparadigm.” (2)
In addition, Peter Russell states: “The foundation stone of the emerging superparadigm is the distinction between the phenomenon, the reality generated in the mind, and the unknowable reality, or noumenon, that underlies it. When this distinction is clear, many anomalies and apparently intractable problems across a broad spectrum of human endeavor either dissolve or take on an entirely different nature.” “I believe it will eventually lead us to a new understanding of God.” (3)
No one should assume that a new way of thinking, a superparadigm, means that we should become ascetics. We will still need to comb our hair and brush our teeth. A new way of thinking does not mean deprivation. It does not mean an abandonment of material and object values.
Material value in the form of money is important as a means of exchange for the acquisition of life’s necessities. Material values such as food, shelter, mobility, and health are important human needs.
Object value is a measure of immediate desire for an object. Object values distinguish one thing from another thing. Object value distinguishes men from women, and identifies the different stages in the processes of aging. These values give humans absolute individual forms of identity that in their entireties never duplicate: fat or skinny; tall or short; brown, black, red or blond hair; yellow, brown, white, or black skinned; eye shapes and eye color differences; different nose shapes; facial qualities that differ; and other phenotypes, and physiological differences in human physical appearance from individual to individual. These values provide identity through our language and ethnicity, as well. These variations are so subtle that we can identify another from any visual perception.
In our life’s particular dimension, material and object values are not meant to be used as targets for our bigotry or reasons for our superiority over others; they are not to define a person’s character. Material and object values benefit and provide identity in our lives.
Superparadigm thought puts into equilibrium outer world material and object values with inner world absolute values of mind and consciousness – our soul.
So, this is the crux of my position: all people of benevolent character who wish to live in a world at peace must provide leadership to attain that end. When we understand the distinct differences between phenomenon and noumenon, the distinction between the outer world of material and object reality and the subjective absolute reality of our inner world, bringing this duality into balance with an understanding that in the dimension of the absolute, we will come to an understanding that we are all equal. Human action taken within the superparadigm mindset will bring solutions to war and we will evolve into a world at peace. Our perceived material and object differences concerning nationalism, patriotism, religionism, and our differences in political view, economics, social agenda, and in civil rights, brings about the violence and incivility we inflict on each other. Religious intolerance to life, chasing money for its seemingly material benefit, and the obsession we have for material possessions (including a perceived need to control other human beings as if they are possessions) can be traced as a source of religious fanaticism, and avarice that threatens the world today. Since these are innate conditions that will always be a condition of human life choice in the taking of human action they will always exist, but within a new superparadigm they can be marginalized.
The meaning of life on earth is our evolution. In the absolute, the realities of life are the ongoing evolutionary processes that are invisible to us. Just as the seasons of each year come and go, the subtleties of their changes, those micro changes invisible to us, are not apparent until that day we experience winter, spring, summer, and fall. Moreover, each subsequent change of season is not an identical copy of the last, even though from all appearances it is the same: “one can never step into the same stream twice.”
Within the context of the superparadigm a world at peace is attainable, but a perfect world is not.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The long transitional journey to a World At Peace
“Hope is like a road in the country: there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence.” Lin Yutang
Our world’s survival depends on humans entering that road on a transitional journey to a World At Peace. As we move forward all men and women of peace must enlist others to join them in that journey.
It starts with a new way of thinking
“By Changing Your Thinking, You change your beliefs;
When you change your beliefs, you change your expectations;
When you change your expectations, you change your attitude;
When you change your attitude, you change your behavior;
When you change your behavior, you change your performance;
When you change your performance, you Change Your Life!”
Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore “I Am:” the recognition of our internal world, our consciousness.
Thinking is the dialectic thought process of reasoning, consideration, and attention leading to the intention of human action. Thinking is an evolutionary process that has the effect of creating change. Thinking, this dialectic process of thesis and antitheses, and its sublation leading to individual human action without the influence of propaganda, involves the induction of considerable facts, their analogy, as well as their perceptual deduction, which will lead to change by influencing others to the extent where there are viable and achievable outcomes.
Thinking is the being and becoming of human action, the generative process of change.
We must change our thinking to a belief where war as necessary to a belief that peace is attainable and viable; change our expectations that all conflict can be managed without violence; change so that we understand that we are in control of our attitude toward adversity; change so that we understand that our behavior is important to setting best examples and best practices; and change our thinking to an understanding that as a consequence our performance must be to provide leadership for peace: We must be a voice for peace.
Changing our thinking, and consequently our attitude toward religious ideology and avarice, which are the main causes of violence, and acting in opposition and in deterrence to their inevitable, visceral consequences, is a matter of conscience.
Trita Parsi, the author of “Treacherous Alliance,” states that as long as we treat our differences as ideological (political, cultural, and religious) rather than as solvable strategic tasks, violent or vitriolic threats of violent conflict will continue. Although Dr. Parsi is speaking of the dealings between Israel, Iran, and the United States, this statement has universal application.
For there to be a world at peace there has to be a completely new way of thinking.
Our world’s survival depends on humans entering that road on a transitional journey to a World At Peace. As we move forward all men and women of peace must enlist others to join them in that journey.
It starts with a new way of thinking
“By Changing Your Thinking, You change your beliefs;
When you change your beliefs, you change your expectations;
When you change your expectations, you change your attitude;
When you change your attitude, you change your behavior;
When you change your behavior, you change your performance;
When you change your performance, you Change Your Life!”
Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore “I Am:” the recognition of our internal world, our consciousness.
Thinking is the dialectic thought process of reasoning, consideration, and attention leading to the intention of human action. Thinking is an evolutionary process that has the effect of creating change. Thinking, this dialectic process of thesis and antitheses, and its sublation leading to individual human action without the influence of propaganda, involves the induction of considerable facts, their analogy, as well as their perceptual deduction, which will lead to change by influencing others to the extent where there are viable and achievable outcomes.
Thinking is the being and becoming of human action, the generative process of change.
We must change our thinking to a belief where war as necessary to a belief that peace is attainable and viable; change our expectations that all conflict can be managed without violence; change so that we understand that we are in control of our attitude toward adversity; change so that we understand that our behavior is important to setting best examples and best practices; and change our thinking to an understanding that as a consequence our performance must be to provide leadership for peace: We must be a voice for peace.
Changing our thinking, and consequently our attitude toward religious ideology and avarice, which are the main causes of violence, and acting in opposition and in deterrence to their inevitable, visceral consequences, is a matter of conscience.
Trita Parsi, the author of “Treacherous Alliance,” states that as long as we treat our differences as ideological (political, cultural, and religious) rather than as solvable strategic tasks, violent or vitriolic threats of violent conflict will continue. Although Dr. Parsi is speaking of the dealings between Israel, Iran, and the United States, this statement has universal application.
For there to be a world at peace there has to be a completely new way of thinking.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Are You a Proud American?
On vacation, I attended a concert during which one of the performances was “God Bless the USA,” a short stanza patriotic song that is lacking of any profound message. One of the repetitive lyrics is “And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.” Everyone in the audience exuberantly sang along. They sang along and flagged their hands above their heads in collective exuberance as if they were truly proud to be an American, and not just caught up in the moment.
As the performers and audience sang, a melancholy came over me. I was saddened that here we were enjoying a beautiful summer evening while so much misery was imposed on so many American families, because of the war in Iraq. My thoughts included Matthew Bean, a Pembroke man recently killed in Iraq, and Christian Golczynski, the son of Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski who, also, was recently killed in Iraq. I remembered the image of Christian and the pain he was enduring during his father’s funeral. And, I thought of all the needless deaths that are a result of the Iraq War, and of our governments ambivalence and dereliction. That our government has been deceitful. That it is willing to kill Americans and others based on deceit. That it has desired, and has gotten away with operating in secrecy. That we have destroyed the respect that other nations once had for America. That we have a government that has fascist tendencies and is knowingly destroying our constitutional freedoms, and sadly, Americans do not seem to have any recognition of what is happening. Deceit and secrecy have become an intrinsic part of our government.
My melancholy was a result of my recognition that I am not proud to be an American. I don’t know who, if they are honest with themelves, can be. The people we have elected to political office have let us down. They have failed America miserably.
The America of my childhood was conceived by Americans and the World as an exemplary country offering opportunity, freedom, justice, equality, and a democracy given to trust and transparency. It was viewed as country imbued with human values.
Without elucidation, for there are numerous, documentary evidences, that America has failed at maintaining these values:
Opportunity
America has failed at providing opportunities in education, affordable housing and healthcare, because we have not provided opportunities for many to earn a living wage. The gap between low, medium, and high income is exponentially increasing year after year.
In the words of Jimmy Carter: “Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favours to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialised nations) [$5.85 an hour as of July 24, 2007].” (1)
When America through their very overt action attempt to marginalize the poor, those who have an infirmity, or those who may not have had the “luck of the draw,” America is denying those Americans the same opportunities from which the rest of us benefit. A good example is New Orleans and the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, exposing Americas disregard for the indigent.
Freedom
Our freedoms have been seriously compromised because of the Patriot Act.
As Naomi Wolf has stated, “After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it [what an excuse, since when does anyone validate anything without thorough understanding]. We were told we were now on a ‘war footing’; we were in a ‘global war’ against a ‘global caliphate’ intending to ‘wipe out civilisation’. There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. ‘This time,’ Fein says, ‘there will be no defined end.’” (2)
Hate and fear have been the postulation of our government. It has instilled in Americans that if you criticize America you are not a patriot – you are un-American. This is denying freedom of speech to many of us who are critical of America. For many are afraid to speak out because of the fear of retaliation.
Justice
Justice -- defined as the quality or state of being just and unbiased; the state, action, or principle of treating all persons equally in accordance with the law – has been seriously impaired in America. Justice viewed as punishment rather than rehabilitation. What we need to do is to change behaviors.
“… imprisonment rates have continued to rise while crime rates have fallen because we have become progressively more punitive: not because crime has continued to explode (it hasn’t), not because we made a smart policy choice, but because we have made a collective decision to increase the rate of punishment.” (3)
Because of America’s view of Justice as punishment, and that those accused of a crime should be denied their civil liberties, the abrogation of the civil liberties of Jose Padilla occurred, and America supported the use of torture to gain confessions. (4)
America has embraced interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.
America has not been in conformity with international law.
Our government has violated the Constitution of the United States of America.
Equality
Without reason, Americans today view themselves today as I did in the America of my childhood. They accept America’s leadership repetitive claims that we still have and hold these values. They, with this vision, have an arrogant attitude in their relationship to the world. A very unacceptable hubris exists. The reality is that America does not comply with this view. America has not given critical thought to the views they hold. America no longer provides the leadership that it at one time provided through its example. Americans have not recognized that fact. “We Americans are better than they are,” is the view.
With all the rhetoric Americans give to embracing diversity, the fact is that Americans do not embrace diversity. Americans do not consider themselves equal to others. ”Diverse communities … show dysfunction,” says Robert Putnam, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University. (5) This dysfunction is due to our underlying prejudices.
Americas debate over legal as well as illegal immigration -- albeit the issues involved do have merit for action. However, for most Americans the issue is inflamed, not based on the merit of the issues, but our oppositions are based on our prejudices.
Trust and transparency
Our democracy has not given to trust and transparency in American governance. There are many examples of American governance acting in secrecy, but none as blatant as in the Bush White House:
“John Dean, the former White House counsel who blew the whistle on Watergate nearly 30 years ago, told a Los Angeles audience that the Bush administration's obsession with secrecy and executive privilege has "turned back the clock to before Watergate" -- to before, that is, Nixon's crimes forced a national reckoning and led to a string of laws designed to prevent presidents from keeping too many secrets. It was then that the republic relearned an old lesson: The institutions built up to guard a secret can do more damage than openness could ever have done.” (6)
“This has been the drift of our politics for some 20 years. In a profound failure of the civic imagination, we now behave in a way that our founders never intended us to: When it comes to the actions of our government, we have surrendered to trust.” (6)
Bush signed an executive order that denied the public access to documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, which limits access to all public records from living presidents, as well to other documents..
Until its recent exposition, Patriot Act I and II were clothed in secrecy, and although there have been some revelations, they are primarily opaque programs.
The New York Times says, “Congress accidentally gave President George Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures when it passed a wiretapping bill earlier this month. Democrats are embarrassed they voted without understanding language that would allow—among other things—some physical searches, and the collection of business records, without a court order.” (7)
"The Bush administration is arguing that: a) It's no big deal, since they'll try to minimize the amount of spying on average Americans; and b) Who cares? Under the DoJ interpretation of the Constitution, the law ‘is just advisory. The President can still do whatever he wants to do.’ "(7)
George Orwell’s 1984 is alive and well, and its premise seems to be acceptable to America.
“Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it’s inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one’s own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.” (8)
In order to turn this country around to the America of my childhood, every American must be a leader. Every American must think critically and “Walk the Talk.” We cannot depend on those who we vote into political office to provide leadership in exemplifying opportunity, freedom, justice, equality, and a democracy given to trust and transparency. We must lead those who we have empowered with America’s leadership. It is every American’s responsibility to let America’s leadership know “where it’s at.”
(1) Jimmy Carter. This is Not the Country that I Once Knew November 20, 2005.
Former President Jimmy Carter believes that a warring America is abandoning its fundamental values.
(2) Naomi Wolf. Fascist America, in 10 easy steps Tuesday April 24, 2007.
The Guardian
(3) Glenn C. Loury. Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? Boston Review. Race and the transformation of criminal justice.
(4) The Rights of Jose Padilla NPR “Here and Now.” Story aired Monday, June 30, 2003
(5) Robert Putnam, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University. Diversity and Community NPR “On Point.” Aired: Thursday, August 09, 2007
(6) Rick Perlstein. A Surrender to Trust July/August 2002. Mother Jones. Commentary: Richard Nixon taught the nation a painful lesson about secrecy and the White House. How soon we forget.
(7) Barron YoungSmith. I Tapped That Slate Magazine. Posted Sunday, Aug. 19, 2007.
(8) HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS. Big Government Solutions Don't Work/ The Law of Opposites September 7, 2006. Before the U.S. House of Representatives
On vacation, I attended a concert during which one of the performances was “God Bless the USA,” a short stanza patriotic song that is lacking of any profound message. One of the repetitive lyrics is “And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.” Everyone in the audience exuberantly sang along. They sang along and flagged their hands above their heads in collective exuberance as if they were truly proud to be an American, and not just caught up in the moment.
As the performers and audience sang, a melancholy came over me. I was saddened that here we were enjoying a beautiful summer evening while so much misery was imposed on so many American families, because of the war in Iraq. My thoughts included Matthew Bean, a Pembroke man recently killed in Iraq, and Christian Golczynski, the son of Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski who, also, was recently killed in Iraq. I remembered the image of Christian and the pain he was enduring during his father’s funeral. And, I thought of all the needless deaths that are a result of the Iraq War, and of our governments ambivalence and dereliction. That our government has been deceitful. That it is willing to kill Americans and others based on deceit. That it has desired, and has gotten away with operating in secrecy. That we have destroyed the respect that other nations once had for America. That we have a government that has fascist tendencies and is knowingly destroying our constitutional freedoms, and sadly, Americans do not seem to have any recognition of what is happening. Deceit and secrecy have become an intrinsic part of our government.
My melancholy was a result of my recognition that I am not proud to be an American. I don’t know who, if they are honest with themelves, can be. The people we have elected to political office have let us down. They have failed America miserably.
The America of my childhood was conceived by Americans and the World as an exemplary country offering opportunity, freedom, justice, equality, and a democracy given to trust and transparency. It was viewed as country imbued with human values.
Without elucidation, for there are numerous, documentary evidences, that America has failed at maintaining these values:
Opportunity
America has failed at providing opportunities in education, affordable housing and healthcare, because we have not provided opportunities for many to earn a living wage. The gap between low, medium, and high income is exponentially increasing year after year.
In the words of Jimmy Carter: “Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favours to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialised nations) [$5.85 an hour as of July 24, 2007].” (1)
When America through their very overt action attempt to marginalize the poor, those who have an infirmity, or those who may not have had the “luck of the draw,” America is denying those Americans the same opportunities from which the rest of us benefit. A good example is New Orleans and the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, exposing Americas disregard for the indigent.
Freedom
Our freedoms have been seriously compromised because of the Patriot Act.
As Naomi Wolf has stated, “After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it [what an excuse, since when does anyone validate anything without thorough understanding]. We were told we were now on a ‘war footing’; we were in a ‘global war’ against a ‘global caliphate’ intending to ‘wipe out civilisation’. There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. ‘This time,’ Fein says, ‘there will be no defined end.’” (2)
Hate and fear have been the postulation of our government. It has instilled in Americans that if you criticize America you are not a patriot – you are un-American. This is denying freedom of speech to many of us who are critical of America. For many are afraid to speak out because of the fear of retaliation.
Justice
Justice -- defined as the quality or state of being just and unbiased; the state, action, or principle of treating all persons equally in accordance with the law – has been seriously impaired in America. Justice viewed as punishment rather than rehabilitation. What we need to do is to change behaviors.
“… imprisonment rates have continued to rise while crime rates have fallen because we have become progressively more punitive: not because crime has continued to explode (it hasn’t), not because we made a smart policy choice, but because we have made a collective decision to increase the rate of punishment.” (3)
Because of America’s view of Justice as punishment, and that those accused of a crime should be denied their civil liberties, the abrogation of the civil liberties of Jose Padilla occurred, and America supported the use of torture to gain confessions. (4)
America has embraced interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.
America has not been in conformity with international law.
Our government has violated the Constitution of the United States of America.
Equality
Without reason, Americans today view themselves today as I did in the America of my childhood. They accept America’s leadership repetitive claims that we still have and hold these values. They, with this vision, have an arrogant attitude in their relationship to the world. A very unacceptable hubris exists. The reality is that America does not comply with this view. America has not given critical thought to the views they hold. America no longer provides the leadership that it at one time provided through its example. Americans have not recognized that fact. “We Americans are better than they are,” is the view.
With all the rhetoric Americans give to embracing diversity, the fact is that Americans do not embrace diversity. Americans do not consider themselves equal to others. ”Diverse communities … show dysfunction,” says Robert Putnam, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University. (5) This dysfunction is due to our underlying prejudices.
Americas debate over legal as well as illegal immigration -- albeit the issues involved do have merit for action. However, for most Americans the issue is inflamed, not based on the merit of the issues, but our oppositions are based on our prejudices.
Trust and transparency
Our democracy has not given to trust and transparency in American governance. There are many examples of American governance acting in secrecy, but none as blatant as in the Bush White House:
“John Dean, the former White House counsel who blew the whistle on Watergate nearly 30 years ago, told a Los Angeles audience that the Bush administration's obsession with secrecy and executive privilege has "turned back the clock to before Watergate" -- to before, that is, Nixon's crimes forced a national reckoning and led to a string of laws designed to prevent presidents from keeping too many secrets. It was then that the republic relearned an old lesson: The institutions built up to guard a secret can do more damage than openness could ever have done.” (6)
“This has been the drift of our politics for some 20 years. In a profound failure of the civic imagination, we now behave in a way that our founders never intended us to: When it comes to the actions of our government, we have surrendered to trust.” (6)
Bush signed an executive order that denied the public access to documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, which limits access to all public records from living presidents, as well to other documents..
Until its recent exposition, Patriot Act I and II were clothed in secrecy, and although there have been some revelations, they are primarily opaque programs.
The New York Times says, “Congress accidentally gave President George Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures when it passed a wiretapping bill earlier this month. Democrats are embarrassed they voted without understanding language that would allow—among other things—some physical searches, and the collection of business records, without a court order.” (7)
"The Bush administration is arguing that: a) It's no big deal, since they'll try to minimize the amount of spying on average Americans; and b) Who cares? Under the DoJ interpretation of the Constitution, the law ‘is just advisory. The President can still do whatever he wants to do.’ "(7)
George Orwell’s 1984 is alive and well, and its premise seems to be acceptable to America.
“Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it’s inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one’s own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.” (8)
In order to turn this country around to the America of my childhood, every American must be a leader. Every American must think critically and “Walk the Talk.” We cannot depend on those who we vote into political office to provide leadership in exemplifying opportunity, freedom, justice, equality, and a democracy given to trust and transparency. We must lead those who we have empowered with America’s leadership. It is every American’s responsibility to let America’s leadership know “where it’s at.”
(1) Jimmy Carter. This is Not the Country that I Once Knew November 20, 2005.
Former President Jimmy Carter believes that a warring America is abandoning its fundamental values.
(2) Naomi Wolf. Fascist America, in 10 easy steps Tuesday April 24, 2007.
The Guardian
(3) Glenn C. Loury. Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? Boston Review. Race and the transformation of criminal justice.
(4) The Rights of Jose Padilla NPR “Here and Now.” Story aired Monday, June 30, 2003
(5) Robert Putnam, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University. Diversity and Community NPR “On Point.” Aired: Thursday, August 09, 2007
(6) Rick Perlstein. A Surrender to Trust July/August 2002. Mother Jones. Commentary: Richard Nixon taught the nation a painful lesson about secrecy and the White House. How soon we forget.
(7) Barron YoungSmith. I Tapped That Slate Magazine. Posted Sunday, Aug. 19, 2007.
(8) HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS. Big Government Solutions Don't Work/ The Law of Opposites September 7, 2006. Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Marine found guilty in the death of Iraq civilian
All Americans, along with Hutchins and his squad, are collectively responsible for this murder, as well. Those who are naïve and ignorant of what war foments, those who blindly support war without understanding that, as stated by Chris Hedges, "organized killing is done best by a disciplined, professional army"; But that "war also empowers those with a predilection for murder." Americans apparently do not understand that "Kill, kill, kill" is the mantra of a combat soldier, any combat soldier, not just an American, it's what they are trained to do. This, the American people have naively supported and continue to support, and only object when we are not winning.
The woman who made this statement is one of those naïve and ignorant Americans who don't understand the reality of war: "'No one who knew him believed he could ever do the things they said he did,' said Mary Hale, a neighbor who has known Hutchins since he was a small boy. 'You just can't picture it. It's just impossible for us to believe.'"
War is intoxication, a drug, it affects every combat soldier; it is a potent and lethal addiction. War destroys lives, it as simple as that.
I feel badly that every American, with the most responsible American being George W. Bush, and I, have put Sergeant Hutchins, his family and friends, in this position, not that overwhelming responsibility does not belong to Sergeant Hutchins.
Support our troops -- bring them home!
Ray
For the complete article: Marine found guilty in death of Iraq civilian
The woman who made this statement is one of those naïve and ignorant Americans who don't understand the reality of war: "'No one who knew him believed he could ever do the things they said he did,' said Mary Hale, a neighbor who has known Hutchins since he was a small boy. 'You just can't picture it. It's just impossible for us to believe.'"
War is intoxication, a drug, it affects every combat soldier; it is a potent and lethal addiction. War destroys lives, it as simple as that.
I feel badly that every American, with the most responsible American being George W. Bush, and I, have put Sergeant Hutchins, his family and friends, in this position, not that overwhelming responsibility does not belong to Sergeant Hutchins.
Support our troops -- bring them home!
Ray
For the complete article: Marine found guilty in death of Iraq civilian
Thursday, August 2, 2007
I support Dr. Paul for President.
His views, from my point of view, are not arguable.
If he should become the republican presidential candidate, I will vote for him, no question about it.
“Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it’s inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one’s own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.” Congressional representative, Dr. Ron Paul
Take the time to read, “Big Government Solutions Don’t Work/The Law of Opposites.”
His views, from my point of view, are not arguable.
If he should become the republican presidential candidate, I will vote for him, no question about it.
“Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it’s inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one’s own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.” Congressional representative, Dr. Ron Paul
Take the time to read, “Big Government Solutions Don’t Work/The Law of Opposites.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)