Call to Submit: "Gifting Gaea" Emerging Visions #22

EmergingVisions#22 - Gifting Gaea

 

Gift the Goddess with your most mind and heart opening art

Embrace Her with our beauty

 

http://emergingvisions.blogspot.com/2010/08/submission-guidelines.html

 

Get them in by early April 2012 (the Year of Prophecies)

 

 

Emerging Visions visionary art 'zine

http://emergingvisions.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

make it happen

happy Pisces

Etherized

 

 

Will o' the wisp in a land of dreams

Daisies, bright blooming weeds,

mellifluous, grand.

A Genie whooshing into lively form

above foam and sea

Arms wide in flight beyond fear,

absorbed by awareness -- unspoiled horizon

beyond confines of mind or eyes

or reason.

Who imagines,

and in that magic safely settles

to reside?

Women in velvet and fur, swan necks,

flamboyant tresses,

sip marvelous narcotic, sweet as fire.

Upheld mirror portraits, glowing strands

of wire and prismic hues,

vibrant perfumes call to wander,

to stray.

Will-less, free, each step,

each feather fall

a gift of mystery, of mystics' play,

cradle of bliss.

 

 

february 19, 2012

carrying water (raos)

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%

in candle shadow (raos)

In closing moments of late Winter light
Clouds sinking afire into horizon's shore
Visions shielded by day from instinct's sight
Creep into focus, relink to nature's core

 

 

 

People losing track of reality can be better focused through getting in touch with basic physical movement, moving back into a better mind/body integration.

 

In my opinion the default setting is bisexual; but we tend not to notice over all the media hype and individual brainwashing about gender issues.

 

To seriously deal with the real problems we don't need money, but something much more valuable and rare. We need people who commit their resources of time, energy, intelligence, and the ability to lead through example and pull together rather than cracking along every point of disagreement.

 

I am starting to give in to the paranoia that the 1% is working to weed out the 99%

 

Not religion, which is a binding force not an expanding one, what we need is a real faith based not in gods, but in us.

 

When people kneejerk into a hostile defending of their rights, they seem to forget that rights imply responsibilities.  If we are speaking of "god-given" natural rights, we forget that this is a fantasy.  In the state of nature we have the right to do what we will until it kills us.  In the state of social institutions we have the rights decided by the polity.  In either case we have the responsibility to exercise those rights or not based on the realities of the situation, or we are not rights holding persons but whiney self-entitled fools.

 

 

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?

 

In this digital age we ought to be able to give kids the option of opting out of classes and homeschooling themselves.

 

We seem to have a distorted view about childhood and its place in life.

 

I am inspired by anger engorging my blood-brain barrier by symphonies of guilt and shame and hope by simple positionings glimpsed from roving eyes by lightening, darkening, liminal desires, by brave warriors who cope with more than could be required and the songs my silent ear demands I hear

 

Art is its own experience, just as any experience in life. Because of the way our consciousness self-structures, we store our memories in metaphor as well as sensory perception. Thus, perhaps art is the more pure experience.

 

 

 

The so-called capitalists get it all wrong.  They imagine they have some uber right to profit on their products, when the free market doesn't offer that at all.  The market says you must sell your wares to make profits -- and selling is not just trade, but enticing it.

 

In this age of self-publishing, online information free market, exploding innovation, critical thinking becomes a key tool.

 

A central problem with the "conservative" media and "conservative" politicians is that their nattering idiocies keep real conservative ideas and solutions from being heard.

 

If the Republicans can't get a decent candidate together, maybe Johnson could have a shot as a Libertarian.

 

The thing is we turn these terms into nonsense by allowing their meaning to become whatever the popular slur would imply. Rather than talk Liberal or Conservative, Capitalist or Socialist, or even Republican or Democrat, perhaps it would be more useful to just talk issue by issue and explore all of the actually wider range of views.
 

 

The issue is not so much Koch or Soros, but the influence of big money in obfuscating the candidates' actual abilities or positions.

 

While the controversy rages over drilling and oil pipelines, alternatives quietly progress.

 

The message that bullying is not ok needs to be made clear

 

 Whether or not the police "deserved" taunting could be countered with whether or not the protesters deserved the kinds of ill-treatment they got. Violence, however, takes away the moral high ground that is the essence of peaceful protest. What we do have to remember, though, is that a movement cannot possibly control every person who claims to act under their banner. If the police, the public servants involved in escalating conflict would stop reactively acting out violently and negotiate out of the moral strength of peace, better results for all could be created.

 

For years I sent letters to the IRS advocating that they include an area on the tax forms in which people could opt out of allowing their tax dollars to support any particular program (and perhaps also an area in which they could say: "I want to support _____"). I figured it would pretty much all even out over the entire population; and it would be a good way to gage exactly what the people do and don't want their government doing.

 

 

 

It's just a phase, this material trance.  We awake into a world ready made and monkey-see our way into a social construct we call "me".  We do this both individually and all together.  We go through the metamorphoses of growth and experience, trying to piece it together into useful sense.  In that effort, we try out different roles, different styles, different socio-political theories and practices.  It is a systemic spiral we travel, incrementally changing until we reach a critical mass, a crisis of belief and boundary redefining.  The world we think we know, have created in our own minds, shifts.  Before we get to that crisis, we explore and overextend, we wallow to ridiculous degree to fully engorge, to fully play out the possibilities and consequences of the reigning paradigm.  We have learned, have seen, that tools, technology can give us the illusion of grabbing more than our hands can hold, of smiting our enemies and increasing our security.  We have learned, have seen, that grabbing and hoarding the material luxuries and symbols of power can give small, scared, weak people an illusion of power and command, and the kind of security that implies.  However, we are learning, some are seeing, that the material trappings are not the feelings themselves, are not truly worthwhile as goals or means.  It is a phase we learn through, then, if we have been paying appropriate attention, move from to try out other theories, other practices, as those possibilities become more obvious.  Of course, there is always the chance that what hasn't truly made us stronger will kill us.

 

 

 

 

Go back to first principles: What do we mean by "God"?

Janus reflects (raos)

Obviously "love" is not the answer. (Maybe it is the question?) Rather, self-love may well be the love answer we have been looking for.

 

 

 

I tend to distrust "belief" and rather think through positions based on information. Thus, newly discovered information can lead to new thought.

 

in the 21st century we don't have to pay a thing but attention to get a first-class education.

 

Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian. She developed her own, quite narcissistically induced, philosophy which for some unfathomable reason gets conflated with a philosophy of maximum freedom.

 

 

Does competition drive us to improve and to strive to reach our potential, prevent us from becoming complacent? Perhaps some kinds of competition drive some kinds of people. Maybe co-operation drives others, or the kinds of co-operation that involve excitement of innovation within the security of an interactive group. Then, competition does not have to be about survival of the fittest, but can just be diversity.

 

 

I am troubled by the paradigm of ownership in regard to the resources of a society. Ownership, even massive co-ownership, is a divisive concept. We are divided from that which we own, given some sense of entitlement rather than a sense of participation. I think a better paradigm would be a participatory society, in which we are all on the hook for doing well. Freud and others have said, and I tend to agree, that our primary motivators, that which is most associated with psychological happiness, are work and love -- vocation and companionship brought to a level of passion. This passion, and the happiness it can bring, comes with active participation, not a classification of ownership.

 

 

 

Money is a social construct, and yet we foolishly let it take over.

 

Wasn't Reagan the one who looked into our eyes and hypnotized our better sense into accepting his "debt is good" command?

 

 

 

Even more regressive than the taxes is the whole government-corporate complex of special subsidies, regulations and loopholes designed by corporate lobbyists and granted by their legislative lackeys.

 

 

The problem of the government for free market business is not the taxes or the regulations, but the subsidies and advantages to the influentially rich.

 

 

 

Opposition to government intervention through criminal sanctions does not mean approval of an activity, but rather a valuation of liberty above enforcing morality.

 

 

Our government is too big because our country is so big, vast, made up of regions with their own interests.  So, look at the complexity and wordiness of legislation to attempt to cover an imaginable range of possible scenarios.  The thing is, it would be more useful to keep the rules incredibly simple, to cover what we can agree is needed for reasonably sane and safe interaction.  Get back to basics, within a future-oriented changing environment.  This can be brought from the bottom up, from the smallest groups, within any consciously aware community, becoming more widespread as it becomes an obviously practical meme.  Government is but an institutionalization of people's models of living together as a society.  It is not a thing, but a system of interrelationships.

 

 

 

The pro-Israel lobby is not so much about promoting Israeli interests as influencing a hastening of Armageddon for those Christian martyrs who want an end to this world combined with neocon desires to control the Arab oil countries' resources.

 

The Arab-Israeli hostilities are not so much about the nation of Israel as Western colonial mentality and its aftermath.

 

 

 

The world is changing. Every institution will be re-evaluated within that change.

 

 

 

Why does everyone seem to think that these things are a matter of either/or when both/and works much better?

 

 

 

I think we need a moratorium on the word "socialism" until a majority of us understands what it means.

 

 

 

I keep hearing this meme that people ought not be taxed,  to be allowed to keep and spend their own money (which is another debate, as to what money is and who it belongs to) better than government.  What is this based upon?  What is better?  Certainly individuals want to spend in ways that promote their own interests -- but often they do not; and often their interests are not the interests of the society generally.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing against artists being paid for their work. There has always been pirating since there have been items of value to pirate. Mostly we do not respond to such activity by making it harder to do legitimate business or to egregiously burden those who might be operating out of a desire to spread information rather than thievery. As an artist who works with other artists, I am aware of these issues. But artists are creative people. Certainly we can figure out how to promote our work without having it made profitless by pirates.

 

 

 

 

I had just been thinking about how so many children are somehow expected to behave in ways they have no way to understand. No wonder so many of us have so much anxiety about who we are supposed to be, how we are supposed to perform to be ok.

 

 

 

The drug laws have nothing to do with safety or public health and everything to do with having control over people willing to flout authority.

 

Part of the silliness in all of this is that we are brainwashed by advertising to take all kinds of dangerous drugs without even considering the dangers, for all kinds of purposes. Then, these few substances that have had some historical hysteria attached are treated like nuclear weapons. If all the expense of maintaining this war mentality against the least able to defend themselves were instead used to treat those who have used substances ill-advisedly, we wouldn't have a substance abuse problem. We would have a substance abuse solution.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps if one is stuck in a mire of continued unsuccessful outcomes, rather than continue to self-berate one could step back, have a refreshment, take a nap, daydream about the scene outside the window, leave the problem to find anew with new energy, ideas and perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of those falls over destiny's cliffs will be your last.

Aquarian days (raos)

In these days of quantum cosmic possibilities, when prophecies and science fiction dreams are inflaming collective imagination, don't we have some more relevant topic than last century's economic dabblings to enshrine?

 

 

 

perhaps we ought to have a new definition of poverty, based not on dollar amounts but quality of life.

 

 

 

I notice ownership is not a guarantee of good stewardship.  Often owned objects are treated with disregard.  Even long sought toys pall as playthings and get tossed into some bin of oblivion.  What is valued is what is used, tools that make our work possible or allies that make it enjoyable.

 

 

 

Do not struggle with anger, my son Give in to the luxury of ire and woe Dance to the music of bloodlust, fire, passion Avenge the angst of life's attractions Get caught up in the lava flow, burning to spend and leap without reserve Then, in sweet afterglow, in mild day's reflection, take in the view of battlelands subdued. In this fading light, this waning Sun, aftermath of action, take time and patience, eye of storm, tongue of meditation, clear mind of wisdom to wish.

 

 

 

I pray for you to lose the plank in your eye, to melt the icy hatred locking in your heart.

 

 

 

 

 

We could use a mentor class and systems to match those who care to share their knowledge with those who require it for any vocation desired.

 

 

 

Outspoken capitalists seem not to realize that a free market is meant to be free for all to use whatever strategy they think will work for them.

 

 

 

Aren't most abortions sought by married women who desire (or even already have) children, but because of the situations surrounding the particular pregnancy have decided that termination is the best option? Abortions save mothers lives, both directly an the broader sense. They often save the unborn child from a life that no one ought to be forced to endure. Perhaps what is needed are massive wrongful life suits (maybe class action or pro bono through activist lawyers) brought by horribly deformed and diseased children against the "right to life" groups that required their birth. Life is not always a gift, but sometimes more like a curse, a burden that those who insisted they knew better than the mother ought to pay for if we are to have credence as a free society. A right to life for free people is also a right to not be forced to live.

 

 

 

The problem is not in difference of opinions or social theories. The problem is the attitude of belittling, berating and generally working out of a war metaphor.

 

There are people who feel a responsibility to control others, often with laudable motives of bringing people generally into a better way of life. Then there are those on a mission from a perverted sense of god (perhaps Satan Himself or some archetypal daemon?) who take a stand without reserve, remorse or reason. Of course there are mostly the politically expedient.

 

 

 

The essence of the novel is not the medium but the story. There is no need to hold content to the kinds of technologies available in the past, when the novel originated and evolved in print. There is no need to limit content to fit some current trend either.

 

 

 

There is a too little questioned fallacy of the wealthy as the job creators. Those who have so much that they can dispense jobs in fits of philanthropy if only we will pamper them into benevolence are THE way to the salvation of employment for we below. Really, though, jobs are not "given" nor benevolently created. No one would be employed if their skills and time were not benefiting and profiting those who employ them. The sneered remark of "a poor person never hires anyone" is far from true. With their last cent, and often future prospects in the form of debt, those without wealth are constantly hiring those who provide necessary goods and services. There is a persistent insistence that to move our economy forward we must give all kinds of concessions, corporate welfare, special tax breaks, et al to the "job creators" who already are on top of the food chain. Somehow it is evil, socialist disincentive to produce to aid the much greater job creators on the bottom to continue to pay and play their part in the economy.

 

 

 

Congressional rule would be so much easier without these protesting citizens to deal with

 

 

 

it is not just military women who must daily risk sexual assault at the hands of their fellows; certainly it is not only Muslim women who are subjugated at the hands of brutal males

 

motherhood is not really valued (probably because it is women's work)

 

Big pharm, like big moneyed interests generally, is not about public interest, but private profits.

 

 

 

There are plenty of local regulations created by those who know how to manipulate government to cut down on competition in their field. John Stossel often mocks these on his Fox Business tv show.

 

Why would we deserve a fearless President when we are not a courageous electorate?

 

 

Whether you agree with Paul or not at least he is very clear and consistent about what he believes and does as a result.

At least the things Congressman Paul says that scare some crap are out there being said -- not obfuscated like what is not said by those who speak talking points and focus-grouped soundbites.

 

 

What I learned in high school and elementary science classes was that science is often wrong (not what my teachers taught, just my informed observation). Better than teaching "science" our students need to learn critical thinking.

 

 

 

When we are concerned about shoplifting, we do not close the store. When we are concerned about ticket fraud, we do not shut down the concert hall. Nor do we build walls around stores in the mall that have experienced theft. We prosecute the thief. There are anti-copyright laws that get exercised every day. If the problem is that the interested parties can't keep up with the general culture of sharing art and information, perhaps they need to better educate themselves.

 

Copyright prosecutions across borders happen all the time; there are specific international copyright laws, though some countries tend to ignore them (but then they tend to do what they choose in most situations). If our problem is with China, it does us no good to destroy our people's access to the 'net. Rather, we need to learn to better negotiate with China.

 

It seems like so-called free market capitalists, who would be the first to scream about job killing regulations on their industries at the same time expect government to keep them safe from losses in an actual free marketplace.

 

 

 

Under the (sainted) Reagan administration, the old rules changed to let the good times roll for those at the top with some flimsy underpinning of "trickle down". As the real conservative at the time, George Bush (the father) knew, this was "voodoo," not reality-based. Since then it's all about the entitled people of means, not what is good for the country.

wiggling into place (raos)

(seagoats come out for our moment in the Sun)

 

 

 

What is needed, really for us all, is a basic premise of interpersonal respect.

 

 

Surfeited with ire,
if I can marshal it against you
rather than against myself
you provide a useful target

 

 

In regard to suicides based on bullying generally, my impression is that the reaction is not to fear but shame. When one goes through life having shame heaped over and over in regard to who one is, life can become impossible.

 

Pretty much everyone has something to be bullied about. Probably the bullies are going at whoever they can to deflect from their own out of average traits. Being perfect is not an appropriate defense against bullying. Speaking out in the occasion ought to be the natural response of any bystanders.

 

It seems to me that a culture of bullying allows such behavior (perhaps in some ways encourages it) by acceding to it.  I remember well a lecture on spousal abuse given by a well established shelter counselor who explained that men abuse their wives because they believe it is ok.  Without the silent acquiescence (even occasional approval), bullying would be a cause of severe shame for the bullier, not the victim.

 

Freedom isn't free; we pay by staying aware and making our voices loud.

 

 

Like Rod Serling so ominously stated in that old anti-drug ad: the only thing wrong with mj is that it is illegal

 

The culture defining "mental illness" implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with our minds.  Rather than wrong or broken or ill, we are confused.  What we would benefit from are not doctors drugging us into submission, but mentors helping us to learn to cognate and behave in ways to better reach our goals and optimize our communications and interactions.

 

 

 

The government/corporate complex has done everything they can to make business large and squeeze out the small people through corporate welfare and specialized legislation.  Just the logical outcome of crony capitalism, not well thought out, because owning it all and leaving angry mobs to control is not my idea of a good life.

 

The moneyed interests seem to be about gambling, not producing. How long and well can a nation live on hype and manipulation?

 

We all know that money is going into politics, buying politicians to work for special interests. Where is the money going, though -- who benefits from this massive transfer of wealth?

 

 

Freedom has to be free from monetary requirement -- the price of freedom is its practice

 

The last President concerned with ending government waste was Clinton; but then the government had to waste all that time/attention/resources on impeaching him.

 

 

It often feels like the partisan bickering and obfuscation is a ruse to keep us off-balance, divided and ignorant of what is being done in our name.

 

It's not a matter of right or wrong. Certainly, you could state whatever you are feeling or thinking. Of course then those in your vicinity get to state what is on their minds.

 

 

 

If you watch Congressman Paul, whenever he speaks to an issue he clearly consults with his guiding principles, not political expediency. Even though he may disagree with others' views, his libertarian unswerving devotion to liberty informs his response. This is not a politician we need fear will hide his actions behind lies or obfuscation. This is a man of reason and integrity.

 

Romney does appear to have an adversarial relationship with reality.

 

 

 

It seems like some kind of bizarre dance: The loudmouth opposition complains that the President is harming the country through some conflation of what government has become over decades with current policies. The President shows how he is working to change the way business is done to methods more in line with what the opposition claims is needed. The opposition loudly complains that the President ...

 

 

 

 I am often amazed by avowed capitalists' aversion to competition.

 

 

 

Won't it be fun to look back from the future era of renewable and ecologically sane energy abundance.

 

 

Far beyond cruelty
into a whole other realm
of horror, dishonor and disdain
to observe crushing pain
and serve utility
by crushing more

 

Welfare recipients, the ones who can pass through the hoops of extreme desperation, have to try to survive on less than a reasonable tip at a top tier restaurant, and somehow get vilified as breaking the bank.

 

There is a great deal wrong with the "welfare" system, mostly involving blaming poor people for their inability to just suck it up and be successful.

 

The "teach them to fish" metaphor would work if there were oceans of fish and reputable fishing schools available to all of the economically unadvantaged.  Perhaps what is needed are mentors to teach folks how to support themselves when no one will hire them.

 

 

 

We elect people to the government trough whose avowed purpose is to destroy government, and then wonder why our government isn't working.

 

A genuine remedy would require actual conversation, compromise and rule by the people instead of political parties.

 

 

 

Perhaps we don't anthropomorphize enough, or rather perhaps we think of ourselves as further apart from other species than we are.

 

 

 

Somehow we have twisted religion into a belief in the indecency of our natural lives. If our bodies so offend, why does God make them?

 

 

 

We know it is useless to legislate love; though apparently it is popular to legislate hate.

 

Instead of acting bully-like against Iran, why are we not investing in a policy of supporting the people over their problems with the leaders?

 

 

Please, not another neocon war!

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is in the questioning, questing for meaning, in the everyday immense poetry