Never have another problem the rest of your life. You, too, can be like so many others who have found out how to live problem-free lives(yah,like you really believe that one). Lack of money? No problem. No job? No problem.
The secret--as so many politicians, administrators and leaders have found--is to call a problem by a different name. It's now called an issue.
One of the great political talents is to take a problem, and the resultant decisions that have to be made, side-step it, and avoid any real personal work.
Problems are things that need to be solved, fixed, or cared for in some way. Issues are things that need to be talked about, discussed, or put off for another day. Problems demand action. Issues do not.
By simply changing a problem into an issue, we can ignore the need to do something. For example: there is a sink full of dishes. They have been there for six weeks and there is a big stink emanating from the kitchen. A true politician would say that the stink is not a problem...the stink is an issue, and as we now know issues are things that are resolved by others.
First to help resolve this issue is the air quality expert who will sample the air quality--this expert probably charges four hundred dollars for this service. He can tell you the best sprays to use or the best "odor eater" machine to invest in--something that sells for about two thousand dollars.
Next we will need a "mold expert" from the local university to tell us how best to treat the resultant mold issue that surrounds the said dishes. This expert, being just graduated, is a steal at only two hundred dollars. He will tell of the correct powders to sprinkle on the mold to make it go away. Cost of the powder is eighteen dollars.
Next, we call in the local "Board of Health" so that they may certify that the said dishes are safe the way they are and that no further action is required. Cost of inspection: thirty dollars. Cost of certificate: fifteen dollars.
The dishes are fine sitting in the sink. What was once a problem of dishes in the sink has been resolved by making an issue of it--all without dealing with the problem.
As we can plainly see, problems can be avoided by not referring to them as such (problems demand action). Issues require input and action from others--if any action is taken at all.
So, if we are to emulate our leadership and the best political minds of our time, we need to focus on the issues and never mind those pesky problems.
And now you know the secret of how things work and how politicians get things done. It doesn't get any more American than that.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Intelligent Life
We're looking for intelligent life on other planets, and we believe such intelligent life exists. In doing so we assume we are intelligent and that any communication we may receive will be from others like us. But, the possibility of contacting a civilization remotely close in intelligence (or lack of intelligence) to ours is not possible.
A civilization with our kind of intelligence would not be able to find us, anymore than we can find them. Any such aliens would, like us, have destroyed its atmosphere. They would have depleted their natural and financial resources. Such a culture would have enslaved most of its population or killed-off many of its citizens by its many wars over resources and religious beliefs. Its institutions of higher learning would be discredited and disbelieved, while environmental and cultural problems would go unaddressed by governments that abuse the peoples trust and resources.
Such a civilization would not be able to communicate with other living creatures on their world, even if those creatures have existed in peace and harmony with their environment long before so-called intelligent life came in to existence. Even if they could communicate the result would be enslavement and additional abuses.
Such a civilization would enslave us if it could get here--it's what we would do to them if we could go there.
Perhaps we are looking for a benevolent, more intelligent people--a people that would help advance our civilization--one that would help us put our planet right again. As if we would accept any council other than our own, or could turn our backs on the familiar evils that plague us now.
In our desire to find and to communicate with others who are sharing this universe with us we may wish to temper our eagerness with the possibility that they are too much like us, and to be like us they have to be where we are as a culture and a civilization. They would need to share the same knowledge level, with all its flaws. They would have to be a mirror of ourselves, and that would mean they know so little and are only able to travel so close to their home planet that they won't know about us (or us them) for a very long time. And that just may be the best thing that could happen.
A civilization with our kind of intelligence would not be able to find us, anymore than we can find them. Any such aliens would, like us, have destroyed its atmosphere. They would have depleted their natural and financial resources. Such a culture would have enslaved most of its population or killed-off many of its citizens by its many wars over resources and religious beliefs. Its institutions of higher learning would be discredited and disbelieved, while environmental and cultural problems would go unaddressed by governments that abuse the peoples trust and resources.
Such a civilization would not be able to communicate with other living creatures on their world, even if those creatures have existed in peace and harmony with their environment long before so-called intelligent life came in to existence. Even if they could communicate the result would be enslavement and additional abuses.
Such a civilization would enslave us if it could get here--it's what we would do to them if we could go there.
Perhaps we are looking for a benevolent, more intelligent people--a people that would help advance our civilization--one that would help us put our planet right again. As if we would accept any council other than our own, or could turn our backs on the familiar evils that plague us now.
In our desire to find and to communicate with others who are sharing this universe with us we may wish to temper our eagerness with the possibility that they are too much like us, and to be like us they have to be where we are as a culture and a civilization. They would need to share the same knowledge level, with all its flaws. They would have to be a mirror of ourselves, and that would mean they know so little and are only able to travel so close to their home planet that they won't know about us (or us them) for a very long time. And that just may be the best thing that could happen.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Beat The Drum
What Color?
Shhh, haven’t you heard, there are no communities of color, we’re all the same, maybe a shade of indefinable gray, but nonetheless the same?
Boston-based United for a Fair Economy writes, the Great Recession “has pulled the plug on communities of color, draining jobs and homes from families that were already in crisis.” The operative description here is that they were already in crisis. It is not possible for a poor economy to retroactively cause a loss of jobs and homes already in trouble—there’s no magic sleight of hand at work, we must accept many things in life that are unpleasant.
Why, we continually ask, is there such a hue and cry about color? A recession can’t see color, and it affects everyone, those already in crises, and those for whom the crisis is new. Heaven forbid colored communities (that don’t exist—because we can no longer see them; no one wants us to see or refer to them without a due apology) should suffer the same problems the rest of us indefinable grays must face: loss of jobs, loss of homes, savings, and retirement accounts, the inability to buy medicine or pay for fuel to heat our homes. It’s time to shhh, because it happens to everyone—even those living in a world without color. Some would say that 30% of those unemployed are black; as if it’s the most terrible thing. But, not to trivialize it, that means that 70% of those other unemployed are white or gray.
We are either going to talk about color or we are not; it’s very confusing when a group wants no special treatment on the one hand and then demands better than equal treatment on the other. It’s very hypocritical and unflattering to do so. So, shhh.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Everyone Has Abortion Rights, Beliefs, and Opinions
The Supreme Court justices, chosen by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the U.S. Congress, are among the best educated people to be found in our country. Constitutionally, they don't need to be legal scholars, most happen to be. The justices are familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the rights and responsibilities of our working government, both at the state and federal levels. The Supreme Court, acting in its capacity to interpret our laws (and the intent of our founding fathers), has reached the only decision it could have when it decided in favor of a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have an abortion. Because of that ruling much has been discussed and debated by both sides of the abortion issue; one side remaining fast to the letter and intent of the Constitution, and the opposing side denouncing abortion on moral grounds. The reason the abortion question cannot be reconciled by either party is because there are two separate issues involved. In their own way, both sides are right.
The Supreme Court was correct in deciding Roe vs Wade. It decided that women do have the right to make private decisions with regard to their bodies. In making its decision the court could not consider questions of morality or religion because our constitution makes no provision for such doctrine--in fact, the court is precluded from making any decision on religious grounds. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, in his Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom (1779) focused on the natural rights of individuals to choose their own beliefs. In a country with so many disparate beliefs, who's beliefs would we follow?
Those who believe that abortion is wrong are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. Under the idea of religious freedom, they are free to choose any doctrine they wish--they are at liberty to refrain from the services they find unacceptable or deplorable--and go about their lives without regard to how their neighbors go about theirs.
The conflict between those for and against abortion happens when opponents act as keepers of their neighbors beliefs, mores, and rights. To attempt to instill, or inflict by force if necessary, a set of rules one group believes in upon another goes beyond fairness and justice. Picture, if you can, a group of pro-abortion (pro-women rights) advocates picketing in front of churches or synagogues demanding women have abortions. It's hard to imagine such a thing, and I don't believe it has ever happened. Yet abortion opponents have picketed and done worse in front of abortion clinics.
Since Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973 there have been thousands of attacks on clinics. Between 1989 and 2004 there have been 24 murders and attempted murders of abortion doctors and over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups (Religious Tolerance). These attacks seem to suggest that providers of abortion are to blame--as if they are actively engaged in promoting or impregnating women so as to profit from the result.
This begs the question: Have we overlooked the fact that the women entering these clinics are our mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, and wives? They are, after all, the ones who are pregnant. Is not the problem one that encompasses all faiths? Haven't women of all faiths also availed themselves of the very services and rights their pastors, preachers, clerics, rabbis, and neighbors denounce, or have themselves denounced?
The two sides of this issue are similar to oil and water in that they should not be mixed, and if mixed will tend to once again separate; each stands on it's own merits and worth. If a woman's beliefs dictate that she should not have an abortion, then she is free to make that choice. If, on the other hand, a woman decides to have an abortion, then she too is free to make that choice. This is the whole idea of freedom. This is why it was so important to separate church doctrine from state affairs in a country with so many diverse cultures and religions. It is the reason the Supreme Court decided the way that it did. To do otherwise is to have a country divided into many ideological camps and religious factions, each with their own laws and rights (or lack of rights) separate and distinct from the rest of the country. In a free country, this should never be, and it is the reason we have separation of church and state--so people can make decisions based on their individual needs supported by their freedom of choice.
The Supreme Court was correct in deciding Roe vs Wade. It decided that women do have the right to make private decisions with regard to their bodies. In making its decision the court could not consider questions of morality or religion because our constitution makes no provision for such doctrine--in fact, the court is precluded from making any decision on religious grounds. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, in his Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom (1779) focused on the natural rights of individuals to choose their own beliefs. In a country with so many disparate beliefs, who's beliefs would we follow?
Those who believe that abortion is wrong are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. Under the idea of religious freedom, they are free to choose any doctrine they wish--they are at liberty to refrain from the services they find unacceptable or deplorable--and go about their lives without regard to how their neighbors go about theirs.
The conflict between those for and against abortion happens when opponents act as keepers of their neighbors beliefs, mores, and rights. To attempt to instill, or inflict by force if necessary, a set of rules one group believes in upon another goes beyond fairness and justice. Picture, if you can, a group of pro-abortion (pro-women rights) advocates picketing in front of churches or synagogues demanding women have abortions. It's hard to imagine such a thing, and I don't believe it has ever happened. Yet abortion opponents have picketed and done worse in front of abortion clinics.
Since Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973 there have been thousands of attacks on clinics. Between 1989 and 2004 there have been 24 murders and attempted murders of abortion doctors and over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups (Religious Tolerance). These attacks seem to suggest that providers of abortion are to blame--as if they are actively engaged in promoting or impregnating women so as to profit from the result.
This begs the question: Have we overlooked the fact that the women entering these clinics are our mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, and wives? They are, after all, the ones who are pregnant. Is not the problem one that encompasses all faiths? Haven't women of all faiths also availed themselves of the very services and rights their pastors, preachers, clerics, rabbis, and neighbors denounce, or have themselves denounced?
The two sides of this issue are similar to oil and water in that they should not be mixed, and if mixed will tend to once again separate; each stands on it's own merits and worth. If a woman's beliefs dictate that she should not have an abortion, then she is free to make that choice. If, on the other hand, a woman decides to have an abortion, then she too is free to make that choice. This is the whole idea of freedom. This is why it was so important to separate church doctrine from state affairs in a country with so many diverse cultures and religions. It is the reason the Supreme Court decided the way that it did. To do otherwise is to have a country divided into many ideological camps and religious factions, each with their own laws and rights (or lack of rights) separate and distinct from the rest of the country. In a free country, this should never be, and it is the reason we have separation of church and state--so people can make decisions based on their individual needs supported by their freedom of choice.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Thought Corner
We keep hearing or reading about the different views on abortion, among many other topics of social relevance, and we all have our opinion of how the world should operate. Sometimes we read that the reason something bad happened was because we did not adhere to someone's religious belief and we're somehow being punished by GOD. I'm sure you've heard it, "Your child has autism because it's a punishment from God because you're a sinner...believe in abortion...don't attend my church...etc", you get the picture, perhaps you have heard these words yourself.
Why must people believe that there is someone or something that delights in human suffering or punishment? That is such a human behavior and a human standing, certainly not one applicable to something considered omnipotent and great. It's as if they think they can use the almighty as a weapon against us. Can one group of people believe that the sun shines only for them? Can rational people believe that something called almighty can have a special enemy or a particular friend? Can human beings have so little clue as to the smallness of our species and our insignificant place in the universe? That we could believe that there is a being that would inflict suffering on an innocent and insignificant child? If so, I don't want to worship at the temple of such a beast, nor does such a one deserve to be called God.
The universe is not a weapon to be use against our neighbor--it's simply not ours to command. To condemn a child, group, or religion is to assume to have control of the "almighty", and to do that one would have to be greater than the almighty.
So, in the words of Rodney King to the press (after L.A. police beat him severely), "Can't we all just get along?" Can we?
Can we leave our neighbors to their own decisions? It's okay if they attend a church of their choice. It's okay if they decide to have seven children or none at all. It's okay if they don't believe "In God We Trust", if they did they wouldn't get up for work each day, and they would not stockpile food and nations would not stockpile weapons of war.
In a world of so much chatter, of so much noise, of so much talking and screaming to be heard, the essence of true greatness, inspiration, and love, lies in solitude, quiet reflection, and genuine caring. Our lives do not depend on what we believe or think the almighty wants. If that were so, we would have had direct communication and daily control from above. Do we really think that God needs us to fight his battles? Or that he needs us to interpret what he says? He can talk if he wanted to say anything productive and useful. That there is no word from above should tell us something about our belief system--and perhaps we need to re-evaluate ourselves and our place in this universe.
Peace.
Why must people believe that there is someone or something that delights in human suffering or punishment? That is such a human behavior and a human standing, certainly not one applicable to something considered omnipotent and great. It's as if they think they can use the almighty as a weapon against us. Can one group of people believe that the sun shines only for them? Can rational people believe that something called almighty can have a special enemy or a particular friend? Can human beings have so little clue as to the smallness of our species and our insignificant place in the universe? That we could believe that there is a being that would inflict suffering on an innocent and insignificant child? If so, I don't want to worship at the temple of such a beast, nor does such a one deserve to be called God.
The universe is not a weapon to be use against our neighbor--it's simply not ours to command. To condemn a child, group, or religion is to assume to have control of the "almighty", and to do that one would have to be greater than the almighty.
So, in the words of Rodney King to the press (after L.A. police beat him severely), "Can't we all just get along?" Can we?
Can we leave our neighbors to their own decisions? It's okay if they attend a church of their choice. It's okay if they decide to have seven children or none at all. It's okay if they don't believe "In God We Trust", if they did they wouldn't get up for work each day, and they would not stockpile food and nations would not stockpile weapons of war.
In a world of so much chatter, of so much noise, of so much talking and screaming to be heard, the essence of true greatness, inspiration, and love, lies in solitude, quiet reflection, and genuine caring. Our lives do not depend on what we believe or think the almighty wants. If that were so, we would have had direct communication and daily control from above. Do we really think that God needs us to fight his battles? Or that he needs us to interpret what he says? He can talk if he wanted to say anything productive and useful. That there is no word from above should tell us something about our belief system--and perhaps we need to re-evaluate ourselves and our place in this universe.
Peace.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Whats Up With That
O.K., here's my query and conundrum: Why does a person who tries so hard to be nice for an entire lifetime suddenly becomes violent or abusive? We've all heard stories about people doing " crazy" things: Riding around naked accosting neighbors, or a person damaging property. Why is it that a person is inclined to aberrant behavior when mental illness strikes? Why don't we hear of a person who has developed brain damage who has washed all the cars in the neighborhood or painted the neighbor's fence or house? Why hasn't some mentally deranged person paid for our children's college tuition or mowed my lawn? Wouldn't you think that after practicing goodness for so many years they would freak-out on the side of something good? I do. What's your take on this?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Thought Corner
I was recently thinking that we hear so much about political parties, and are steered to voting a party-line, that we may be tempted to vote out of reflex--a voting habit that comes from the belief in a political party, or because that's the way our parents or friends voted. The idea came to me that perhaps we should be voting for those who seek political office on the basis of merit--their proven track record of upholding the law or laws of their particular state, and especially the U.S. Constitution.
We hear so much of how the U.S. Constitution is being eroded, and that it actually has no meaning in America any more. If we follow the news on a fairly regular basis, it smacks of some truth: Presidents setting aside "habeas corpus" and keeping people in prisons without representation or speedy trials, as afforded everyone in the Bill of Rights. Presidents and other politicians running roughshod over American citizens (and treating the rest of the world even worse). How, knowing this, can we allow this to continue? Are we, as citizens, really as apathetic as our representatives (people we hired) believe we are? How did we allow the President (the U.S. manager, and employee) to dictate his wishes and
disregard the company (U.S.) bylaws. At any corporation he (any employee) would have been fired for flagrant disregard of company rules and insubordination toward employers.
Regardless of campaign promises, a politician's track record for upholding the law should be of paramount consideration before we install anyone in any office of OUR government. Further more, we should stand ready to change our political affiliation so that we may vote for a "Constitutional" candidate with a track record--not a promise.
The need to change "parties" results from the way the election system is set up at present--there just happens to be political parties. But, if we circumvent the system by changing parties to vote, and vote for a qualified candidate, we can better assure ourselves of the best choice possible. Yes, it will take a little effort on our part--but how hard can it be; certainly not as hard as giving up our rights and all future benefits we, our children, parents, grandparents, and grandchildren would enjoy; and it would certainly be easier than trying to get those rights back.
It is my belief that political parties do not have the best interest of the people; their interest is in gaining power, a power we should never abrogate because we become answerable to them and not they to us.
I highly recommend that we all read the transcript of George Washington's farewell address. In it he speaks of the danger of political parties to the health of our country.
So, I ask you, is this doable? Does this make sense? I'd like to read your thoughts.
We hear so much of how the U.S. Constitution is being eroded, and that it actually has no meaning in America any more. If we follow the news on a fairly regular basis, it smacks of some truth: Presidents setting aside "habeas corpus" and keeping people in prisons without representation or speedy trials, as afforded everyone in the Bill of Rights. Presidents and other politicians running roughshod over American citizens (and treating the rest of the world even worse). How, knowing this, can we allow this to continue? Are we, as citizens, really as apathetic as our representatives (people we hired) believe we are? How did we allow the President (the U.S. manager, and employee) to dictate his wishes and
disregard the company (U.S.) bylaws. At any corporation he (any employee) would have been fired for flagrant disregard of company rules and insubordination toward employers.
Regardless of campaign promises, a politician's track record for upholding the law should be of paramount consideration before we install anyone in any office of OUR government. Further more, we should stand ready to change our political affiliation so that we may vote for a "Constitutional" candidate with a track record--not a promise.
The need to change "parties" results from the way the election system is set up at present--there just happens to be political parties. But, if we circumvent the system by changing parties to vote, and vote for a qualified candidate, we can better assure ourselves of the best choice possible. Yes, it will take a little effort on our part--but how hard can it be; certainly not as hard as giving up our rights and all future benefits we, our children, parents, grandparents, and grandchildren would enjoy; and it would certainly be easier than trying to get those rights back.
It is my belief that political parties do not have the best interest of the people; their interest is in gaining power, a power we should never abrogate because we become answerable to them and not they to us.
I highly recommend that we all read the transcript of George Washington's farewell address. In it he speaks of the danger of political parties to the health of our country.
So, I ask you, is this doable? Does this make sense? I'd like to read your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
