I Am Alone

I am alone.

I do not fear this, if I did, it will paralyze me.

My thoughts are entirely my own.

I am responsible for my actions and words.

My beliefs are mine and mine alone.

I was born alone and I will die alone.

Moreover, this is all good.

Some people are not alone.  Their heads are filled with multiple ‘people’.

I do not want to be one of them.

I do not want to fear waking up and not knowing which ‘me’ I will be that day.

It is good to be alone and the only me there is.

I accept it.

By accepting my singularity, I have the power to unapologetically be who I am.

When someone discounts who I am it is their problem.

When someone tries to change me, I may consider it, I may try it on.

Then either make the change part of whom I am or let it go.

If I change, I am not carrying a part of them inside me.  I am a different me.

I am the ever changing me.

I am the me, I have chosen to be.

I am never alone.

Every where I go I carry them with me

The voices, thoughts, words and images

Of people, poets, actors, friends and family.

They advise me,

They remind me,

They are here to support me in all that I do.

They make me strong,

The make me calm,

They fortify me against my doubts

And those who doubt my ability to succeed,

My desire to do good.

They free me to move forward.

They free me to act

When my impulse is to turn back

When I would rather not go on.

They give me the patients to choose

Then see what happens.

They help me be me.

No Protestant Majority in US

NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study. One reason: The number of Americans with noreligious affiliation is on the rise.

     The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 percent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 percent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S.           Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.

     Among the reasons for the change a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion. The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years.

     Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular. While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious." Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren't actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organized religion are permanently broken.

     Growth among those with no religion has been a major preoccupation of American faith leaders who worry that the United States, a highly religious country, would go the way of Western Europe, where church attendance has plummeted. Pope Benedict XVI has partly dedicated his pontificate to combating secularism in the West. This week in Rome, he is convening a three-week synod, or assembly, of bishops from around the world aimed at bringing back Roman Catholics who have left the church.

     The trend also has political implications. American voters who describe themselves as having no religion vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Pew found Americans with no religion support abortion rights and gay marriage at a much higher-rate than the U.S. public at large. These "nones" are an increasing segment of voters who are registered as Democrats or lean toward the party, growing from 17 percent to 24 percent over the last five years. The religiously unaffiliated are becoming as important a constituency to Democrats as evangelicals are to Republicans, Pew said.

     The Pew analysis, conducted with PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly," is based on several surveys, including a poll of nearly 3,000 adults conducted June 28-July 9, 2012. The finding on the Protestant majority is based on responses from a larger group of more than 17,000 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.9 percentage points, Pew researchers said.

     Pew said it had also previously calculated a drop slightly below 50 percent among U.S. Protestants, but those findings had fallen within the margin of error; the General Social Survey, which is conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, reported for 2010 that the percentage of U.S. Protestants was around 46.7 percent. Analysts disagree on whether the increasing numbers of nondenominational Christians should be counted as Protestant. Pew researchers do include independent Christians in their Protestant figure.

     Researchers have been struggling for decades to find a definitive reason for the steady rise in those with no religion.' The spread of secularism in Western Europe was often viewed as a byproduct of growing wealth in the region. Yet among industrialized nations, the United States stood out for its deep religiosity in the face of increasing wealth.

     Now, religion scholars say the decreased religiosity in the United States could reflect a change in how Americans describe their religious lives. In 2007, 60 percent of people who said they seldom or never attend religious services still identified themselves as part of a particular religious tradition. In 2012, that statistic fell to 50 percent, according to the Pew report.

     "Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined," said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. "In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be."

     The Pew study has found the growth in unaffiliated Americans spans a broad range of groups: men and women, college graduates and those without a college degree, people earning less than $30,000 annually and those earning $75,000 or more. However, along ethnic lines, the largest jump in "nones" has been among whites. One-fifth of whites describe themselves as having no religion.

More growth in "nones" is expected. One-third of adults under age 30 have no religious affiliation, compared to 9 percent of people 65 and older. Pew researchers wrote that "young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives," and aren't expected to become more religiously active as they age.

____

Online: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

Standing up against new voter suppression tactics

December 14th, 2011


By Benjamin Todd Jealous


Our voting rights are under attack. In legislatures across the county, misguided state politicians have proposed, and in too many cases have passed, laws that create obstacles to voting. That is why, in honor of International Human Rights Day, we are taking a principled stand for freedom to let the world know that we will not sit back and let our right to vote be taken away.


Over the last 12 months, 34 states have introduced voter suppression legislation, with laws passing in 14 of those states and bills pending in eight. These suppressive laws take many forms, but in each case they disproportionately impact people of color, working women, blue-collar workers, students, seniors, and immigrants.


In some states like Wisconsin and Ohio, lawmakers are limiting access to the polls by cutting or even eliminating early and Sunday voting opportunities. These significant cuts force parents, blue-collar workers, students and seniors who do not have the luxury of a flexible schedule to stand in polling lines for as many as eight hours.


In states like South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Texas, politicians have used the threat of voting fraud to move bills requiring voters to acquire government-issued photo identification before they cast a ballot. However, studies show that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate someone in the polling booth. Moreover, while states are required to provide photo identification for free, the underlying instruments needed to obtain the identifications, like a certified copy of a birth certificate, can in fact be very expensive. In this way, the new laws become a sort of poll tax for certain individuals.


Other creative voter suppression measures are making their way into law across the country. They include bills stripping voting rights from rehabilitated criminal offenders, eliminating same-day voter registration or voting, and targeted purging of African Americans and Latinos on registered voter rolls.


These attacks on voter participation mimic those used nearly a century ago in the lead up to the Jim Crow era. The lesson we learned then surely applies today - that an attack on voting rights is merely a gateway to further restrictions on our rights, including our right to organize, our right to clean air, our right to negotiate, and even our right to privacy.


Our democracy is too important to allow self-serving politicians to suppress the vote. We must defend our rights. We must have our voices heard.


Benjamin Todd Jealous is President and CEO of the NAACP.

Copyright 2006-2011 The Hudson Valley Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

VOTE

The People who vote win. Vote suppression can change who votes. Zealots vote, do you, do your friends? Fight for automatic voter registration at the age of 18. Fight against voter apathy. Any one who thinks that the religious, conservative voters are winning or gone is commenting on the extent to which they think these people are going to vote as a cohesive group. T-vangelists live in fear and ignorance and they fight with fear and ignorance. Don't be afraid and don't be stupid. VOTE!

Dear Ms Vowell

Ms Vowell, I think you are amazing (I bet you’ve never heard that before). I have watched you on TV and the shit you say cracks me up. I’m just finishing The Partly Cloudy Patriot and I came across something that may explain why I find your writing so comforting.

I doubt that I would have ever bought one of your books. I’m more of a Michener, Tolkien, tome, the more volumes the better, kind of guy. I pick my reading by weight as much as anything else (I got through most of Proust’s In Search of Lost Time and I’ll finish it some day). And I like unusual authors, I am waiting for the last three volumes of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events come out in paperback.

While I am waiting for paperbacks to be published and then sold to and resold at Powel’s, I picked up The Partly Cloudy Patriot from my wife’s reading pile. She is waiting to read it on our next airport excursion. I’ll probably go with something non fiction but not one of her American presidents, early American history biographies.

If you have read this far I hope you don’t stop now. Some years back, maybe seven or eight years ago, on or about the 4th of July I came home to find a flag stuck in my lawn, sound familiar? Someone had put flags in every lawn along the street. Most were still standing but some were listing dramatically. Over time, some most were taken in but a few ended up in the gutter. I picked up some but didn’t make it a mission to police the entire street. I should have. The next year it happened again. Disrespect of the flag really increases my blood pressure. The people at the mall, who give out those little flags, on oversized toothpicks, to passing children who then unceremoniously drop them on the ground to be trampled on and then eventually thrown in the garbage, should be jailed!

On the stick holding flag, that I pulled from my front yard, was a business card from a local real-estate agent. I called them and informed them that I thought that not only were they disrespecting the flag by using it as an advertising tool, they were also contributing to the desecration of the flag by treating it as a lawn ornament. And they had no right to believe said lawn ornament would be respected as the symbol of our nation. I also let them know that I would do everything I could to make sure they never represented a household in my neighborhood unless they came and retrieved every flag they had placed. And they better do it before the flags were soiled.

They were taken aback by my outrage and assured me that they had gotten a ‘very positive response’ from every one else. And to this day they have not advertised their company in my neighborhood by abusing the flag.

Obviously I am not the wonderful writer you are. Thank you for, in part, telling my story with much more depth and clarity then even I have lived. God I wish I could just think your thoughts even if I could never communicate them to another living being. Reading your words helps me think thoughts I didn’t know existed.

Thank you, thank you, thank you,

PS I just found out that you were born on my 11th birthday, sorry.

Home is . . . . . . .....

There is something true and mildly disturbing about your statement ‘country I call home’.  Aren’t you actually European?  You may call this home but whose home is it really?  North America is the original home of an indigenousness people that arrived here, as the first humans to live in North America, thousands of years before our ancestors re-appropriated it.  If any group has the right to call North America home and dictate the customs used here it seems only fair that it be them.  Just like the countries you sited, I think it should be the indigenous people who get to say what’s what.  So I guess you should think about going home, to Europe, but be careful.  Denmark has one of the lowest percentages of professed Christians of all of the European countries (so do Britain and Switzerland).  You could try Poland or Portugal or maybe Italy as they are the countries with the highest rates of people reporting to be Christian but there again you may have a problem, they’re mostly Catholic and that might not work out so well for you.  And of course the country that has the highest rate of professed religiosity, Turkey, wouldn’t work out so well either.  You would be in danger of loosing your life in any Muslim country, you being an Evangelical Christian and all.  They don’t take to kindly to being evangelicaled.  But then it isn’t just the Muslims and Jews and Hindi and, and well it’s just about everybody (over 66% of the world) that you have trouble with.  You can’t even agree with the majority of Christians!  There are the reformed groups and, well there are over 33,000 denominations and then they fight among them selves and strike out to make new congregations (over 3 million at last count) when they can’t resolve their differences.  Bitch and moan all you want but don’t expect sympathy.  Religious people believe they have the right to impose their faith based beliefs upon everyone.  In your case it’s actually part of your calling.  You kinda fail at being evangelical if you don’t.  It ain’t the will of gravity you are trying to enforce, it is something you believe, which is different for each person and like I said originally, I wish personal, faith based belief systems were kept just that, personal and not made public, and defiantly not forced upon others.  Who set you up as the one that gets to tell others how to behave?  Oh yeah, you, based upon what you believe.  Unfortunately you act as if your rules apply to everyone but you.  You whine about others not respecting your personal beliefs but you trample on everyone else’s.  It don’t seem fair Daniel, it just don’t seem fair.  Enjoy………….

What do You Believe?

Life for life’s sake;
     No matter how hopeless you feel.
     No matter how dismal the future looks.
     No one knows what the future will bring.
     Do what you need to do to stay alive.

The rules are made up;
     Rules are made up for a reason. At some point someone thought every rule would be helpful. Because a rule was once deemed to be useful does not mean that it has to be followed or that it is even still necessary. Evaluate rules to see if you agree with their intent and their expected effect and then decide if you will follow them. The problem with rules is that they are written. When rules are part of an oral tradition they can more easily change. They can fade away as they become nonviable.

Laws are always the same and are always obeyed;
     You will always obey the natural laws of time, physics, gravity, motion, chemistry, etc. You have no choice. If you have a choice then it is not a law of nature and it is a rule that was made up. It is a belief.
Beliefs are not laws and beliefs are not absolute.
And beliefs do not have to be obeyed;
     If you do not differentiate between what you believe, and laws that are absolutely true, you are one of the throngs of people who cause and perpetuate the vast majority of the strife, terror and pain that has been and continues to be part of our daily life.

Believing in absolute good includes believing in absolute evil;
     Acting on a belief in absolute evil violates rights. Behavior that does not exist in the hearts and minds does not exist in the real world.

You have a choice;     You can ‘Ohm-m-m’ and smile and proceed or
     You can ‘Gr-r-r-r’ and frown and see where it gets you.
Morality is personal;
     No two people use the same set of beliefs to define what is right and what is wrong. Individual as well as crowed behavior is controlled by a multi layered mechanism where right and wrong overlap.
In units of humanity;
     There is nothing a single individual can accomplish. You do not even exist if you do not interact with others. You only exists for a reason if what you do is acknowledged. You may be able to change yourself and that change may effect others but it is far more likely that you will remain the same and struggle to be the most compassionate person you can be with little or no effect on anyone. And that is all I ask.

Enjoy!

No! Murder is NOT OK.

     When is it OK to believe that someone must die and then take their life? There is the obvious example that all but the most committed pacifist will accept, in defense of ones own life. That is not what I want to comment on.      It bothers me that there are murders, who choose to end someone’s life because that person does not conform to their beliefs, and they do not want to have it be judged as murder. It is not OK to say ‘You don’t deserve to live any longer’ and with that, end someone’s life. But the death penalty can do this, when a person is judged, by a jury of their piers, to have acted unacceptably and is believed to be without any redeemable future. Neither is this what I want to comment on.
     I have my criteria for the appropriate time to end a life that I think has no redeemable qualities, as I believe most people do. But I have never given in to the desire to act on my belief. But I believe that I could end the life of a person who has committed a heinous act. Someone who has done to others such awful things that I choose not to reiterate them here because it makes me uncomfortable just to think of what they have done let alone describe it to you. Yes, I believe I could end the life of these miserable creatures. But I haven’t acted on this belief. Merely believing that it is OK to commit murder is not what I want to comment on.
     There must be at least one person that you have read about or heard of that has behaved in a way that makes you believe that their life no longer serves a viable purpose and that the world would be better off without them. I think most people can come up with at least one example that fits this description. Maybe you couldn’t kill the people you thought of but you can enumerate them. Your thinking of the uselessness of these people doesn’t bother me.
     What bothers me is when I hear that someone, I believe to be worthy of continued existence, is murdered. I want to know, when is it OK to end someone’s life when the person in question has a family and job, friends and is generally thought to be a fine, upstanding person by those that know them best? And It bothers me that not only can this life be taken, it is believed, by the murderer, that their ultimate authority should they believe in one, will give them an enthusiastic thumbs up once they have committed their crime. Now that sounds crazy doesn’t it? But it is done all of the time. And there are published accounts that would lead us to believe that it has been going on throughout recorded history.
     1st Samuel 18:7 “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands“. Don’t you think that at least one of those ’slain’ in this example might fit my description of ‘people who were thought to be generally worthy people by their family and friends’ etc and yet they were offenceably killed anyway, and it was OK! Actually it was more then OK. It was approved of by the All Mighty! And of course all of the infidels must die, that’s common knowledge. And their absolute authority says ‘Go for it, I’ll even reward you’! I find it impossible to believe that all of the infidels deserve to die and be damned for eternity.
     So who’s life can be justifiably ended and not have the act of killing them be deemed murder? Seems like just about everyone’s, if you look at it from the proper perspective.
     What I want to focus on here are the people who believe they have the right to kill because they believe in the concept of absolute correctness. What bothers me is that there are people that believe that there is an unquestionable right and an absolute wrong. It isn’t that there is, or is not, an absolutely correct set of rules, the problem I have is with the people who believe they can know absolute truths. There are no absolutely true beliefs.
     I’m not talking about natural phenomena like gravity, which I hope we all believe in as absolute. You don’t even need to believe in these laws, they‘ll still work even if you don‘t. Let’s just say that some things have to be givens. No one teaches you that gravity is. Gravity just is and every one agrees that it is and you learn to live with it. And all the laws of motion, they always work in the same way in our day to day lives and we come to depend on it. Every one who has ever stepped out in front of a moving vehicle has been hit. And every one that has jumped off a tall building has fallen and most have gone splat. It is nice when you have a human guide to teach you about the natural, absolute laws but you don’t need one. Their absoluteness will teach you about the laws of nature.
     The problem I’m talking about is the belief in the absolute truths that have been made up or, if you prefer, handed down. Absolute rules that were made up to prevent or support ideas and behavior that you would never know about if someone didn’t teach them to you. For every made up rule/law/belief that someone thinks is absolutely true there is someone else that says ‘Oh no you don’t, that ain‘t necessary so‘.
     Time, as we experience it in our day to day life, always goes forward, never backward and it never stops. Now that is absolute.
     If you want to prove me wrong don’t show me the laundry list of unsubstantiated miracles that you have in your coat pocket that say other wise. If you want me to believe that gravity and time are just good ideas and not absolutes in our every day life (we don’t generally travel near or beyond the speed of light) that have been violated again and again by miracles, then give me proof, verifiable, duplicatable proof. Show me the proof. Then do it again. Perform a miracle. Oh yea, you can’t.
     You can not know, absolutely, that the parent, spouse, hard working, devout worshiper, well respected (in their own circles) person you want to murder because they do not fit your definition of righteous, really deserves to be dead. And the voices in your head don’t count. Those voices are not real!
     Consider for a moment what it would mean if we could all agree that all of the questionable, made up beliefs (everything but time and gravity and their peer, absolute, natural laws, that are not disputed by sane people) are not absolute.
     What would it be like if we could agree that there was a time before ‘offenceably killing another human’ was murder. If this time existed and murder was not always against the law then, at some point, an individual decided that it wasn’t such a good idea to end a human life without just cause. And for what ever reason, others were swayed by the power of the logic and from that point on, human life was too important to snuff out per a personal belief, and from that time forward it was against the law and it was called murder. So from that time forward, just because the kid was not yours, you weren’t allowed to off him. ‘He’s not just an animal ya know, he’s human like you. He’s special. Leave him be and we’ll see what use can be made of his life‘.
     Ah, and now humans are special, not just animals to be killed or used for what ever. Not because humans have souls but because humans can makeup and agree to go by rules that don’t necessarily benefit them at the moment. Humans enjoy the rule of law. Humans seek to be self governed. Most humans have an evolved sense of time and an evolved form of symbolic thought. Oh, but you don’t believe in evolution now do you.
     I am not suggesting that all made up rules should be ignored. I am not an anarchist. There are some that should be adhered to, like those that keep you from killing people (not those that explain when it is OK for you to kill people).
     I know, what a concept, rules to protect rights not rules to take rights away!

Enjoy, and have a nice day!

Requiem for a Rabid Bat

                                       Requiem for a Rabid Bat


     Most people believe in a personal existence that continues after the end of the one we all participate in day-to-day. And they say that if you follow their rules, you too can participate in their version of the after life, and it will be quite nice.
     But then who even wants to live forever? You can not conceive eternity. Your primitive human mind, as advanced as it is, (compared to the mind of a naked mole rat), is incapable of comprehending the never ending. Yes, I know, ‘once I'm in the presence of God all will be revealed to me and that which has been hidden during this life time will be known‘. Uh, then is it really me that goes on after death? Sounds like it would be something else that has all the eternal fun.
     I bemoan the fact that I will not live to see two hundred years. And I can easily imagine a three or four hundred year sentient span. But trying to imagine a life that exists for a thousand years or two; ten thousand, a million, I can't do it.
     No human can imagine staying sane while existing for a million years. And the impossible task of imagining a million year life span is infinitely more achievable then imagining the unbearable pain of eternal existence! I challenge you to think about it, (without shuddering) as best you can. If you dare.
     And who gets to enjoy eternal existence? (As if being sentient forever would be pleasant. Wouldn’t even the most creative essence get bored after while?) Who gets this prize? It depends upon who you ask.
     The more inclusive perspective is, “If you want to go to Heaven, where you will be very happy forever and ever, then avoid evil, repent from your sins, do good in your life on earth, and be sincere in your search for religious and moral truth. Otherwise, you will abide forever in the eternal death of Hell.” And, a more conservative, Christian point of view goes something like, “The people who get to go to heaven are the ones who ‘get right with God’ by beginning a relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ.” Or, or, it goes on and on. They don’t agree.
     There aren’t two dogmatists that promote the same definition of faith and the ever after. Each of them believes in a dogma of their own imagining. A fun exercise would be for you to choose the two most compatible dogmatists you can find, bring them together and see how long it takes for them to begin arguing over their differences. If you give this a try you will be surprised at how quickly they agree to disagree, if they don't come to blows first.
     Christians, and I have only picked this minority because it is the one I am most familiar with, think that at least two thirds of the people alive today (those that do not profess to be Christian) will suffer for eternity. And the other third, self proclaimed Christians, will have the quality of their Christianity judged. The ones that get the thumbs up will enjoy an eternity of unimaginable bliss and the rest will suffer with the non Christians. So it seems that the odds of average, yet to be born humans, enjoying an eternity of bliss, are not at all good. Which really doesn't seem fair, when the best predictor of a persons version of religiosity is the religion of one’s parents not a dogma's veracity.
     And when did this sorting of the 'are you good enough' begin? Two thousand years ago, four thousand maybe? Modern humans have been on Earth for maybe fifty thousand years! Did all of the pre Christians have souls? Is the judger going back before Christ, and what about the Neanderthals? Did they have souls? Did the Cro-Magnons have souls? I know, you don’t believe in evolution, your problem, not mine. I just have questions.
     If the humans that existed before the concept of salvation through the acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord (or you can insert salvation through adherence to what ever dogma you prefer), were sent to either Heaven or Hell, did they all go to hell? Or maybe they were humans without souls, just toss away humans, like first waffles? Or were there different rules for people who lived before dogma? If before Christ, different rules were used to sort the worthy from the damned, why can’t we use the old rules today?
     There is no Hell. There is no Heaven. There is no happily or painfully ever after. There is no soul. You and the rabid bat are born, live and die the same, enjoy.

Scared Conservative

Liberals, Conservatives May Have Different Brain Structures


Latest Neurology News

FRIDAY, April 8 (HealthDay News) -- Opposing political views may linked to differences in brain structures, a new study suggests.

Researchers at University College London found that liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, while conservatives have a larger amygdala.

Based on what's known about the roles of these two areas of the brain, the structural differences are consistent with previous studies that found liberals are better able to cope with conflicting information and are more open to new experiences, while conservatives are better able to recognize a threat and more anxious when faced with uncertainty, according to team leader Ryota Kanai and colleagues.

The study appears online April 7 in the journal Current Biology.

"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation. Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure," Kanai said in a journal news release.

But it's not clear whether political preferences and other personality traits influence brain structure or vice versa. It's possible that a person's experiences can change brain structure over time and, of course, many people change their political views during their lifetime, Kanai noted.

He also warned against reading too much into these findings.

"It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," Kanai said. "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude."

-- Robert Preidt

Copyright © 2011 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

SOURCE: Current Biology, news release, April 7, 2011

Work until you Die

I believe that this is a sad truth; if the rich conservatives have their way the majority of the youth of today will work until they die and the rich seem to be winning.  I'm sorry and I will do what I can for those closest to me. For the rest of you, good luck.  I hope someone is looking out for you too, because you can't depend upon the government to have your back if something goes wrong.

dF

You do not have the right to your own set of facts

I am a huge supporter in the belief that each individual has the right to their own beliefs, ideas, and feelings.  My personal belief is that no two people have the same set of these personal attributes.  I even believe that it is quite impossible for two people to fully embrace an identical set of beliefs, even identical twins.  Having our own set of beliefs is part of what makes us human, individuals.  We are not of one mind or one point of view.  We can interpret beliefs any way we like but when it comes to established facts that are generally agreed upon by the scientific community, it’s not up to interpretation. Gravity is not just a good idea that you interpret as you wish, even if it can not be fully explained.  Nor are the rest of the laws of physics and chemistry and you guessed it even evolution.  Plate tectonics, uh, it’s a fact, just ask the poor people of Haiti et all.  Only the out of touch fringe (or devious entrepreneurs of hidden agendas) decry facts.  Part of the base value of education is to help us to understand agreed upon facts.  It facilitates scientific endeavors of all kinds.  If we were allowed to hold mutually exclusive sets of facts it would be very dangerous to, let’s say, drive to the store.  You just can’t be allowed to have your own set of facts.  Facts are not up for interpretation, it’s too dangerous for the rest of us but beliefs, go for it.  It’s not just a good idea to formulate your own set of beliefs, you really shouldn’t be espousing someone else’s beleifs.  How could you possibly know who you are if you did?

When will it all end?

The true measure of how prejudice we are can be found here; what percentage of genetic material does a person have to have in them for them to be labeled black? There is no hope of true racial equality until there is only one race. A symbolic marker on the road will be the death of the last blue eyed person and the passing of their memory. It can not come too soon. And if it comes to pass that another race becomes dominant it will be interesting to see how the Chinese deal with it. I don’t expect it to go well.

Make having a pet illegal.

It should be against the law to own a pet. It is certainly immoral. Animals, birds, reptiles and the rest our not just toys for humans. And Zoos should be strictly for the support of animals that are endangered and have no where else to go.
Why do humans believe that they can just do what ever they want without regard to the morality of their actions?

Mother Earth

Human beings serve no purpose.  Even the most insignificant bug is food for something.

Minority rights

It is not just a moral imperative and a point of logic, it is one of the founding tenants of the United States Constitution, minority rights are not put to a vote.  Any one who disagrees is a selfish bully.

Are you Happy?

There are three kinds of people in the world.
Happy people.
Unhappy people.
And people that think they are happy but are not.

I think it is impossible to think you are unhappy but actually be happy.
There are people who appear to have every thing they need to be happy
but all we hear about is how unhappy they are
so I put them in the unhappy group.

I believe that the world is a dangerous place to live for so many people
because most people are unhappy.
It's sad.

A happy person can feel sad or anxious.
They can be afraid or angry.
Happy people feel other emotions, they just don't stay that way
and when they are asked they report being happy.

So what group are you in?

It's just a belief

In the beginning humans were life that struggled to survive. The strongest and most prolific (and luckiest to be in the most hospitable place at the right time) survived. Each individual was out for themselves. There was no family there was no group there was no future. There was only now. They struggled to survive then they multiplied.
     Then what is now known as human evolved into a being that understood the time line of family, my progeny, the loins from which I was begat, the bigger, stronger, smarter being that protects and feeds me and at this point offspring were no longer food. Offspring became your destiny. Offspring became what you left behind.
     As families banded together to prosper order had to be applied to the social unit. All procreation was not OK. And taboos and rules had to be applied to maintain order. ‘Thou shalt not’ came into being and a new goal was offered up to replace the procreation goal. ‘If you follow the rules you will live on after death.’ And so it has been to this day.’
     At some point the idea of life after death will become unnecessary. Death will be overcome by science and fear of it will free us from the fear of ‘thou shalt not’ and belief in life after death will go away along with it those who have controlled those that believed.

What Needs Fix'n...

So how can we fix our democracy?
     You suggest that our democracy is somehow broken or in disrepair. That is has failed and needs fixing. You do not give any examples of how our form of government has failed. I suggest that you are wrong. Our democracy does not need fixing. It is or is very nearly perfect. Keep your hands off of it.
     The problems I see in our great country come from the imbalance between capitalism (an amazing system to produce wealth and power) and the people needed to manage and support capitalism. Today capitalism has the upper hand and it is the legal system that has let the people down. Money has been given the rights that should be only given to the people. In a dispute capitalism can out last and out muscle most people.
     Educate the people so they can use our wonderful democracy and the amazing constitution it rest on, to elect people who will make and enforce a legal system for the people.
     What we need are laws that realign power so people have a chance against capitalism.
     If a person is punished we take away hours, days, weeks, months years (or dollars that represent hours of life) or even life itself. If capitalism is punished we take away pennies.
     Companies have grown so large that fines are nothing more than pocket change. It’s like a billionaire getting a $300 traffic fine. It doesn’t change their behavior. Businesses need to be afraid for their very lives, their very existence. And retribution has to be swift.
     So leave my democracy alone and repair undemocratic capitalism. Big business has sent us to war and ruined our economy. It kills people and the flora and fauna of mother earth every day. Stop the abuse and stop it now. Give the people back the power and make capitalism serve the people, all of the people not just the top 1%.

A good Capitalist

A good capitalist doesn't give a shit about you or your children.  But they always make money!  Your choice.

What do you value most?

Offence? Defence? Children? Are you more worried about staying alive, getting ahead or having successful offspring?

Or are you one of those who are most worried about the after life?

Defence - Offence - Reproduction!

To stay alive is to defend against forces trying to end yours.
To stay alive is to get what you need to continue to live.
If you are successful in these things you have the opportunity to reproduce.

This is true for all life, including yours.

Defence - Offence - Reproduction!

Is Radical Religious Conservatism a form of Psychopathology?

Conservatism is a political and social term whose meaning has changed in different countries and time periods, but which usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture.
The political term conservative was coined by French politician Chateaubriand in 1819. In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers. Scholar R.J. White wrote: “To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquefy the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservativism

Psychopathology as a descriptive term
The term psychopathology may also be used to denote behaviors or experiences which are indicative of mental illness, even if they do not constitute a formal diagnosis. For example, the presence of a hallucination may be considered as a psychopathological sign, even if there are not enough symptoms present to fulfill the criteria for one of the disorders listed in the DSM.
In a more general sense, any behavior or experience which causes impairment, distress or disability, particularly if it is thought to arise from a functional breakdown in either the cognitive and neurocognitive systems in the brain, may be classified as psychopathology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathology#Psychopathology_as_a_descriptive_term
Religious conservatism
Religious conservatives seek to apply the teachings of particular ideologies to politics, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those teachings influence laws. Religious conservatism may support, or be supported by, secular customs. In other places or at other times, religious conservatism may find itself at odds with the culture in which the believers reside. In some cultures, there is conflict between two or more different groups of religious conservatives, each claiming both that their view is correct, and that opposing views are wrong.
Because many religions preserve a founding text, or at least a set of well-established traditions, the possibility of radical religious conservatism arises. These are radical both in the sense of abolishing the status quo and of a perceived return to the radix or root of a belief. They are ante conservative in their claim to be preserving the belief in its original or pristine form. Radical religious conservatism generally sees the status quo as corrupted by abuses, corruption, or heresy. One example of such a movement was the Radical Reformation within the Protestant Reformation and the later Restorationists of the 1800s. Similar phenomena have arisen in practically all the world's religions, in many cases triggered by the violent cultural collision between the traditional society in question and the modern Western society that has developed throughout the world over the past 500 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Conservatism#Religious_Conservatism

The inability to change over time usually leads to extinction. There are rare examples of organisms that have found an environmental niche that has remained unchanged for tens or even thousands of thousands of years and there by they have remained on this planet an unchanged life form.

Written religious texts or well-established traditions tend to be static as apposed to living documents. The conservation of the behaviors and beliefs that are based upon ideologies that were formed in the past promotes conflict. The disability that comes from irresolvable conflict is a social impairment that can lead to the death of the participants, without remorse on the radical conservatives’ part. This sounds like psychopathology to me.

Small Government

We only need one rule, this my Dad got correct, 'Treat others as you want to be treated'. And in a perfect world there wouldn't need to be any one to enforce the Golden Rule. But in the real world small government can not be just one rule to live by. It must be a plethora of laws and rules to enforce this one small rule.

In addition to the new rules the constitution is there to be the bassis upon which we built the rules to protect you from those that will not treat you as they want to be treated. Beyond the rules to enforce the small rule we also need a way to deal with the infrastructure and defence of our nation. So we need a lot of rules.

It is a big world and we would not be comfortable in it with small government.

Mercenaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_(soldiers)

During the American Revolutionary War, Landgrave Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel (a principality in northern Hesse) and other German leaders hired out thousands of conscripted subjects as auxiliaries to Great Britain to fight against the American revolutionaries. About 30,000 of these soldiers were sold into service, and they came to be called Hessians, because 16,992 of the total 30,067 men came from Hesse-Kassel. Some were direct subjects of King George III; he ruled them as the Elector of Hanover. Other soldiers were sent by Count William of Hesse-Hanau; Duke Charles I of Brunswick-Lüneburg; Prince Frederick of Waldeck; Margrave Karl Alexander of Ansbach-Bayreuth; and Prince Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Zerbst.

The troops were not mercenaries in the modern sense of military professionals who voluntarily hire out their own services for money. As in most armies of the eighteenth century, the men were mainly conscripts, debtors, or the victims of impressment; some were also petty criminals. Pay was low; some soldiers apparently received nothing but their daily food. The officer corps usually consisted of career officers who had served in earlier European wars. The revenues realized from their service went back to the German royalty. Nevertheless, some Hessian units were respected for their discipline and excellent military skills.

http://member.tripod.com/~Silvie/Hessian.html

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

You deside.

Economic Stimulus

The basis of our economy is the worker. The majority of the buying power comes from the 40k to 110k job. If these jobs are more prevalent and secure with every reason to expect them to gain at a rate greater then the rate of inflation then money can be saved and spent.

If more jobs, starting around 15 to 20k, with good benefits (retirement, insurance, vacation) and opportunities for advancement, can be produced in an effort to build and repair our country (infrastructure), financed by the government, we can start to buy homes again and stuff to put in them. Now that would be a economic stimulus plan I can believe in.

World Leaders

The Chinese are coming up against some hard realities. Probably the worst hurdle they have to cross is their own corruption. They are so corrupt that they will even poison their own children for a profit. They send their relatives overseas for education, vacation or their health and then they take what they can until they are about to be caught then they flee the authorities. They don’t float their currency so we can’t compete with their production costs. They pollute their water and air. They defile the land. Their only motive is to gain a short term advantage. And it is coming back to bite them. Their people are rioting and have the numbers to demand fair treatment.

We support them with our greed. We need to make moral choices not easy choices. We need to take care of our people and the environment that they depend upon.

If we can become a moral nation that cherishes the earth and the people that live on it then we can be the example that the rest of the world once again turns to. We can be the world leader that we once were. We can be the 21st century world leader that is missing and so desperately needed.

His Legacy.

If the 43rd president is looking for a legacy, I think he need look no further then the offhanded comments of current world leaders who reprimand their piers when they get out of line by saying, ‘You don’t want to be like Bush do you?’

43 is characterized as an instinctually lazy cheerleader who gets board easily with the mundane work necessary to govern.

I think I would like to talk baseball with him as long as it was in the first innings, before his mind started to wander but I’m glad he will no longer be president.

History revisionists aside, 43 has to be the least effective and the most destructive president that we have had the displeasure to be accosted by.

Don’t let the door hit your lamest of duck ass on the way out 43. You will not be missed.

US Auto Industry

There are two important goals in maintaining US auto manufacturing. The first goal is; maintaining the US work force. There are a long list of workers that depend upon the US auto industry. If the US auto industry can produce quality vehicles, which have the fuel efficiency we need to become independent from energy sources that are beyond our control and they are sold at a price that is comparable to vehicles that are either manufactured beyond our borders or within our country but with the profits going elsewhere, then there is no reason for the US auto workers to loose their source of income. And that brings me to the second goal; the profits from US auto sales need to stay here. Foreign manufactures, producing vehicles within our borders, sends the profits from the sales of those autos else where. Having foreign auto companies produce autos here helps US workers but sending the profits beyond our borders should be unnecessary if the US auto companies can compete. If foreign auto makers can produce high quality, fuel efficient cars at a reasonable price so can we. So it is time for the US automakers to drag themselves into the twenty-first century or disappear, their choice.

Henry Ford started his company with the goal of building a car that his workers could afford. Tat seems like a goal they should get back to.

The death of idiocy

Why do we have to support points of view that are based on false information? Why do we have to even acknowledge someone that is spreading lies? Don’t we give them strength and credibility by acknowledging them? Can’t we just say they are lying and here are the facts? Or better yet, can’t we just say, here are the facts and not mention the lying source at all?

When published information is retracted the incorrect information is not reprinted just the correction.

And what ever happened to the practice of shunning? Can’t we just stop recognizing that someone exists? If we shunned a person effectively enough eventually wouldn’t they just go away, shrivel up and die?

Priorities?!

AP - Thu Nov 27, 4:22 PM ET
WASHINGTON - An animal rights group is urging Iraqi authorities to find better ways to eliminate stray dogs after 200 of them were killed in Baghdad this week by poisoned meat and rifles.

HOW ABOUT HUMANE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE IN IRAQ!

Scaredy Cats

The fear of becoming extinct is a mighty fear. It can cause irrational terror and violent, brutal, deadly behavior. It spurs people to act on their anxieties in order to stop the forces that are perceived to be threatening them.

These scaredy cats are short sighted. They can’t see beyond their short lives. Ultimately all humans will disappear. This wonderful planet will dry up and become an inferno. And then, the sun we all so depend on, will go cold and our solar system will float lifelessly through the through the cold, dark universe.

These angry, isolated minorities fear the disappearance of blond hair and blue eyes. How foolish! They don’t understand that brown hair and brown eyes are dominant human traits. (Or maybe they do!) And that it is the happiness and preservation of all humans that is important.

The rules of genetics can not be stopped. It’s not just a good idea, it’s a law! These people fear the very basis for their own existence. They fear their own humanity.

Bright Lines

A "bright line" is a single numerical value between unacceptable and negligible magnitudes of risk or exposure concentrations of concern. Bright lines are chosen to provide pragmatic definitions of "safe" and "unsafe" for those making risk-management decisions and for those implementing or enforcing decisions. An example of a bright line is an excess-cancer risk of about 10-5: if a risk assessment predicts that more than one case of cancer is likely to occur as a result of exposure to a substance in a population of 100,000 people exposed to it, that risk is judged unacceptable and protective action is required; a predicted risk of less than 10-5 is considered negligible and requires no protective action. Risk-based decisions are generally converted to measurable exposure or emission limits for implementation and compliance. Regulated parties are expected to demonstrate that estimated exposures or risks are below the bright line to operate a manufacturing facility, introduce a new product to the market, or sell foods with low concentrations of contaminants.
Bright lines are generally used with single point estimates of risk to judge safety; Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment characterizes bright lines and point estimates of risk as "magic numbers" whose use is inconsistent with knowledge about the distributions of risk and their inherent uncertainty (NRC 1994a). Strict use of bright lines is also inconsistent with the risk-management framework and with the inclusion of cost and other considerations in decision-making. Bright lines that are health-based standards provide useful goals, however, to guide a decision-making process.

http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1996/risk_rpt/html/nr6aa016.htm

I didn't know.

Mental Health Benefits

Once we have secured the defense and general welfare of our nation, i.e. once we have an abundant supply of good jobs and the necessary benefits that must go with a good job to provide the security we need to get a good nights sleep, we need to provide assistance for the less fortunate. I hate to put this on the back burner until we are more secure, but we must prioritize.

With the economic climate as it is today it is difficult or impossible to tell the reasonably afraid from the neurotically afraid. Once we have arrived at the point where we have little or no reason to vote out of fear we can start to help those that are still disabled by it. There are people with obvious physical disabilities that will get immediate attention. I am more concerned with the mental health of those that are still afraid when the majority of our working, productive people are not. As we identify the fearful and get them the help they need to feel secure our country will find its resources greatly enhanced.

With our receding fear will come a reduction of use of sentences that end in an upward inflection.

Consider the difference in the feel of the following sentence, the meaning of which and the personal feeling that goes with it, totally dependent on inflection. Said with an upward inflection at the end of the sentence there is a sense of incredulousness. “Can you believe what they have done?” And then said with a downward inflection at the end there is a sense of wonder and relief. “Can you believe what they have done?” Irony can be replaced with wonder and fear with hope.

So I am proposing at least a five fold increase in our mental health benefits. It is the only way I can see of making the fearful conservatives feel at ease.

We're Number One!

Why do we have to be number one? Why do we have to even be a ‘super power’? Is economic superiority and military might the end all and be all of our existence?

We are 14th in scientific literacy, 9th in adult literacy, 44th in life expectancy for women, 9th in GDP per capita, but we are 1st in military spending and adults prosecuted per capita and prisoners per capita and municipal waste generation. (Per http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics ).

I think it is time we adjust our priorities.

How come Iceland gets to be #1 in net happiness and we are only 13th.

How Difficult Can It Be?

In the United States of America, the majority of us that vote have a common goal, in that we want to feel safe. To feel safe we need a source of income so we can provide for our needs and the needs of our dependants and acquire some of our wants. We also need supplemental resources, some insurance if you will, that can provide for what we can not buy for ourselves. We need some assurance that there will be a consistent future so that we can leave to our children and grand children a world that they will feel safe in and prosper.

Who can we trust to look out for our future, our safety? Who can we trust to look out for the future of our country? Who will represent us as we work?

The founding fathers were smart enough to outline the protection of our freedoms and rights in the constitution. They understood the fear of a power greater than themselves, a power that did not have their best interests at heart. They fought and died to make our constitution the basis that is the foundation of a country where all of the citizens can live in relative peace and the world can feel comfortable with us as a neighbor.

They understood that the constitution was written by men in a time that had its own challenges and that this wonderful document was not expected to be perfect for all time. It can and should change over time but anyone who wanted to change it should be looked upon with suspicion, especially if they were attempting to limit rights and/or freedoms by changing the constitution as apposed to change that would further protect our rights and freedoms.

So how difficult can it be to find people we can trust to represent us in our search for a good nights sleep? There must be people out there, in the service our country, that we can elect to protect the constitution and the protection our freedoms, which are found within it.

So our chore is to recognize these people. I think the people we are looking for would be ones that are trying to help us feel safe not people that say ‘Be afraid, be very afraid!’ The people we can trust are attempting to secure good jobs for us, jobs that have good benefits and a future in the 21st century. We need jobs that help us to provide for our needs not jobs that fulfill our wildest dreams and wants. We need jobs that repair and extend our infrastructure. We need jobs that clean up our environment and make our world a safer place within which to live.

We do need military protection but we do not need to fight all of the world’s injustices. We do need to share our knowledge but we do not need to maintain the infrastructure of the world beyond our borders. We do need to be part of the world’s might but we do not need to be the world’s police force.

We need to be the best example of what a country can be, a country where people, all of the people, feel safe and supported. We need to be the country where injustice is not tolerated. We need to be the best example of what is possible.

As you find people who understand this, vote for them and we will all feel safer. It’s not that difficult.

And if you want to be elected speak to us about how you will help us provide for our needs. We, the working people of this country, are the majority. Speak to us honestly and openly and we will choose safety and through hard work. Speak to us about homes, health care, training/education, retirement, the defense and general well being of our country. But most of all speak to us about jobs, 21st century jobs.

Reposesed Republic

On January 20th, 2008 we will reposes the republic. A large dumpster will be needed to get rid of all of the garbage and much of the first few weeks and months will be spent repairing what the previous residents have trashed, not the least of which is the constitution. We need to be protected.

I am just one man and there are much stronger forces out there that do not necessarily have my best interests in mind as they go about their daily business.

I believe that with President Obama on watch we can look forward to a brighter future. I feel like I can let down my guard a bit now that I have a high level of trust in our representatives.

Please build me a safe house where I can grow old and watch the next generation succeed.

By Losing they won.

During an interview I heard a conservative talking head say this about the 2008 Presidential election, 'It's no big deal.' And for the people who did not vote or did not vote for Obama and Biden I guess it wasn't a big deal, for in loosing they won.

For the vast numbers of middle class and 'average Joe' Americans the election of a party that will make us safer on all levels was a win; safer roads and bridges (more jobs), better schools - smarter kids (more jobs), more complete and competent national security (more jobs), better health care (more jobs), and fewer wars.

And they will get a tax break to, now that's sweet.

With any luck at all there will be a push to increased the mental health benefits too and if we can just get the conservative right to go to mental health counseling maybe they would see who is fighting for them and who is just out to use them and is always just fighting for themselves.

We can only hope.

Minority Rules?

Why does the Christian Right think they can dictate to our country? They have this bizarre belief that they are a majority here. And those that are bright enough to realize that they are not believe that 'God' is on their side and so they know what happens after death and how it is decided who is punished and who is rewarded. And we're not talking 71 virgins (which, by the way, is translated some places as '71 white raisins'!). All belief in the afterlife that includes exclusion and punishment of some and inclusion and rewards for others is dangerous. Because those that are labeled as being in the 'reward group' see those in the 'to be punished group' as a threat. This leads to many bad scenarios. But I digress.

If someone is going to be operated on, if we are building a rocket to the moon, or a bridge across a river or even if you are just looking for a piece of art for your living room, you look for the best and brightest to accomplish these things. You make your choice on the perceived competence of the builder involved.

As much as I value my friends I am not going to turn to them to do my dental work or even clean my teeth! When I want to get something done I find the best person I can higher to accomplish the task. I don't ask them who they voted for in the last election or what their beliefs are about an afterlife. I go the the local records department and see if the are licensed and bonded and find out what kind of legal action has been brought against them in the realm of their expertise.

The religious right is so stupid on so many levels when they vote as a block to support the Republicans who say they are against a woman having control over their own body and against all people having the right to chose whomever they want as a loving and legal life partner. Morality can not and should not be legislated. You can not control what I think or believe. Any one who votes for a representative with out regard to the candidates views on how tax burdens are to be set (the more you make the more you contribute to the general good?) and distributed in an effort to keep us all safe, healthy and educated (sewers, health care, law enforcement, infrastructure, jobs, education, environment, foreigner policy) is not voting in their own best interest.

Our country is too important to put in the hands of any but the best and brightest representatives. If our government is filled with intelligent, competent individuals we have a chance to accomplish not only the mundane that keeps our country healthy from day to day but also the unforeseen. We need people making these most important decisions that are brilliant, not merely the average Joe.

There is nothing I won't do for my grand child and that includes vote. And I am voting for smartest people I can find that make their decisions based on deliberation not on some set of rules that were written down sixteen hundred to two thousand years ago or maybe more. It is the twenty first century and our human history must be used as a guide not a template.

Day One?

With all the noise that was made about weather or not President Obama would be ready on 'Day One' I think it is wonderful to see that it seems like he will be ready on about Day Minus 65!

Special?

Why do so many of the residents of the United States of America think they are some how special? Our country is special. We have an unusual constitution and we have been unusually successful as a nation when compared to most other modern countries. We have a special collection of natural resources within or borders, but we as a people are no different than any other nation of people.

All nations have people who love their children and want a better, safe and comfortable world for them to grow up in. We all as individuals want to prosper and most feel an impulse to do the right thing. And every nation has its bad people.

So where does the American arrogance come from, the ugly American that makes unreasonable demands and expects other nations to bow to our their? Would it be so bad if we were no longer considered to be the biggest, baddest nation on earth? If we were number two or three or twenty three? Would we be a better, more humble resident of this planet? Would we loose the ugly arrogance that the rest of the world finds so offencive?

And if we are actually the best, biggest and brightest nation in the world do we have to keep bragging about it?

"Hey U.S., I think you have an inferiority complex. If you were really so great I think you would just shut up and be great!"

I think it is time the United States of America grows up and quits throwing its weight around. As President Clinton said I think the people of the world "... are more impressed by the power of our example then they are by the example of our power."

The best leaders seldom get their way because it is a good leaders most important task to discern the will of the people and then see that it comes to fruition. Only the worst leaders try to impose their will on their followers.

We now have an amazing leader and it is time for our wonderful nation to follow President Obama's example. We must each be mature and responsible examples of positive, adult leadership and as representatives of this wonderful nation we must lead and stop trying to impose our will on the rest of the world.

It's the responce, Stupid!

A crisis does not make the man. It is the response to the crisis that defines who we are. In fact a crisis can make you a better person. It can make you understand and appreciate your self better. A crisis is an opportunity to prove your abilities to others if not if not your self.

A crisis can not be blamed for your defeat. The person who was defeated must take that responsibility.

Imperfect

If you think President Obama fails please ask if it is because he chose not to succeed or because the task has insurmountable requirements or maybe because your expectations are unreasonable.

I trust President Obama. He is a brilliant man with the best interests of the United States of America at heart. He wants me to be happy. He wants me to be comfortable. He wants me to be successful. He wants be to be healthy. If I am not, it is not up to him to reach into my life and make it so.

I believe he will do everything in his power to give me the tools and resources I need to reach my goals. And when he fails I will ask why but not blame him even if it is his fault. For I am an imperfect man.

Next

We have been given permission to do what is right. Next comes the difficult and long task of building a safe and fair home of the free and land of the brave.

Now let's get to work and if you need help you are not alone.

Power Managment

President Obama is now tasked with the daunting task of distributing the finite power of his office. He will disappoint some and anger others but I am confident that he will make the best use of the power he has been charged with.

For the first time in many years the United States of America is on a positive path of change and President Obama is the one we need to effectively pilot us into the twenty first century. I trust him and I hope he quickly has enough obvious success so that those who did not support him this election season are convinced that they too can and should support his lead.

President Obama

General Barack Obama, I am looking forward to watching you ascend to commander-in-chief and choose your generals. I don't expect the transition to be easy but I have faith that it is something you can do and do well. Sleep well, the world is a better place now because you are here to lead us.

dF

VOTE

On 9/11 we were attacked. In part it was an attempt to cripple us financially. Our greed and over the top life stile are an affront to much of the world.

What was not accomplished then has been accomplished by greedy, self absorbed CEOs who don't care about any one but them selves.

I do not know any one who makes $250,000 a year and would like to make one third that much. I could live quite comfortably on $83K a year.

Please vote and help me get our country back.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."

dF

Why can't the fishermen kill the sealions?

PETS!

Why are pets allowed in public? Why am I having to avoid them? Why don't they have to stay on private property?

What Would David Do?

I wish I knew. What would I do if I could make people disappear? No fuss, no muss, no consequences. If I felt that the continued existence of an individual was of no positive use, poof, they would be gone, as if they never existed. They wouldn't be missing, they would no longer exist, and neither would any memory of them.
Who would I get rid of, rapists, mass murders, torturers? But then who are the torturers?
What about DUII murders? I don't know. However, I would like to find out.
I guess I can say that because I know it will never happen.
d

Diet

OK, Here it is. If it is processed, the more processed it is the worse it is for you. Cook your own meals from unprocessed food. Only eat as many calories as you can burn. Eating 3000 calories is no problem if you burn 3000 calories. If it is not in season eat it only in moderation. EAT AND DRINK EVERY THING IN MODERATION! Eat a variety of foods. High fructose corn syrup is not good for you! Look for quality NOT QUANTITY!

VOTE!!!

Listen, read, view, think about what the candidates stand for and what they have already done. Then make an informed choice. You don't want it to be close. If it is close the 'undecideds' will decide the vote again and that is not good for our nation. The undecideds vote on emotion not information. Please keep them from deciding our future.

Undocumented

I do not understand the indecision about how to handle undocumented workers. Here's my plan. If a company is suspected of using undocumented workers the Federal government can arrive unannounced and check. Undocumented workers that are found can be given work ID and the books of the company can be monitored for the next year to make sure that all of their employees are getting proper pay and benefits. Any cost for documenting and monitoring previously undocumented workers can be charged to the offending company.

Companies get the workers they need. Workers get the pay and benefits they deserve. The government gets the taxes owed them. And jobs are created to make sure every one gets what's coming to them.

What's the big deal?

No Prisons

We don't need prisons. They should all be closed and every inmate should be given two choices; go to school on a work study program, gratis, per the federal government or death, gratis, per the federal government (with no second chances). If you break the law again only the second choices is available.

More population controle

Only licensed breeders should be allowed to have fertile animals.

Not in my space!

Why are domesticated animals (cats, dogs, snakes, rats, birds, ferrets, etc) found in public places? They should only be allowed on private property.

d

Why not with people?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_us/hollywood_pigeons

If they can do it with pigeons why not people? A little free population control with your free grain.

d

Faith?

If there really was a god, indestructible and perfect, why would you doubt, how could you NOT have faith? Having faith in your god would be easy, like having faith in gravity. Know one doubts gravity. Will it be here tomorrow? Will my scale read as accurately tomorrow as it did today and yesterday? Of course it will. If you want to test your faith, try having faith in a person. Trust someone with your life, now THAT is faith. If you have no one you can trust I suggest you just wonder off and die with your god. There are too many people any way.

d

It makes me so angry. Every where I look people are more concerned about there domesticated animals, there things, there jobs then they are about the people around them. People are what is important. How we treat each other matters more then how powerful we are. Our relationship to people is what matters. Spend your time talking to a person not you nonverbal pet.

Truth

We need to make the statement that the truth matters ever so much," Fitzgerald said.

Our rights

The Constitution is there to protect or rights not limit them.

The end of faith

“Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in his one.”
Sam Harris The End of Faith.

DO I UNDERSTAND?

Every action you take is influenced by what you believe to be true. If I can change what you believe I can change what you do.

When people of religious faith hold secular positions it must be assumed that their faith influences their secular decisions.
People who do not have religious faith are not allowed to hold positions that require decisions about religious faith based behavior.To the extent you admire and advocate martyrdom, I do not trust you.

All people of religious faith believe that they have an infallible book in which the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent creator of the universe reveals that individuals who do not espouse belief in this writing will not be allowed into paradise. No two people interpret an infallible book the same which leads to no two people having the same religious faith.

People do not partition their mind into reason and religious faith. They use belief in their religious faith to come to grips with fear. They do not use reason to examine their religious beliefs.We need only to hold life sacred enough so that we treat our own life with respect and have enough insight so that we treat others as we wish to be treated.The only religious faith we need is to have faith in the people we rely on, including our selves.We need only to build a strong society with happy people if we want our example to be followed. We do not need to cross our borders to save the world.That which is now sacred is what was once needed to dispel fear. With knowledge, facts and truth, we no longer need to rely on religious faith and/or the sacred to dispel old fears.Religious faith makes it impossible to accept some facts that are easily proven to be true and are generally accepted.A moderate finds ways to discredit the infallible book their religion is based upon.

Does a religious literalist feel equally abhorrent toward a person of no religious faith, a religious moderate and a person of an opposing religious faith?
If I were unable to sense the world I would be unable to act. If I were unable to form (formulate and remember) beliefs I would be unable to act consistently. Without consistent action I would perish.

Any life form that has the ability to perceive, can move, and has memory, will advance in complexity as it overcomes the challenges in its environment. If it does not use its abilities it will disappear.
The ability to believe, like the ability to see, is an adaptive response to the complex challenges in our adaptive past.

Consistent, productive (goal oriented) action is impossible without belief.

When beliefs within an individual conflict (are not consistent) it causes the person to have multiple personalities.

When two individual’s beliefs conflict their conflicting beliefs must be resolved for them to survive in harmony. Conflicting beliefs culminate in the death; of one of the beliefs, the relationship between the two individuals or groups of individuals holding the conflicting beliefs or the individuals involved.

The world is too small to separate individuals with conflicting beliefs that preclude their mutual existence. We are all local.To the extent that a belief is connected to others it is difficult to change or expunge. Either the connection needs to be broken or the connecting beliefs need to be proven to be fallacious or at least unsound.

As long as belief in god has no basis in its relationship to the real (physical) world it can be argued successfully. If god started the universe and has forever since has had no knowledge of what happens in it (to you until you die) then you may be able to successfully argue for god’s existence before the beginning of the universe and after its end. If you want to argue otherwise (that god hears your prayers and is watching over you and yours) then you have to be able to prove the existence of god in the same way you prove your own existence and the antecedent relationships you have to the rest of the world. God’s existence must stand in relationship to you the same as your existence stands in relationship to the rest of the world and must be similarly proven.

This can be logically and rationally argued and not disproved that the universe was created by a supreme being that no longer has any knowledge of or interaction with the universe and the inhabitants therein. And it can further be argued that at the end of days everything that has been done will be judged and that which is judged to be faultless will live on for eternity in peace and abundance and that which is judged imperfect will suffer. In this argument your soul can be seen as a karma memory chip, where every time you interact with another soul your interaction is given a numerical value along the continuum of plus or minus five and then added to the karma repository pot. The more plus your pot is when you die the more peace you feel for eternity or the more minus your pot is the more you suffer. But is it true? And is there a soul?

Religion is the mere maintenance of dogma. Religious literalists believe that the religious rules they go by were set by god, have been set since the beginning of time, are perfect and are not influenced by any change that is experienced here on earth.

Just because certainty and trust have the power to change our lives and sustain us in times of trouble, does not mean that beliefs and religious faith are based on reality. Do not get confused between the value or usefulness of faith and the truth of what belief is based upon.

Just because you are certain that you are being watched and/or followed doesn’t mean that you are.

Be careful of beliefs that have been learned linguistically and have no physical proof to back them up.How are incoherent beliefs and contradictions reconciled?The more individuals I have around me that hold the same beliefs as I do the grater the opportunity I have to be successful.If there were only two mutually exclusive beliefs on earth and every one on earth held either one or the other of the two beliefs, and the two sides were of equal number and at a signal point in time they all stood face to face, and each person had a weapon capable of instantly killing the other and all were certain that all who held apposing beliefs could never be swayed from their beliefs, and every one had to either believe as they did or die, and they all pointed and aimed perfectly and fired their perfect weapons at the same time and every one was martyred at the same instant, everyone would be physically dead and live for ever. Is this the perfect ending to human existence?

Can we say that a person that believes in a supreme being and a life after death is not delusional?

Modernity is a problem for all literalist religious devotees.

Almost by definition all religions are devoid of any valid mechanism that can be used to test the core beliefs they are founded on. Only the word of god can influence the holy scriptures and because there is no god to amend, interpret, update and or bring the scriptures into the twenty first century all scripture will forever be stuck in the first century.

All people of religious faith are absolutely sure that their religion is based on the word of the one true god. If it is true that only those that believe in the one true god advance to an afterlife of eternal peace and plenty while the rest of the world’s population suffer for all eternity, and if it is true that there are no performance ratings for ascension into paradise based upon which belief is followed, choosing a religious tenant to follow is more a function of culture and birth then anything else, and with no religion in the clear majority and with no provable numbers on performance then it is more likely that you will choose the wrong path and end up in eternal damnation with the majority then it is likely that you will choose the correct path and end up in eternal paradise with the minority.

All monotheistic religions have two things in common, an infallible being that has given the world an infallible text to guide behavior on earth and a chance at life in paradise after death.

Accept death with out an afterlife and we will all find peace.

If I forget, and no longer believe, that it is safe to cross a bridge can I or should I construct the belief of safety to make myself cross the bridge without proof that the bridge is safe?When is the belief in safety constructed and when is it antecedently true?What does it take to make someone doubt a truth?If god perceives or does acts, actions, or existences in the real world then belief in god must be supported by a ‘because’ that is substantiated by the real world. If not then god’s domain is not of this world but the world before and/or after time.To be a person of perfect religious faith i.e. a religious literalist, someone that is certain of the infallibility of their religious scripture is a terrible thing because there is no end to the misery and pain they can do to those that do not believe as they do.
Only those who are unsure can be tolerant of ideas or actions that they do not support.
To understand your faith, know what scares you, what you value and what you can not control.You want to control what can be taken away from you, your life, your loved ones, and your security.Articles of religious faith explain things that happen to you that you don’t understand, things that are not intuitive, and things that you can not control. There are things that are not intuitive that are true.The stronger the religious faith the greater the intolerance.Beliefs represent how we want the world to be. Our beliefs may or may not coincide with how the world actually is. Beliefs need to be checked against repeatable reality not words/faith.Religious faith is either accepted or rejected it can not be examined, evaluated or changed.

Preposterous beliefs lead to the death of innocent people.

There is no way of proving what the absence of faith would/may have produced.To the extent to which a person or population have faith in an afterlife and a supreme being that reigns over it they are to be feared, because to the extent that you do not believe as they believe, they want you removed from the face of the earth. ‘If you are not with us you are against us.’The foundations of our civilization and sophistication were formulated at a time when, by definition, the people doing the work were oblivious to much of what we take for granted to be true today. They fought their way out of ignorance and shed the foolish beliefs that they once held as they came to understand the world as it actually is (round, not flat etc.). In every instance, that is, except for the dogma of religious faith.

Conversion, subjugation or death.It is god’s will that I conquer your land and try to convert you. It is a crime against god if you try to do the same to me.The stronger your faith in the afterlife the weaker your desire to live.When someone believes they know what god wants, that person becomes a threat to people who think otherwise.What is the need for pure, tested souls in the afterlife? Is there a contest? Why test humans? If an afterlife truly exists why not just reveal it, unambiguously, and end the earthly strife that multiple, monotheistic religions promotes?

Who would you cause to make vanish if it would happen without consequence to your self or loved ones? I suggest that first we get rid of all people that believe in an afterlife.Once convicted it must be determined if the convict can be trusted to work in the community to pay back for the crime. If they can not be trusted I the community they must be separated from it and from each other for the safety of all.
Morality needs only one tenet; before you mete out a behavior on someone, ask another to do it to you. And punishment needs only one directive; you will have done to you what you did to another.

Should the quality of your continued life be based solely on the humanity of your past deeds? I.e. instant karma?

Is all human life deemed to be sacred or is it just your life that is sacred because of the way you live it and what you believe to be true?
Compare chapters 20 and 34 of Exodus.

What we do is important, why we do it, is more important, what we believe is most important. Intention can not be ignored when comparing actions and in the end it will be your actions that are judged. No matter what you say, no matter what you intended, it is what you do that is of consequence to your self and others. I can change what you do if I change what you believe.
The biggest problem with drug use is the effect of its use on nonusers, second hand smoke and DUI for example. The person using the drug is experiencing a heightened state of pleasure or calm, or decreased pain. Unfortunately it is all too often true that the individuals that come in contact with the person under the influence of drugs experience a heightened state of discomfort up to and including death.Most of the suffering experienced today would disappear if the population of the earth was halved. If you are suffering do not bear a child. If you can not support two children only have one.

There are currently more people on this planet then there are services to feed, shelter and otherwise protect, and now there are even more people suffering.
At one time every thing was legal.The debate about the ethical treatment of animals (i.e. the cruelty of abusing animals as sport) is not as relevant as the question of why animal cruelty is enjoyed.
What creatures are sentient? What are they conscious of? Who suffers? Because these questions can not, or at least have not, been answered satisfactorily to the religious mind, the soul was invented to make humans different from everything else with brains.

Is group (social) behavior in animals, with brains smaller than humans, ethical and or moral or merely pragmatic? Group behavior in animals has strictly adhered to rules that are consistent and individuals that do not follow them are punished.

What is the proper response to a moral (ethical) transgression? Can I do unto others as I would not want done unto me if the others have transgressed?

Ethics and morality are the divination between behaviors that promote happiness and those that make others miserable, they are the states of mind that are found in heaven and hell. The happy, moral, people who are right, go to heaven and the immoral people who are wrong, go to hell where they are unhappy and miserable.
If you have no facts to back up what you are claiming then I have no reason to adhere to what you say.Religious faith based behavior is by definition not supported by facts.
Are all humans equally deserving of moral treatment or are some people merely objects?
The stronger your faith the more likely it is that you will act immorally. There are going to be people that lie totally outside of your moral sphere and you have no reason to act morally toward them.
Are there people, which buy their actions or beliefs, forfeit their right to moral treatment?

Everything that is not known or not understood or is misconstrued can still be true.

If you do not understand me does that mean that I am not saying anything? And if you do understand me does that mean that I am saying something?

People who believe in religious dogma may not be capable of knowing the truth. They are blind to it. They are cognitively closed to it.

If we have intuition do we need faith?
Whose happiness is important to you?If you woke up one morning and you were told that it was possible for you to make someone disappear, with out consequence to you or pain and suffering to them, who would you use your new found power on? All you have to do is sincerely want them to be gone and it is done, and the action is not reversible.If you can not now, and never have been able to feel happiness you can not discern what is or is not ethical. Ethics is the process by which we over come evolution to behave in a morally evolved manor.Our symbols can and have evolved faster than our biology.When we have the capacity to understand that our biology urges us to act antisocially or inhumanly we have the responsibility to overcome what was once there as an adaptive advantage to promote the species and is now just a danger to others.

Our biology urges us to over breed.
Compassion for others leads to a cohesive group that works for the common good. Indifference breaks down a group. A strong, indifferent leader can coerce a group to act out against a group lead by a compassionate one and even overcome and control the compassionate group but eventually the non compassionate group will desenagrate.

Is morality very, very complex or very, very simple? Are the most ethical people capable of extremely complex feeling and insight like accomplished jugglers are capable of extraordinary feats of coordinated acts with physical objects and are immoral people simple minded and unable to keep two thoughts aloft at one time? Or is there only one thought or feeling that has to be mastered to be moral? Or does the truth about what is needed to promote ethical behavior lie somewhere in between?
There will be no lasting peace until the ‘There Is No God Proof’ is found.

Can simple minded people be moral? Can very intelligent people act unethically?

Are there key insights that are needed for a person to be moral? Is there a ‘pie’ factor to morality that once learned must be used and that you would never make an ethical decision without if you knew it?

Unlike a geometric truth a moral truth is not absolute; it can be ‘circumstancualy’ true.

We trust, in order to go about our daily activities. We trust our cars, other drivers, the stability of the earth and the people around us. When that trust is broken on a small scale we know how to react. We have all been lied to, but when the earth shakes or airplanes fly into skyscrapers our trust is broken on such a grand scale that it affects us in a way that we are unable to respond to. When we scratch our hand and there is enough trauma to produce bleeding we put a band aid on it. When we receive a large enough trauma that it may compromise our life we go into shock. Sometimes we go into moral shock.
Why is happiness important? What is happiness? Above or beyond the fulfillment of needs (i.e. no longer being hungry) is our happiness just the attainment of set goals (finishing the meal), or is it a sense of well-being, the content of our relationship to our experiences, and not the experiences themselves (I am a good person because I have eaten enough to be full)?
Before you ask ‘why are we here’ ask ‘why isn’t the universe utterly empty’?
I think it is obvious, and generally agreed upon, that if you are hungry or cold or tired you will feel uncomfortable. And for the sake of argument let’s say that when you are hungry or cold or tired, you feel ‘unhappy’. Are there other states of being that are felt without externally set goals that when felt are the necessary motivation for similar states of discomfort i.e. ‘unhappiness’? Do we also ‘need’ to feel a sense of accomplishment or productiveness? Are we biologically programmed to feel a need to reproduce? Do we have a similar need for attainment of things? To be happy do we need to feel powerful or in control? Must we be creative, in an artistic sense? And if these things are inborn or ‘natural’ can they be, or even should they be, overcome? Are there some people that, by virtue of what they do, how they live, what they are allowed to do or not do, we can label as unhappy, no matter what they report themselves as feeling? When are you happy?Spirituality is nothing more than a very well crafted, or I could also say perfected, sense of denial. Or is a feeling of spirituality just an acceptance of our temporary state or finiteness? Or is it finiteness its self?I was born of people who were born of others. Once pushed out of the womb and a knot was tied I was no longer part of my makers like hair left on the floor after a haircut. As my consciousness organized itself I came to realize where I came from and I worked to separate my self from them. I crafted my independence to deny my dependence and have only found a lasting and satisfactory happiness when I accept my self as part of a greater whole.Is there a goal in being human and if so is it attainable? Or are humans merely a disease that will eventually be overcome and if not can the earth and all its life forms thrive with the human sickness?People of religious faith can not abide change because it strikes at the foundations of faith. The stronger a persons religious faith the more ridged they are. The greater a persons ability to adapt to change the stronger they are and the less religious they are.Eventually either all humans will perish or faith in the unsubstantiated will.

Faith based ethics paves a sure road to misery and the end of humanity.