The real revolution is in the minds and hands of innovators who can give us real alternatives without the need for violent overthrowing because the real market of what people want for full and congenial life would squeeze out the market of oppression.
It is foolishness to think that paradigm-wrecking change will not inflict pain. Perhaps it would be better if the shift would just Poof! -- all the trauma and bloodshed washed up at once into it horrific tableau, then Enlightenment! I don't think it can work that way. Mostly we seem to not be inclined to any major changes without being so miserable that we see no other option. I am emphatically not "for" this; but it seems to be so, beyond my ability to control.
Maybe the metaphoric "Second Coming" is at hand -- a revelation, an evolutionary burst. Maybe it can be sufficiently demonstrated that a shared peace is ever so much more profitable than divisive warfaring that those with means will rush to invest and spread the word.
Many people are caught up in scarcity theory -- us/them in contention for the world's goods. Others (or maybe some of the same) are clearly frightened of those they perceive has having different world views. There is much argument for appearing and therefore acting with force to show superiority, and therefore ensuring greater safety and prosperity. Then there are the religious fanatics who are still fighting the Crusades.
One concern I have about specifically the Israel/Iran situation is the influence of a (seemingly irrational) subgroup of life-hating fundamentalists who are actively engaged in bringing about the Biblical Apocalypse. Another is a drawing of lines throughout the world based on old Western colonialism and its aftermath in regard to emerging nations in the Middle East.
There is no uninventing guns. Prohibition clearly is not useful. The real power in law is not enforcement, but declaration of what we consider right and wrong. The real power in society is not law, but social acceptability. While people feel threatened, are exhorted to protect their rights to bear arms, worry that the government is out to get them or that deadly criminals await each venture outdoors or even breaking into their homes, the dialog becomes entrenched and angry. If a better narrative about self-protection, personal liberty and concerns about safety were prevalent, there could be more useful conversation.
No need to get hung up on "critique". Rather, I think, what we want is dialog -- because while I may hear in my inner ear exactly what I mean to say, I can't hear in your ear what you have understood, nor how my song has affected your dance. And if your perceptions change over time, or over mood, that is a changing of information to discuss as well.
It is far too common to conflate communism with socialism, and even worse conflate communism with the totalitarian regimes after anti-feudal revolutions. Clearly Marx said capitalism needed to come between to work out the very social issues we confront now. Socialism, which seems to work pretty well in some European countries, is simply a form of resource distribution based on an ideal of equality of opportunity to be the marvelous individuals we can be. It is capitalism that people are not made for. The theory may be sound; but on the ground we get too confused by the glitter of profit and forget the economic system is meant to be a tool of the people, not the other way around.
If we really took principles of the give and take of people's rule to heart, we would be all over these "Third Party" ideas that go beyond the Dem/Rep duality.
Children ought to be taught what they need to know to successfully live in this world -- and yet we romanticize childhood and fill up young curiosity with misconceptions and untruths about pretty much all the important aspects of living.
It is unfortunate that a great many parents either don't have the time to really be effective role model/teachers and/or don't have the skills themselves. Community seems less and less a force in our lives. Far from teaching these basic skills further overburdening overburdened teachers, they can free and enrich their teaching to actually give useful information to kids and parents and community in the process of teaching what we misname the "basics," (reading, writing, math), which are in fact merely tools for learning that can be taught more easily and with greater impact if attached to real life skills.
We complain the kids don't learn the reading and 'rithmetic and they complain that the lessons aren't relevant, don't attach to the valences of their minds. So, why aren't we teaching the school skills in conjunction with the life skills? How about learning to fill out a tax form (reading, writing and arithmetic), pay a set of monthly bills, make blueprints for a house, create a political party and election ads, etc., and do it all in a teamwork modality?
There are more and more avenues of internet knowledge distribution that can greatly enhance home or out of home schooling.
Could the teachers who are more consciously aware of individual needs, of varieties of modalities, of better communication of information and ideas, here in this World Wide Web age work one to one, mentorlike, with children who are facing unfair difficulties because of ignorant or hidebound local schools? There could even be monetary exchange without the high fees of private schools, like for tutoring.
Schools seem for the most part to deny their greatest asset -- the students. Instead of top down organization of "teaching," team modality learning would cut costs and improve outcomes.
You know how you can pay students to attend? Take them seriously. Make use of the talents they provide; and let them know they are making a difference.
It's not about what schools allow, what can be kept off social media, or even legal remedies. To outlaw bullying takes real people standing up against the bullies and making it clear that this kind of behavior is not ok.
Mindfulness is not dismissing reason; rather it is placing reason in a context of awareness. It is release from the nonreason of internal dialog and vague reactivism into a mental place of clarity and open inquiry. It is getting in touch with the you that is mostly experienced as a "watcher" -- the part that really knows, unentangled by socially mandated concepts.
Chemical imbalances do not cause mental illness. They are results of the same reactions to unbalanced stress.
When we feel good -- calm, upbeat, happy, energized -- it is natural to want to share that feeling, to want a better everywhere for everyone. When we feel miserable we often want the world to suffer, too.
People who are happy in their lives have little incentive to waste those happy lives denigrating others.
Isn't it marvelous how so many people want to ease their deity's burdens by taking over judgment of each other.
Those who lose their souls to religion
Caught up in frames against their better angels
Might, if the spirit so o'ertakes their vision
Come to discern divisive righteousness's dangers
The principle upon which most religions are based is one of community of shared world view.
Religion is not equivalent to Christianity
Since religious freedom seems to be being defined as forcing everyone to live according to one group's consensus on morality, I say we have a revolving group, each religion to be represented for an agreed upon time limit (say a year), then to be passed on to the next group. Perhaps we could put them in order of percentage of adherents, or reverse order so we can all benefit from greater knowledge of less populous traditions.
I want freedom for my religion. I want our living planet respected. I want individual liberty to worship as we believe respected. I believe women have free choice of what to allow into our bodies.
They insist there is no validity to concerns about climate change because they are hoping for another "Flood" to cleanse the planet of the less righteous.
If human sexuality is so offensive to the Creator, why is it so intrinsic to our lives? If rational family planning is so offensive, why is our rationality the hallmark of our species? If we could disengage our insane offensives against sexuality from considerations of issues medical and social, we could have much more useful conversations and less intrusive, more compassionate results.
You mean teens aren't being properly punished for their lascivious behavior by being made responsible for another life?
Women need to go back to their traditional roles as slave laborers to the men who so magnanimously marry them, and get out of the job market where they annoy and distract men's work.
If Catholic organizations are so concerned with keeping to their faith despite working with those who are not of their faith, they ought to keep their funding sources nonsecular.
My understanding is that the big risk for any employer not providing health insurance including birth control is a rescinding of federal funds. So, who is demanding a connection between government and religion here?
No one is being forced to do anything. If they are taking public funds, they are required to fulfill the obligations of receiving those funds. If they don't want to fulfill those obligations, they can forego the funding. What I don't understand is, if the Church is so opposed to government interference why they accept government funds.
Meanwhile, do Republicans really believe banning contraception is a popular stance?
I really don't understand why any politician would think it sound to dis over half the electorate.
Yes, women use contraception and vote -- and so do men.
Health care really ought to have been divorced from employer responsibility instead of the compromise Act as it stands. What has been needed all along is a strong public option.
Insurance is not about health care. Insurance is kind of like a lottery. Everyone puts in a share of the prize that some collect. Insurance for health expenses makes sense when it is against major unexpected calamity. You can put in a small payment and not have to worry about being ruined by a medical catastrophe. However, if we are talking about normal, to be expected, everyday health expenses, insurance makes no sense at all. What could make sense is a subscription whereby a reasonable amount is paid on a regular basis, and services are provided as needed. There are certainly other models that could work as well -- say a tax-based single payer option, or cut-rate clinics for wholesale treatment, or medical savings accounts, or flooding the market with medical professionals and varieties of treatments along with clear and easily accessed information for everyday self-care along with access to more precise information one on one ... and so forth.
Even if vaccines themselves are not specifically dangerous, the additives can be. Yet, somehow it is seen as stupidity to question vaccinations.
We've got to end the influence of big money on our legal system. How? By using big thought and big organizing with big information.
Let's stop acting like we need "investors," by getting behind new paradigms of small scale personalized investment in projects we believe in.
I would have been happier with bringing home the troops, ending post-9/11 "security" programs that infringe on citizen freedoms, and seriously diminishing the Pentagon budget.
If we deny a large percentage of the population the advantages of the realm's currency, sooner or later they may figure out that they can create their own currency and leave out the 1%
