I have never had a bad day. This sounds like an incredible statement but it is true just the same. When I say this to people I am greeted with looks of mild puzzlement, some initial skepticism, but in all the forward-leaning probity that asks the silent question that begs an answer; How is that so? "But, I have had a bad attitude," I tell them, "and rarely did it last but a single day." Smiles and nods greet this amendment as my auditors reflect upon this undeniable truth. Oh, yes; I could carry a grudge for weeks, months, years! And just how did this affect the people I resented? Not at all. It was like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. And it was, in most instances, nothing they did to spark this bad feeling but my perception of what they said or did. My spirit was in bondage; I lived in Hell and was wracked by constant fear; I jealously guarded my possessions, or more accurately, what I thought were mine, including people. But all that has changed, though I'm still working on it. I learned that trying to change my circumstances is an occasional pastime but changing myself is a full time job, one that is immensely rewarding and deeply satisfying. I was once invited to address a high school class. The teacher, a friend with whom I had been sharing these ideas, was probably as surprised as was the rest of the class when I told them I was on a recruiting mission. "Let's see a show of hands. How many of you would like to be slaves?" Silence. No hands went up. "The choice is yours," I told them, as I then had their full attention. "You can either be the masters of your own lives or slaves to the whims and wishes of others." The key, of course, is knowledge. Gathering knowledge is a three step process; information, investigation, and confirmation. Information by itself is prone to the machinations of devious persons who would create false impressions to advance evil agendas. A current example of this is Dick Cheney's assertion that Iran is developing weapons grade uranium. This is patently false, as investigations by responsible authorities have found no such evidence. More than one agency conducted these searches, thus the confirmation that Cheney's claim is a lie designed to influence public opinion in favor of war with Iran. It's the same tactic that was used to "justify" America's criminal invasion of Iraq; then it was "weapons of mass destruction" and when that proved a lie it was portable bioweapons labs, and when that proved a lie it was something else.
Lies, lies, lies.
But far and away it's the Bible that is the fertile field of most misleading information.In Exodus we are told that pharoah "knew not Joseph", the man who warned the Egyptians of the impending famine and supervised the gathering of grain during the seven years of plenty. Nasty ol' pharaoh! What an ingrate! That's what you're supposed to think. After what Joseph did for them it's outrageous that the Egyptians should appoint task masters over the poor Jews and put them to work. But that's only what the Fundamentalist religous jackals want you to think. The truth is a bit less noble. As the relevant article on the website http://timeoftheend-faithandreason.net shows, complete with accounts from academic history, Joseph entered Egypt sometime around 1944BC after being abducted by his jealous brothers and sold into slavery. He seems to have been a gifted man, as he became overseer of Potiphar's lands until discredited by the land owner's wife. Later, when in prison he achieve the stautus of trustee. While there Joseph accurately interpeted the dreams of the baker and the butler, and it was this latter, to years later, who recommended Joseph to pharaoh as one who could interpret the king's dream of the seven kines and seven ears. Joseph was summoned to the palace, related his vision to pharaoh and was appointed to see to the stocking of the storehouses: Joseph became the most powerful man in Egypt after pharaoh. It was in the second year of the famine, about 1920BC, that Pharaoh Senwosre II bid Joseph to invite Jacob and the people to take up residence in Egypt, as the journey to Canaan with the wagonloads of grain were too taxing on the kingdom's resources. The Children of Israel migrated into Egypt that same year and settled in the land of Goshen, on the Plain of Ra (Ra'meses), in the Nile delta just to the northeast of Memphis. They multiplied to such numbers that they far outnumbered the Egyptians in the area. This went on for 220 years, until 1700BC. In the year 1700BC Egypt was attacked and most of it conquered by Canaanites under the leadership of the hyksos, "shepherd kings." They took Memphis without any resistance, set up a base in the nome (city state) Sethro and overran all but the southernmost parts of Egypt. By some odd coincidence Egypt was invaded by people from the same land from whence came the Jews two-hundred twenty-two years earlier: Canaan. Six pharaohs were actually Canaanite kings who ruled until expelled from Egypt by the brothers Ahmose and Khamose between 1575 - 1555BC. This is all covered in the book, Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Sir Alan Gardiner, Oxford Press 1962. Were the Jews who migrated into Egypt during Joseph's time engaging in "fifth column" activity, paving the way for their fellow countrymen to conquer the land that had saved them? Sure look that way. Looked that way to Amenhotpe I, successor to Pharaoh Ahmose (1555-1550BC), and it is he who decreed that taskmasters be appointed over the Isrealites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians feared that the Israelites, numbering so many, could ally themselves with an enemy force. It appears they already had. Amenhotpe was no fool: he just checked the history and saw the truth.As regards Exodus, there is a totally false impression of what this migration out of Egypt was in fact. Not the happy journey of an oppressed people liberated from slavery, but cowed and superstitious idolators who were ordered removed from the Land of the Nile by an authority superior to the Jehovah (a title, not a proper name),Yaweh. who was saddled with the task: one that he clearly didn't relish. For his part Yaweh punished or killed the "stiff necked" people for the slightest infractions of the laws he made up along the way; a man stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath; the extermination of 250,000 Levites under the leadership of Korah, Kohath, Dathan, Abiram, and On, the chief princes of Levi, when they revolted in Numbers, Chapter Nine; and many other abominations that the curious reader may satify him/herself about by reading what's there (as opposed to swallowing whole what someone with a vested interest in deception tells you is there.) There are such people.
A Biblical website on the net tells of Yaweh's commission to Moses: to go to pharaoh and secure the rlease of the people. "Let my people go." Remember? Well, this particular website describes the meeting in this way; "The Lord said...I will go with you." The ellipsis indicates that something has been left out of the original text. The missing part is where the Jehovah's anger waxed hot: it seems Moses didn't want the job and had to be coerced into taking it. Several times in Exodus, beginning when the Children looked out and saw paharaoh leading the hosts of Egypt against them, they told Moses that they didn't want to leave Egypt. This is well documented, complete with Biblical references in the chapter entitled The Chosen Captives, in the book, The Time of the End, on the website of the same name. Have your Bible handy to check the facts.
So what will you be, master or slave? No one can make that decision for you. Are you happy sitting there in front of the glowing screen, an electroninc dumpster where the disasters and tragedies of the world are compacted for your viewing enjoyment? Weapons of mass destruction, anyone? How about Osama ben Laden; think they'll ever catch the rascal? Oh, by the way, ben Laden died in December of 2002. Do you believe the "official" version of 9/11? It was an inside job, you know - a Reichstag Fire used to justify the War on Terror. But don't take my word for it. Don't take anybody's word for anything: demand proof! When the White House issues a statement demand to know who said it. The building doesn't talk. When sources at the Pentagon issue statements trying to whitewash the disastrous defeat the US is experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan, demand to know who is making such statements. Buildings don't talk. When something is "alleged" demand to know who is doing the alleging. When "sources" are quoted demand to know who these sources are.
The stakes are too high to settle for less.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Building Spirituality - Part Two
For several weeks I have been engaged in a debate with an Evangelical pastor over the true meaning of the Bible. He is familiar with my position, as detailed on the website http://timeoftheend-faithandreason.net but has difficulty accepting it. This man is of the mindset that I have often called attention to as being the result of nearly seventeen centuries of brainwashing and indoctrination, beginning with the Roman Church and spreading to its many Protestant spin-offs. Here is a rundown of the differences between our beliefs;
I believe that God is All Things Everywhere, the Spirit of the Universe; he believes that God is not present everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. When asked how [God]makes these determinations, my friend replies, "Only God knows."
I believe that the Mind of God is Natural Law; precise, all-encompassing, logical, and immutable; my pastor friend believes that [God], a person "up there" somewhere ( though he can't say exactly where, picks and chooses among his creatures those to whom [he] will bestow favors or inflict punishments. When asked why his [God] behaves so capriciously, the answer is always the same: "Only God knows."
As I believe that the Mind of God is Natural Law, then God's reign in the Universe is passive. And as physics tells us that energy is all there is, so must this universal energy be the actual power of God. Being passive it has no volition but responds to prevailing conditions as they evolve through time, and it is purely rational. Because the universe works so well, has forever in the past, and shall remain so forever into the future, we must accept that the Mind of God is biased toward the good. But as there are an infinite variety of behaviors acvailable to mankind, and as these are generally divided between constructive and destructive ends, the power of choice authorizes the much touted "free will" that God gave man.
An old Spanish proverb states: "God says, 'Take what you want, and pay for it'". Depending upon the choices one makes these payments are either in the form of premiums or penalties.
My friend, on the other hand, believes that [God] makes deliberate decisions based upon how [he] feels about a particular matter. In this context [God] causes people to suffer for not following [his] plan, a plan which is for the most part not very clear. This [God] brings trials and tribulations into peoples' lives so that they will turn to [him]; when asked why this [God] allows wars to happen in which innocent people die, my pastor friend says, "God has his reasons." When pressed for an explanation as to what these reasons could be, his reply is, "Only God knows."
Another sticking point in the good pastor's only-God-knows theology is the supposed sacrifice of [his] only begotten son, Jesus, who "died for my sins." This idea conflicts with scripture on several counts, the main one being what the self-same Master said about the Father. "What father, if his son asked for bread would give him a stone; if asked for a fish would give him a serpent? If man, who is evil, would not do these things, how can you believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do the like?" It seems that this man's "father" sent his only beloved son to die in a most grisley fashion in a transaction that baffles a rational mind. But "God has his reasons." We might ask, What human father would not lay down his own life to save his children? In religions that call for sacrifices it's always someone else who is sacrificed, not the priests or elders who call for these levies.
My belief in the Spirit of the Universe, that it is All Things and in all things, provides that we are all cells in the universal body of God: Children of God. But my pastor friend says that Jesus is the son of [God] and at one point said that Jesus IS God! When asked, Where does that leave the rest of us? he has no answer, except to tell me that I am wrong to ask such questions. His position on this and other issues smacks of an exclusiveness, a "holier than thou" position that brooks no question, coupled with a form of "divine" censorship that bars any investigation.
When asked why he subscribes to such convoluted, contradictory beliefs, this man says it is because his faith is strong. Blind but strong. The weaknesses in this "strong" faith are glaring but he ignores them and simply tells me, "You're wrong." As if saying so makes it so.
The pastor has been visiting my website and read a chapter from one of my books, The Mind of God, and produced a set of counter arguments based on scripture. The specifics are not worth the time and effort to detail here, but the tract he produced contained a liberal dose terms such as; "obviously", "probably", and "perhaps". Taking the last item first, perhaps is another way of saying maybe; hardly definitive in any sense of the word. When asked about statements that contain the word "obviously"; Obvious to whom?, there is no reply except that "it's just obvious." "Probably" is another, much bigger can of worms that my friend seems to have trouble grasping.
Probability is a very special term, one not to be used carelessly, as it cannot stand alone in any logical sense. To say that something will probably happen is to form a conclusion based on factors leading directly to that conclusion: trends, in other words. I drive an automobile. My probablilty of having an accident is very low because; I observe the speed limits, am fully aware of my surroundings, slow down in school zones, and in general "let the other guy have it." I'm never in a hurry, believing it's better to be late than to not get somewhere at all. Now, if I talked on a cell phone while driving, or diverted my attention to scanning for a radio station, lit a cigarette, or tried to read a newspaper, the probabiity that I would have an accident (?) would increase sharply. I'm one of those who believe that most "accidents" are deliberate acts of commission or omission, risks that careless motorists take that practically invite disaster. My pastor friend's "probabilities", on the other hand, are just pulled from the air with no precedent, prologue, or trend. In fact, he has very little to say that is definite, except, "You're wrong."
Perhaps? Probably? Obviously? Take your pick. But I'm happy, loved and respected by decent people, have dear friends such as never before, am in perfect health, and haven't a care in the world. This may be because; I drive carefully, don't smoke in bed, don't look viscious dogs in the eye, look both ways before crossing a street, have a rear-view mirror on my bicycle (on which I ride over 3,000 miles a year), don't meddle in other peoples' business, don't complain or criticize, accept things as they are, and in general maintain a pleasing attitude that people respond to in loving ways. My cup truly runs over and I know why: I do my part and the Spirit of the Universe has no quarrel with me as I live according to the law. Most of the time. Being in this human condition provides that I make the occasional poor judgement, but even in this I am protected from the dire consequences of these miscues. Life is a classroom, exprience is the best teacher, and mistakes are pointers showing me the things I need to work on.
It's up to each individual to decide what he or she will accept in terms of spiritual demonstration. Shall it bea smoke-and-mirrors "faith" that contradicts itself at almost every turn; that tries to impose its fantastic beliefs on others; who quote the Bible in one context and when challenged claim that there are many interpretations of the book, and the one they follow is the right one. How can they be so sure? It's right because they say so. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because a loudmouth coward said so. But it turned out to be a lie, and a million people died, were maimed for life, became refugees, or suffered deprivations that no human beings shoould ever be subject to. Mother Church had "heretics", the neo conservatives (Nazis) have "terrorists", both inventions of fear mongerisng hypocrites to subjugate the decent people of the world. Whether they be men who wear dresses and like young boys, or expensive suits and love power, they are no better than animals; secretive, predatory, callous, and corrupt beyond measure. One blames the Devil, the other blames anyone that's handy, for the things that go wrong.
As an alternative, contemplate the Spirit of the Universe who provides the light and air, the sun, moon, and stars; who is good, true, beautiful, peaceful, orderly, and harmonious; whose divine wisdom is found in Natural Law, a law biased toward the good. Look in a mirror and see what you find; a true child of God or a lowly worm in the dust? Where are you and how did you get there? If you are like so many people we hear about, chances are you're troubled over some non-issue that looms large in your life. Do you feel kinship with the rest of your brothers and sisters or are you isolated and alone? If this is your lot in life, as yourself how you came to be so. Isn't it because from earliest childhood you were indoctrinated into some religious belief and/or political doctrine? Did you go to church? Did you vote in elections? Did it make any difference?
Wake up, fools! The human race has suffered long enough from the power plays and mind games of religion and the greed and incompetence of politics. Both seek to divide us into manageable denominations and political ideaologies which history should have shown by now don't work. In closing let us consider the Seven Deadly Sins according to Mohandas Ghandi;
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Business without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle
I believe that God is All Things Everywhere, the Spirit of the Universe; he believes that God is not present everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. When asked how [God]makes these determinations, my friend replies, "Only God knows."
I believe that the Mind of God is Natural Law; precise, all-encompassing, logical, and immutable; my pastor friend believes that [God], a person "up there" somewhere ( though he can't say exactly where, picks and chooses among his creatures those to whom [he] will bestow favors or inflict punishments. When asked why his [God] behaves so capriciously, the answer is always the same: "Only God knows."
As I believe that the Mind of God is Natural Law, then God's reign in the Universe is passive. And as physics tells us that energy is all there is, so must this universal energy be the actual power of God. Being passive it has no volition but responds to prevailing conditions as they evolve through time, and it is purely rational. Because the universe works so well, has forever in the past, and shall remain so forever into the future, we must accept that the Mind of God is biased toward the good. But as there are an infinite variety of behaviors acvailable to mankind, and as these are generally divided between constructive and destructive ends, the power of choice authorizes the much touted "free will" that God gave man.
An old Spanish proverb states: "God says, 'Take what you want, and pay for it'". Depending upon the choices one makes these payments are either in the form of premiums or penalties.
My friend, on the other hand, believes that [God] makes deliberate decisions based upon how [he] feels about a particular matter. In this context [God] causes people to suffer for not following [his] plan, a plan which is for the most part not very clear. This [God] brings trials and tribulations into peoples' lives so that they will turn to [him]; when asked why this [God] allows wars to happen in which innocent people die, my pastor friend says, "God has his reasons." When pressed for an explanation as to what these reasons could be, his reply is, "Only God knows."
Another sticking point in the good pastor's only-God-knows theology is the supposed sacrifice of [his] only begotten son, Jesus, who "died for my sins." This idea conflicts with scripture on several counts, the main one being what the self-same Master said about the Father. "What father, if his son asked for bread would give him a stone; if asked for a fish would give him a serpent? If man, who is evil, would not do these things, how can you believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do the like?" It seems that this man's "father" sent his only beloved son to die in a most grisley fashion in a transaction that baffles a rational mind. But "God has his reasons." We might ask, What human father would not lay down his own life to save his children? In religions that call for sacrifices it's always someone else who is sacrificed, not the priests or elders who call for these levies.
My belief in the Spirit of the Universe, that it is All Things and in all things, provides that we are all cells in the universal body of God: Children of God. But my pastor friend says that Jesus is the son of [God] and at one point said that Jesus IS God! When asked, Where does that leave the rest of us? he has no answer, except to tell me that I am wrong to ask such questions. His position on this and other issues smacks of an exclusiveness, a "holier than thou" position that brooks no question, coupled with a form of "divine" censorship that bars any investigation.
When asked why he subscribes to such convoluted, contradictory beliefs, this man says it is because his faith is strong. Blind but strong. The weaknesses in this "strong" faith are glaring but he ignores them and simply tells me, "You're wrong." As if saying so makes it so.
The pastor has been visiting my website and read a chapter from one of my books, The Mind of God, and produced a set of counter arguments based on scripture. The specifics are not worth the time and effort to detail here, but the tract he produced contained a liberal dose terms such as; "obviously", "probably", and "perhaps". Taking the last item first, perhaps is another way of saying maybe; hardly definitive in any sense of the word. When asked about statements that contain the word "obviously"; Obvious to whom?, there is no reply except that "it's just obvious." "Probably" is another, much bigger can of worms that my friend seems to have trouble grasping.
Probability is a very special term, one not to be used carelessly, as it cannot stand alone in any logical sense. To say that something will probably happen is to form a conclusion based on factors leading directly to that conclusion: trends, in other words. I drive an automobile. My probablilty of having an accident is very low because; I observe the speed limits, am fully aware of my surroundings, slow down in school zones, and in general "let the other guy have it." I'm never in a hurry, believing it's better to be late than to not get somewhere at all. Now, if I talked on a cell phone while driving, or diverted my attention to scanning for a radio station, lit a cigarette, or tried to read a newspaper, the probabiity that I would have an accident (?) would increase sharply. I'm one of those who believe that most "accidents" are deliberate acts of commission or omission, risks that careless motorists take that practically invite disaster. My pastor friend's "probabilities", on the other hand, are just pulled from the air with no precedent, prologue, or trend. In fact, he has very little to say that is definite, except, "You're wrong."
Perhaps? Probably? Obviously? Take your pick. But I'm happy, loved and respected by decent people, have dear friends such as never before, am in perfect health, and haven't a care in the world. This may be because; I drive carefully, don't smoke in bed, don't look viscious dogs in the eye, look both ways before crossing a street, have a rear-view mirror on my bicycle (on which I ride over 3,000 miles a year), don't meddle in other peoples' business, don't complain or criticize, accept things as they are, and in general maintain a pleasing attitude that people respond to in loving ways. My cup truly runs over and I know why: I do my part and the Spirit of the Universe has no quarrel with me as I live according to the law. Most of the time. Being in this human condition provides that I make the occasional poor judgement, but even in this I am protected from the dire consequences of these miscues. Life is a classroom, exprience is the best teacher, and mistakes are pointers showing me the things I need to work on.
It's up to each individual to decide what he or she will accept in terms of spiritual demonstration. Shall it bea smoke-and-mirrors "faith" that contradicts itself at almost every turn; that tries to impose its fantastic beliefs on others; who quote the Bible in one context and when challenged claim that there are many interpretations of the book, and the one they follow is the right one. How can they be so sure? It's right because they say so. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because a loudmouth coward said so. But it turned out to be a lie, and a million people died, were maimed for life, became refugees, or suffered deprivations that no human beings shoould ever be subject to. Mother Church had "heretics", the neo conservatives (Nazis) have "terrorists", both inventions of fear mongerisng hypocrites to subjugate the decent people of the world. Whether they be men who wear dresses and like young boys, or expensive suits and love power, they are no better than animals; secretive, predatory, callous, and corrupt beyond measure. One blames the Devil, the other blames anyone that's handy, for the things that go wrong.
As an alternative, contemplate the Spirit of the Universe who provides the light and air, the sun, moon, and stars; who is good, true, beautiful, peaceful, orderly, and harmonious; whose divine wisdom is found in Natural Law, a law biased toward the good. Look in a mirror and see what you find; a true child of God or a lowly worm in the dust? Where are you and how did you get there? If you are like so many people we hear about, chances are you're troubled over some non-issue that looms large in your life. Do you feel kinship with the rest of your brothers and sisters or are you isolated and alone? If this is your lot in life, as yourself how you came to be so. Isn't it because from earliest childhood you were indoctrinated into some religious belief and/or political doctrine? Did you go to church? Did you vote in elections? Did it make any difference?
Wake up, fools! The human race has suffered long enough from the power plays and mind games of religion and the greed and incompetence of politics. Both seek to divide us into manageable denominations and political ideaologies which history should have shown by now don't work. In closing let us consider the Seven Deadly Sins according to Mohandas Ghandi;
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Business without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle
Monday, March 10, 2008
Building Spirituality - Part One
ghritz@swbell.net | Dashboard | Help | Sign outConscious Ape
I am often in contact with " spiritual " people, or persons trying to become so. I've noticed that in many cases people have a tendency to link spirituality with religion, church, and a concept of God as some sort of Old Man in the Sky. And they take themselves so seriously. It is as though spirituality were a burden that these folks have to carry through life, instead of the basis of our existence. Everyone is spiritual in some form or another. Evil sprits abound in our world; do they not? What follows is a concept of spirituality that I find most satisfying, enjoyable, and productive.
That state which we refer to a spiritual is basically intangible. The Spiritual Realm, underlies all material Reality. A thought is a spiritual entity; it occupies the mind but is unrevealed without some action to bring it into material form. It's the relationship between thought and action, and these thoughts and actions are governed by feeling. And the feeling that most, if not all, humans experience is hurt. All else stems from that and from nothing else! But by and large, most people opt for what they believe to be the opposite of hurt: pleasure.
Don't get me wrong,pleasure is nice, feels good, but too often it's the source of that pleasure that determines the spiritual fitness of an individual. How many times have you heard something like this; "I trusted Helen and she let me down; I'll never trust anyone again for the rest of my life!"
The rest of your life can be a pretty long time, too long to be affected by a single reverse. But if the hurt is severe enough it can end up affecting the rest of your life. A man I met while incarcerated many years ago had just murdered his wife's boyfriend. I don't know how long this man had been planning his desperate act, but in commission it took only a few seconds to pull the trigger. A few seconds that were to determine his fate; twenty years in prison, or a lethal injection.
Was this a bad man? No. There are no bad people, just people who are not spiritually fit to deal with the life's situations. A woman told me a while back that, "Life occasionally throws you a curve ball." I replied with the observation that that is a good opportunity to learn how to hit curve balls. But where does it begin?
Try childhood.
Infants of our species come into the world prematurely, and are completely helpless. Their bodies, the beasts their spirits ride through life, are totally foreign to them and they get by mostly on instinct, a decidedly spiritual faculty. Gradually, through experimentation, these little people learn to use their faculties, to move their arms and legs in deliberate actions, and then to face the first major challenge of life: learning to walk. Most people can't remember that first step on shaky legs, a couple of flops before getting it quite right. Then walking, like the many other mechanical operations we master, becomes automatic. Don't have to think about it any more; they are assimilated into our beings and we just...well...walk! Or tie shoelaces, or perform the countless simple ( and some not so simple ) actions we take without giving the slightest thought. This is spiritual growth in the sense that the mind is freed at each juncture to think about other things; and the world has plenty of things to think about; sex, money, power, fame, war, and a hundred other distractions that the Evil ( Real ) world offers to hinder spiritual progress. In the end, when the curtain of deceit is finally parted, those who suffer the toils and trials of life to the gates of insanity or death finally turn to God. Or seem to.
There is an Evangelical pastor with whom I have many debates over the Bible; we agree that it is the Word of God but, as is said, " The devil is in the details." One point on which we disagree is the Presence of God. I hold that God is All Things Everywhere, my pastor friend believes that God is not everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. He can't explain why God chooses to be in one place and not another, and this is typical of the belief system he follows: state a belief, then be unable to justify it beyond the mere statement. " It's just God's Will," he tells me, and that ( as far as he is concerned ) is that! Faith of this kind is but a veneer that hides an ugly, crumbling wall: looks good, but the wall is still there. I advocate tearing down the wall!
But what do most people do? Why they assume an identity that they feel will get them where they want to be, like a spiritual wallpaper, a pretty design, rich vibrant colors, but the wall it covers is cracked and crumbling. Eventually ecven the stoutest wallpaper will crack and peel, like the Cristian woman. A onetime relative by marriage she was the model of faith - until her husband died suddenly, at which time this woman, in tears cried, " There is no God! "
But there is. God is just not the Lord of the Spiritual Feudalism that fundamentalists ( like my friend the pastor ) believe. This reworked Zeus figure is the one who is only where he chooses to be, does whatever strikes his fancy in the moment, favors some and denies others, causes war, famine, and a host of other unpleasant evens to occur so " people will turn to [Him]. " Then, there's Jesus.
As the story goes, [God] sent Jesus ( a Roman knickname: his true name was Yashueh ) to die for our sins in a most unpleasant way. What kind of God is this? [He] has a remarkably human odor about him; priests of all religions that called for human sarcifices invariably didn't sacrifice themselves, it was always someone else. But the man himself asked, " What father, if his son asked him for bread would give him a stone or it asked for a fish, would give him a serpent. " The idea here is that if no human father would treat his son that way, how can anyone believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do any less.
The Evil ( Reality ) of the world lies in the distractions it presents to the striving soul. Religion stands in the forefront of this muddle and its failures are legion. Jesus said, " By their works ye shall know them,"; the works of religions have been to divide into countless denominations, sects, cults, and covens; to ostracize any who do not agree with them or, as " Mother Church " was wont to do, torturing those whose thinking was " in error " and killing those who would not recant their heretical ideas. What kind of God would approve of such atrocities?
The idea here is very simple, so basic in fact that many cannot see it: there are only two ways to go, the Way of God or the way of the world, and this choice is ours every instant. Let's look at the way of God. How can we know what that is? Paul tells us in Romans[1:18-21] that the wonder of God is all about, clearly seen by the eye of reason ( New English Bible ). This is more easily understood if we have a true understanding of what God is: the Spirit of the Universe, not some whimsical tyrant who rules from on high and who " chooses " to be here or there, to reward or punish according to some esoteric formula. Such a God cannot be counted upon as [He] may either " choose " to answer prayers, or not. The Spirit of the Universe answers every prayer.
Perfectly. Never fails!
The Spirit of the Universe is a passive power the mind of which is Natural Law. According to natural law everything operates on a Cause-and-Effect basis; press a button and a bell rings, an elevator appears, or a city of millions is swept up in a nuclear holocaust. The effect is always perfectly concistent with the cause; if the outcome is bad then the action that brought it about was wrong.It doesn't matter how much time you spend on your knees begging for the laws of nature to be temporarily suspended; go out in the rain, you get wet; stay in the sun too long, you get burned; stick a fork in a light socket, you get shocked; spend money carelessly, you go broke. Pray yourself hoarse, till your hands are fused together, and you knees lock into a permanent bend, and nothing will change. Change you attitude, your thoughts, and your actions, and things will change!
It's that simple!
There is a saying: " What goes around, comes around. " Perhaps it would be better undertsood if rephrased: " What you send around comes back to you. "; express love and love is yours, perhaps not immediately perceived but ultimately a treasured additon to your life. And loving people isn't hard; it's just about seeing the good in them. Jesus told us not to be concerned with the mote in our brother's eye but the beam in our own. Is it not true that what you despise in others is nothing more than what you hate in yourself? It is, and no amount of thinking differently can ever change that fact. But acting differently can, and will produce miraculous results. Try it: you might like it. You can change your life, but this change can only originate within you, in your Heart of Hearts, your Secret Place of the Most High, where all your fondest hopes and dreams lie dormant. Let the Father in you " which doeth the works " help you bring these bright imaginings into full and splendid reality.
There is always an implicit caveat in all the articles I publish, both here and on the website http//timeoftheend-faithandreason.net that the arguments presented could be wrong, but they are th sum and substance of what has been given me to give to you. Please accept it in that light.
I am often in contact with " spiritual " people, or persons trying to become so. I've noticed that in many cases people have a tendency to link spirituality with religion, church, and a concept of God as some sort of Old Man in the Sky. And they take themselves so seriously. It is as though spirituality were a burden that these folks have to carry through life, instead of the basis of our existence. Everyone is spiritual in some form or another. Evil sprits abound in our world; do they not? What follows is a concept of spirituality that I find most satisfying, enjoyable, and productive.
That state which we refer to a spiritual is basically intangible. The Spiritual Realm, underlies all material Reality. A thought is a spiritual entity; it occupies the mind but is unrevealed without some action to bring it into material form. It's the relationship between thought and action, and these thoughts and actions are governed by feeling. And the feeling that most, if not all, humans experience is hurt. All else stems from that and from nothing else! But by and large, most people opt for what they believe to be the opposite of hurt: pleasure.
Don't get me wrong,pleasure is nice, feels good, but too often it's the source of that pleasure that determines the spiritual fitness of an individual. How many times have you heard something like this; "I trusted Helen and she let me down; I'll never trust anyone again for the rest of my life!"
The rest of your life can be a pretty long time, too long to be affected by a single reverse. But if the hurt is severe enough it can end up affecting the rest of your life. A man I met while incarcerated many years ago had just murdered his wife's boyfriend. I don't know how long this man had been planning his desperate act, but in commission it took only a few seconds to pull the trigger. A few seconds that were to determine his fate; twenty years in prison, or a lethal injection.
Was this a bad man? No. There are no bad people, just people who are not spiritually fit to deal with the life's situations. A woman told me a while back that, "Life occasionally throws you a curve ball." I replied with the observation that that is a good opportunity to learn how to hit curve balls. But where does it begin?
Try childhood.
Infants of our species come into the world prematurely, and are completely helpless. Their bodies, the beasts their spirits ride through life, are totally foreign to them and they get by mostly on instinct, a decidedly spiritual faculty. Gradually, through experimentation, these little people learn to use their faculties, to move their arms and legs in deliberate actions, and then to face the first major challenge of life: learning to walk. Most people can't remember that first step on shaky legs, a couple of flops before getting it quite right. Then walking, like the many other mechanical operations we master, becomes automatic. Don't have to think about it any more; they are assimilated into our beings and we just...well...walk! Or tie shoelaces, or perform the countless simple ( and some not so simple ) actions we take without giving the slightest thought. This is spiritual growth in the sense that the mind is freed at each juncture to think about other things; and the world has plenty of things to think about; sex, money, power, fame, war, and a hundred other distractions that the Evil ( Real ) world offers to hinder spiritual progress. In the end, when the curtain of deceit is finally parted, those who suffer the toils and trials of life to the gates of insanity or death finally turn to God. Or seem to.
There is an Evangelical pastor with whom I have many debates over the Bible; we agree that it is the Word of God but, as is said, " The devil is in the details." One point on which we disagree is the Presence of God. I hold that God is All Things Everywhere, my pastor friend believes that God is not everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. He can't explain why God chooses to be in one place and not another, and this is typical of the belief system he follows: state a belief, then be unable to justify it beyond the mere statement. " It's just God's Will," he tells me, and that ( as far as he is concerned ) is that! Faith of this kind is but a veneer that hides an ugly, crumbling wall: looks good, but the wall is still there. I advocate tearing down the wall!
But what do most people do? Why they assume an identity that they feel will get them where they want to be, like a spiritual wallpaper, a pretty design, rich vibrant colors, but the wall it covers is cracked and crumbling. Eventually ecven the stoutest wallpaper will crack and peel, like the Cristian woman. A onetime relative by marriage she was the model of faith - until her husband died suddenly, at which time this woman, in tears cried, " There is no God! "
But there is. God is just not the Lord of the Spiritual Feudalism that fundamentalists ( like my friend the pastor ) believe. This reworked Zeus figure is the one who is only where he chooses to be, does whatever strikes his fancy in the moment, favors some and denies others, causes war, famine, and a host of other unpleasant evens to occur so " people will turn to [Him]. " Then, there's Jesus.
As the story goes, [God] sent Jesus ( a Roman knickname: his true name was Yashueh ) to die for our sins in a most unpleasant way. What kind of God is this? [He] has a remarkably human odor about him; priests of all religions that called for human sarcifices invariably didn't sacrifice themselves, it was always someone else. But the man himself asked, " What father, if his son asked him for bread would give him a stone or it asked for a fish, would give him a serpent. " The idea here is that if no human father would treat his son that way, how can anyone believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do any less.
The Evil ( Reality ) of the world lies in the distractions it presents to the striving soul. Religion stands in the forefront of this muddle and its failures are legion. Jesus said, " By their works ye shall know them,"; the works of religions have been to divide into countless denominations, sects, cults, and covens; to ostracize any who do not agree with them or, as " Mother Church " was wont to do, torturing those whose thinking was " in error " and killing those who would not recant their heretical ideas. What kind of God would approve of such atrocities?
The idea here is very simple, so basic in fact that many cannot see it: there are only two ways to go, the Way of God or the way of the world, and this choice is ours every instant. Let's look at the way of God. How can we know what that is? Paul tells us in Romans[1:18-21] that the wonder of God is all about, clearly seen by the eye of reason ( New English Bible ). This is more easily understood if we have a true understanding of what God is: the Spirit of the Universe, not some whimsical tyrant who rules from on high and who " chooses " to be here or there, to reward or punish according to some esoteric formula. Such a God cannot be counted upon as [He] may either " choose " to answer prayers, or not. The Spirit of the Universe answers every prayer.
Perfectly. Never fails!
The Spirit of the Universe is a passive power the mind of which is Natural Law. According to natural law everything operates on a Cause-and-Effect basis; press a button and a bell rings, an elevator appears, or a city of millions is swept up in a nuclear holocaust. The effect is always perfectly concistent with the cause; if the outcome is bad then the action that brought it about was wrong.It doesn't matter how much time you spend on your knees begging for the laws of nature to be temporarily suspended; go out in the rain, you get wet; stay in the sun too long, you get burned; stick a fork in a light socket, you get shocked; spend money carelessly, you go broke. Pray yourself hoarse, till your hands are fused together, and you knees lock into a permanent bend, and nothing will change. Change you attitude, your thoughts, and your actions, and things will change!
It's that simple!
There is a saying: " What goes around, comes around. " Perhaps it would be better undertsood if rephrased: " What you send around comes back to you. "; express love and love is yours, perhaps not immediately perceived but ultimately a treasured additon to your life. And loving people isn't hard; it's just about seeing the good in them. Jesus told us not to be concerned with the mote in our brother's eye but the beam in our own. Is it not true that what you despise in others is nothing more than what you hate in yourself? It is, and no amount of thinking differently can ever change that fact. But acting differently can, and will produce miraculous results. Try it: you might like it. You can change your life, but this change can only originate within you, in your Heart of Hearts, your Secret Place of the Most High, where all your fondest hopes and dreams lie dormant. Let the Father in you " which doeth the works " help you bring these bright imaginings into full and splendid reality.
There is always an implicit caveat in all the articles I publish, both here and on the website http//timeoftheend-faithandreason.net that the arguments presented could be wrong, but they are th sum and substance of what has been given me to give to you. Please accept it in that light.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Election or Selection?
Well, we're still getting the bad news: John McCain looks to be the Republican nominee for president of the Republican Party. Maybe even of the United States, but that seems doubtful given McCain's record. Remember the Keating Five? Just in case you don't ( after all it was twenty years ago ) John McCain and four other senators were bought and paid for by Charles Keating, ringmaster of Lincoln Savings in California, one of the big players in the Savings and Loan scandal that wound up costing the American tax payers $500 billion. Space doesn't allow a more detailed account of this fiasco that was presided over by George H. W. Bush, but Google " Charles Keating" or " Keating Five " and educate yourself. But that's only part of the McCain saga of duplicity, corruption, and lack of focus. The following are some articles I published as a columnist for the Unknown News;
September 18, 2006:
Recently Yahoo! News ran something called "Talk to Power" and one of the question and answer segments, featuring Judy Woodruff asking the questions that readers submitted, spotlighted Senator John McCain, one of the presidential hopefuls for 2008. McCain's responses should serve as a warning to those who believe that this spin master would be a good choice for the highest office in the land. Below are some excerpts with my take on them.
The first two questions regarded the war in Iraq and the role and responsibilities of the U.S. military. A member of the military wrote: "It frustrates me that my unit... has been extended in Iraq for a minimum of 120 days. ... There has been a failure here in Iraq. How can you effect change in US policy here?"
"If we left without the Iraqi military and government in control, then I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region," Sen. McCain said. The second question followed up on the first, focusing on deployment of troops: "Would you allow units to be extended past one year?"
John! John! (snapping fingers and waving hand in front of blank stare), what do you mean "I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region."? What do you call what we are seeing in Iraq?
To this, Sen. McCain said he considered the armed forces "overstressed" and said that, as President, he would "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty."
John, look! We know you were in Viet Nam, like Congressman Murtha who says we should get out of Iraq. But he's a Democrat, a liberal, so his opinion doesn't count. Right? And let's not talk about John Kerry; the Swift-boat nut cases really gave him a going over; didn't they? He's a Democrat too so that's alright, isn't it? So, John, we have the opinions of three veterans of the Viet Nam war; you think we should "stay the course", Murtha says we should get out, and Kerry agrees with both of you. We honor you service in that conflict, John, but as regards opinions on military matters there is one fact that seperates you from Murtha and Kerry: You got captured!
With respect to your belief that we should "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty"; just how would you accomplish that? A draft, John? Is that on your mind? Forget it!
John, I know you're a Senator and all that, but I may be so presump-tuous I'd like to point out a fact that you may not be aware of. A draft is unconstitutional! You know, the US Constitution, what Bush, the American Caligula referred to as "only a goddamned piece of paper" (it's really parch-ment)? Well, this document has a bunch of annoying additions (they're called 'amendments') that frustrate the efforts of "patriotic" American leaders like the present Neo-Con Chickenhawks from turning this country into a carbon copy of Nazi Germany. Put you reading glasses on, John.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
John? Did you get that part about "involuntary servitude"? Isn't that what a draft is? After all, what crimes have apple cheeked kids fresh out of high school been convicted of? And did you also get the part about "any place subject to their juristiction", meaning the United States. Boy, that sure makes Guantanamo look different, doesn't it? But, back to the draft. I know you're probably wondering how young folks get drafted when there's that pesky ol' 13th Amendment to deal with. It's easy: They volunteer! Here's how it works;
Draft notice appears in the mail: Report to Induction Center. Of course that's what the guv'mint tells the kids to do, so they go. Once there they go throught a process designed to confuse and intimidate them. When all that is done, the "inductees" are told to line up; they do and when they are all in a nice straight line they are told to take one step forward to be sworn in. When they do this - take this one step forward, they are volunteering! It's a sneaky and underhanded (so what's new) way for the Military Industtrial Complex ( that Eisenhower warned us against) to ensure that there will be enough cannon fodder for the monied interests (Haliburton, Kellogg Brand) to get fat on.
John, you still with me? Howsabout we do what's right and tell folks whose kids might just get a draft notice someday: Tell your kid not to take that step forward!
The third question also focused on the war in Iraq. But in this case, the issue raised by the Yahoo! user was funding for the war: "Why is the Iraq war still being funded through stopgap emergency funding?" wrote the reader. "It is not fair to ask us as taxpayers to have no say in how much money this war is costing us."
The fault, said Sen. McCain, lies with Congress, which has not taken the lead in demanding that the funding go through the regular budget process.
John? You still with me? Did some concerned citizen really ask this question? I have trouble believing that, since the question seems to focus not on the billions of dollars we are throwing away on that loser, but the method by which we are thowing it away. So far we have spend enough to completely rebuild New Orleans' at least three times. Oh, but that's another issue, isn't it?
The conversation then turned to oil and energy. "Hello Senator McCain," wrote one person, "What is your plan to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil?" In posing the question, correspondent Judy Woodruff also noted a variety of related questions on the boards, including comments focusing on nuclear energy, alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, and global warming.
One reader wrote: "Mr. McCain, after your recent trip to Greenland do you have a more clear picture of what Americans, among others, are doing to our planet's environment with our wasteful use of available energy?"
Sen. McCain responded first by dismissing the idea that global warming isn't real. .
"First of all, I just came back from Greenland where I saw the dramatic effects of climate change. Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is real - now if you can't visit Greenland, look at Tom Brokaw's latest piece that I think is on the Discovery Channel, which is a really comprehensive look at climate change.
I believe, among other things, that nuclear power has to be a very - play a very big role in our finding ways to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is fraught with danger. Look around the world: Venezuela, Iraq, other places in the world where we get our oil supplies. Ethanol doesn't make a lot of sense to me when oil is $10 a barrel. When it gets over $40 a barrel, then ethanol is very important, and I'm glad to see us proceeding rapidly with adopting ethanol as an alternative fuel. By the way, Brazil had managed to now become foreign oil independent because now they are fueling their automobiles with ethanol.
John, John, John! (more finger snapping). Try to say this, Air puh-loo-shun; got it John? Good! So what does the price of oil have to do with the fact that fifty years ago the oxygen content of the atmosphere was 21% and today it's only 16%? Is air pullution alright if the price of oil is $10.00 a barrel? Let's be sure that all the folks with respiratory problems, who are advised to remain indoors on days when the air quality is "orange", hear about that. Oh, and don't all those bombs and shells going off all over the place add to Global Warming? Make the air dirty and radioactive (thanks to depleted uranium)?
Ever thought about that, John?
And what this, John? You mean to say while we've been spreading "democracy" in the Middle East in that disgusting war of aggression to get control of the oil (and don't think you and your cronies are fooling anyone), those rascally Brazilians went and got themselves foreign oil independent?
John, do your patriotic duty. When asked if you are a candidate for president, just say "No."
October 11, 2006:
John McCain is still out of touch with reality. In a news conference in Michigan following a fund raiser for Repulican Mike Bouchard, he made this incredible statement, addressed to Hilary Clinton: "I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure." Sure was, John! You got that part right. But that is only the bottom line. Let's see if we can figure out just why that ship didn't sail.
Facts, John! That's what we're going to deal with, not the "shoot anything that moves" tactics of cornered rats. It's irresponsible, misleading, and utterly contemptuous, to attack an act of true statesmanship that held great promise but was sabotaged by your leader (not mine). Bush's role in this debacle is a matter of record.
From the NO QUARTER website, October 9, 2006:
How did the North Koreans end up knocking on New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's door in 2003? Fred Kaplan, in "Rolling Blunder" for the Washington Monthly, describes the events.
It began in 2001 with Bush rebuking his Secretary of State during a state visit by South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung. "[Colin] Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words. ..."
"If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated ... Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt ... So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy." The South Korean president was "a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a 'sunshine policy' of opening up relations with the North.
Bill Richardson? How did he get involved in all this?
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, a former UN Ambassdor with a record of successfully negotiating with North Korea, tried to act as intermediary for Bush. When the White House flatly refused to talk to the delegation from the North, they went to New Mexico to look Bill up.
Richardson seemed willing to serve as an intermediary. During the two days of talks in Santa Fe, he stayed closely in touch with the State Department. Richardson was no showboat, had no partisan animus, and--unlike Carter in Clinton's day--probably could have played middleman to Bush without going beyond his instructions. But nothing came of the Richardson gambit. As Pritchard(1) recalls it, "The North Koreans were grasping for straws, looking for any friendly face. But they forgot to do the math. Richardson was a Democrat, a Clinton guy. No way would Bush have anything to do with him."... In the Bush administration, "[t]he default mode was skepticism about anything involving Clinton."
1) Charles "Jack" Pritchard "had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush."
How do you like it so far, John? You know the old saying, "When you have both feet in your mouth you don't have a leg to stand on." But we are only getting started: get a load of this!
Kaplan continues (quoting Richardson): We must turn North Korea away from its nuclear brinkmanship and toward providing a stable food supply and more opportunity for its people. This means direct engagement from the highest levels in Washington employing all the tools at our disposal.
We are doing this in New Mexico. North Korea desperately needs Western energy, agriculture and medical technology and, as a result of my trip there last fall, New Mexico is providing aid. Our joint humanitarian exchanges have already sent a team on North Korean heart doctors to New Mexico to learn the latest cardiac surgery techniques.
New Mexico? Are you getting this John? The North Koreans are getting aid from New Mexico? I'll bet you didn't know that. I sure didn't but I'm glad somebody has some sense.
Still from NO QUARTER: On Friday, James Baker III was a guest on Don Imus's MSNBC show. He said, politely, that the Bush administration needs to talk more, especially to its "enemies," and that there's a lack of talk, and diplomacy, in general. It's quite clear that the Bush administration 1) doesn't know how to talk to other countries, and 2) has no appreciation for the importance of dialogue and carrot/stick diplomacy.
In 2003, the Bush administration had a golden opportunity for positive diplomatic rounds with the North Koreans -- via New Mexico governor Bill Richardson (bio ) -- but rejected his help wholesale.
John, please! If the Republicans offer to run you for president, just say, No!
More recently we've heard John saying that we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. And, you know? That's exactly what will happen if this misfit ever sets up housekeeping in the White House. Bush's endorsement may hurt McCain's image but it defines it clearly. More war, more lives, more wealth, squandered in the Neocons' insane Empire Building effort. But there's one item that the Republicans and their Military-Industrial masters seem to have missed: the Revolution has already begun! John isn't going to have much fun if the people are stupid enough to put him in thw White House. Recalling the words of John F. Kennedy, " If peaceful evolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. "
The pot is coming to a boil. Happy landings, John!
September 18, 2006:
Recently Yahoo! News ran something called "Talk to Power" and one of the question and answer segments, featuring Judy Woodruff asking the questions that readers submitted, spotlighted Senator John McCain, one of the presidential hopefuls for 2008. McCain's responses should serve as a warning to those who believe that this spin master would be a good choice for the highest office in the land. Below are some excerpts with my take on them.
The first two questions regarded the war in Iraq and the role and responsibilities of the U.S. military. A member of the military wrote: "It frustrates me that my unit... has been extended in Iraq for a minimum of 120 days. ... There has been a failure here in Iraq. How can you effect change in US policy here?"
"If we left without the Iraqi military and government in control, then I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region," Sen. McCain said. The second question followed up on the first, focusing on deployment of troops: "Would you allow units to be extended past one year?"
John! John! (snapping fingers and waving hand in front of blank stare), what do you mean "I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region."? What do you call what we are seeing in Iraq?
To this, Sen. McCain said he considered the armed forces "overstressed" and said that, as President, he would "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty."
John, look! We know you were in Viet Nam, like Congressman Murtha who says we should get out of Iraq. But he's a Democrat, a liberal, so his opinion doesn't count. Right? And let's not talk about John Kerry; the Swift-boat nut cases really gave him a going over; didn't they? He's a Democrat too so that's alright, isn't it? So, John, we have the opinions of three veterans of the Viet Nam war; you think we should "stay the course", Murtha says we should get out, and Kerry agrees with both of you. We honor you service in that conflict, John, but as regards opinions on military matters there is one fact that seperates you from Murtha and Kerry: You got captured!
With respect to your belief that we should "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty"; just how would you accomplish that? A draft, John? Is that on your mind? Forget it!
John, I know you're a Senator and all that, but I may be so presump-tuous I'd like to point out a fact that you may not be aware of. A draft is unconstitutional! You know, the US Constitution, what Bush, the American Caligula referred to as "only a goddamned piece of paper" (it's really parch-ment)? Well, this document has a bunch of annoying additions (they're called 'amendments') that frustrate the efforts of "patriotic" American leaders like the present Neo-Con Chickenhawks from turning this country into a carbon copy of Nazi Germany. Put you reading glasses on, John.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
John? Did you get that part about "involuntary servitude"? Isn't that what a draft is? After all, what crimes have apple cheeked kids fresh out of high school been convicted of? And did you also get the part about "any place subject to their juristiction", meaning the United States. Boy, that sure makes Guantanamo look different, doesn't it? But, back to the draft. I know you're probably wondering how young folks get drafted when there's that pesky ol' 13th Amendment to deal with. It's easy: They volunteer! Here's how it works;
Draft notice appears in the mail: Report to Induction Center. Of course that's what the guv'mint tells the kids to do, so they go. Once there they go throught a process designed to confuse and intimidate them. When all that is done, the "inductees" are told to line up; they do and when they are all in a nice straight line they are told to take one step forward to be sworn in. When they do this - take this one step forward, they are volunteering! It's a sneaky and underhanded (so what's new) way for the Military Industtrial Complex ( that Eisenhower warned us against) to ensure that there will be enough cannon fodder for the monied interests (Haliburton, Kellogg Brand) to get fat on.
John, you still with me? Howsabout we do what's right and tell folks whose kids might just get a draft notice someday: Tell your kid not to take that step forward!
The third question also focused on the war in Iraq. But in this case, the issue raised by the Yahoo! user was funding for the war: "Why is the Iraq war still being funded through stopgap emergency funding?" wrote the reader. "It is not fair to ask us as taxpayers to have no say in how much money this war is costing us."
The fault, said Sen. McCain, lies with Congress, which has not taken the lead in demanding that the funding go through the regular budget process.
John? You still with me? Did some concerned citizen really ask this question? I have trouble believing that, since the question seems to focus not on the billions of dollars we are throwing away on that loser, but the method by which we are thowing it away. So far we have spend enough to completely rebuild New Orleans' at least three times. Oh, but that's another issue, isn't it?
The conversation then turned to oil and energy. "Hello Senator McCain," wrote one person, "What is your plan to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil?" In posing the question, correspondent Judy Woodruff also noted a variety of related questions on the boards, including comments focusing on nuclear energy, alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, and global warming.
One reader wrote: "Mr. McCain, after your recent trip to Greenland do you have a more clear picture of what Americans, among others, are doing to our planet's environment with our wasteful use of available energy?"
Sen. McCain responded first by dismissing the idea that global warming isn't real. .
"First of all, I just came back from Greenland where I saw the dramatic effects of climate change. Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is real - now if you can't visit Greenland, look at Tom Brokaw's latest piece that I think is on the Discovery Channel, which is a really comprehensive look at climate change.
I believe, among other things, that nuclear power has to be a very - play a very big role in our finding ways to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is fraught with danger. Look around the world: Venezuela, Iraq, other places in the world where we get our oil supplies. Ethanol doesn't make a lot of sense to me when oil is $10 a barrel. When it gets over $40 a barrel, then ethanol is very important, and I'm glad to see us proceeding rapidly with adopting ethanol as an alternative fuel. By the way, Brazil had managed to now become foreign oil independent because now they are fueling their automobiles with ethanol.
John, John, John! (more finger snapping). Try to say this, Air puh-loo-shun; got it John? Good! So what does the price of oil have to do with the fact that fifty years ago the oxygen content of the atmosphere was 21% and today it's only 16%? Is air pullution alright if the price of oil is $10.00 a barrel? Let's be sure that all the folks with respiratory problems, who are advised to remain indoors on days when the air quality is "orange", hear about that. Oh, and don't all those bombs and shells going off all over the place add to Global Warming? Make the air dirty and radioactive (thanks to depleted uranium)?
Ever thought about that, John?
And what this, John? You mean to say while we've been spreading "democracy" in the Middle East in that disgusting war of aggression to get control of the oil (and don't think you and your cronies are fooling anyone), those rascally Brazilians went and got themselves foreign oil independent?
John, do your patriotic duty. When asked if you are a candidate for president, just say "No."
October 11, 2006:
John McCain is still out of touch with reality. In a news conference in Michigan following a fund raiser for Repulican Mike Bouchard, he made this incredible statement, addressed to Hilary Clinton: "I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure." Sure was, John! You got that part right. But that is only the bottom line. Let's see if we can figure out just why that ship didn't sail.
Facts, John! That's what we're going to deal with, not the "shoot anything that moves" tactics of cornered rats. It's irresponsible, misleading, and utterly contemptuous, to attack an act of true statesmanship that held great promise but was sabotaged by your leader (not mine). Bush's role in this debacle is a matter of record.
From the NO QUARTER website, October 9, 2006:
How did the North Koreans end up knocking on New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's door in 2003? Fred Kaplan, in "Rolling Blunder
It began in 2001 with Bush rebuking his Secretary of State during a state visit by South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung. "[Colin] Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words. ..."
"If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated ... Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt ... So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy." The South Korean president was "a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a 'sunshine policy' of opening up relations with the North.
Bill Richardson? How did he get involved in all this?
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, a former UN Ambassdor with a record of successfully negotiating with North Korea, tried to act as intermediary for Bush. When the White House flatly refused to talk to the delegation from the North, they went to New Mexico to look Bill up.
Richardson seemed willing to serve as an intermediary. During the two days of talks in Santa Fe, he stayed closely in touch with the State Department. Richardson was no showboat, had no partisan animus, and--unlike Carter in Clinton's day--probably could have played middleman to Bush without going beyond his instructions. But nothing came of the Richardson gambit. As Pritchard(1) recalls it, "The North Koreans were grasping for straws, looking for any friendly face. But they forgot to do the math. Richardson was a Democrat, a Clinton guy. No way would Bush have anything to do with him."... In the Bush administration, "[t]he default mode was skepticism about anything involving Clinton."
1) Charles "Jack" Pritchard "had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush."
How do you like it so far, John? You know the old saying, "When you have both feet in your mouth you don't have a leg to stand on." But we are only getting started: get a load of this!
Kaplan continues (quoting Richardson): We must turn North Korea away from its nuclear brinkmanship and toward providing a stable food supply and more opportunity for its people. This means direct engagement from the highest levels in Washington employing all the tools at our disposal.
We are doing this in New Mexico. North Korea desperately needs Western energy, agriculture and medical technology and, as a result of my trip there last fall, New Mexico is providing aid. Our joint humanitarian exchanges have already sent a team on North Korean heart doctors to New Mexico to learn the latest cardiac surgery techniques.
New Mexico? Are you getting this John? The North Koreans are getting aid from New Mexico? I'll bet you didn't know that. I sure didn't but I'm glad somebody has some sense.
Still from NO QUARTER: On Friday, James Baker III was a guest on Don Imus's MSNBC show. He said, politely, that the Bush administration needs to talk more, especially to its "enemies," and that there's a lack of talk, and diplomacy, in general. It's quite clear that the Bush administration 1) doesn't know how to talk to other countries, and 2) has no appreciation for the importance of dialogue and carrot/stick diplomacy.
In 2003
John, please! If the Republicans offer to run you for president, just say, No!
More recently we've heard John saying that we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. And, you know? That's exactly what will happen if this misfit ever sets up housekeeping in the White House. Bush's endorsement may hurt McCain's image but it defines it clearly. More war, more lives, more wealth, squandered in the Neocons' insane Empire Building effort. But there's one item that the Republicans and their Military-Industrial masters seem to have missed: the Revolution has already begun! John isn't going to have much fun if the people are stupid enough to put him in thw White House. Recalling the words of John F. Kennedy, " If peaceful evolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. "
The pot is coming to a boil. Happy landings, John!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
