There’s the growl of a chainsaw off in the distance this morning. Could be a menacing sound, or the sound of something important getting done, depending on the context, depending on perspective, depending on the way it’s framed. Could be an insensitive idiot recklessly devouring this beautiful land, but it could be someone cutting firewood to keep his family warm for the impending winter. Could be someone cutting down an old-growth redwood, but it could be a man with a plan clearing dead wood to enable new growth. Could be a developer clear-cutting land to build another strip-mall, but it could be somebody tearing down an old shack on the back 40 that had become a rat-trap and a fire hazard. Could be PG&E, or Comcast, cutting down trees for installation of another power cable, or the State building yet another road. But it could be someone clearing an overgrown deer trail to help insure safe passage for the wildlife through an increasingly populated part of this rural environment. Could be someone carving a totem pole out of a big old log in the back yard. Could be someone recording the sound of a chainsaw for a film, or for some other creative project.
I know people who view chainsaws only as weapons of destruction.
They are incapable of seeing them as tools.
The same way they tend to regard our military.
I do not share their myopic views.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
A Talking Contradiction
You might ask, how can I, on the one hand, embrace a sentiment like The Prayer of St. Frances, “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred let me sow love. . . . . “ and on the other hand, write a scathing rant about the corporate aristocracy, spiritual pied pipers, or people willing to be rounded up and branded by the political elite? “That’s not very loving”, you might say. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical? Well, that would be a good question.
To modify a Kris Kristofferson song lyric just a bit,
I’m a talking contradiction, partly smooth, partly friction.
Y’know, anyone willing to open their mouth more than once and profess an idea, or an opinion, is probably going to contradict himself with the second thing that he has to say.
Too many people, knowing that, choose silence over humiliation or embarrassment. Personally, I don’t find anything wrong with contradiction. I find something wrong with practiced, and groomed, conformity of thought. . . . . Scientology, Cabala, if you will. In case you haven’t noticed, human beings ARE a contradiction. As embryo’s (developing people), we float, and swim around in our mothers womb, like guppies in a fish bowl, and then are born and can’t wait to get up and walk. HUH? Is that not a contradiction on the most primitive level? As children we are encouraged with “free to be you and me” kinds of cultural ideas, but trained in the path of conformity. Is that not a contradiction? And does either one really invalidate the other? Is it not a contradiction for a teen-ager to both love and hate his parents? But who’s to say that each of these feelings are not equally legitimate? Is it not a contradiction for adults to want to both protect, and encourage independence in their children? Can I not enjoy the warmth of the daytime and the mystery of the night? Do faith and doubt not co-exist for most of us at times? Or are we just too proud, or scared to admit it?
It is not a contradiction for me to rail against the narcissistic, and self-serving, Madonna’s, the Pelosi's, the Bill and Hillary’s, the Jackson’s (Jessie and Michael), or the Al Gore’s of the world, and then to also pray “Lord, where there is hatred, let me sow love”. It is, in fact, evidence of clear, and rational, thinking. These people (and many like them. You know their names.) pose and position themselves as our cultural, religious, environmental and political leaders. They use us for their own aggrandizement, pretending all the while to care about ‘our struggle’, but actually, they care about power, they care about money, they care about fame and adulation. Oh yes, and they care about writing their own versions of their place in history.
Love requires honesty, of purpose, and of practice. To remind you to not give your support to, or put your faith in, phonies such as these IS an act of love, in, and of, itself. In a world of contradictions, that certainly is not one.
To modify a Kris Kristofferson song lyric just a bit,
I’m a talking contradiction, partly smooth, partly friction.
Y’know, anyone willing to open their mouth more than once and profess an idea, or an opinion, is probably going to contradict himself with the second thing that he has to say.
Too many people, knowing that, choose silence over humiliation or embarrassment. Personally, I don’t find anything wrong with contradiction. I find something wrong with practiced, and groomed, conformity of thought. . . . . Scientology, Cabala, if you will. In case you haven’t noticed, human beings ARE a contradiction. As embryo’s (developing people), we float, and swim around in our mothers womb, like guppies in a fish bowl, and then are born and can’t wait to get up and walk. HUH? Is that not a contradiction on the most primitive level? As children we are encouraged with “free to be you and me” kinds of cultural ideas, but trained in the path of conformity. Is that not a contradiction? And does either one really invalidate the other? Is it not a contradiction for a teen-ager to both love and hate his parents? But who’s to say that each of these feelings are not equally legitimate? Is it not a contradiction for adults to want to both protect, and encourage independence in their children? Can I not enjoy the warmth of the daytime and the mystery of the night? Do faith and doubt not co-exist for most of us at times? Or are we just too proud, or scared to admit it?
It is not a contradiction for me to rail against the narcissistic, and self-serving, Madonna’s, the Pelosi's, the Bill and Hillary’s, the Jackson’s (Jessie and Michael), or the Al Gore’s of the world, and then to also pray “Lord, where there is hatred, let me sow love”. It is, in fact, evidence of clear, and rational, thinking. These people (and many like them. You know their names.) pose and position themselves as our cultural, religious, environmental and political leaders. They use us for their own aggrandizement, pretending all the while to care about ‘our struggle’, but actually, they care about power, they care about money, they care about fame and adulation. Oh yes, and they care about writing their own versions of their place in history.
Love requires honesty, of purpose, and of practice. To remind you to not give your support to, or put your faith in, phonies such as these IS an act of love, in, and of, itself. In a world of contradictions, that certainly is not one.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
You've Changed
You’ve changed! Anybody ever say that to you? I haven’t heard it recently, although I know people think that about me. But I have heard it periodically over the course of my lifetime, always delivered with a negative connotation. Like change is a bad thing? Seems like it usually comes from someone who has not changed a thing in years. Hasn’t changed a point of view, hasn’t changed a perspective, hasn’t changed an ideology, a rationale, a conclusion, a family dynamic, their taste in music, or even the route they drive to work every day. It usually comes from someone who is either stuck in the 60’s and has never changed their drugs, or stuck in a pew and has never changed their dogma.
But it seems to me that change is an essential ingredient in living. Jeez, even rocks change, becoming shaped by water, wind, and the hands of time. If rocks, in all of their stoic resistance, succumb to the inevitable without kicking and screaming, surely the rest of us could embrace change with a little more dignity and grace. As I have always said “if it don’t change, it ain’t alive.” Actually, I’ve never said that, but from now on I always will!
The minutes of the day change, the weeks, months and years do the same. The seasons change. We change our clothes, our cars, our jobs, our habits and routines. We change our circle of friends, our hobbies, our magazine subscriptions, our television interests and our address. Eventually we get gray, wrinkled, blind and stooped. We see things differently. Along the way we change everything, and everything changes. And then someone say’s “you’ve changed”. DUH!
Seriously, when people say that, they’re usually referring to their OWN inability to relate to the changes that have taken place within you, or within the dynamic of your relationship with them. They’re not really saying ‘you’ve changed’, as much as they are saying ‘WE’VE changed’. Or ‘you’ve changed, and I haven’t’. I understand that such an awakening can be painful for someone whose expectation has been that ‘things will always be the same between us’. But things can never always be the same between people. It’s like saying things will always be the same between day and night. But between day and night is dusk, and dusk comes at a different time every day. It comes with a different sky, a different color, and a different temperature. So it is with people.
Mature people will allow their friends and family members to change and grow in their own way, in their own time, and with the clumsiness that usually accompanies new movement. Immature people will do their best to try and inhibit an individual’s growth to suit their own life of guarded, and habitual, conformity.
Next time someone says “you’ve changed” I’m going to try and remember to thank them for noticing.
But it seems to me that change is an essential ingredient in living. Jeez, even rocks change, becoming shaped by water, wind, and the hands of time. If rocks, in all of their stoic resistance, succumb to the inevitable without kicking and screaming, surely the rest of us could embrace change with a little more dignity and grace. As I have always said “if it don’t change, it ain’t alive.” Actually, I’ve never said that, but from now on I always will!
The minutes of the day change, the weeks, months and years do the same. The seasons change. We change our clothes, our cars, our jobs, our habits and routines. We change our circle of friends, our hobbies, our magazine subscriptions, our television interests and our address. Eventually we get gray, wrinkled, blind and stooped. We see things differently. Along the way we change everything, and everything changes. And then someone say’s “you’ve changed”. DUH!
Seriously, when people say that, they’re usually referring to their OWN inability to relate to the changes that have taken place within you, or within the dynamic of your relationship with them. They’re not really saying ‘you’ve changed’, as much as they are saying ‘WE’VE changed’. Or ‘you’ve changed, and I haven’t’. I understand that such an awakening can be painful for someone whose expectation has been that ‘things will always be the same between us’. But things can never always be the same between people. It’s like saying things will always be the same between day and night. But between day and night is dusk, and dusk comes at a different time every day. It comes with a different sky, a different color, and a different temperature. So it is with people.
Mature people will allow their friends and family members to change and grow in their own way, in their own time, and with the clumsiness that usually accompanies new movement. Immature people will do their best to try and inhibit an individual’s growth to suit their own life of guarded, and habitual, conformity.
Next time someone says “you’ve changed” I’m going to try and remember to thank them for noticing.
Friday, August 22, 2008
We Might Be A Mirage
I have been paying attention, of late, to how everything seems to happen at once. By ‘at once’ I don’t mean ‘one thing after another’. I actually mean ‘at once’, at the same time. We are accustomed to thinking of ‘time’ as linear, that is that it plays itself out moment to moment. We are born, we live a series of moments, and then we die, and are gone. Like walking on a centerline down the road and then disappearing off in the distance. Vanishing like a mirage in the desert. I am beginning to understand, and appreciate, that it might not be like that at all. That in fact we might actually be that mirage.
Throughout the course of my life I have had an inordinate number of friends die suddenly, at early ages, and from a myriad of unexpected circumstances. Most of my friends. However, it always feels like they are not really gone, but living in the invisible world, around me, beside me, with me and without me. As if they are here, and as if they were never here. All of that at once. I suppose some psychologists would call it a continuing, and prolonged, sense of grief. Others might consider it a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But I think that there is no differentiation, or separation, between when my friends were here and when they died, or between when they died and how they continue to be here. I think it is all the same. I think life really does happen all at once. All in the blink of an eye.
I am reminded of the people who have had near death experiences, who have faced their own demise in an unexpected moment. Whether the instant before a head-on collision, or when a heart suddenly stops beating. These people will invariably say that their lives flashed before their eyes in a very brief moment, like a quick glance in the mirror, revealing their entire life as if it were in a single breath. That’s it. If it only takes a nano-second to review ones life, perhaps life is actually lived in a similar nano-second. Otherwise, even on ‘fast-forward’, wouldn’t you think it would take a bit longer?
Maybe that’s how life actually is. That it all happens at once. That there really is no such thing as time after all. That the review is actually the life, and that life doesn’t really happen, it just is. It’s difficult to think in these terms, kind of strains the brain, but if we think of time, as we know it, in relation to eternity, then the span of a lifetime is so insignificant as to not even allow itself to be measured. And if eternity happens all at once, which I think it does, can that same lifetime even be considered in terms of measurement at all? There is no time. There is only now.
Ouch.
Everything happens at once.
And we might be a mirage.
Don’t ask me how I know it,
but I’m pretty sure I do.
And I’ll probably lose a lot of readers.
Something else to try and wrap our heads around:
Scientists are now saying that there are more stars in our galaxy
than there are grains of sand on the earth.
And that there are more galaxies in the universe
than there are stars in our galaxy.
Throughout the course of my life I have had an inordinate number of friends die suddenly, at early ages, and from a myriad of unexpected circumstances. Most of my friends. However, it always feels like they are not really gone, but living in the invisible world, around me, beside me, with me and without me. As if they are here, and as if they were never here. All of that at once. I suppose some psychologists would call it a continuing, and prolonged, sense of grief. Others might consider it a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But I think that there is no differentiation, or separation, between when my friends were here and when they died, or between when they died and how they continue to be here. I think it is all the same. I think life really does happen all at once. All in the blink of an eye.
I am reminded of the people who have had near death experiences, who have faced their own demise in an unexpected moment. Whether the instant before a head-on collision, or when a heart suddenly stops beating. These people will invariably say that their lives flashed before their eyes in a very brief moment, like a quick glance in the mirror, revealing their entire life as if it were in a single breath. That’s it. If it only takes a nano-second to review ones life, perhaps life is actually lived in a similar nano-second. Otherwise, even on ‘fast-forward’, wouldn’t you think it would take a bit longer?
Maybe that’s how life actually is. That it all happens at once. That there really is no such thing as time after all. That the review is actually the life, and that life doesn’t really happen, it just is. It’s difficult to think in these terms, kind of strains the brain, but if we think of time, as we know it, in relation to eternity, then the span of a lifetime is so insignificant as to not even allow itself to be measured. And if eternity happens all at once, which I think it does, can that same lifetime even be considered in terms of measurement at all? There is no time. There is only now.
Ouch.
Everything happens at once.
And we might be a mirage.
Don’t ask me how I know it,
but I’m pretty sure I do.
And I’ll probably lose a lot of readers.
Something else to try and wrap our heads around:
Scientists are now saying that there are more stars in our galaxy
than there are grains of sand on the earth.
And that there are more galaxies in the universe
than there are stars in our galaxy.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Dance To The Beat
Life has rhythm, an ever-changing rhythm, but it has a beat of its own. Like in music, where the rhythm can be different for each particular song, the rhythm of life is different for each of us as well. I don’t really think that life changes to meet the movement of the individual, but that the individual, as a unique instrument in the band of life, finds their own rhythm, their own contribution, to add to the beat.
Ever notice how sometimes life moves along smoothly with no hitches, glitches, casualties or concerns? And then at other times every road seems rough, every view obstructed, every week seems like a struggle, every day an exercise in fatigue and futility? Like you’re not playing in time with the band?
Hey, I think that in those times, we’re actually not playing in tune with the drummer. There’s a timeless beat, a universal heartbeat if you will, that sets the time and the tempo for our lives. We move in and out of the groove like amateur musicians at a County Fair talent show, just happy to be on stage, sometimes oblivious to how bad we may actually sound. We might know that something doesn’t feel right, but are, essentially, unaware that we’re not playing on the beat. The results always have a cruel way of letting us know we’ve been a bit off.
And then there are those times when it all comes together for us, when we’re cruising, like in an old Pontiac convertible along Route 66 through the splendor of the Southwest, the wide open spaces and out-of-the -way places to destinations yet unknown. When we’re groovin’ with the radio, tappin’ our toes in time with the band, with one hand on the wheel and one eye on the road. No place I’d rather be.
Got to listen to the drummer, folks.
Got to dance to the beat.
Ever notice how sometimes life moves along smoothly with no hitches, glitches, casualties or concerns? And then at other times every road seems rough, every view obstructed, every week seems like a struggle, every day an exercise in fatigue and futility? Like you’re not playing in time with the band?
Hey, I think that in those times, we’re actually not playing in tune with the drummer. There’s a timeless beat, a universal heartbeat if you will, that sets the time and the tempo for our lives. We move in and out of the groove like amateur musicians at a County Fair talent show, just happy to be on stage, sometimes oblivious to how bad we may actually sound. We might know that something doesn’t feel right, but are, essentially, unaware that we’re not playing on the beat. The results always have a cruel way of letting us know we’ve been a bit off.
And then there are those times when it all comes together for us, when we’re cruising, like in an old Pontiac convertible along Route 66 through the splendor of the Southwest, the wide open spaces and out-of-the -way places to destinations yet unknown. When we’re groovin’ with the radio, tappin’ our toes in time with the band, with one hand on the wheel and one eye on the road. No place I’d rather be.
Got to listen to the drummer, folks.
Got to dance to the beat.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
We Get Stuck
It’s always good to get away, whether one is getting away from the routine, the grind, or even the comfort. Doesn’t really matter. Change is good, or at least it can be if you let it. I had a week away from everything, and then another week of slow integration back into the life I temporarily left. Seems like whenever I do get out of here for awhile it becomes increasingly difficult to pick back up where I left off. I think that’s OK. It indicates to me, and actually reminds me, that life truly is transitory. That leaving things, leaving places, and even leaving people is a necessary part of life. Being stuck, whether being stuck in a rut, or stuck on the fast track, usually proves to be an uninspiring alternative. We get stuck in a lot of ways, and the thing about it is that when we are we usually don’t even know it. It often takes someone else to point it out, or some change of environment that would more easily enable a deeper self-reflection. We get stuck emotionally, socially, creatively, intellectually, spiritually, politically, and so on. Some people don’t mind that. It’s a comfortable place for them. They do better there. That’s OK also. Those who prefer a greater internal challenge, however, tend to whither on that vine and die. Or dry up and blow away across an increasingly barren desert, as would some forlorn tumbleweed, like dust in the proverbial wind.
I spent some time in the high desert with family, long conversations around the campfire, under a welcoming sky, stars blanketing the universe like the comforter thrown across my own bed. Milky Way dazzling the imagination, moon finding its predetermined path, and following it across a vast horizon, singing its own kind of traveling song. My cowboy brother-in-law telling stories to make us laugh, sometimes to the point of tears. Playing in the river with the kids, building dams for pools to swim, catching fish in a bucket, dogs splashing through the water like sea lions with legs, adding to the wonderful, but tranquil, pandemonium of life unrestrained.
A nice hike in the back-country, and a trail ride on horseback in our spare time. Cookouts in the evening, morning coffee by the fire.
Doesn’t get much better than that. Not in this lifetime.
Maybe not in the next.
______________________________________________
While I was away I gave very little thought to my novel, my blogs, or even my songs. However, I did write a few poems, which I’ve posted for you on the 'Musings' page here on ‘The Old Coyote’ website. Check em out.
I’m back to writing again, having found some renewal. I’ll try to keep the thoughts fluid, flowing freely, like the river from which they emerge.
I spent some time in the high desert with family, long conversations around the campfire, under a welcoming sky, stars blanketing the universe like the comforter thrown across my own bed. Milky Way dazzling the imagination, moon finding its predetermined path, and following it across a vast horizon, singing its own kind of traveling song. My cowboy brother-in-law telling stories to make us laugh, sometimes to the point of tears. Playing in the river with the kids, building dams for pools to swim, catching fish in a bucket, dogs splashing through the water like sea lions with legs, adding to the wonderful, but tranquil, pandemonium of life unrestrained.
A nice hike in the back-country, and a trail ride on horseback in our spare time. Cookouts in the evening, morning coffee by the fire.
Doesn’t get much better than that. Not in this lifetime.
Maybe not in the next.
______________________________________________
While I was away I gave very little thought to my novel, my blogs, or even my songs. However, I did write a few poems, which I’ve posted for you on the 'Musings' page here on ‘The Old Coyote’ website. Check em out.
I’m back to writing again, having found some renewal. I’ll try to keep the thoughts fluid, flowing freely, like the river from which they emerge.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Vacation
Well, I'm going on vacation. It's a lot of pressure trying to provide you all with something to read with your morning cereal. So, I'll be gone for a week, maybe two, am not sure yet. In any event, check back after about a week. I'm sure by then I'll, again, have someting quite irrelevant to write about.
But if you just cannot eat your cereal without my voice in the morning, then I encourage you to go back and re-read all 58 of my blogs, in ascending order.
And count the obvious contradictions in my thinking.
Denes
But if you just cannot eat your cereal without my voice in the morning, then I encourage you to go back and re-read all 58 of my blogs, in ascending order.
And count the obvious contradictions in my thinking.
Denes
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Think Outside The Party
Things are not working like they’re supposed to. We set out to elect a president who is supposed to be a president for all the people, yet in the campaigns leading up to the elections we see Republicans demonizing Democrats, Democrats disparaging Republicans, and Independents calling both parties the ‘same party in different suits’. Actually, the Independents probably have that right, but as they grow to actually be a party equal to the other two, we will then have one party masquerading as three, but in different suits. There is also the ‘Peace and Freedom Party (I’m not willing to protect my family from the bad guys, and I’m not willing for you to protect them for me either). There’s the Green Party (you should give me your money so I can use it to protect the environment from people like yourself, and for people like me). There are other parties as well. In fact, I am even the sole member of my own legally registered party, the ‘T.U.F.T. Party’ (Tell Us the F___ing Truth). I hope that Independents will not become a major party. I hope they will be people who vote for the person they feel is best suited to serve the interests of the country, without the blind loyalty to party affiliation, but I don’t hold out much hope for that. If I vote for the Independent Party candidate because I am a member of the Independent Party, I am, in effect, just signing on to an ideology that is no different from the Democrats or Republicans. I have voted the party line. Once I have done that I have relinquished the power I hold as an individual. How independent is that?
So anyway, after all the personal attacks hurled back and forth during the election season, we then end up with a new president who pretends he never said any of those things about any of those people, or that his henchmen were not on the payroll to deliver the blows for him. Even though only half the country voted for him, he now pretends that he is the President of ‘all the people’. Some candidates are more adept than others at that pretense, and at the illusion of unity, even while disparaging half the people in the country for not sharing their views. I, for one, don’t mind a President not sharing my views, but I do mind the disparagement, and I do mind the pretense. I am not about everybody thinking the same. That makes for a dangerous concoction. I don’t want everybody thinking like me, and I certainly don’t want to follow somebody else’s thinking either. I’m more about making stew. Throw in a little of this, a little of that, a little of the other, and whaalah, we’ve got something cooking here. I would bet that most of you who read my blogs disagree with me on many issues, or at least on some. Disagreement is how we achieve balance, and that’s how we protect ourselves from, ultimately, being ruled by the new aristocracy.
But back to candidates disparaging one another. A politician usually attacks his opponent if he has nothing of value to put forth himself. What if they actually advanced ideas to be elected on, rather than ideologies, or personalities? What if they actually had a plan? Ideas, and workable plans that would benefit the American people, rather than simply garnering favor with their particular party? What if they spent their time convincing the voters that they were intelligent enough, qualified enough, and persuasive enough to actually carry out their plan? Instead, they spend their time arguing and attacking each other, or their rival parties, but, at the same time, trying to appear to be humble in the not-so-subtle deification of themselves. I happen to like Barack Obama as a person, but if you have listened carefully to him over the past few months you will note that it is exactly what he does. However, because he is so eloquent, it just doesn’t seem like he’s doing it. I have some respect for John McCain, but he does it also. Because he’s clumsy about it you’re more inclined to notice. In this country, our freedom of speech is supposed to be protected (that’s another matter altogether), but just because we can say something about somebody doesn’t mean that we should. It’s cheap, it’s unbecoming, and it’s not leadership.
What if these candidates knew they would end up working together, and for each other? What if, rather than having strategically chosen a vice presidential running mate, someone who could bring in the votes of a particular demographic, a presidential candidate knew in advance that the loser of the election would become the Vice President? I’m not talking about a Vice President with little, or no, real responsibility, but one with significant power and influence. For instance, the president would get to submit names, to be approved by the Congress, for Secretary of State, the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and Secretary of the Interior; but the Vice President would get to submit names for approval for positions like Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development; but they would, for instance, have to agree upon jointly, and submit names together, for Secretary of Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security? The President would get to choose his own non-cabinet officials and appointments to the Supreme Court. But think about it, Al Gore and George Bush would have been thrown together. Gore would have continued on through Bush’s second term, or even run against him, were he, rather than John Kerry, endorsed by the democrats. Barack Obama and John McCain. Think about that. They would be required to compromise for the good of the people. They would be forced to conduct themselves with political dignity, to cultivate ideas, to extend a measure of respect for one another, to set the example for Congress and the Senate. The bi-partisan infighting and filibustering would be minimized among those representatives. Everyone would have a political stake in co-operation, rather than in elitist petulance.
There could be numerous political parties represented in the general election. Only the two highest vote getters would be appointed to office, but at least the majority of Americans would be represented.
Many regard the Constitution as a sacred document to be framed and guarded behind tamper proof glass, and some regard it as a living organism designed to serve its authors.
I am of the latter. I’m not a constitutional scholar, or a political scientist, but I do know that the Constitution provides a blueprint for governing our country. I don’t know what it would take to enact these kinds of changes, but I do know that it would have to come from the people. The politicians would never support such an idea. They have too much at stake in the status quo.
As some of you know, we are not a democracy, but a republic, with every state having its own representation in congress and the senate, but also having autonomy from the federal government. And in the great tradition of federalism, cities, towns and other communities defer certain powers to a central government, such as foreign affairs etc., but retain for themselves the power to enact and enforce their own elections, laws and practices. That is our freedom, and that is how it should be. The way the politicians seek to break the back of that independence is to consolidate everything under one roof, their roof. And we’re all aware of how these same officials offer cities, towns and communities funding in exchange for their co-operation. Or in effect, withholding government subsidies earmarked for local projects in order to illicit the co-operation of a particular local government.
It’s important that we have more than one party in the political process. History shows us that when there is only one party, or one primary, dominant party, the end result is, more often than not, a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship, or a brutal dictatorship. Often a combination of the two. It is why it is so important that, in this country, we not allow the political parties to continue to blur their differences. The ‘unity’ politicians are, in fact, those most likely to believe in a ‘one world government’. It is they who are most determined to lead our country into a ‘one party system’, but they pretend otherwise. They will never say it in those particular words, but they will enact laws to accelerate its arrival. Be very careful about political saviors. Be just as careful about long established, and entrenched, politicians. One will lead us over a cliff, and the other will keep us stuck in the mud. But if the two had to co-operate on policy, and strategy, it is far more likely that the American people would be the beneficiaries of that co-operation. It is only when people begin to think, and vote, independently that we will begin to raise up public servants, rather than the usual array of carbon copy politicians.
And it is only when politicians, of differing parties, are forced to work together
that they actually will.
So anyway, after all the personal attacks hurled back and forth during the election season, we then end up with a new president who pretends he never said any of those things about any of those people, or that his henchmen were not on the payroll to deliver the blows for him. Even though only half the country voted for him, he now pretends that he is the President of ‘all the people’. Some candidates are more adept than others at that pretense, and at the illusion of unity, even while disparaging half the people in the country for not sharing their views. I, for one, don’t mind a President not sharing my views, but I do mind the disparagement, and I do mind the pretense. I am not about everybody thinking the same. That makes for a dangerous concoction. I don’t want everybody thinking like me, and I certainly don’t want to follow somebody else’s thinking either. I’m more about making stew. Throw in a little of this, a little of that, a little of the other, and whaalah, we’ve got something cooking here. I would bet that most of you who read my blogs disagree with me on many issues, or at least on some. Disagreement is how we achieve balance, and that’s how we protect ourselves from, ultimately, being ruled by the new aristocracy.
But back to candidates disparaging one another. A politician usually attacks his opponent if he has nothing of value to put forth himself. What if they actually advanced ideas to be elected on, rather than ideologies, or personalities? What if they actually had a plan? Ideas, and workable plans that would benefit the American people, rather than simply garnering favor with their particular party? What if they spent their time convincing the voters that they were intelligent enough, qualified enough, and persuasive enough to actually carry out their plan? Instead, they spend their time arguing and attacking each other, or their rival parties, but, at the same time, trying to appear to be humble in the not-so-subtle deification of themselves. I happen to like Barack Obama as a person, but if you have listened carefully to him over the past few months you will note that it is exactly what he does. However, because he is so eloquent, it just doesn’t seem like he’s doing it. I have some respect for John McCain, but he does it also. Because he’s clumsy about it you’re more inclined to notice. In this country, our freedom of speech is supposed to be protected (that’s another matter altogether), but just because we can say something about somebody doesn’t mean that we should. It’s cheap, it’s unbecoming, and it’s not leadership.
What if these candidates knew they would end up working together, and for each other? What if, rather than having strategically chosen a vice presidential running mate, someone who could bring in the votes of a particular demographic, a presidential candidate knew in advance that the loser of the election would become the Vice President? I’m not talking about a Vice President with little, or no, real responsibility, but one with significant power and influence. For instance, the president would get to submit names, to be approved by the Congress, for Secretary of State, the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and Secretary of the Interior; but the Vice President would get to submit names for approval for positions like Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development; but they would, for instance, have to agree upon jointly, and submit names together, for Secretary of Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security? The President would get to choose his own non-cabinet officials and appointments to the Supreme Court. But think about it, Al Gore and George Bush would have been thrown together. Gore would have continued on through Bush’s second term, or even run against him, were he, rather than John Kerry, endorsed by the democrats. Barack Obama and John McCain. Think about that. They would be required to compromise for the good of the people. They would be forced to conduct themselves with political dignity, to cultivate ideas, to extend a measure of respect for one another, to set the example for Congress and the Senate. The bi-partisan infighting and filibustering would be minimized among those representatives. Everyone would have a political stake in co-operation, rather than in elitist petulance.
There could be numerous political parties represented in the general election. Only the two highest vote getters would be appointed to office, but at least the majority of Americans would be represented.
Many regard the Constitution as a sacred document to be framed and guarded behind tamper proof glass, and some regard it as a living organism designed to serve its authors.
I am of the latter. I’m not a constitutional scholar, or a political scientist, but I do know that the Constitution provides a blueprint for governing our country. I don’t know what it would take to enact these kinds of changes, but I do know that it would have to come from the people. The politicians would never support such an idea. They have too much at stake in the status quo.
As some of you know, we are not a democracy, but a republic, with every state having its own representation in congress and the senate, but also having autonomy from the federal government. And in the great tradition of federalism, cities, towns and other communities defer certain powers to a central government, such as foreign affairs etc., but retain for themselves the power to enact and enforce their own elections, laws and practices. That is our freedom, and that is how it should be. The way the politicians seek to break the back of that independence is to consolidate everything under one roof, their roof. And we’re all aware of how these same officials offer cities, towns and communities funding in exchange for their co-operation. Or in effect, withholding government subsidies earmarked for local projects in order to illicit the co-operation of a particular local government.
It’s important that we have more than one party in the political process. History shows us that when there is only one party, or one primary, dominant party, the end result is, more often than not, a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship, or a brutal dictatorship. Often a combination of the two. It is why it is so important that, in this country, we not allow the political parties to continue to blur their differences. The ‘unity’ politicians are, in fact, those most likely to believe in a ‘one world government’. It is they who are most determined to lead our country into a ‘one party system’, but they pretend otherwise. They will never say it in those particular words, but they will enact laws to accelerate its arrival. Be very careful about political saviors. Be just as careful about long established, and entrenched, politicians. One will lead us over a cliff, and the other will keep us stuck in the mud. But if the two had to co-operate on policy, and strategy, it is far more likely that the American people would be the beneficiaries of that co-operation. It is only when people begin to think, and vote, independently that we will begin to raise up public servants, rather than the usual array of carbon copy politicians.
And it is only when politicians, of differing parties, are forced to work together
that they actually will.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
There Should Be No Hunger
Snow falls on the mountain. As the snow melts the mountain absorbs as much water as it needs. The excess begins its way downhill in trickles, fingers of runoff, seeking a freer flow as it picks up momentum. In search of the path of least resistance, it meets up, and merges with other flows to form small streams, which in turn become creeks, which feed rivers. The rivers empty into gorges and valleys, low lying areas where the water accumulates to become lakes, until eventually overflowing their own banks, and the process of trickles, streams, creeks and rivers begins again, filling up even lower level valleys where the overflow continues on down, and out, to the sea. Many tributaries bypass the lake stage altogether, moving swiftly, freely, and unencumbered, through the hills and valleys on their path to the ocean. The water eventually evaporates, rising up to the sky to form clouds, which drop rain and snow on the higher elevations again to ensure the continuation of the cycle. It is the natural way. It is how the planet was designed to work.
There is no need for anybody to be hungry in our country. There is enough abundance to provide for all. The problem is not in the supply, but in the distribution. The problem is not about resources, but about direction of flow. It is about accumulation, and it is about power. It is about those on the bottom feeding those on the top. It is about water flowing UP-hill rather than following it’s natural course.
If we, as a people, took it upon ourselves to help care for, and raise up, those who are financially, and circumstantially, beneath us, the distribution of food and services would move unabated from the top down to the bottom, from those with the most, eventually down to those with the least, as it should be. But it must involve people at every level. The comfortable need to give to the less comfortable, the poor to the poorer. The natural cycle must move un-interrupted. Far too often we consider it to be the responsibility of the wealthy, or the government, to take care of everybody in need. But in actuality, it is our own responsibility. It is mine, and it is yours. It is part of what makes us whole and complete as human beings.
When a government agency comes in and builds a damn to restrict the natural overflow of a lake, that government can then control how much water to release, when to release it, and what community to direct it to. We see that all the time in Northern California with Lakes Shasta, Mendocino, Sonoma, and the rivers they empty into. Constant maneuvering and politicking by special interests to manage the rivers to protect the fish, or to release more water to this community for irrigation, or less to that community for recreation etc. When we allow the government to collect our money, hold it, and distribute it to the needy for us, more often than not, ‘needy’ will best be defined in terms of political expediency, or to put it more simply, ‘votes’.
When relying on the government to care for our fellow humans, we lose the ‘blessing’ that would, otherwise, be connected to the giving. I believe that not only do we lose our own blessing, but that the prospective recipient of the giving loses it as well. When the government welfare programs anonymously prop up the underclass, the underclass has no motivation to want to do well. They continue to be recipients of shame, rather than of life, expectation and promise. There should be no expectation in the giving, but there should be, in the receiving, a responsibility for the gift. “My neighbor gave me these tomato plants. I will grow them, with gratitude, and give some of the tomatoes to my other neighbor who is not doing as well as I am. And I will also teach him how to grow his own.” This is how life should work. This is how people feel valued, and motivated, rather than devalued and paralyzed.
When help comes from the top directly down to the bottom, and all the in-between levels are passed over, all those people (the majority) are cut out of the distribution chain, robbing them of participation in the act of living, and encouraging them to continue to feed the government so the government can ‘feed the needy’. It is the damn in the lake.
It is the interruption of the natural flow.
The government loves to have the people beholding to it, rather than having people beholding to other people. It enables them to control us. It is, in essence, the government paying us for our co-operation. When we give them this kind of control we give up our dignity, and our ability, and propensity to rise above our circumstances. Never has this been more evident than in the Katrina Hurricane disaster, where in New Orleans, an inordinate number of poor people, many of them welfare families, depended on, and waited upon, the government to rescue them from their circumstances. When the government failed them they perished. A sad and tragic consequence of the conditioning of government reliance. Prior to the hurricane, had self-reliance, and independence been nurtured, rather than discouraged, many of these people would have survived. Had the natural flow of giving been in practice prior to the disaster, the natural distribution of assistance would have already been in place as well. As it were, the rich and the comfortable got out of town with the early warnings while the poor were left, unequipped, to fend for themselves. What if people at every socio-economic level were looking out for those at the level even just beneath them? And what if those with means had made commitments to assist those who were without?
Unfortunately, we have been in the habit of paying ‘up’, and it has infected and influenced our culture to our own detriment. We pay big politicians to elect themselves to office, ostensibly for our benefit. Then we pay the big government to protect us. We pay the big insurance companies to protect our financial investments. We pay the big corporations for our goods and services. We give our money to the big ‘Non-Profit’ agencies to distribute our donations, even though most of them have administrative budgets of between 60 and 85 percent of their gross fund-raising, executives making obscene salaries, and political agendas that would make you want to take your donation back. But we continue to pay ‘up’ because, well, we just do. Ever notice how people usually give the most elaborate parties, and the most expensive gifts, to those who are above them on the socio-economic ladder? Ever notice how we attend the parties of our ‘superiors’, but not of our ‘inferiors’? Ever notice how much quicker we are to laugh at the jokes of our bosses and ‘social superiors’? Ever notice how willing we are to offer our assistance to those who don’t really need it, to those who can afford to buy their own assistance, but how slow we are to offer it to those ‘beneath’ us, those who maybe can’t afford to buy it? We are all social climbers, of sorts, and things need to be re-evaluated. They need to change.
As I have said, “there is no need for anybody to be hungry in our country. There is enough abundance to provide for all. The problem is not in the supply, but in the distribution. The problem is not about resources, but about direction of flow. It is about accumulation, and it is about power. It is about those on the bottom feeding those on the top. It is about water flowing UP-hill rather than following it’s natural course.”
Water needs to be allowed, once again, to flow downhill, free and unencumbered.
Find a way to help provide for someone who is struggling beneath you.
Note: My blogs can be emailed to your friends by clicking on the little envelope below.
There is no need for anybody to be hungry in our country. There is enough abundance to provide for all. The problem is not in the supply, but in the distribution. The problem is not about resources, but about direction of flow. It is about accumulation, and it is about power. It is about those on the bottom feeding those on the top. It is about water flowing UP-hill rather than following it’s natural course.
If we, as a people, took it upon ourselves to help care for, and raise up, those who are financially, and circumstantially, beneath us, the distribution of food and services would move unabated from the top down to the bottom, from those with the most, eventually down to those with the least, as it should be. But it must involve people at every level. The comfortable need to give to the less comfortable, the poor to the poorer. The natural cycle must move un-interrupted. Far too often we consider it to be the responsibility of the wealthy, or the government, to take care of everybody in need. But in actuality, it is our own responsibility. It is mine, and it is yours. It is part of what makes us whole and complete as human beings.
When a government agency comes in and builds a damn to restrict the natural overflow of a lake, that government can then control how much water to release, when to release it, and what community to direct it to. We see that all the time in Northern California with Lakes Shasta, Mendocino, Sonoma, and the rivers they empty into. Constant maneuvering and politicking by special interests to manage the rivers to protect the fish, or to release more water to this community for irrigation, or less to that community for recreation etc. When we allow the government to collect our money, hold it, and distribute it to the needy for us, more often than not, ‘needy’ will best be defined in terms of political expediency, or to put it more simply, ‘votes’.
When relying on the government to care for our fellow humans, we lose the ‘blessing’ that would, otherwise, be connected to the giving. I believe that not only do we lose our own blessing, but that the prospective recipient of the giving loses it as well. When the government welfare programs anonymously prop up the underclass, the underclass has no motivation to want to do well. They continue to be recipients of shame, rather than of life, expectation and promise. There should be no expectation in the giving, but there should be, in the receiving, a responsibility for the gift. “My neighbor gave me these tomato plants. I will grow them, with gratitude, and give some of the tomatoes to my other neighbor who is not doing as well as I am. And I will also teach him how to grow his own.” This is how life should work. This is how people feel valued, and motivated, rather than devalued and paralyzed.
When help comes from the top directly down to the bottom, and all the in-between levels are passed over, all those people (the majority) are cut out of the distribution chain, robbing them of participation in the act of living, and encouraging them to continue to feed the government so the government can ‘feed the needy’. It is the damn in the lake.
It is the interruption of the natural flow.
The government loves to have the people beholding to it, rather than having people beholding to other people. It enables them to control us. It is, in essence, the government paying us for our co-operation. When we give them this kind of control we give up our dignity, and our ability, and propensity to rise above our circumstances. Never has this been more evident than in the Katrina Hurricane disaster, where in New Orleans, an inordinate number of poor people, many of them welfare families, depended on, and waited upon, the government to rescue them from their circumstances. When the government failed them they perished. A sad and tragic consequence of the conditioning of government reliance. Prior to the hurricane, had self-reliance, and independence been nurtured, rather than discouraged, many of these people would have survived. Had the natural flow of giving been in practice prior to the disaster, the natural distribution of assistance would have already been in place as well. As it were, the rich and the comfortable got out of town with the early warnings while the poor were left, unequipped, to fend for themselves. What if people at every socio-economic level were looking out for those at the level even just beneath them? And what if those with means had made commitments to assist those who were without?
Unfortunately, we have been in the habit of paying ‘up’, and it has infected and influenced our culture to our own detriment. We pay big politicians to elect themselves to office, ostensibly for our benefit. Then we pay the big government to protect us. We pay the big insurance companies to protect our financial investments. We pay the big corporations for our goods and services. We give our money to the big ‘Non-Profit’ agencies to distribute our donations, even though most of them have administrative budgets of between 60 and 85 percent of their gross fund-raising, executives making obscene salaries, and political agendas that would make you want to take your donation back. But we continue to pay ‘up’ because, well, we just do. Ever notice how people usually give the most elaborate parties, and the most expensive gifts, to those who are above them on the socio-economic ladder? Ever notice how we attend the parties of our ‘superiors’, but not of our ‘inferiors’? Ever notice how much quicker we are to laugh at the jokes of our bosses and ‘social superiors’? Ever notice how willing we are to offer our assistance to those who don’t really need it, to those who can afford to buy their own assistance, but how slow we are to offer it to those ‘beneath’ us, those who maybe can’t afford to buy it? We are all social climbers, of sorts, and things need to be re-evaluated. They need to change.
As I have said, “there is no need for anybody to be hungry in our country. There is enough abundance to provide for all. The problem is not in the supply, but in the distribution. The problem is not about resources, but about direction of flow. It is about accumulation, and it is about power. It is about those on the bottom feeding those on the top. It is about water flowing UP-hill rather than following it’s natural course.”
Water needs to be allowed, once again, to flow downhill, free and unencumbered.
Find a way to help provide for someone who is struggling beneath you.
Note: My blogs can be emailed to your friends by clicking on the little envelope below.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Things Have Changed
I liked it when kids could go outside and play barefoot all day at the park, around the neighborhood, or down at their friend’s house. They could ride bikes all over the place as long as they came home by dark. No play dates needed, no supervision, no structured agenda. Just kids being kids, free and spontaneous. Sure they got hurt, they missed lunch, they forgot to head home sometimes in time for dinner, they got in trouble, got grounded, and then they’d do the same things all over again when they got off restriction. Kind of a natural cycle of being a kid. Too much to worry about now.
Things have changed.
I liked it when we could work on our own cars, in our own garages, or in the driveway out front of the house. Cars are too complicated now. They’re all highly specialized, computer synched, and even if you’re savvy enough to understand how all of that works, you still would need the specialized machines and tools. It’s not like when you could just go down to the auto-parts store and pick up a different sized wrench. It’s all being taken out of our hands now.
Things have changed.
I liked it when you could drop by somebody’s house unannounced, or when they could drop by yours. Before everybody got so busy, before our time became so precious and guarded. Before our personal space became more precious than gold.
Things have changed.
I liked it when friendships were formed around what we had in common, the differences were not quite so important. Seems like today our resistance to friendship is more profound than our embracing of it, and the process is, more likely than not, defined by counting the number of differences and measuring them against an ever-diminishing list of what we do have in common. Consequently, fewer friendships are formed, and of those that are, fewer still will last beyond the honeymoon phase.
Things have changed.
I liked it when we were more inclined to trust somebody from early on, and then they had to earn your mistrust. Seems like nowadays we mistrust everyone until they earn our trust. I don’t know, maybe that’s how it should be. But I do know that. . . .
Things have changed.
I liked it when you could jump in the car and take off for a little spontaneous adventure, maybe visit an out-of-town friend, or do some car-camping, or whatever. Drive as long as you wanted, pull over and jump in a lake, or rock-hop up a river or creek, stop when you felt like it, sleep where you wanted. Now it all has to be well planned. Have I made my reservations? Have I left emergency numbers with friends or family? Have I put the newspaper delivery on hold? Do I have my night-light timers set at home? Has my car been serviced recently? Is my auto insurance current? Is my AAA roadside service up to date? What about my GPS? Do I have my cell phone, charger, computer, credit cards, maps? Something to read? My CD’s? My IPod? Do I have some light clothes, some warm clothes, a jacket for any occasion, some shoes, sandals, boots, gloves, hats? Have I remembered to reschedule the appointment with my therapist? Or should I wait and leave after the session?
Things have changed.
I liked it when people acknowledged gifts with a thank you note, or at least a phone call. And when they actually let you know that they appreciated something nice you may have done for them. There’s a lot of silence today around those kinds of things. People seem to feel like acknowledgement of something somehow creates a personal indebtedness of sorts, even if it doesn’t. And people don’t want to feel any kind of indebtedness to anybody. It’s pretty common. I’ve experienced it quite often. As an example, I’ve given, or sent, many of my new CD’s as gifts to people I know, or have known. I would say that 85 to 90 percent of those people have never even acknowledged having received them, let alone acknowledged having listened to, or appreciated them. Even writing an email only takes a minute. It’s not even about whether or not they liked the music. It’s about common courtesy. Fortunately, I don’t give gifts for reciprocity. I give them because I want to. But the silence never seems healthy, and it doesn’t seem right.
Things have changed.
I liked it when we didn’t have so much stuff. When we enjoyed what we had, when we used what we had, repaired things if they got broken, and eventually passed things down to our siblings, or friends, saved them for our children, or even donated them to the Goodwill. Our stuff was a part of us. We had an investment in the things that gave enjoyment to us. Today we acquire so much, and use so little of it, that it has no meaning for us. It has no connection to us, and it has no lasting value. Everything is buried in the closet, lost in the garage, tucked away in some storage facility, or left to rust in the back yard. Eventually we just throw it all away. But the thing is, we keep getting more and more new stuff. We don’t repair what gets broken, cost too much to repair, and there’s always a bigger, better, brighter, newer model of just about everything constantly calling to us from the TV like a Muslim call to worship from a loudspeaker in the center of town. We just have too much stuff.
Things have changed.
Things have changed.
I liked it when we could work on our own cars, in our own garages, or in the driveway out front of the house. Cars are too complicated now. They’re all highly specialized, computer synched, and even if you’re savvy enough to understand how all of that works, you still would need the specialized machines and tools. It’s not like when you could just go down to the auto-parts store and pick up a different sized wrench. It’s all being taken out of our hands now.
Things have changed.
I liked it when you could drop by somebody’s house unannounced, or when they could drop by yours. Before everybody got so busy, before our time became so precious and guarded. Before our personal space became more precious than gold.
Things have changed.
I liked it when friendships were formed around what we had in common, the differences were not quite so important. Seems like today our resistance to friendship is more profound than our embracing of it, and the process is, more likely than not, defined by counting the number of differences and measuring them against an ever-diminishing list of what we do have in common. Consequently, fewer friendships are formed, and of those that are, fewer still will last beyond the honeymoon phase.
Things have changed.
I liked it when we were more inclined to trust somebody from early on, and then they had to earn your mistrust. Seems like nowadays we mistrust everyone until they earn our trust. I don’t know, maybe that’s how it should be. But I do know that. . . .
Things have changed.
I liked it when you could jump in the car and take off for a little spontaneous adventure, maybe visit an out-of-town friend, or do some car-camping, or whatever. Drive as long as you wanted, pull over and jump in a lake, or rock-hop up a river or creek, stop when you felt like it, sleep where you wanted. Now it all has to be well planned. Have I made my reservations? Have I left emergency numbers with friends or family? Have I put the newspaper delivery on hold? Do I have my night-light timers set at home? Has my car been serviced recently? Is my auto insurance current? Is my AAA roadside service up to date? What about my GPS? Do I have my cell phone, charger, computer, credit cards, maps? Something to read? My CD’s? My IPod? Do I have some light clothes, some warm clothes, a jacket for any occasion, some shoes, sandals, boots, gloves, hats? Have I remembered to reschedule the appointment with my therapist? Or should I wait and leave after the session?
Things have changed.
I liked it when people acknowledged gifts with a thank you note, or at least a phone call. And when they actually let you know that they appreciated something nice you may have done for them. There’s a lot of silence today around those kinds of things. People seem to feel like acknowledgement of something somehow creates a personal indebtedness of sorts, even if it doesn’t. And people don’t want to feel any kind of indebtedness to anybody. It’s pretty common. I’ve experienced it quite often. As an example, I’ve given, or sent, many of my new CD’s as gifts to people I know, or have known. I would say that 85 to 90 percent of those people have never even acknowledged having received them, let alone acknowledged having listened to, or appreciated them. Even writing an email only takes a minute. It’s not even about whether or not they liked the music. It’s about common courtesy. Fortunately, I don’t give gifts for reciprocity. I give them because I want to. But the silence never seems healthy, and it doesn’t seem right.
Things have changed.
I liked it when we didn’t have so much stuff. When we enjoyed what we had, when we used what we had, repaired things if they got broken, and eventually passed things down to our siblings, or friends, saved them for our children, or even donated them to the Goodwill. Our stuff was a part of us. We had an investment in the things that gave enjoyment to us. Today we acquire so much, and use so little of it, that it has no meaning for us. It has no connection to us, and it has no lasting value. Everything is buried in the closet, lost in the garage, tucked away in some storage facility, or left to rust in the back yard. Eventually we just throw it all away. But the thing is, we keep getting more and more new stuff. We don’t repair what gets broken, cost too much to repair, and there’s always a bigger, better, brighter, newer model of just about everything constantly calling to us from the TV like a Muslim call to worship from a loudspeaker in the center of town. We just have too much stuff.
Things have changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
