It seems, on the subject of political issues, the most common quote I hear is, “Man, this health care thing is everywhere... you can't get away from it.” On every channel. Even on the little side-of-the-page ads online. Its like you can't help but pay attention.
The unfortunate part comes when you actually do decide to pay attention. This guy or that lady or some old dude is saying “that job-killing bill,” or “Most people... Americans... the majority of America wants...” and all the other clips of direction this or that person is leaning. “Comprehensive plan...” and “step-by-step approach,” or even “people are screaming 'don't pass this bill!'” I wonder just who in the hell they're talking about?
The fact is, this argument matters a great deal for the way you will see America develop. The big choices, and broken promises of the past have both conspired at this moment to form what will be the United States of America... or not.
We were used to the people on the evening news telling us who was doing this or that way off in Washington some where. Or at least somebody's dad knew a congressman that would explain what's happening with the things the police or some lawyer will eventually say is the law. Since our old sources aren't working well enough, we must find another way. I'm trying with these things that I write and post online.
I have a question for you... What kind of country do you see when you retire? We've had a mass-brainwash that has convinced sectors of at least the last 4 generations of Americans that life ends around 33, through whatever means. This thinking, or not thinking, must end as quickly as it can, just in case we actually want a world we're proud of once our days of working are over. Pull the shade off your idea of the future, and let's get our heads together. Start thinking about how you can affect your life, rather than having someone tell you how its going to be.
I've heard comment after comment from mostly Republican officials in the House of Representatives and Senate about what the majority of America “wants” or “screams for” or “will allow.” The fact is, the American people are trying to find something else on TV because they are so far removed from the idea they have a say! Republican representatives have no idea what the majority of America wants, they just say what they say is it.
“Stop telling the rest of the world what you think we want!!!”
The fact of the matter is, Republicans don't speak for the majority of America. Those American people picked someone else to listen to last November. America wasn't lost, or stolen. We weren't hijacked or confiscated or anything else that sounds like we're in distress because of the crazed fashion with which our leaders are moving this country forward.
I get up and go to work for around the same money, living in much the same fashion as I have for the past 6 or 7 years. I'm growing up the way I'm trying for, and my plans are shaped around the idea that Our Nation holds the history and strength that has made me proud to be from here. I am made painfully aware of the mistakes we, as a Country, are capable of, but that only stirs my desire for justice and tranquility even more.
I don't shout or scream with insane fear for the horrible future when I think about which domestic policy our government adopts. I weigh the pros and cons for myself. I judge this country by the rules we live by, as well as the ways we allow ourselves to live.
I'm afraid that we must unite even more significantly in the coming years in order to ensure that we can leave the trivial this or that's of Washington to itself again. Here's the argument: What do we as a country consider to be basic human rights? One side thinks we should use the government to ensure basic human rights. The other side thinks that government should not interfere with the everyday lives of the country (this means they believe that they shouldn't pay a lot of taxes).
Are all human beings created equal? It says so in the Declaration or Independence, even though it wasn't really true then. The fact that it wasn't true when it was suggested is terribly important because it shows the steps we have taken to get to where we are. We had to develop into the country we are, and we will continue to develop into the future. I have seen no finish line. Nothing in life has told any of us that it is over. We decide the future, and we must use our voices!
Anything and everything is available in many different formats all over the internet. The Whitehouse, Congress and Supreme Court all have websites, as well there are news clips on youtube, or full videos on CSPAN.org that will tell you virtually all aspects of everything that's going on. Every level from City to County to State to Federal, it's all available to you.
I say the Democrats are on the right path with regard to health care... If I'm wrong, read and develop an argument against this legislation and bring it! I have heard no Republican Representative in either body make anything that seems like a just and fair argument against this reform, and I've damn sure have been watching!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The consequences of a presidential address to eighth-graders
Recently, Pres. Obama announced he would be addressing students returning to school from their summer break. Spokespeople said that the president wanted to address students in a general manner in order to encourage their education. For reasons which are unclear, some people reacted by inventing a sinister motivation, then objecting to the speech under their false pretense.
The idea that Pres. Obama was attempting to indoctrinate America's youth with his rhetoric should be labeled exactly what it is: a terrible false accusation. I agree, however, that any time someone constructs a speech, they indicate and must refer to their philosophy. This is what made reviewing Pres. George H. W. Bush's address to the eighth grade class at Alice Deal Jr. High School, back in 1991 terribly enlightening.
Though overall it was clear Bush's message was meant to be inspirational, his worldview (and the worldview of the majority of the voting public) set clear boundaries and definitions for success that were out of touch with the way our country was growing.
The roughly 15 minute speech (available at http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/04/HP/A/22807/US+Presidents+Address+Students.aspx ) paints a picture of the president's expectation. His stated goal in his direction of efforts was a 90% graduation rate by 2000. He attempted to make the students responsible for reaching his expectation by defining success. According to Pres. Bush, if you go to school, get good grades, and graduate college, you'll have fulfilled your dreams and be successful. Your life will be better than those goof-offs who “chicken out” and let the “bad people” take over schools... all of whom end up with “dead-end jobs” and/or on drugs, and “running the streets.”
President Bush said, “if someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now when they're stuck in some dead-end job?” The idea behind this question indicates the conservative philosophy that constructs unrealistic ideas of success. Bush estimates that success is the balance between only two dynamics. In other words, the president divided the children into “winners” and “losers,” which begs the question of his own attempt at indoctrination: Is it correct to assume a “winners” and “losers” posture about the lives of a generation? I have neither won, nor lost, and I do not live my life as though I must live up to some one's expectation of a “winner.” We all have our experiences, and living through tough times is not an example of us being “losers.”
Bush's decree that being a dropout is equal to failing at life leaves no room for the reality of life in the 21st century. I suggest that it is not we who failed President Bush in his attempt to see a 90% graduation rate, but rather his philosophy did not lend itself to the realities of life outside what he was willing to experience or understand. Meaning, his ideological standard wasn't in touch with the direction the world was going to go.
It is in this time that we must make more earnest efforts to view things the way that they actually are. We must make progress in a fashion that makes sense for the future. We should set realistic goals for the future, and strive to achieve them over time, rather than dictate to everyone the wishes of a few of us.
In-depth experience and the ability to translate this experience in a manner which sufficiently demonstrates the aspects of it, will serve to aid the consciousness of humanity. All aspects may be made available to the individual, who may judge the value of a potential experience absent of prohibitive opinion, which may lack credibility or merit due to ignorance of experiential data. Attempting to limit the curiosity of a potential experience by demonstrating percieved character flaws within the individuals who partake in an activity, rather than addressing the merits of the experience itself, is ineffective and misguided. This means that it is inappropriate for someone to tell someone else that some action is "wrong" if they have neither experience in the matter, nor logical understanding of it.
Bush spoke about dead-end jobs and drug users as loathsome parcels of an intolerable existence. Now that these terms are regular aspects of the American lexicon, it appears the former president was either less than motivational, or insufficient in his direction.
We are forced to deal with people of all walks of life. Molding the nation into one ideologial box is not realistic. A strategy for the peaceful existence of all people must consider the characteristics and sensibilities of all people. Some find solace in the ways of the past, while others look to newer or more diverse ways of life. Neither philosophy is wrong, so it would behoove us to stop trying to vanquish either one.
The idea that Pres. Obama was attempting to indoctrinate America's youth with his rhetoric should be labeled exactly what it is: a terrible false accusation. I agree, however, that any time someone constructs a speech, they indicate and must refer to their philosophy. This is what made reviewing Pres. George H. W. Bush's address to the eighth grade class at Alice Deal Jr. High School, back in 1991 terribly enlightening.
Though overall it was clear Bush's message was meant to be inspirational, his worldview (and the worldview of the majority of the voting public) set clear boundaries and definitions for success that were out of touch with the way our country was growing.
The roughly 15 minute speech (available at http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/04/HP/A/22807/US+Presidents+Address+Students.aspx ) paints a picture of the president's expectation. His stated goal in his direction of efforts was a 90% graduation rate by 2000. He attempted to make the students responsible for reaching his expectation by defining success. According to Pres. Bush, if you go to school, get good grades, and graduate college, you'll have fulfilled your dreams and be successful. Your life will be better than those goof-offs who “chicken out” and let the “bad people” take over schools... all of whom end up with “dead-end jobs” and/or on drugs, and “running the streets.”
President Bush said, “if someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now when they're stuck in some dead-end job?” The idea behind this question indicates the conservative philosophy that constructs unrealistic ideas of success. Bush estimates that success is the balance between only two dynamics. In other words, the president divided the children into “winners” and “losers,” which begs the question of his own attempt at indoctrination: Is it correct to assume a “winners” and “losers” posture about the lives of a generation? I have neither won, nor lost, and I do not live my life as though I must live up to some one's expectation of a “winner.” We all have our experiences, and living through tough times is not an example of us being “losers.”
Bush's decree that being a dropout is equal to failing at life leaves no room for the reality of life in the 21st century. I suggest that it is not we who failed President Bush in his attempt to see a 90% graduation rate, but rather his philosophy did not lend itself to the realities of life outside what he was willing to experience or understand. Meaning, his ideological standard wasn't in touch with the direction the world was going to go.
It is in this time that we must make more earnest efforts to view things the way that they actually are. We must make progress in a fashion that makes sense for the future. We should set realistic goals for the future, and strive to achieve them over time, rather than dictate to everyone the wishes of a few of us.
In-depth experience and the ability to translate this experience in a manner which sufficiently demonstrates the aspects of it, will serve to aid the consciousness of humanity. All aspects may be made available to the individual, who may judge the value of a potential experience absent of prohibitive opinion, which may lack credibility or merit due to ignorance of experiential data. Attempting to limit the curiosity of a potential experience by demonstrating percieved character flaws within the individuals who partake in an activity, rather than addressing the merits of the experience itself, is ineffective and misguided. This means that it is inappropriate for someone to tell someone else that some action is "wrong" if they have neither experience in the matter, nor logical understanding of it.
Bush spoke about dead-end jobs and drug users as loathsome parcels of an intolerable existence. Now that these terms are regular aspects of the American lexicon, it appears the former president was either less than motivational, or insufficient in his direction.
We are forced to deal with people of all walks of life. Molding the nation into one ideologial box is not realistic. A strategy for the peaceful existence of all people must consider the characteristics and sensibilities of all people. Some find solace in the ways of the past, while others look to newer or more diverse ways of life. Neither philosophy is wrong, so it would behoove us to stop trying to vanquish either one.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Game is Up
I believe most people in the US are not thinking about what's happening to the US as the whole, but rather they are supporting their local way of life. The ways in which common people live regularly doesn't require they know or care much about even the next County, let alone the next State. The size and happenstance of development of the United States has now left us in a different country from the one even 15 years ago, though each region has remained roughly the same the entire time.
Rather than deny that this country is evolving, or hopelessly cling to the ignorance of the past (meaning that we understand each other much better now thanks to the improvement in communication), Americans, if we wish for that to mean something, need to figure out exactly what being an American means. What is it that we want to represent?
I grew up in Florida. I've never lived in any other state. That must either say something about me or Florida. I've lived in North Florida, in the northwest panhandle, and in South Florida, in the city that is the I95 corridor. If you've never been to Florida, might not know these places seem like different states. My South Florida side, in its kindest form, says North Florida is more rural, while my North Florida side says once you pass Orlando, you cross into New Jersey. While that may be crass, it at least indicates a difference in the available ways of life between the two regions.
For all the idiosyncrasies represented in these populations, a general respect for human life and happiness is reflected in both societies. In fact, it's been my experience that most people from anywhere in the world share that same philosophy. We don't immediately disagree upon meeting people, unless there's something overtly objectionable about their appearance. We may, however, be divided.
If you average six hours of television a day for 16 or so years, you develop a sense for the means by which common people are divided. I'm not saying I recommend it, but the development and the voice or tenor of the nation when approached on the broad scale of trivia is eerily discernible.
On average, I think America took the Bush administration exactly for what it was. The power of the shady politician was unleashed for eight years. People regularly talked about it, it was joked about on TV, and many many people became utterly exacerbated and left the conversation. People gave up and said, “well that's the government for you.” It is to these people, the silent majority, I say this:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Is the future of this nation really that easy to ignore? Are we really so caught up in the trivial events of the day, that we will allow ourselves to be tended sheep to a power-drunk sociopathic shepherd? I don't just want to change the shepherd, I want us to stop acting like sheep. A very thoughtful person once said, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” Understand, you don't teach sheep to fish.
In the past month, I've read the town charter for the town I live in (posted online), and the Constitution of the United States (also posted online). I have familiarized myself with the fundamentals of governance in my town and country.
I wish nothing more than for the stability of my town and my country for the sake of my family, and the baby I have on the way. I have a longer future to consider, and I want her to be able to say her father tried to make a difference. Her father knew people don't often listen, but also knew if we speak together, we tend to stop shouting at each other.
We can't let ourselves get caught up in which side is going to win, but rather decide it is all of us who should win and throw the sides in the video games where they belong. If an idea is the best idea, then it should be supported as the best idea, and any other idea should have a concrete merit, lest it only be an obstacle to our collective progress.
(If the idea of collective progress is in any way to be misconstrued, then I should clarify. Universal collective progress for mankind is required in the philosophy of government regardless of the region, town or country... If not, then regrettable decisions may be made, even by people who love other people.)
The Bush administration made itself available to criticism on a number of issues, criticism met the Obama administration at the door. With nothing less than the future stability of this country at stake, it is obscene that people play sour grapes politics with efforts so vital as healthcare and carbon cap and trade. To ignore the scientific data that supports the idea of changing a flawed way of living, because of the way one makes money is indelibly reminiscent of classical hubris.
If a farm boy from Sneads, Florida can think up that line, and an urban-esc Lake Worth, Florida man can type it, I'd bet we can get a few people to consider reasonable alternatives to stifling the future with problems we see today. It just takes a little getting in touch with our inner patriot. I love this country, and I love the state of Florida... and I want it to look right when my daughter arrives.
I don't know all the right ways, but I've got a few good ideas and am willing to share them in an effort to make all of this world safer and more secure ( and I do assume that is possible). I don't see my value as a human and my ability to reason as properties that I should hoard or use with like-abled peers without regard for the rest of humanity. I'm interested in the well-being of this State, Country and Planet, and am offering my opinion in the hopes for that” more perfect union.”
Rather than deny that this country is evolving, or hopelessly cling to the ignorance of the past (meaning that we understand each other much better now thanks to the improvement in communication), Americans, if we wish for that to mean something, need to figure out exactly what being an American means. What is it that we want to represent?
I grew up in Florida. I've never lived in any other state. That must either say something about me or Florida. I've lived in North Florida, in the northwest panhandle, and in South Florida, in the city that is the I95 corridor. If you've never been to Florida, might not know these places seem like different states. My South Florida side, in its kindest form, says North Florida is more rural, while my North Florida side says once you pass Orlando, you cross into New Jersey. While that may be crass, it at least indicates a difference in the available ways of life between the two regions.
For all the idiosyncrasies represented in these populations, a general respect for human life and happiness is reflected in both societies. In fact, it's been my experience that most people from anywhere in the world share that same philosophy. We don't immediately disagree upon meeting people, unless there's something overtly objectionable about their appearance. We may, however, be divided.
If you average six hours of television a day for 16 or so years, you develop a sense for the means by which common people are divided. I'm not saying I recommend it, but the development and the voice or tenor of the nation when approached on the broad scale of trivia is eerily discernible.
On average, I think America took the Bush administration exactly for what it was. The power of the shady politician was unleashed for eight years. People regularly talked about it, it was joked about on TV, and many many people became utterly exacerbated and left the conversation. People gave up and said, “well that's the government for you.” It is to these people, the silent majority, I say this:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Is the future of this nation really that easy to ignore? Are we really so caught up in the trivial events of the day, that we will allow ourselves to be tended sheep to a power-drunk sociopathic shepherd? I don't just want to change the shepherd, I want us to stop acting like sheep. A very thoughtful person once said, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” Understand, you don't teach sheep to fish.
In the past month, I've read the town charter for the town I live in (posted online), and the Constitution of the United States (also posted online). I have familiarized myself with the fundamentals of governance in my town and country.
I wish nothing more than for the stability of my town and my country for the sake of my family, and the baby I have on the way. I have a longer future to consider, and I want her to be able to say her father tried to make a difference. Her father knew people don't often listen, but also knew if we speak together, we tend to stop shouting at each other.
We can't let ourselves get caught up in which side is going to win, but rather decide it is all of us who should win and throw the sides in the video games where they belong. If an idea is the best idea, then it should be supported as the best idea, and any other idea should have a concrete merit, lest it only be an obstacle to our collective progress.
(If the idea of collective progress is in any way to be misconstrued, then I should clarify. Universal collective progress for mankind is required in the philosophy of government regardless of the region, town or country... If not, then regrettable decisions may be made, even by people who love other people.)
The Bush administration made itself available to criticism on a number of issues, criticism met the Obama administration at the door. With nothing less than the future stability of this country at stake, it is obscene that people play sour grapes politics with efforts so vital as healthcare and carbon cap and trade. To ignore the scientific data that supports the idea of changing a flawed way of living, because of the way one makes money is indelibly reminiscent of classical hubris.
If a farm boy from Sneads, Florida can think up that line, and an urban-esc Lake Worth, Florida man can type it, I'd bet we can get a few people to consider reasonable alternatives to stifling the future with problems we see today. It just takes a little getting in touch with our inner patriot. I love this country, and I love the state of Florida... and I want it to look right when my daughter arrives.
I don't know all the right ways, but I've got a few good ideas and am willing to share them in an effort to make all of this world safer and more secure ( and I do assume that is possible). I don't see my value as a human and my ability to reason as properties that I should hoard or use with like-abled peers without regard for the rest of humanity. I'm interested in the well-being of this State, Country and Planet, and am offering my opinion in the hopes for that” more perfect union.”
Friday, August 14, 2009
Let's play health!
Today, we're experiencing what I consider a healthy debate on the business of Healthcare in America. With so many sides involved in the argument, the details tend to become unclear. There is a growing rift between the system of healthcare and the business of healthcare. Initial finger-pointing, the immediate response, has now given way to an intensely detailed discussion of the facts concerning the state of health in the US, or perhaps more appropriately, how healthy we are as a nation. However, with each side armed with suggestive reports and similar opinion-delivery-systems, it is easy to see how the average person could be led out or even exclude themselves from the debate.
The structural problems with healthcare in America reminds me of another business that has struggled it's way back to relevance after many errors in judgment. The game of baseball... or rather, the business of baseball. I'm sure correlations may exist to many other businesses, and some may be more closely related, but baseball serves as a clear litmus for the effort to improve relevance in businesses dealing with public dollars. Common people pay for the relevance of baseball and healthcare alike.
The owners of baseball vary from media conglomerates and corporations to individual franchise owners (did you know Nintendo owns the Seattle Mariners?). All have a stake in the well-being of the league, since they, as owners, seek the reward of all that comes with having the team they own be winners.
The owners of healthcare tend to be a much more varied list of doctors, practitioners, hospitals nurse-residential-and-social assistance providers, and insurance companies. The definition of the job description of these "owner" entities varies widely based on their section of the business. The difficulty in this area is that the "league" that is the healthcare sector in America doesn't seem to have a clear objective.
Business managers in baseball (GMs) manage the hierarchy of decisions and talents that produce the bottom line profits for the owners. Both the GM and the owner have a vested interest in the team's well-being as well as that of the league in general, so that profit may be maximized as fans show support for "their" team.
Business managers in healthcare (HMOs) manage the hierarchy of doctors and other care providers to produce bottom line profits for the owners also. This is where a breakdown occurs with the baseball metaphor, because the fans (or patients) are so far removed from the discussion, where team decisions are public knowledge.
Club managers in baseball are responsible for holding teams accountable for the fans. Managers must reconcile the business needs of the GM, as well as deciding on strategy and motivating the players to reach their goal. In this case, political influence, while present, doesn't hide the fact that there are good club managers and temporary club managers (as well as good and temp GMs).
Club managers in healthcare are the office administrators and various chiefs of staff that keep the balance of revenue and expenditure so that the providers can focus on the business of making the patients more healthy.
Baseball players are the talent by which the game is made more interesting, and therefore viable as a business. Players decide their level of commitment, also, and deal directly with the fans, and reporters to the fans - who judge their performance, as well as the performance of the club as a whole - thereby directly affecting the relevance of the league. In essence, the fans and players make the game... the business decides how it will be presented.
Healthcare players, or talent, are the people who apply the knowledge they seek or sought with great effort from systems of education designed (hopefully) to produce the best doctor, practitioner, nurse, etc... which makes the contribution of the patient more justified. After all, if Joe down the street could offer the same care, we'd be the healthiest nation in the world (which we are not). The healthcare providers are the show, and business decides how it will be presented (or accessed).
And finally we reach my level... the common person's level... the fan level. Fans are the people who support the industry through financial contributions in the form of tickets sales, merchandising and ad dollars, and local taxes for updated facilities, by which the team they support may succeed to the benefit of everyone involved in the venture. The "win, win" nature of fan support makes it the single biggest contributor of long term success for any team.
The common person's level when it comes to healthcare is that of the patient. Patients support the industry though payment of insurance premiums, co-pays and doctor, clinic or hospital fees. The primary means of support, though, comes from benefit packages offered by employers. Employers pay the lion's share of healthcare premiums, and represent the single biggest account for the industry. The reason people support the current industry is that they seldom see the money that's spent in their name, and they fear that something might go wrong with their bodies that would require a medical professional to "fix" them.
The another disconnect in the baseball/healthcare metaphor is that I know a helluva lot more people that would rather go to a ballgame that a doctor's office. The perpetuated stigma that clinics and hospitals are bad or sick places has brought to a head the argument over the importance between healthcare and the business of healthcare in America. The fan principle still applies though. The common person's level of involvement directly reflects the judgement of the resulting product. Before you take a side and argue one of the points of view available, ask yourself just how healthy do you want to be? Is medicine a "fix," or a "process?"
Baseball teams are forced to adjust constantly in many different areas in order to stay relevant to the fans. In a nation that ranks 45th in the world in life expectancy, how relevant is health?
The structural problems with healthcare in America reminds me of another business that has struggled it's way back to relevance after many errors in judgment. The game of baseball... or rather, the business of baseball. I'm sure correlations may exist to many other businesses, and some may be more closely related, but baseball serves as a clear litmus for the effort to improve relevance in businesses dealing with public dollars. Common people pay for the relevance of baseball and healthcare alike.
The owners of baseball vary from media conglomerates and corporations to individual franchise owners (did you know Nintendo owns the Seattle Mariners?). All have a stake in the well-being of the league, since they, as owners, seek the reward of all that comes with having the team they own be winners.
The owners of healthcare tend to be a much more varied list of doctors, practitioners, hospitals nurse-residential-and-social assistance providers, and insurance companies. The definition of the job description of these "owner" entities varies widely based on their section of the business. The difficulty in this area is that the "league" that is the healthcare sector in America doesn't seem to have a clear objective.
Business managers in baseball (GMs) manage the hierarchy of decisions and talents that produce the bottom line profits for the owners. Both the GM and the owner have a vested interest in the team's well-being as well as that of the league in general, so that profit may be maximized as fans show support for "their" team.
Business managers in healthcare (HMOs) manage the hierarchy of doctors and other care providers to produce bottom line profits for the owners also. This is where a breakdown occurs with the baseball metaphor, because the fans (or patients) are so far removed from the discussion, where team decisions are public knowledge.
Club managers in baseball are responsible for holding teams accountable for the fans. Managers must reconcile the business needs of the GM, as well as deciding on strategy and motivating the players to reach their goal. In this case, political influence, while present, doesn't hide the fact that there are good club managers and temporary club managers (as well as good and temp GMs).
Club managers in healthcare are the office administrators and various chiefs of staff that keep the balance of revenue and expenditure so that the providers can focus on the business of making the patients more healthy.
Baseball players are the talent by which the game is made more interesting, and therefore viable as a business. Players decide their level of commitment, also, and deal directly with the fans, and reporters to the fans - who judge their performance, as well as the performance of the club as a whole - thereby directly affecting the relevance of the league. In essence, the fans and players make the game... the business decides how it will be presented.
Healthcare players, or talent, are the people who apply the knowledge they seek or sought with great effort from systems of education designed (hopefully) to produce the best doctor, practitioner, nurse, etc... which makes the contribution of the patient more justified. After all, if Joe down the street could offer the same care, we'd be the healthiest nation in the world (which we are not). The healthcare providers are the show, and business decides how it will be presented (or accessed).
And finally we reach my level... the common person's level... the fan level. Fans are the people who support the industry through financial contributions in the form of tickets sales, merchandising and ad dollars, and local taxes for updated facilities, by which the team they support may succeed to the benefit of everyone involved in the venture. The "win, win" nature of fan support makes it the single biggest contributor of long term success for any team.
The common person's level when it comes to healthcare is that of the patient. Patients support the industry though payment of insurance premiums, co-pays and doctor, clinic or hospital fees. The primary means of support, though, comes from benefit packages offered by employers. Employers pay the lion's share of healthcare premiums, and represent the single biggest account for the industry. The reason people support the current industry is that they seldom see the money that's spent in their name, and they fear that something might go wrong with their bodies that would require a medical professional to "fix" them.
The another disconnect in the baseball/healthcare metaphor is that I know a helluva lot more people that would rather go to a ballgame that a doctor's office. The perpetuated stigma that clinics and hospitals are bad or sick places has brought to a head the argument over the importance between healthcare and the business of healthcare in America. The fan principle still applies though. The common person's level of involvement directly reflects the judgement of the resulting product. Before you take a side and argue one of the points of view available, ask yourself just how healthy do you want to be? Is medicine a "fix," or a "process?"
Baseball teams are forced to adjust constantly in many different areas in order to stay relevant to the fans. In a nation that ranks 45th in the world in life expectancy, how relevant is health?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Health and Patriotism
On July 29, 2009 The Palm Beach Post ran an article on page 6A by Dr. Charles Krauthammer, entitled "Why Obamacare is sinking," which was Dr. Krauthammer's response to the President's plan to provide nationwide Healthcare, and the incorporation of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the cost of the initial bill from the House of Representatives.
The view of the article appears to be an historical look at the end of "Obamacare" and what brought about its demise. It begins with the author calling the President of the United States "the master rhetoritician," thus implying that the debate is merely insincere political banter. As I recall, President Obama made a thorough speech about Healthcare reform in which he said that people who are discussing the fate of this sector of the economy and America's future need to understand that the Healthcare system is the biggest problem related to the stagnation of our economy and must be fixed this year. The President said, "Make no mistake, Healthcare reform will happen... and it will happen this year."
Rhetoric means that the speaker is using words merely for the sake of their oratory value, and cares only about the way in which they say things... not that the person is saying something in support of their own belief. Thusly, Dr. Krauthammer believes that the President of the United States plans to talk about reforming Healthcare in convincing and grand order, though he does not truly wish the best system be available to the people of the United States of America, all of which he represents.
Dr. Krauthammer was apparently spurred to action by the release of the CBO report that says House Bill 3200 increases "cost in the range of $1 trillion plus," and based on this, the man who was elected President of the United States has been revealed as a "master rhetoritician." Since the specifics on how that money will be allocated, and the cost savings from revamping our Healthcare system (which ranks 37th in the world and is more than 15% of GDP) have yet to be determined, it seems a bit premature to call the effort to reform Healthcare sunk just yet… especially since we've only taken the first step toward working on it. Of course deciding to spend money costs more money, but we haven't even been able to consider what we're getting yet.
C-SPAN coverage of Senate Committee meetings in each of the 5 committees show that both Republicans and Democrats are considering all the possibilities in an effort to create a completely new system that will work for the majority of Americans (roughly 98%). The US Senate is in no way considering adopting a Healthcare system established by any other country, as their systems were established based on each individual country's circumstance. If the talk on Capital Hill consisted of a series of Senators discussing which country we were going to borrow a system of Healthcare from, I think Americans would see that their representatives lacked the capabilities for such a task. No, Americans from all areas of the country are considering many if not all aspects of what this legislation will mean, and those who suggest otherwise might better be called "rhetoriticians." Senators are working though their fall breaks in committee to get this done.
I disagree with the rather smug analysis that the effort to reform Healthcare is merely political rhetoric. As a common American, I realize that if I get Healthcare coverage guaranteed by the government to be affordable, I am then untethered by one of the most important parts of the necessity of work. People don't stay where they work all their lives anymore, and companies realize they are better served by that fact. Your average person stays in their career for less than 5 years today, where it was 25-35 years in recent history.
It would be a tremendous relief to know I may leave a workplace once I am able to see my usefulness wane, without the worry of losing my Healthcare coverage or paying through the nose for COBRA. Often times people must work until they die (quite literally) to have Healthcare for themselves and their family. Someone telling me there might be a way for me to not share that fate has my undivided attention. Those who tell me I shouldn't want this security are out of touch with my reality. I am starting out in life (32yo), and I won't choose to live in a manner I can clearly see isn't working.
Dr. Krauthammer says "Didn't Obama promise a new politics that puts people over special interests? Sure. And now he promises expanded, portable, secure, higher-quality medical care -- at lower cost! The only thing he hasn't promised is to extirpate evil from the human heart. That legislation will be introduced next week. (6A)"
1) Obama is speaking as clearly and forthrightly as I have ever seen a President speak, using pointed addresses on TV, the Internet, and in town-hall meetings about a subject of tremendous importance to me (one of the 200,000,000 workers in America making less that $58,000/yr). The President is setting goals, and leaving a clear path of accountability for the betterment of health for all Americans. I never thought I would qualify as a special interest group to President Obama, but I'm honored.
2) Americans like me need a Healthcare system that is expanded, portable, secure, of higher-quality and at a lower cost. If I can keep track of 100 or more people on a social networking site, why can't doctors keep track of 10,000 or more patients on a medical networking site? (Or even allow people to be able to access their own medical records online so that their history isn't lost or delayed if they move)
3) Though it may not be possible to remove or cleanse the human heart of evil, it is possible and quite necessary to create a new Healthcare system that works for most (if not all) Americans this year. It seems that this process would help to extirpate the evil of privately owned corporations and insurance companies keeping quality Healthcare from the average American.
I would ask Dr. Krauthammer (and anyone else with an interest in stopping me from getting security for my health and the health of my family) to claim who they actually represent, for it is not me or anyone I know. If anyone could convince the majority of people to be against this process by discussing the specifics, then we would not be talking about it. If Dr. Krauthammer is trying to convince me that because the CBO says that a bill that authorizes spending money on Healthcare is going to cost money, and that fact is reason enough for me to not want the security that this reform will afford the future of the nation I love, then he is sorely mistaken. I am aware of the discussion beyond persuasion from insignificant reports bent to try to mean something politically.
America, and the World, is changing. We are all vastly more aware of each other regardless of our location or walks of life. If our elected officials and "leaders" are unable to foster the security we demand for future generations, then perhaps they should remove themselves from the conversation, lest they be removed. The use of scare tactics will not dissuade me from wanting something I can see is best for my country going forward.
A patriot stands up to discuss the best direction of the country. A tyrant tries to prevent such thoughts. Where do you fit in?
The view of the article appears to be an historical look at the end of "Obamacare" and what brought about its demise. It begins with the author calling the President of the United States "the master rhetoritician," thus implying that the debate is merely insincere political banter. As I recall, President Obama made a thorough speech about Healthcare reform in which he said that people who are discussing the fate of this sector of the economy and America's future need to understand that the Healthcare system is the biggest problem related to the stagnation of our economy and must be fixed this year. The President said, "Make no mistake, Healthcare reform will happen... and it will happen this year."
Rhetoric means that the speaker is using words merely for the sake of their oratory value, and cares only about the way in which they say things... not that the person is saying something in support of their own belief. Thusly, Dr. Krauthammer believes that the President of the United States plans to talk about reforming Healthcare in convincing and grand order, though he does not truly wish the best system be available to the people of the United States of America, all of which he represents.
Dr. Krauthammer was apparently spurred to action by the release of the CBO report that says House Bill 3200 increases "cost in the range of $1 trillion plus," and based on this, the man who was elected President of the United States has been revealed as a "master rhetoritician." Since the specifics on how that money will be allocated, and the cost savings from revamping our Healthcare system (which ranks 37th in the world and is more than 15% of GDP) have yet to be determined, it seems a bit premature to call the effort to reform Healthcare sunk just yet… especially since we've only taken the first step toward working on it. Of course deciding to spend money costs more money, but we haven't even been able to consider what we're getting yet.
C-SPAN coverage of Senate Committee meetings in each of the 5 committees show that both Republicans and Democrats are considering all the possibilities in an effort to create a completely new system that will work for the majority of Americans (roughly 98%). The US Senate is in no way considering adopting a Healthcare system established by any other country, as their systems were established based on each individual country's circumstance. If the talk on Capital Hill consisted of a series of Senators discussing which country we were going to borrow a system of Healthcare from, I think Americans would see that their representatives lacked the capabilities for such a task. No, Americans from all areas of the country are considering many if not all aspects of what this legislation will mean, and those who suggest otherwise might better be called "rhetoriticians." Senators are working though their fall breaks in committee to get this done.
I disagree with the rather smug analysis that the effort to reform Healthcare is merely political rhetoric. As a common American, I realize that if I get Healthcare coverage guaranteed by the government to be affordable, I am then untethered by one of the most important parts of the necessity of work. People don't stay where they work all their lives anymore, and companies realize they are better served by that fact. Your average person stays in their career for less than 5 years today, where it was 25-35 years in recent history.
It would be a tremendous relief to know I may leave a workplace once I am able to see my usefulness wane, without the worry of losing my Healthcare coverage or paying through the nose for COBRA. Often times people must work until they die (quite literally) to have Healthcare for themselves and their family. Someone telling me there might be a way for me to not share that fate has my undivided attention. Those who tell me I shouldn't want this security are out of touch with my reality. I am starting out in life (32yo), and I won't choose to live in a manner I can clearly see isn't working.
Dr. Krauthammer says "Didn't Obama promise a new politics that puts people over special interests? Sure. And now he promises expanded, portable, secure, higher-quality medical care -- at lower cost! The only thing he hasn't promised is to extirpate evil from the human heart. That legislation will be introduced next week. (6A)"
1) Obama is speaking as clearly and forthrightly as I have ever seen a President speak, using pointed addresses on TV, the Internet, and in town-hall meetings about a subject of tremendous importance to me (one of the 200,000,000 workers in America making less that $58,000/yr). The President is setting goals, and leaving a clear path of accountability for the betterment of health for all Americans. I never thought I would qualify as a special interest group to President Obama, but I'm honored.
2) Americans like me need a Healthcare system that is expanded, portable, secure, of higher-quality and at a lower cost. If I can keep track of 100 or more people on a social networking site, why can't doctors keep track of 10,000 or more patients on a medical networking site? (Or even allow people to be able to access their own medical records online so that their history isn't lost or delayed if they move)
3) Though it may not be possible to remove or cleanse the human heart of evil, it is possible and quite necessary to create a new Healthcare system that works for most (if not all) Americans this year. It seems that this process would help to extirpate the evil of privately owned corporations and insurance companies keeping quality Healthcare from the average American.
I would ask Dr. Krauthammer (and anyone else with an interest in stopping me from getting security for my health and the health of my family) to claim who they actually represent, for it is not me or anyone I know. If anyone could convince the majority of people to be against this process by discussing the specifics, then we would not be talking about it. If Dr. Krauthammer is trying to convince me that because the CBO says that a bill that authorizes spending money on Healthcare is going to cost money, and that fact is reason enough for me to not want the security that this reform will afford the future of the nation I love, then he is sorely mistaken. I am aware of the discussion beyond persuasion from insignificant reports bent to try to mean something politically.
America, and the World, is changing. We are all vastly more aware of each other regardless of our location or walks of life. If our elected officials and "leaders" are unable to foster the security we demand for future generations, then perhaps they should remove themselves from the conversation, lest they be removed. The use of scare tactics will not dissuade me from wanting something I can see is best for my country going forward.
A patriot stands up to discuss the best direction of the country. A tyrant tries to prevent such thoughts. Where do you fit in?
Monday, July 27, 2009
I meant to save the world, but I got distracted: A Common Perspective
I've just read "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine for the first time. I realized by his efforts what I believe I am meant to do if my goals are correct. Paine joined the conversation others were having about either rejoining the British Empire or fighting for independence... That was his context. His perspective however was forward-focussed (progressive) which is what I believe we all need to understand better.
It is fascinating to note that the last line of the essay's appendix is a warning against religion in the role of politics or government. If he could see the danger 233 years ago, how can we not today just because we use the term "value issue" instead of religion? After all, we are still having the same problems (and in some cases worse). "Value-issue" politics implies that legislation can somehow reach people inside their heads in the place where they make decisions, and that certain individuals among us can know the best way for all of us to think. As there is no one "God's" laws on the books, who among us wants our thoughts controlled by anyone else?! It seems sad to me that the question was addressed so long ago, but the debate shows that it is still not even understood today; and that power still corrupts us and war is made to seem logical. Power sends soldiers to war for the security of itself. Defense has been important in the past just as it is today for the security of this very debate, but the powerful have been hard-pressed to make the majority of the population of the world believe that the Iraq war measures up to defense, or even the ideals of the American Revolution. That statement is meant with all due respect to the soldiers and complete contempt for the orchestrators. It is abhorrent when one considers the scope in which presumably "powerful people" impose their will on the rest of us... and I didn't even consider that was what was going on at the time, or that it may still be happening.
I also believe that Paine's casual mention of Hemp on page 46 as it referred to cordage (making ropes and sails for ships) is a clear indication that all the properties for which the plant is renowned by those who know it intimately today, were evident properties to those who knew it in 1776. Perhaps its time to ask ourselves some real questions about what we "know", and show appreciation for the respect Paine seems to have had for such a helpful and versatile plant... you could pay your taxes with Hemp up until a few generations ago (says the drug free non-hippie).
That said, I believe we should exclude that which other people think we ought to do or not from the realm of what we are all made to do by the laws we create. The freedom from personal persecution will come at the expense of traditions it seems, though this need not be a bloody transition or revolution. If we consider what we learn from every endeavor (positive and negative) as a tool for making a better future, we may better understand the range or humanity. It is not for one person to say what another may wish to do after all, only what they are allowed to do. When we think about our place as founders of the future, the relationship with which we consider everything we know must be ever-changing, as we continue to learn.
Personal liberties are not the concern of the state because we don't use the law to tell people what they can do, only the scope of what they can not. Ideal situations for individuals continue to evolve with the changing world. It is not so that the world will not change because of adherence to the traditions of one or a few perspectives. It is a mistake to deny that the world is continually changing, or that it is going to continually change as we face new endeavors, as well as learn from our mistakes. In fact, to say it is unnatural and unrealistic that we will progress is ignorant and dangerous for the very survival of the species.
The decision that a person may or may not make for themselves is not in the control of anyone else... it is free will. In other words, freedom is: not searching approval from anyone that does not have useful information about a certain subject before one makes their decision to act. One example of this is the issue of abortion. Regardless of popular opinion, for some people, it is just going to happen. No one hopes to make that kind of decision, and it need not be an issue for general public debate. I agree that education on such subjects is the manner by which humanity is served best, but if people weren't allowed to know it was happening, there would be no ill will.
In that vein, before I insist on asking "what gives you the right to do anything," I would say "you have the right to do anything as long as you realize your personal reality is not the reason everyone and everything else exists. The world will go on just fine without you. In fact, humanity is not the singularity of existence. This is a significant change in perspective I feel we need as a species.
I read "Common Sense" in about six hours, using a dictionary and two highlighters... one to applaud with, and one with which to question. I consider it good fortune that one ran out of ink because it made me realize that I should study (or question) even the things I applaud. I highlighted nearly the whole pamphlet. I had to read each paragraph 3 or 4 times, and I still plan to re-read it. I'm not embarrassed to say that I have a learning disability that requires I do this in order to understand what Paine is trying to say... I'd rather focus on understanding. People are often held down by their embarrassment, but I say fuck all that. I have the ability to gain more knowledge, and now that I realize that fact, I may become more knowledgeable. When I stopped thinking that everything useful has already been thought or done, I gained a healthy sense of wonder. That's what it is to grow I suppose.
I want a wonderful, knowledgeable world, and nothing anyone could give me would make that not so. I believe it is ok to want and hope for the best for the world, and I'm sending that ideal out considering 233 years from now. My concern for my love of humanity may not be oppressed from me, though I must admit I may be made out to be a liar to those that don't know me. Suffice it to say, I want nothing from you except perhaps compassion and good will.
Once we learn to live with an unselfish future perspective, perhaps we will make better decisions. Perhaps we can at last find a way to accept peace and appreciation for each other today. It is absolutely necessary to point out that humanity may be 100000-300000 years old in its current form. Considering that to be so, and Paine's argument a primary example, the ideal of non-traditionally biased reason has existed in our conversation in a relative blink of an eye (or less). For thousands of years we've had culture and tradition all over the Earth. One tradition devaluing the nature and ideals of another has led to much of our history being erased. How can we learn from our mistakes if we are afraid to admit we make them?
There was a unifying principle for a small group of humans 233 years ago, just as there is a unifying principle for all humans today and beyond. The difference maker is that we need not be the individual tribes of Earth when it comes to common sense. We are the one tribe of humans we know of, and Earth is home to all of us. We may have differences in traditional practice, but our commonality is undeniable regardless of what ignorance insists. Each and every one of our perspectives is important to posterity for the statement of who we are and have been, as well as who we will be.
When we secure a home (or guaranteed sanctuary), we can learn a better way to interact without fear. We all need to be secure, or fear will continue to drive us to conquer and subdue each other.
If certain people are comfortable spending their time in the employ of others, or by the rewards if affords, then so be it unto them. Personally, I would rather spend my time as I see fit, not be constrained by the deadlines of other people's importance, but finding my own. Thereby, I must create a personal system that affords me the knowledge of the fruit of my efforts. I want to know the goal before I begin to work, and I want to know that the work will cease once my requirement is fulfilled. In my "free time" I may then decide how I wish to contribute to humanity and the survival of the species... which is the only thing I can think of that has always been important outside individual desires. It is only under a pure and unadulterated law that I may produce independent of government or tradition. This is a must for freedom for all.
The thought of who I am and what I feel good or bad about is exclusive to me. No government or tradition will make me believe what I don't believe (spoken like a true agnostic preacher's son who has been both a registered Democrat and Republican). My thoughts can not be regulated, only persuaded. I reserve the right to say whatever I wish, and I alone am the judge of my time. This idea of freedom need not be supplied by a God or King. We keep learning.
I am moved by all my senses, and no one may presume to tell me anything more than their perspective on sensing, which can never be my own. However, I believe we can come together under one way of relating, though our traditions be different. I don't need to have any one's experience to be able to understand their perspective if I am allowed the context with which they feel. Countries, likewise, need not regulate each other's traditions so long as humanity is served into the future safely and on the founding principle of knowledge.
By the logic of learning from the past, I never again want to use credit, though I may have to. From both a personal and national perspective, that is a lesson that is valuable for posterity. Credit is the means by which others control my time. Controlling my time is exerting power over me. Time, after all, is the only lasting commodity. Money is not power... nor is religion or government... controlling other people's time is power (which money, religion and government do quite well). If I can take back the control of my time, I take back the power of my life. I may direct the future as I see fit, and worry not about the wants of others in my actions. This is freedom! I haven't been able to accomplish it yet, and no one who can help me seems to want to do so. Powerful people, obviously, don't want to lose their power. For some, the process of maintaining other people's power is how they choose to spend their time, as they are attracted by the prospect... though they need not necessarily be concerned with the well being of those they control. This is immoral power.
If you could take back your time, then what would you decide to do? I've only recently been able to consider it the question because I've learned to turn the TV off and think for myself. TV allows a few people to decide what a vast number of others 1) do with their time, and 2)what they think based on who watches what. A small group steals the conversation form the rest of us. For a long period of time, I spent more time watching television than any other venture required of my day. It is true from my perspective that the quality of information available was better in the past, but even then there was a barrage of advertising. Now, it seems, it is all advertising and self-admittedly so! Now they're allowing commercial-free shows on the internet and DVRs because the shows themselves are the advertising, and may have been all along. (I am aware that I am selling my idea as well, but remember I don't want anyone to pay me just for joining the conversation.) The salesmen we all are saw this transition coming. Information is packaged and sold just like every other commodity. Just look at the way in which Americans get there news... It is digested by biased regurgitaters then spewed forth with the label of "acceptable" truth.
It is obvious that social networking sites are a huge step for interaction. People can keep up with every intimate or personal thought people wish to share. Dissension to tradition has it's roots here for now, though the system has its corruption and limits. For now, it seems that truth has a bit of an outlet, and those of us who wish to continue the species by removing our hindrances on posterity are hopeful. I will use these sites with the understanding that representation must reflect what people are willing to say and believe both in reality and online.
The government of Iran was exposed by the sharing of truth. Change may rear itself in that country now, whereas in the past all those protesters would have been silenced by now, just like Tiananmen Square 25 years ago (look it up if you don't know... some rough shit happened). There is no doubt that bad shit is going down in Iran right now, and we can either let their representative to the world (a one voice government) tell us everything is fine, or we can remember the names of everyone involved on both sides in case freedom is about to find a voice, or corruption reaches those people believe in. The pain they are experiencing now has been the unfortunate cost of revolution everywhere and I feel strong and passionate hope for the well being of my brothers and sisters in humanity and their future generations. It seems important to note that their government can only give the impression that it can crush their movement by killing individuals. It is tragically possible for a while, but not forever. Truth can not be made to not exist, it may only be hidden for a while.
I'm sure in 1775 it seemed that one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who believed in a conviction so strong as someone like Thomas Paine, who in the very nature of writing his article, knew it meant certain and immediate death if people didn't believe in what he had to say. People under duress live towards their ideals, and that is what I intend to do.
I'm not telling anyone what they should intend to do, I'm telling you how I'm doing it. I don't presume to be a leader or an idiot any more than I presume to know the "right" way. As far as I know there is no one "right" way. I'm only interested in truth. There is no individual failure if a positive aspect of humanity emerges in our lifetime. We can literally decide to stand up and take responsibility for the future good of the planet now, and of this I believe any God imagined or imaginable would surely appreciate our efforts to not destroy their creation. We all are, after all, merely parts of that make up this planet. The planet, and life for that matter, will surely go on long after we've shuffled off, as it were.
We are a part of a system of life on this planet and we should respect that in a conscious and consistent manner. We are actually having an argument with ourselves that we might not be hurting the planet. How could we even suggest we might not be hurting the planet? We're still individual tribes at cold and hot war with each other, what makes us thing we're not carrying that thought over into killing the planet? We're killing everything... We silence our opposition... Its the thing we're best at... and it must stop immediately. We've got to put the brakes on regardless of what the salesmen say. The attitude that we know everything that needs to be known must end, and soon. Remember, whatever doesn't lead to life as a practice leads to extinction by default. We must desist before its too late and we're all dead and no one's family moves on...regardless of perceived power. (See Maya, Rome, Egypt, etc.)
On page 32 Paine writes, "I rejected the... Pharaoh of England for ever... with the pretended title of FATHER..." No where is this sentiment of a pretend father more evident that in politics... There system of power works with the distraction of advertising and tradition so much that the two are hardly distinguishable. I fully understand why many or most of us have been led out of the discussion only to be fed by the polar opposites of the same commercial magnet. We have too much distraction allowed at us to focus on what we really want or need. Its not that our parents are bad parents, and the world is a bad world... many of them don't understand it or agree with it either. People are good in the way they know how to be, but the network of political grease smooths for tradition and commerce and sludges for real life. This is just a road-block based on the power available to people who realize we're not looking, so why don't we look?
Now, at least for me, there is a new way to feel good about myself, and I'm motivated by it so much that I hardly think of anything but expressing it. There is a new way for me to be a father and it is not stuck in the traditions of those who have been fathers. We need to keep useful information, of course, but not by using mixed messages that cloud the truth with intermittent bullshit. If we can clearly see that one way we act is leading us down the path to extinction as a species, we can turn our children's heads toward a way to make us last a bit longer into the future.
I have this to say to believer of every apocalyptical tradition... weren't we all supposed to die in 2000? Remember the serious discussion and fright leading to runs on batteries and canned goods, and other mass hysteria surrounding our obvious lust for the "end of days" because we left off 2 digits on our computer programs? People said that "the entire race of man is getting brought down by the folly of ignorance at last!" as though it were in the public consciousness that it was bound to happen some time. This really happened here. No amount of assurance was enough "cuz the nukes are all gonna launch off" and "your car ain't gonna work cuz the computer inside the engine is gonna shut down." This is the ultimate means by which we allow ourselves to be controlled.
Wouldn't it be nice if we started thinking that we might just make it somehow. We did go a few hundred-thousand years already. All generations die individually, but the species lives on. By thinking that we're going to be wiped out, aren't we allowing ourselves to wipe us all out? What if we put our feet back on the ground and do the work its going to take to ensure our species lasts as long as we possibly can? We are problem solvers after all. We just need to get over this self-loathing spiritual war with ourselves that seems centered on our inability to consider that we are just another species of animal on Planet Earth. Its an unrealistic expectation to try to lord over this planet any longer when we start to see that we are obviously not capable. We are not the deciders. There is nothing wrong with learning how to participate in life without feeling that we are the cause and effect. My passion for my lineage certainly drives me, and I want my opportunity to live forever if it exists within them, but that bit of selfishness is naturally excusable so long as I don't attempt to limit the possibility of others. Existence is no sprint after all. I only wish to improve humanity's chances out of kinship... and if you go back 50 generations we're all related.
I don't feel as though I am at a level to be lived up to at this point, and I may never be. I hoped to be surpassed by my child in every way I can imagine, save malice. I'm not hiding my ignorance any longer, only asking for a little patience for (and from) us all. I'm trying for better without forgetting my limits. This message is me saying "I'm trying it this way, what do you think?"
I am going at this life and ideal with the ultimate of hope and intent. I'm trying my absolute best to not get suckered or to sucker myself into a bad decision. I have life to consider now. I have lived only as though I was going to be dead because no one who is supposed to understand that subject could give me any peace. I don't want to be dead anymore, and I'm not curious about making it happen any sooner than it needs to. I not only want to live, but I want to keep my brain crisp and clear for as long as possible. I mean, I just got used to using this mind for more than recreation -- and dealing with the expense of it. Now that I know why I ought to live, I've got a lot of work to do. I've got a lot to learn.
Change, after all, isn't just a black man in the Whitehouse, and Barrack Obama is only a symptom of the change that is sweeping the world. People world wide are through with the bullshitting. People are standing up. This change is a real change of context that realizes that things change, but nature remains. Change has nothing to do with trivia... Please ignore trivia... The things that have mattered for life throughout all species, civilizations and human traditions are food, water and shelter. Once that becomes the perminant first step, our time will again be ours, and we may represent ourselves!
I've just looked down at the picture of Thomas Paine on the book cover and winked and said "I appreciate it, buddy," and I really do. My very next thought was, "if that's what it means to be revered, I'll take it." I understand how little I've done to be revered, but that's ok. There are very few good reasons for any of us to be known by the rest. Unfortunately money captures and corrupts good intentions because we've been set up to believe "it" is what is important (after religion). Well, I'm not doing it! Any of it! Time is the utmost property to understand, and the utmost commodity to appreciate.
I'm putting this thought out there for no other reason than I just want to join the conversation of humanity. I believe a rarely spoken understanding exists between us, and flairs up occaisionally so we may indicate to each other what we all feel is right and natural, but our voice falls under the hum of our constant commerce propped up by tradition. Forget my name if you must, but never forget that this idea lives in all of us, and has through millions of years of wanting to be alive! I may be wrong about a lot now, but my day aint over yet. I can learn. I can grow. And I choose to spend my "free time" learning to discuss life with you. What's your plan?
It is fascinating to note that the last line of the essay's appendix is a warning against religion in the role of politics or government. If he could see the danger 233 years ago, how can we not today just because we use the term "value issue" instead of religion? After all, we are still having the same problems (and in some cases worse). "Value-issue" politics implies that legislation can somehow reach people inside their heads in the place where they make decisions, and that certain individuals among us can know the best way for all of us to think. As there is no one "God's" laws on the books, who among us wants our thoughts controlled by anyone else?! It seems sad to me that the question was addressed so long ago, but the debate shows that it is still not even understood today; and that power still corrupts us and war is made to seem logical. Power sends soldiers to war for the security of itself. Defense has been important in the past just as it is today for the security of this very debate, but the powerful have been hard-pressed to make the majority of the population of the world believe that the Iraq war measures up to defense, or even the ideals of the American Revolution. That statement is meant with all due respect to the soldiers and complete contempt for the orchestrators. It is abhorrent when one considers the scope in which presumably "powerful people" impose their will on the rest of us... and I didn't even consider that was what was going on at the time, or that it may still be happening.
I also believe that Paine's casual mention of Hemp on page 46 as it referred to cordage (making ropes and sails for ships) is a clear indication that all the properties for which the plant is renowned by those who know it intimately today, were evident properties to those who knew it in 1776. Perhaps its time to ask ourselves some real questions about what we "know", and show appreciation for the respect Paine seems to have had for such a helpful and versatile plant... you could pay your taxes with Hemp up until a few generations ago (says the drug free non-hippie).
That said, I believe we should exclude that which other people think we ought to do or not from the realm of what we are all made to do by the laws we create. The freedom from personal persecution will come at the expense of traditions it seems, though this need not be a bloody transition or revolution. If we consider what we learn from every endeavor (positive and negative) as a tool for making a better future, we may better understand the range or humanity. It is not for one person to say what another may wish to do after all, only what they are allowed to do. When we think about our place as founders of the future, the relationship with which we consider everything we know must be ever-changing, as we continue to learn.
Personal liberties are not the concern of the state because we don't use the law to tell people what they can do, only the scope of what they can not. Ideal situations for individuals continue to evolve with the changing world. It is not so that the world will not change because of adherence to the traditions of one or a few perspectives. It is a mistake to deny that the world is continually changing, or that it is going to continually change as we face new endeavors, as well as learn from our mistakes. In fact, to say it is unnatural and unrealistic that we will progress is ignorant and dangerous for the very survival of the species.
The decision that a person may or may not make for themselves is not in the control of anyone else... it is free will. In other words, freedom is: not searching approval from anyone that does not have useful information about a certain subject before one makes their decision to act. One example of this is the issue of abortion. Regardless of popular opinion, for some people, it is just going to happen. No one hopes to make that kind of decision, and it need not be an issue for general public debate. I agree that education on such subjects is the manner by which humanity is served best, but if people weren't allowed to know it was happening, there would be no ill will.
In that vein, before I insist on asking "what gives you the right to do anything," I would say "you have the right to do anything as long as you realize your personal reality is not the reason everyone and everything else exists. The world will go on just fine without you. In fact, humanity is not the singularity of existence. This is a significant change in perspective I feel we need as a species.
I read "Common Sense" in about six hours, using a dictionary and two highlighters... one to applaud with, and one with which to question. I consider it good fortune that one ran out of ink because it made me realize that I should study (or question) even the things I applaud. I highlighted nearly the whole pamphlet. I had to read each paragraph 3 or 4 times, and I still plan to re-read it. I'm not embarrassed to say that I have a learning disability that requires I do this in order to understand what Paine is trying to say... I'd rather focus on understanding. People are often held down by their embarrassment, but I say fuck all that. I have the ability to gain more knowledge, and now that I realize that fact, I may become more knowledgeable. When I stopped thinking that everything useful has already been thought or done, I gained a healthy sense of wonder. That's what it is to grow I suppose.
I want a wonderful, knowledgeable world, and nothing anyone could give me would make that not so. I believe it is ok to want and hope for the best for the world, and I'm sending that ideal out considering 233 years from now. My concern for my love of humanity may not be oppressed from me, though I must admit I may be made out to be a liar to those that don't know me. Suffice it to say, I want nothing from you except perhaps compassion and good will.
Once we learn to live with an unselfish future perspective, perhaps we will make better decisions. Perhaps we can at last find a way to accept peace and appreciation for each other today. It is absolutely necessary to point out that humanity may be 100000-300000 years old in its current form. Considering that to be so, and Paine's argument a primary example, the ideal of non-traditionally biased reason has existed in our conversation in a relative blink of an eye (or less). For thousands of years we've had culture and tradition all over the Earth. One tradition devaluing the nature and ideals of another has led to much of our history being erased. How can we learn from our mistakes if we are afraid to admit we make them?
There was a unifying principle for a small group of humans 233 years ago, just as there is a unifying principle for all humans today and beyond. The difference maker is that we need not be the individual tribes of Earth when it comes to common sense. We are the one tribe of humans we know of, and Earth is home to all of us. We may have differences in traditional practice, but our commonality is undeniable regardless of what ignorance insists. Each and every one of our perspectives is important to posterity for the statement of who we are and have been, as well as who we will be.
When we secure a home (or guaranteed sanctuary), we can learn a better way to interact without fear. We all need to be secure, or fear will continue to drive us to conquer and subdue each other.
If certain people are comfortable spending their time in the employ of others, or by the rewards if affords, then so be it unto them. Personally, I would rather spend my time as I see fit, not be constrained by the deadlines of other people's importance, but finding my own. Thereby, I must create a personal system that affords me the knowledge of the fruit of my efforts. I want to know the goal before I begin to work, and I want to know that the work will cease once my requirement is fulfilled. In my "free time" I may then decide how I wish to contribute to humanity and the survival of the species... which is the only thing I can think of that has always been important outside individual desires. It is only under a pure and unadulterated law that I may produce independent of government or tradition. This is a must for freedom for all.
The thought of who I am and what I feel good or bad about is exclusive to me. No government or tradition will make me believe what I don't believe (spoken like a true agnostic preacher's son who has been both a registered Democrat and Republican). My thoughts can not be regulated, only persuaded. I reserve the right to say whatever I wish, and I alone am the judge of my time. This idea of freedom need not be supplied by a God or King. We keep learning.
I am moved by all my senses, and no one may presume to tell me anything more than their perspective on sensing, which can never be my own. However, I believe we can come together under one way of relating, though our traditions be different. I don't need to have any one's experience to be able to understand their perspective if I am allowed the context with which they feel. Countries, likewise, need not regulate each other's traditions so long as humanity is served into the future safely and on the founding principle of knowledge.
By the logic of learning from the past, I never again want to use credit, though I may have to. From both a personal and national perspective, that is a lesson that is valuable for posterity. Credit is the means by which others control my time. Controlling my time is exerting power over me. Time, after all, is the only lasting commodity. Money is not power... nor is religion or government... controlling other people's time is power (which money, religion and government do quite well). If I can take back the control of my time, I take back the power of my life. I may direct the future as I see fit, and worry not about the wants of others in my actions. This is freedom! I haven't been able to accomplish it yet, and no one who can help me seems to want to do so. Powerful people, obviously, don't want to lose their power. For some, the process of maintaining other people's power is how they choose to spend their time, as they are attracted by the prospect... though they need not necessarily be concerned with the well being of those they control. This is immoral power.
If you could take back your time, then what would you decide to do? I've only recently been able to consider it the question because I've learned to turn the TV off and think for myself. TV allows a few people to decide what a vast number of others 1) do with their time, and 2)what they think based on who watches what. A small group steals the conversation form the rest of us. For a long period of time, I spent more time watching television than any other venture required of my day. It is true from my perspective that the quality of information available was better in the past, but even then there was a barrage of advertising. Now, it seems, it is all advertising and self-admittedly so! Now they're allowing commercial-free shows on the internet and DVRs because the shows themselves are the advertising, and may have been all along. (I am aware that I am selling my idea as well, but remember I don't want anyone to pay me just for joining the conversation.) The salesmen we all are saw this transition coming. Information is packaged and sold just like every other commodity. Just look at the way in which Americans get there news... It is digested by biased regurgitaters then spewed forth with the label of "acceptable" truth.
It is obvious that social networking sites are a huge step for interaction. People can keep up with every intimate or personal thought people wish to share. Dissension to tradition has it's roots here for now, though the system has its corruption and limits. For now, it seems that truth has a bit of an outlet, and those of us who wish to continue the species by removing our hindrances on posterity are hopeful. I will use these sites with the understanding that representation must reflect what people are willing to say and believe both in reality and online.
The government of Iran was exposed by the sharing of truth. Change may rear itself in that country now, whereas in the past all those protesters would have been silenced by now, just like Tiananmen Square 25 years ago (look it up if you don't know... some rough shit happened). There is no doubt that bad shit is going down in Iran right now, and we can either let their representative to the world (a one voice government) tell us everything is fine, or we can remember the names of everyone involved on both sides in case freedom is about to find a voice, or corruption reaches those people believe in. The pain they are experiencing now has been the unfortunate cost of revolution everywhere and I feel strong and passionate hope for the well being of my brothers and sisters in humanity and their future generations. It seems important to note that their government can only give the impression that it can crush their movement by killing individuals. It is tragically possible for a while, but not forever. Truth can not be made to not exist, it may only be hidden for a while.
I'm sure in 1775 it seemed that one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who believed in a conviction so strong as someone like Thomas Paine, who in the very nature of writing his article, knew it meant certain and immediate death if people didn't believe in what he had to say. People under duress live towards their ideals, and that is what I intend to do.
I'm not telling anyone what they should intend to do, I'm telling you how I'm doing it. I don't presume to be a leader or an idiot any more than I presume to know the "right" way. As far as I know there is no one "right" way. I'm only interested in truth. There is no individual failure if a positive aspect of humanity emerges in our lifetime. We can literally decide to stand up and take responsibility for the future good of the planet now, and of this I believe any God imagined or imaginable would surely appreciate our efforts to not destroy their creation. We all are, after all, merely parts of that make up this planet. The planet, and life for that matter, will surely go on long after we've shuffled off, as it were.
We are a part of a system of life on this planet and we should respect that in a conscious and consistent manner. We are actually having an argument with ourselves that we might not be hurting the planet. How could we even suggest we might not be hurting the planet? We're still individual tribes at cold and hot war with each other, what makes us thing we're not carrying that thought over into killing the planet? We're killing everything... We silence our opposition... Its the thing we're best at... and it must stop immediately. We've got to put the brakes on regardless of what the salesmen say. The attitude that we know everything that needs to be known must end, and soon. Remember, whatever doesn't lead to life as a practice leads to extinction by default. We must desist before its too late and we're all dead and no one's family moves on...regardless of perceived power. (See Maya, Rome, Egypt, etc.)
On page 32 Paine writes, "I rejected the... Pharaoh of England for ever... with the pretended title of FATHER..." No where is this sentiment of a pretend father more evident that in politics... There system of power works with the distraction of advertising and tradition so much that the two are hardly distinguishable. I fully understand why many or most of us have been led out of the discussion only to be fed by the polar opposites of the same commercial magnet. We have too much distraction allowed at us to focus on what we really want or need. Its not that our parents are bad parents, and the world is a bad world... many of them don't understand it or agree with it either. People are good in the way they know how to be, but the network of political grease smooths for tradition and commerce and sludges for real life. This is just a road-block based on the power available to people who realize we're not looking, so why don't we look?
Now, at least for me, there is a new way to feel good about myself, and I'm motivated by it so much that I hardly think of anything but expressing it. There is a new way for me to be a father and it is not stuck in the traditions of those who have been fathers. We need to keep useful information, of course, but not by using mixed messages that cloud the truth with intermittent bullshit. If we can clearly see that one way we act is leading us down the path to extinction as a species, we can turn our children's heads toward a way to make us last a bit longer into the future.
I have this to say to believer of every apocalyptical tradition... weren't we all supposed to die in 2000? Remember the serious discussion and fright leading to runs on batteries and canned goods, and other mass hysteria surrounding our obvious lust for the "end of days" because we left off 2 digits on our computer programs? People said that "the entire race of man is getting brought down by the folly of ignorance at last!" as though it were in the public consciousness that it was bound to happen some time. This really happened here. No amount of assurance was enough "cuz the nukes are all gonna launch off" and "your car ain't gonna work cuz the computer inside the engine is gonna shut down." This is the ultimate means by which we allow ourselves to be controlled.
Wouldn't it be nice if we started thinking that we might just make it somehow. We did go a few hundred-thousand years already. All generations die individually, but the species lives on. By thinking that we're going to be wiped out, aren't we allowing ourselves to wipe us all out? What if we put our feet back on the ground and do the work its going to take to ensure our species lasts as long as we possibly can? We are problem solvers after all. We just need to get over this self-loathing spiritual war with ourselves that seems centered on our inability to consider that we are just another species of animal on Planet Earth. Its an unrealistic expectation to try to lord over this planet any longer when we start to see that we are obviously not capable. We are not the deciders. There is nothing wrong with learning how to participate in life without feeling that we are the cause and effect. My passion for my lineage certainly drives me, and I want my opportunity to live forever if it exists within them, but that bit of selfishness is naturally excusable so long as I don't attempt to limit the possibility of others. Existence is no sprint after all. I only wish to improve humanity's chances out of kinship... and if you go back 50 generations we're all related.
I don't feel as though I am at a level to be lived up to at this point, and I may never be. I hoped to be surpassed by my child in every way I can imagine, save malice. I'm not hiding my ignorance any longer, only asking for a little patience for (and from) us all. I'm trying for better without forgetting my limits. This message is me saying "I'm trying it this way, what do you think?"
I am going at this life and ideal with the ultimate of hope and intent. I'm trying my absolute best to not get suckered or to sucker myself into a bad decision. I have life to consider now. I have lived only as though I was going to be dead because no one who is supposed to understand that subject could give me any peace. I don't want to be dead anymore, and I'm not curious about making it happen any sooner than it needs to. I not only want to live, but I want to keep my brain crisp and clear for as long as possible. I mean, I just got used to using this mind for more than recreation -- and dealing with the expense of it. Now that I know why I ought to live, I've got a lot of work to do. I've got a lot to learn.
Change, after all, isn't just a black man in the Whitehouse, and Barrack Obama is only a symptom of the change that is sweeping the world. People world wide are through with the bullshitting. People are standing up. This change is a real change of context that realizes that things change, but nature remains. Change has nothing to do with trivia... Please ignore trivia... The things that have mattered for life throughout all species, civilizations and human traditions are food, water and shelter. Once that becomes the perminant first step, our time will again be ours, and we may represent ourselves!
I've just looked down at the picture of Thomas Paine on the book cover and winked and said "I appreciate it, buddy," and I really do. My very next thought was, "if that's what it means to be revered, I'll take it." I understand how little I've done to be revered, but that's ok. There are very few good reasons for any of us to be known by the rest. Unfortunately money captures and corrupts good intentions because we've been set up to believe "it" is what is important (after religion). Well, I'm not doing it! Any of it! Time is the utmost property to understand, and the utmost commodity to appreciate.
I'm putting this thought out there for no other reason than I just want to join the conversation of humanity. I believe a rarely spoken understanding exists between us, and flairs up occaisionally so we may indicate to each other what we all feel is right and natural, but our voice falls under the hum of our constant commerce propped up by tradition. Forget my name if you must, but never forget that this idea lives in all of us, and has through millions of years of wanting to be alive! I may be wrong about a lot now, but my day aint over yet. I can learn. I can grow. And I choose to spend my "free time" learning to discuss life with you. What's your plan?
The guy who invented chips
The guy who invented chips...
July 20th, 2009... Upon reading "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, page 351-370 of Common Sense, Rights of Man, and other essential writings of Thomas Paine First Signet Classics Printing, New York, NY. 2003.
Thomas Paine, in “The Age of Reason,” calculated that the creation of the Christian church came about when a group of guys came together to vote on which of their 'holy’ books would best be combined to form the WORD OF GOD. Paine says:
When the Christian Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of
uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament, are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them; or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up. (362)
Perhaps most significantly, the organizers ". . .voted [the books they created from oral traditions] to be the word of God. . . ." and thereby, ". . .the belief of the one [common people] comes from the vote of the other [religious or otherwise powerful or influential people 1200 to 1600 years ago]" (363).
When I think about the psychological and sociological development intrinsic in this thought, I'm reminded of a saying I picked up in the decidedly less sanctimonious world of gaming, about the guy who invented chips. There is a subtle transformation that takes place in the mind of a person in a casino or other gaming facility, just as one bound by this aspect of Christian Tradition. The saying goes, "the guy who invented gambling was good, but the guy who invented chips was a genius."
What the hell does that mean?
Well, most legal gaming arenas use chips or tokens as the medium of exchange. People exchange or transform their money into venue-specific tokens just as in an arcade or subway. Once that transformation takes place, monetary value is removed from the realm of reality and decisions about tokens are made with less regard to their particular value, and more for the functional or recreational purposes for which they exist. In essence, the money's all spent before the encounter begins. Out of sight, out of mind. Token value may be won or lost, but it never enters the mind of the player as monetary value, as it only represents their ability to play on in the field of uncertain events.
I’ve heard people say, "I'd bet you but I don't have that many chips and I'm not buying any more," or words to that effect. By this logic one may assume that, commonly, people are not as sure of their opinions as they would let their money represent, but had they something already purchased or won to represent their idea with, they would bet they were correct.
In this instance, tokens are the medium of exchange in the arena in which our opinions about uncertain events may be avowed with no substantial reason or significant consequence.
Thusly, "Christian Mythologists," as Paine puts it, and all other groups of men that formed their own WORD OF GOD, are like the guy who invented chips -- in that the genius implicit in their deciding what is God's infallible word -- is that they assume control of the authority of God, and use God's authority to direct their fellow man. We pay for the experience of life up front when we're baptized into the community of everyone who agrees -- not that those men 1200 to 1600 years ago were right about the nature of God, but that it should be decided for us what one God we are all to envision. In essence, we pass the theory along as unquestionable, thereby affirming the message to generation after generation. We're told at every step by all those around us, regardless of true conviction, that the fear of punishment at the hands of an angry God is a good enough reason to take the 1200 to 1600 year-old men's word for it that they were the only authorities on God or idea of the afterlife... also uncertain events.
In this instance, the WORD OF GOD is the medium of exchange in another arena in which our opinions about uncertain events may be avowed with no substantial reason, but with hugely important consequences!
People study all the loopholes and riddles of religious teachings, and never consider that it might not really be the WORD OF GOD because the book itself tells you not to doubt it under penalty being hated by the very Creator of the Universe. The book or books men create and call the WORD OF GOD actually seek to replace God in the minds of common people. God out of sight, God out of mind. The similarity of religion to gaming is that the lives and suffering of real people are made to equal that of token value, because people with differing opinions only represent either other or no God, and therefore have no share in the realm of eternity. Religion allows men to reason that another man or group of people might as well suffer to death since they’re heading for hell anyway.
As a lover of humanity, I wont stand for it… much less teach it further.
Gambling Addicts lose themselves in the arena of token things so much that their real life is negatively effected. Many hard lessons have been learned by those that don't concern themselves with their real life, and let their play life take too much of their consideration. I learned better priorities, but some still continue to lose everything they'll ever get, always wondering why. There is, however, education available on this subject that is not considered sacrilege.
Religion Addicts, on the other hand, annihilate each other.
People's inability or unwillingness to live in or otherwise sustain peace is dependant upon our understanding that our religions say not only that we can't, but that anyone who tries to foster this peace is the "Anti-Christ," or whatever. It seems that the Devil is actually our invention of religion and we must deal swiftly with this enemy of reason before we let ourselves be destroyed.
About Satan and the Church's explanation of why he exists, Paine says it is simply because “they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay,” with the souls of all non-believers (360).
After over 200 years of allusion and dissent protected in figurative language and metaphor, it is finally upon us in this time to realize that we may have peace in the world, and that it does not make sense that the creator of all of this would actually want us to kill and or destroy everything we behold. Education, for religion addicts, has been and still is considered sacrilege, though death and suffering are tolerated much less today it seems.
Please make no mistake, religious tension is at the heart of a great number of prejudices and conflict in the world today. Paine says of the Christian bible, “it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is” (360).
In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being, whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater, that they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. (360)
Failure to understand true or reasonable principles of life and liberty have led to addiction of all kinds in the search for meaning. Unfortunately, the lonely “that’s just the way it is” attitude is all many people have to justify abnormal systems and responses. I’ve dealt (at great cost to my health at times) with this issue, and have resurfaced to find not only that I can make my way in this world, but that now that I’m having a kid, I want a reasonable world for them as well.
If one is true and honest about their intent, there is no such thing a failure. Life is a series of lessons. It is unfortunate that we’ve been preached a way of life that seems to fly in the face of God because men realized how to control us by our fears. Education and Reason yield the kind of peace that fear will never allow.
Any comment is welcome... I'll never claim to be an authority on much....
July 20th, 2009... Upon reading "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, page 351-370 of Common Sense, Rights of Man, and other essential writings of Thomas Paine First Signet Classics Printing, New York, NY. 2003.
Thomas Paine, in “The Age of Reason,” calculated that the creation of the Christian church came about when a group of guys came together to vote on which of their 'holy’ books would best be combined to form the WORD OF GOD. Paine says:
When the Christian Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of
uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament, are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them; or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up. (362)
Perhaps most significantly, the organizers ". . .voted [the books they created from oral traditions] to be the word of God. . . ." and thereby, ". . .the belief of the one [common people] comes from the vote of the other [religious or otherwise powerful or influential people 1200 to 1600 years ago]" (363).
When I think about the psychological and sociological development intrinsic in this thought, I'm reminded of a saying I picked up in the decidedly less sanctimonious world of gaming, about the guy who invented chips. There is a subtle transformation that takes place in the mind of a person in a casino or other gaming facility, just as one bound by this aspect of Christian Tradition. The saying goes, "the guy who invented gambling was good, but the guy who invented chips was a genius."
What the hell does that mean?
Well, most legal gaming arenas use chips or tokens as the medium of exchange. People exchange or transform their money into venue-specific tokens just as in an arcade or subway. Once that transformation takes place, monetary value is removed from the realm of reality and decisions about tokens are made with less regard to their particular value, and more for the functional or recreational purposes for which they exist. In essence, the money's all spent before the encounter begins. Out of sight, out of mind. Token value may be won or lost, but it never enters the mind of the player as monetary value, as it only represents their ability to play on in the field of uncertain events.
I’ve heard people say, "I'd bet you but I don't have that many chips and I'm not buying any more," or words to that effect. By this logic one may assume that, commonly, people are not as sure of their opinions as they would let their money represent, but had they something already purchased or won to represent their idea with, they would bet they were correct.
In this instance, tokens are the medium of exchange in the arena in which our opinions about uncertain events may be avowed with no substantial reason or significant consequence.
Thusly, "Christian Mythologists," as Paine puts it, and all other groups of men that formed their own WORD OF GOD, are like the guy who invented chips -- in that the genius implicit in their deciding what is God's infallible word -- is that they assume control of the authority of God, and use God's authority to direct their fellow man. We pay for the experience of life up front when we're baptized into the community of everyone who agrees -- not that those men 1200 to 1600 years ago were right about the nature of God, but that it should be decided for us what one God we are all to envision. In essence, we pass the theory along as unquestionable, thereby affirming the message to generation after generation. We're told at every step by all those around us, regardless of true conviction, that the fear of punishment at the hands of an angry God is a good enough reason to take the 1200 to 1600 year-old men's word for it that they were the only authorities on God or idea of the afterlife... also uncertain events.
In this instance, the WORD OF GOD is the medium of exchange in another arena in which our opinions about uncertain events may be avowed with no substantial reason, but with hugely important consequences!
People study all the loopholes and riddles of religious teachings, and never consider that it might not really be the WORD OF GOD because the book itself tells you not to doubt it under penalty being hated by the very Creator of the Universe. The book or books men create and call the WORD OF GOD actually seek to replace God in the minds of common people. God out of sight, God out of mind. The similarity of religion to gaming is that the lives and suffering of real people are made to equal that of token value, because people with differing opinions only represent either other or no God, and therefore have no share in the realm of eternity. Religion allows men to reason that another man or group of people might as well suffer to death since they’re heading for hell anyway.
As a lover of humanity, I wont stand for it… much less teach it further.
Gambling Addicts lose themselves in the arena of token things so much that their real life is negatively effected. Many hard lessons have been learned by those that don't concern themselves with their real life, and let their play life take too much of their consideration. I learned better priorities, but some still continue to lose everything they'll ever get, always wondering why. There is, however, education available on this subject that is not considered sacrilege.
Religion Addicts, on the other hand, annihilate each other.
People's inability or unwillingness to live in or otherwise sustain peace is dependant upon our understanding that our religions say not only that we can't, but that anyone who tries to foster this peace is the "Anti-Christ," or whatever. It seems that the Devil is actually our invention of religion and we must deal swiftly with this enemy of reason before we let ourselves be destroyed.
About Satan and the Church's explanation of why he exists, Paine says it is simply because “they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay,” with the souls of all non-believers (360).
After over 200 years of allusion and dissent protected in figurative language and metaphor, it is finally upon us in this time to realize that we may have peace in the world, and that it does not make sense that the creator of all of this would actually want us to kill and or destroy everything we behold. Education, for religion addicts, has been and still is considered sacrilege, though death and suffering are tolerated much less today it seems.
Please make no mistake, religious tension is at the heart of a great number of prejudices and conflict in the world today. Paine says of the Christian bible, “it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is” (360).
In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being, whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater, that they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. (360)
Failure to understand true or reasonable principles of life and liberty have led to addiction of all kinds in the search for meaning. Unfortunately, the lonely “that’s just the way it is” attitude is all many people have to justify abnormal systems and responses. I’ve dealt (at great cost to my health at times) with this issue, and have resurfaced to find not only that I can make my way in this world, but that now that I’m having a kid, I want a reasonable world for them as well.
If one is true and honest about their intent, there is no such thing a failure. Life is a series of lessons. It is unfortunate that we’ve been preached a way of life that seems to fly in the face of God because men realized how to control us by our fears. Education and Reason yield the kind of peace that fear will never allow.
Any comment is welcome... I'll never claim to be an authority on much....
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Job or the State
The Job or the State:
I've just tried to compound the numbers from the US Census for a number of different issues that I'm curious about. The numbers that may be errant, though probably not by much.
I've arrived at rough numbers using a math I believe to be consistent with the percentages no more than 2 years ago.
4,560,000 people in America qualify as Rich - averaging roughly $650,000/yr - (Capitalist, Resource Owners/Producers, Corporation heads and executives).
56,000,000 people make an average of $130,000/yr working as Small-business owners, (Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, etc...) Middle Mgmt for the companies owned by the Rich, and some representatives of the people in their various capacities.
212,000,000 people in America are laborers for the Small-business owners and Middle Mgmt in various capacities and jobs, and they average $55,000/yr or less.
The levels by which an average for these groups were arrived could be argued forever for no reason other than to stop the focus from falling on the other facts listed. The classes are there whether the averages are spot on or off by a few percentage points.
The Rich (as I'll call them for lack of a better term), when they get sick, turn to their family or personal doctor for treatment....
The Upper-Middle class, designs a health care plan for whichever company they work for, and turn to their family doctor for general care, as they may pay for treatment options outside their plan as situations arise....
The working class of people is bound by the plan created by their managers, and turn to a family doctor for general care, but lose out when it comes to experimental or other treatments outside the range of the plan they are provided....
This system begs the question of the blog in that the 212,000,000 are supposed to have representation in the government on many different levels (national, state and local), yet the debate is raging still.
So the question is: Which would you rather turn to in the case that you become ill to the extent that your insurance plan can either not help or it becomes expired, your job or your government? [phrasing borrowed from Matt Miller author of "Tyranny of Dead Ideas." bibliography available @ http://mattmilleronline.com/ ]
Economists agree that our current system will exacerbate the US economy in a relatively short time (not more than 50 and as little as 15 years). To stand in the corner and say "No, I don't wanna do health care right now," is ignorant to the point that our lives and the lives of our children are seriously being threatened.
Again (beating a dead horse), this is serious, and will not go away no matter how much we try to ignore it. We must step up and take part in the debate more readily, and worry less about how we are perceived because we don't understand what our representatives are up to.
Representatives are supposed to represent us to each other. In fact, as we understand more about how we are able to communicate with each other, we may better decide just who it is we wish to represent us (but that's another point).
Ask yourself the question... Who would you rather trust, and how can we make either system function so that it does not implode the US economy?
I invite any discussion as always, though I am new to this site.....
I've just tried to compound the numbers from the US Census for a number of different issues that I'm curious about. The numbers that may be errant, though probably not by much.
I've arrived at rough numbers using a math I believe to be consistent with the percentages no more than 2 years ago.
4,560,000 people in America qualify as Rich - averaging roughly $650,000/yr - (Capitalist, Resource Owners/Producers, Corporation heads and executives).
56,000,000 people make an average of $130,000/yr working as Small-business owners, (Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, etc...) Middle Mgmt for the companies owned by the Rich, and some representatives of the people in their various capacities.
212,000,000 people in America are laborers for the Small-business owners and Middle Mgmt in various capacities and jobs, and they average $55,000/yr or less.
The levels by which an average for these groups were arrived could be argued forever for no reason other than to stop the focus from falling on the other facts listed. The classes are there whether the averages are spot on or off by a few percentage points.
The Rich (as I'll call them for lack of a better term), when they get sick, turn to their family or personal doctor for treatment....
The Upper-Middle class, designs a health care plan for whichever company they work for, and turn to their family doctor for general care, as they may pay for treatment options outside their plan as situations arise....
The working class of people is bound by the plan created by their managers, and turn to a family doctor for general care, but lose out when it comes to experimental or other treatments outside the range of the plan they are provided....
This system begs the question of the blog in that the 212,000,000 are supposed to have representation in the government on many different levels (national, state and local), yet the debate is raging still.
So the question is: Which would you rather turn to in the case that you become ill to the extent that your insurance plan can either not help or it becomes expired, your job or your government? [phrasing borrowed from Matt Miller author of "Tyranny of Dead Ideas." bibliography available @ http://mattmilleronline.com/ ]
Economists agree that our current system will exacerbate the US economy in a relatively short time (not more than 50 and as little as 15 years). To stand in the corner and say "No, I don't wanna do health care right now," is ignorant to the point that our lives and the lives of our children are seriously being threatened.
Again (beating a dead horse), this is serious, and will not go away no matter how much we try to ignore it. We must step up and take part in the debate more readily, and worry less about how we are perceived because we don't understand what our representatives are up to.
Representatives are supposed to represent us to each other. In fact, as we understand more about how we are able to communicate with each other, we may better decide just who it is we wish to represent us (but that's another point).
Ask yourself the question... Who would you rather trust, and how can we make either system function so that it does not implode the US economy?
I invite any discussion as always, though I am new to this site.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
