Stay in your lane Bro'

I'm angry and sad today at the state of our thinking. We are so concerned with legislating the bodies of others, against their will, that we work to stack a court with judges and then push the unthinkable to get the question in front of them, when the will of the people is clearly for choice.

For those that want to impose their religious will, I ask - if God does not agree that abortion is an option, why does it exist?

Faith, you see, is your belief - not god's will. It's not God's faith - it's yours. And faith is based in what you cannot touch - it's your beliefs. It's private. 

To impose your beliefs - your faith on others is to invalidate their belief and violate their space. This is why our founding fathers set up a secular system. Separation of Church and State. Laws were not intended to impose rules on faith. They were intended to apply to our social interaction and action.

A woman seeking an solution to an unwanted pregnancy - for whatever reason - is making a decision for herself. It does not impact you. You have no stake in the game. Even if you are the father, you have no stake in the game. 

Parenthood is a lifelong choice. So is adoption and abortion. But they are choices regardless of being legal or not. Long before adoption laws were formed, people took in others. Long after abortion was illegal, women died or mutilated themselves trying to prevent an unwanted baby.

To go down a path of taking away choices for birth control and abortion literally forces a woman's destiny. And your judgement that people shouldn't have sex if they don't intend parenthood is Orwellian and outdated.

It's fine if you choose to not consider abortion a choice for yourself. It is criminal to try to force that choice on others.

Israel and Restraint

When I hear anything that smacks of racial or religious purity I cringe, because hiding behind the thin layer of masked language are the ideas of exclusion and discrimination, hate and genocide.

And the Jewish people have been recipients of this treatment for hundreds of years. Egyptians, Romans, Crusades, Inquisitions, Nazis - and those are just well known instances - tons of persecution.

And some of us have engendered acceptance and co-existence. But the recent movement in Israel to be a Jewish only state, is a movement of exclusion, discrimination and hate.

“Israel is not a state of all its citizens,” he [Netanyahu] wrote a few weeks before the election. “Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people — and only it.”

 What makes this different than 1930s-40s Germany then? What makes this different than Rwanda, Darfur, Ireland?

This is a mistake. And it's a mistake for US Government to support it. And it's a mistake in the playbook for all Jewish persons - understand that we sit in the role of persecutor now. And that cannot be the case. We of any, should be working for the eradication of hate, not the cultivation of it - even in the face of extremist adversity - should be pushing for peace.

Should israel be strong - yes. But they need to carry that with restraint. Mr. Netanyahu is not. He is figuratively and literally killing innocents along with terrorists. He is persecuting Israeli citizens because of their genetics and beliefs.

How do we achieve restraint?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/benjamin-netanyahu-israel.html

The element of suprise

I personally think the Democrats are blowing it in regards to the presidential race.

Where's the element of surprise?

1. Trump has two years to evaluate, research and talk down all of his competition

2. If the fight gets ugly within the party, it will cause disenfranchisement and apathy.

3. 20 candidates who eventually need to push their voters to one? Are they relying on the "better than Trump" argument to get people out to the polls (see Apathy above).

4. By the time we do get to a single candidate, pocketbooks will be worn down, not to mention voters. I'm already tired of political ads and we've two years to go.

Behind the scenes, party leadership needs to be pushing to run polite campaigns and figure out a strategy to help things pull together faster. By that I do not mean they need to pick the candidate. I mean they need to negotiate with potentials on ways to understand their chances early and be able to throw support to someone who represents the voters in the party more holistically than others. They also need to eliminate the pretenders and investigate themselves to ensure there are no skeleton issues with the candidates that do move forward.

All this may be going on - but so far, it feels more disorganized than previous disorganized elections. Everyone was in way too early and there are too many of them. I think this is because they think this polarization will buy them the election - simple math - more Dems in the country and a horrible Republican candidate. Again, I think they are miscalculating the potential for voter apathy. Having canvassed voters in the past, there are a contingent who would not be sure they could leave their homes if their downstairs was on fire. Numbers are great, but they have to get to the polls.

Democratic leaders (are there any?) need to get former party leaders to step up and start rallying folks now. They need to help disseminate information about all of the candidates - side by side comparisons on real issues. They need to make sure Dems understand it is their choice and they need to get them to pick early and politely work toward consensus, so that goodwill and money are not spent on the internal haggle, leaving nothing on the table for the real fight.

Otherwise, the other guy, the man who is destroying the country, is going to win without having to do anything else.

Anti-Semitic

anti–Semitic /ˌænˌtaɪsəˈmɪtɪk/ adjective
: feeling or showing hatred of Jewish people

Merriam-Webster Learners Dictionary

Folks - last night, in front of a conservative Jewish audience took a shot at Ilhan Omar, the congresswoman from Minnesota. He indicated she "doesn't like Israel", with the implication through the speech that not liking the actions of the Israeli government or the political policies of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC - a pro-Israeli expansion lobby) is anti-Semitic. He went on to say that Democrats are harboring anti-Semitism within the party.

This is not true - it's blatantly false. Ilhan Omar is not an Anti-Semite, nor are Democrats.

Yes - Israel has legitimate concerns about the safety of their people. But many of us recognize this is done at the expense of the Palestinian people in the region and that you cannot subjugate and kill your way to peace.

People who are against those policies are not anti-Semitic or anti-Israel (which are two completely different things). They are perhaps anti-violence. They are likely anti-poverty and anti-discrimination.

To twist the racist term of anti-Semitism to meet the political objective of winning conservative Jews to the Republican party is actually racist itself. It's asking conservative Jews to grasp the imagery of a hateful group and apply it to people who have never made or insinuated any such hate.

I'm Jewish by birth. I love my Jewish family and friends. I'm for equality in Israel for all of their people, Jewish and otherwise. I do not agree with many policies of the Israeli state.

Ilhan Omar is a Muslim. She has watch her fellow Muslims subjugated by the Israeli government and she is against those policies too. Her much touted comment "It's all about the Benjamin’s, baby" was a comment on the political money that is funneled into congress to promote the pro-Israel expansion policies by AIPAC - it was not ant-Semitic. But because Omar is Muslim, it's easy to link stereotypes and push an image of hatred, rather than allow people to understand her legitimate concerns.

We have to see through the ploy.

Ultimately the President and AIPAC threaten the Jewish people, because they are linking Jewishness with racist activity - the subjugation of others for racial and religious purity. If we go back in history and look at when this happened before to Jews - to the Spanish inquisition, to the Holocaust - and others, like Apartheid in South Africa - we see that the Israeli government is pushing for racial inequality.

That's not anti-Semitic. That's anti-racist. That's anti-poverty, anti-subjugation, anti-war.

The presidents actions have been about using his endorsement to help leaders in Israel that will help get him re-elected. Just remember, he is using bigotry to win. He's counting on a part of the Jewish population to racially hate in order to win. And if we do that, we have truly lost our way. We, of all peoples, should be sensitive to racial inequality. To the cause of peoples who are treated wrong for who they are, for where they are. We need to reach out with love. With caring. With inclusive policy.

It is the only way to wipe out hundreds of years of violence in the region. You cannot kill your way to peace. You must be peaceful in order to have peace. You must work, you must compromise, you must be strong against forces on both sides that will want to continue the hate - there's political profit in hate. But it's the people on both sides that die. The only way to get there is to stop. That's not anti-Semitic. It's a hope for all the peoples of the region, regardless of religion or race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/aipac-congress-democrats.html

Reality imposes itself on fantasy

Reality imposes itself on any lie, fantasy or expedient plan eventually. It happens over and over again.

We danced around the idea that Tobacco is bad for you. "The science isn't conclusive" was argued by tobacco and it's powerful allies in congress. And guess what. We got lung cancer anyway, even though those who gained got off. Now, everyone knows.

We're almost at the point where Global Warming is universally understood and yet we still have powerful profit motive driving governmental policy to our own detriment.

We know that gun violence can be reduced by reducing the number and types of available guns and ammunition. The statistics are sound, yet a powerful profit motive coupled with a liberal (yes liberal) interpretation of the constitution driving our government policy to our own detriment.

We know that privilege exists and yet we hesitate to level the playing field for poor, for minorities, for women, for people of alternate gender and sexualtiy. We know that unwanted pregnancy and STD transmission can be reduced by providing birth control and education, we know that legalized abortion saves lives - all proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Reality imposing itself on our fantasy. Maybe, it's time for us to grow up. To understand reality and work to shape outcomes rather than listening to the fairytale and hoping it's true.

We do this for ourselves, in ways that really matter. Many other countries have. We can too.

That is the idea behind the Green New Deal - to address some of these realities rather than ignoring them and hoping the fantasies and lies are true.

It doesn't have the answers, it paves the way for the answers. If you listen closely, rather than shouting you can hear that.

Please step back and know in your heart of hearts that we need to solve climate, poverty, healthcare, employment in the face of automation - and be part of the solution, not just a part of the problem. Vote for people with vision. Read. Write your representatives. Volunteer.

A Reminder

Watching a video about Flint Michigan drinking water and as they step back to discuss history talk about how the automobile industry left the area when they could find cheaper labor in Mexico and overseas, after Michigan and the city of Flint made huge concessions and even paid incentives for them to stay.

And it gave me pause, because I'm an MBA and understand that if this was my business, I might make that decision too. We have to remember - there are smart people and hard working people everywhere - as much as we'd like to tout our national pride, there are people in every country who can do what we do. Economics drives business to the cheapest sources of labor.

So at the risk of repeating myself (and I will, because the message needs to be clearly understood) - Business works within the economic and legal framework. Not a moral code. Not an emotional code. It works within regulations and economic rules.

So as a business person, I would look at the laws around labor and move where I could legally move. And that's where we need to understand - our laws need to protect jobs.

Republicans can trumpet concern for the common man, while pushing "right to work" laws that prevent collective bargaining and you can understand - they are saying one thing and doing another. "Right to work" is all about their ability to shift work force without legal challenge. So they can call themselves the jobs party, but the reality is, those jobs could be pushed anywhere at the drop of a hat.

We cannot count on business being good community citizens (it's great when they are) - because it's not always in their self interest. We need to legislate protections for communities and employees. It needs the rule of law.

And yes - some businesses will choose to go elsewhere because of that. But while we have no monopoly on smart people, our economy is still 25% of the world economy. We have resources and we have the market. If we legislate now, we keep that and jobs. If we don't we lose it to China, India and the middle east, where there is a great deal of capital.

That's right - you want the low risk and high yield the American economy generates, you employ our people. We allow collective bargaining so that companies that need access to our markets have to work in ways that benefit our communities and workers.

Trump says he's protecting American jobs, while all the while his administration is disabling the protections we have in place for the American people. Incent business - sure - but also build the legal structure to negotiate - not to make the rich richer, but to maintain the working class and narrow the gap.

Even the most honorable business will always do what's best for it, within legal guidelines. Economics requires it. Capitalism requires it. Setting the legal guidelines - regulation - to protect both businesses and communities is the way we get to the reasonable balance. Not by removing those protections, but by working hard to make them workable and allow balance and counterbalance.

Out current congress, save a few, cannot. They are owned by interests that would have to reform. We need new representation that will work for fair regulation, work for their constituents. Our elections are ever more important, if we are to move to a model that is sustainable for everyone.

America First?

When my family moved to a new residence in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, I was 5 years old and while the adults were busy taking care of the move, I had important business of my own. I went next door to see if there were kids I could play with. Indeed there were - Todd and Lisa were 6 and 4 respectively and immediately we start to play together. Our ideas in collaboration were grand - we had a band - I already was playing guitar and a set of boxes provided a drum. We built forts. We rode bikes. We ate at each others houses, we walked to school together.

It's natural for us to collaborate, to share. We are more than the sum of our parts when we do. And there's value beyond the immediacy of the moment. I have not seen Todd or Lisa for many years - life took us down different paths, but I still value the interaction, the collaboration, the sharing.

Throughout that, I never starved because i was sharing. I never suffered for it - scarcity mentality was unknown to me and I was taught to share, to help others, to collaborate, to discuss. My folks were at least moderate intellectuals and they taught me a lot about interacting with others.

That's why this idea of "America First" is so troubling. Yes - we always make sure we keep our own health and interests in mind - but not to the exclusion of others. If I gave a neighbor half my peanut butter sandwich, I wasn't expecting anything in return, except, perhaps, goodwill.

Since WWII we've been a leader of the world, understanding that if we help others achieve their goals, we achieve our goals - we get where we are going by helping others too. The very idea that we would abandon our leadership role, because we "aren't getting anything" from others is ludicrous. As we retreat, we give up leadership in economic markets, in technology, in business services, in design and engineering. And instead, we replace it with greed and avarice, like a spoiled child saying "the toy is mine. It's mine, not yours".

Propaganda is put out to support the position supposing that we are giving money to other countries and that is what is keeping us from treating our veterans or our poor well - when in reality, we can and need to do both. We can help others in need both here and outside of the country.

We are a country of immigrants and yet we are closing our doors to the tired, the hungry and the poor - just like our Grandparents were when they came here? When I see us pulling out of Climate accords, when we talk about leaving the United Nations or berating our NATO allies in public, I see this selfishness. If we need others to rise to a challenge, we need to coach and mentor, negotiate in good faith.

America First is really code for "It is all mine". And that spoiled, greedy child cannot thrive. We need to embrace others. We need to compete, yes, but also be collaborators, philanthropists and most importantly, support our fellow humans. It is not through selfishness we rise. It is through the giving of ourselves. Take care of ourselves, yes. But that doesn't have to happen at the exclusion of others. It's not all or nothing.

We not only succeed with our fellow humans, but we succeed because they succeed (and vice versa). That deep friendship, dependence and integration make us stronger, not weaker. Is it harder? Sometimes, because you have to negotiate not dictate. Collaborate, not demand.

Good leaders know, you don't succeed by thinking your the smartest and telling people what to do. You hire good people and work together to achieve. Leadership is supporting those you lead and helping remove obstacles. Not in demanding.

We can do both. We can look after our interests and collaborate and help others. We never stop keeping our own interests in mind, we just don't do it to the exclusion of others interests. That's how we win. That's how we all, as a world, win.

Describing the supplantation of the American Dream

And in the back of one of D.C’s fine eating establishments, in luxury of actual white plaster, parlor palm and ficus plants and painted art on the walls, the ultra rich and politically powerful sat and discussed, over whiskey and cheese, the future of the American Dream. If the average American was a sycophant – a net drain on their riches (through taxes), because of average person’s needs, then how could they reverse and exploit that?

To you - the 4th wall – let’s face it, the rich have little need for government. They can buy security, educate their kids, get their medical needs taken care of, get their packages sent – so if the average American needs these things, the average American is then a slave to them.

Back to the conversation. The elderly gentleman in the corner – we will call him Mitch, says “Follow me for a moment. If we can separate services from government and give them to business, free of investment, we reduce our taxes and improve our ability to charge for these services. Even better, since the publicly funded government has already put in infrastructure and we say it is poorly managed and convince the public that business is more competent than government – and that the current government system is untenable and we should give it to a business or businesses to run – then we not only get to set and sit at the table, but we’ve managed to steal the table itself.”
“So we will call that privatization and frame it as Freedom. Freedom for us, from taxes, but position it as Freedom from this horrible thing called “Government”, that doesn’t run efficiently and only provides for the lazy and ner-do-wells.

And as the conversation turned to Unions, which fought for fair wages and working conditions, it was recognized that these further diminished the wealth of these powerful men, who believed themselves creators – not caretakers. And they needed a context in which to place the Union as “anti-American” and so they looked at things like mandatory membership and picket lines and said, what about the guy who still wants to work when collective bargaining is taking place? Isn’t he being oppressed by all these other people wanting to bargain? Protecting the individual could be used as an excuse to take away their collective power.

So we will call efforts to kill Unions “Right to work” – and along with Union killing, we will protect ourselves from any responsibility for laying off or firing an individual. That’s our prerogative.
And then the lady, we’ll call her “Betsy”, goes on a diatribe about Public education and that it creates liberal thinkers, doesn’t support religious education (how unfair that people who want their kids to attend a religious school have to pay into public education too). And then how education, especially secondary, used to be more exclusive, both in class and racial terms, and longed for the days of segregation, which invented the school voucher system as a way to keep white kids from having to go to school next to black kids. If we just removed the funding for education, privatized it and made it “pay to play” – we could take the funding that was there and make it into vouchers that could be used for religious and for-profit schools, we would remove the funding for public schools and make a profit – and we could we could go back to control of content, to insure that science does not contradict our religious and money making pursuits and ideas.

We’ll call this “School Choice” and frame it as Freedom too.

And the subject turned to Health Care (actually to Health Payment System and Pharmaceutical regulation) and said that regulation and government management was taking profit opportunities away from insurance providers and subsequently, eliminating a huge opportunity for profit.
And as each of the cabinet members in turn discussed their areas with the campaign financiers, it became evident that in order for profit to win over virtue;

• People needed to believe that Business was competent and Government was not.
• That taxes were robbery.
• That Capitalism was viewed as a form of government, that functioned on it’s own, in place of government.
• That propaganda was needed to connect publicly funded service with Socialism and Communism, to be able to use these age old references to instill fear and stear people away from them. After all, they eliminated “profit” from the equation.
• That allowing religious freedom was dangerous and subsequently redefining religious freedom as the Freedom to discriminate against those who don’t hold your belief system was a further means to control the masses. 
• That Globalization was evil, because it means that we are competing with the rest of the world, who are poised to surpass us in every area, because of investments in education and government programs to help their people – who outnumbers us 4 to 1. And competing means losing control of markets.

As they moved through one by one, it became clear that the plan, while still in operation, was succeeding.

Now, I’ve framed this as a meeting, but really, it’s been thousands of meetings over the last 80 years. It’s been funded by Fossil Fuels, The Gun Industry, other big industries (like Pharma, Insurance, Agriculture) a handful of very, very wealthy people. And there’s a constant theme;

• Gain control of the government and people
• Reduce or eliminate tax on the wealthy by dissolving government, to a large part, to privatize services for profit and control it where market control can be established. (These folks only claim to be capitalists – they are actually monopolists – they only support the invisible hand to the point they can control it). 
• Reduce regulation in every situation, because it requires investment and management.
• Make as much of it permanent as possible

We need public investment. We need to remove profit from politics, Health Care Payment (My doctor should make  good living as should nurses and other practitioners. Hospital systems should be well funded, but should not be making a killing. People who manage health care payment should not be making a killing, yet insurance is by far, the most profitable business in the country. The profit motive is counter to the health care of the individual – it treats the individual as a number, only an investment while they are inexpensive.

We need to recognize and partner with other countries. We need to work for sustainable energy, sustainable farming, sustainable everything. That requires widely available public education where again, profit motive can be the enemy of individual improvement.

Good business is not more effective than good government. They are both human systems. They both live and fail on the availability of capital. The difference is, business always has to walk away with more money than it put in – that is profit. Government does not. It has to walk away with something more than the money that was put in – and that Is healthy and viable people.

Business and profit have a valuable place in our democracy but we need to be careful about allowing capitalism be mistaken for a governing system – or that it owes anything inherently to the well being of the people involved. As an economic system, it is every man for himself. As a society, that is anachronistic and we need social responsibility along with capitalism to survive. It is the balance that is needed to give everyone the chance to pursue life and liberty – and we must get back to it. Urgently.

Forgiveness

Our muddled past.

Can our core selves change on important topics? Scripting, race, sex and gender issues?
Can we forgive transgression? Do we believe that we can learn?

The human mind and soul are infinitely complex things. We ascribe societal rules of conduct for safety, for comfort and sometimes, unfortunately, for societal control of others for personal gain (or prevention of perceived personal loss). Sometimes these rules are laws. Sometimes they are unspoken - and in some cases, largely ignored, to hit some critical mass and suddenly be known.

And there are degrees of infringement. Although I believe intent is important, it appears to be a subtlety lost on the court of pubic opinion. Let's take an example -

We find Harvey Weinstien abhorrent (and he is) for what he did and his case of err is clear and he deserves what he gets. But when power is wielded with non-sexual intent - for instance, when an upper level individual in a corporation is instructed to lay off 1000 plus workers - and is at risk of being fired if they won't, if their conscience prevents them from upsetting and destroying lives - isn't there some of the same dilemma? Power is being used to force another into an uncomfortable and even personally damaging situation.

Take Al Franken then - guilty of bad form and some misogynistic actions – and not downplaying the serious nature of these. His comments and apologies make me think he is able to learn and grow from those mistakes.

Is every sentence to be handed down to be a banishment for life? Certainly we all carry lessons around. I've made mistakes of many types and those lessons stay with me and shape the better person I think I am today. But lessons are best when they are not eternal punishment. We should save that for people who cannot be forgiven. They need to be locked away either physically or societally in some cases. For the betterment of the whole.

I cannot always let go of my mistakes. And it starts out as self punishment. But to keep a lesson close is very different than eternal punishment. And it sometimes takes time to change from a punishment to a lesson.

A personal example - in 7th grade, I was 13 and played junior varsity basketball. After practice one day, a girl I knew asked me out. I had never dated anyone, although I was definitely attracted to her - she was very pretty, I was scared out of my mind. First, I was pretty shy around girls, especially girls I was attracted to. Secondly, she was black and I am white. My family never held up race as a barrier - I was raised in a very unbiased environment, but in the 1970s, interracial dating wasn't mainstream.

I wasn't unkind, but I turned her down. I personally was ashamed. One of my life regrets now (and I'm fortunate not to have tons to drag behind me, but I didn't know how to stand up to these particular fears yet). I missed the experience of knowing someone I actually did want to know because I was scared. Variations of that mistake in romantic and non romantic contexts (without racial implications) played out through my younger life until I realized that my fears of either hurting myself or my fear of hurting others - rather than thinking they would understand me, prevented honesty and subsequently actually prevented my happiness - and sometimes theirs.

I'd like to think that I would not make those mistakes today. So I believe in learning. And I'm not asking for anyone to forgive our societal monsters - the rapists, the racists, the greedy liars.

I'm supportive of the outing of these people. I do think there are some who subsequently are lumped in there, who have made mistakes, certainly, but don't deserve the lifetime banishment, which I believe should be reserved for the Bill Cosbys,  Martin Skhrelis and Harvey Weinsteins of the world - those who would subordinate others to their wishes and greed.

I think we need to look on those who commit lesser offence and see what their intent was - and when in their life it was - and understand that we can learn and forgive bad actions. And forgiveness is something that is healing for all parties - it improves the lesson and the outcome. So we should search our hearts for it where possible.

x

Finding ourselves

We think we have an identity crisis in the USA right now, largely due to the over-amplified volume of "Conservative" pundits and groups. They carry behind them money from some of the wealthiest Americans like the Koch Brothers, The Devoses, the Scaifes and others who have fought a propaganda war for 70 years, to convince the American people to uphold law that preserves their fortunes (low taxes, slow moving or stopping environmental, safety and regulation legislation, laws that support the politicians they manage to buy) swing the perceived center to the right and to convince Americans that the majority feel this way.

But the reality is, in almost every independent survey, and when we allow ourselves to meet on common ground, we come away with a large majority of us on the same page and it really isn't for the things the propaganda continues to pound away at.

Even on divisive issues like abortion rights, 7 out of 10 Americans believe that legal abortion should be available in some cases.

Nobody believes Flint Michigan shouldn't have clean water. Nobody wants to see extinction of species or our rivers and oceans polluted.
89% of Americans - including gun owners believe the mentally ill should be prevented from purchasing guns. 77% of gun owners and 87% of non owners believe that the gun show loophole should be closed. We vary some more on other parts of this issue.

Independent survey after survey puts the center position much farther to the left than is touted by conservative politicians and media. 

So why do we end up with legislators trying to outlaw abortion completely, why does Flint still poison their people, does environmental regulation get pushed aside, why does the gun show loophole still exist and why was the ban on the mentally ill owning guns pulled back? How did big tobacco survive for 40 years after we knew it was bad for you? Why aren't we leading climate change? Why are minorities, gay and trans peoples still trodden so heavily upon.

Because the well funded super rich and business have control of our lawmakers and convince enough of us that this is normal in order to maintain control. It drowns out the actual voice of reason. It drowns out the middle.

Those who argue on the other sides of these issues - I have no doubt to your belief and commitment. Part of it has to do with the scripting and propaganda that has been around so long and part to do with other parts of your belief system. But you have also come to believe through this process that you represent a majority voice (from what conservative outlets and media tell you) and that just isn't the case.

If you want a reality check, look at the rest of the wealthy world - look at Europe. Why is Germany committed to eliminating all coal use by 2038? Why is Universal Healthcare a reality in every other wealthy nation? Why do the Europeans have mass transit, clean water, thriving public education?

Because they are older and have found ways to curb the influence of the ultra-right so the true center has a voice. Same voices that say nobody should go hungry or be unable to afford to see a doctor. That understand that Global Warming is real and that war is an atrocity that should not be repeated, especially for economic interest. That multiculturalism is part of this shrinking world.

If we find ways to turn off the propaganda and remove the lobbyists and ownership of politicians (largely remove money from politics altogether) we will find our common ground. And that should be the goal of everyone that is looking for their family to come out whole. Who is looking to be kind to each other, to look out for and help each other. 

Greedy assh*les will always exist. We jut need to take our world back from them - and remember, governance is allowed by those being governed. As soon as we realize we have the power to change things, they will change, regardless of the money. 

MLK Day

As I thought about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. today and what he might think about where we are,  as a society and realized I myself am torn – on one hand we see inroads made every day, barriers torn down and in the same breathe, hug breaches of civil rights, racial abuses and murders by police departments and the push the president and some Americans to put up a wall to keep refugees out because of the “huge threat” it is claimed they pose, although statistics over many years show the threat to be low.

I think he would have found that the working class poor in this country have similar or even deeper challenges, that overt racism, although still here, has in some cases been replaced with muted, underhanded racism.

He’d find that religious discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons is at an all time high, with groups actively working to remove protections – and in fact this is happening even in racial situations with some groups arguing that Equal Opportunity laws are no longer needed.

And yes, you can be a Republican and still be my friend and we can have differences in opinion like our views on government spending or approaches to curb poverty.

But when your difference of opinion reach to pull back basic respect for fellow human beings rights to live, love or work – then we’re really past reconcilable or even ignorable differences. It doesn’t mean I won’t engage you.

But you can bet that I am working with everything I’ve got to non-violently change our wish or ability to discriminate. Against minorities. Against the aging. Against women. Against those with different sexual and gender identities. Because of what we learned from him.

The struggle continues, Dr. King. I’m so sorry to say. At least we have your wisdom and words to help continue to guide us.

Dealing

Today I read this and I think it’s profound.

“There are stories that are true, in which each individual's tale is unique and tragic, and the worst of the tragedy is that we have heard it before, and we cannot allow ourselves to feel it to deeply. We build a shell around it like an oyster dealing with a painful particle of grit, coating it with smooth pearl layers in order to cope. This is how we walk and talk and function, day in, day out, immune to others' pain and loss. If it were to touch us it would cripple us or make saints of us; but, for the most part, it does not touch us. We cannot allow it to.”

Neil Gaiman, American Gods (American Gods, #1)

There are days when I can open myself more than others, when I’m ready to bleed, contemplate, mourn, solve or fix whatever little bit I can.

There are others where I have to step back into my life and do my work, keep myself, my family afloat.

There are days of joy when I recharge, thank my friends and gods and without thinking, get ready to bleed again.

It’s the only way it can work and still allow for humanity. And while there is no right amount of bleeding to do to make you a good person (I believe it depends on us each, how strong we are, what we can truly bear) if we never bleed, we never feel, we just function for ourselves - we never truly live.

I’d appreciate your thoughts.

2019

Toby woke up in a fowl mood. The night before had been New Years fucking eve and at the stroke of midnight, his American Express was charged an annual fee for his exercise app.

“Can’t have one second in a year where I’m not a consumer, first and foremost.” he muttered incredulously, suddenly going through the math and realizing he was paying fifty cents a day for the use of the stupid thing.

Briefly he traveled back to his childhood when fifty cents was two candy bars. It was almost the cost of a pack of cigarettes. It was an ice cream. Almost four bus rides to school. And then back to the present world where a coffee costs five dollars.

He was wondering how he got here. Was it the insidious Saturday morning consumerism he was raised with (parental efforts to the contrary notwithstanding) or was instant gratification a human norm that was just being catered to, the age old quest for ease of life? He told ALex to turn off the living room light. “Ha”.

As he went through the house, he started adding up each thing he consumed, touched. He imagined a future where the bank owned everything and the display on your Apple Watch ™ was constantly running total of what you consumed and therefore owed. The wear and tear on that underwear alone was a countdown to throwing it away, leading up to a new loan to buy a new pair. And so on, and so on.

Disgusted, he sat in the room, wanting to be naked, wanting to never go near anything again, and realized just as the meter was still ticking (heat went on, cat ate its food, etc…), the body was doing the same thing in calories. Birds and Squirrels ate, moved and shat.

Life as it turns out, is just input and output, on a certain level.

And people in Arizona and California are attacking driverless vehicles in protest of “Robots taking their jobs” all the meantime, it’s just another part of this input/output loop. Everything is.

Nothing matters unless you are gaining an experience from it. It is both the joy and the sadness in the system. It’s the journey - there are no destinations, no state of permanence, not even in death. And enjoying the ride also meant needing varied states of satisfaction, times when things were not enjoyable, in order for the enjoyment to mean anything.

He stopped over and hugged one of the dogs. One of the moments of satisfaction. Toes pressing in sand. Cold water hitting the palate. And it was OK again. Equilibrium achieved, at least enough to move on, into the New Year.

Copyright 2019, Tobias Y. Venar

The Cheapening of Human Life

With the assassination of Khashoggi, and public statements by our president and his cabinet comes a brutal realization that the cheapness of human life has found it's way into mainstream thinking. I've been fortunate to have traveled a lot and one thing I've always held close about this country is that life was valued in a way that it wasn't in some other places. I'm afraid that even that token thought is gone now.

And it's not that this president has introduced anything new - we have valued money over human life for a long time. We did so quietly.We did it by robbing money from social security, by allowing "pre-existing conditions", by not funding public healthcare, welfare, education. By waging wars. By encouraging people to eat a double serving. By giving tax breaks to the wealthy and denying care to the poor. We did by allowing multinationals dictate environmental rules. But these are all "slow moving things". They don't grab the news cycle the same way.

Khashoggi is a shock because of the brutality it highlights in the light of day. The reality is that as brutal as the murder was, the reason it is in debate is the shock value. And by saying this, I'm not trying to take away from the value of Jamal Khashoggi's life - I weep for him and his family - it's more to say, these decisions are made every day, more subtlety.

By all means, please, please be appalled by what happened to him. But in your day to day, remember, this is being done to us - and to the ones we love, by us. The only way we change that is to change how we live and what we demand from ourselves, our society and our leaders. And we need to demand a hell of a lot more.

Sharing.

Two different philosophies - one of self and one of selflessness are frequently portrayed as mutually exclusive. And while they can be, it's frequenty a decision based in limited information that makes us think we need to choose one or the other, when there is frequently a third option.

That is both. Getting where you are going by helping others get where they are going.

Scarcity mentality pushes the idea of self. Every man for himself - I win, you lose. The issue is, scarcity is actually fairly rare for any of us living in wealthy nations.

Conversly, giving away everything you have or all of your time may be a result of not valuing yourself or seeking approval from others.

But sharing - something we're usually taught at a very young age, is both. It's nourshing for self and others. It's where we should live. It's the essence of good. It's what Christianity preaches and virtually every other major religion says. It's teamwork. It's building more than the some of the whole.

Yet somehow, in our political and economic world, sharing is demonized and scarcity mentality is pressed. Don't let others in, they will take what you have. What can you do for me? I win, you lose.

There are some that think that capitalism is win/lose and that's how they play the game. And for a time they win, by never allowing others to achieve. But there are others, who don't just win, they help others and achieve more greatly because of it.

It is why teams work. It is why we defeated evil in WWII. It's how we solve huge problems.

Working together, to mutual or mutually compatible goals gets us farther almost every time. It's taking a smaller slice of a bigger pie and making sure others can eat.

And even in capitalism, where we seek personal gain, we expect this - I work for a company. In return they pay me. We both benefit from the relationship. If it becomes onesided we look to move somewhere that is balanced again.

Lets call this sharing. At it's worst it is comprimise, but at it's best is collaberation. Let's call it the real definition of winning.

So why is sharing demonized? It's called "socialism". It's called "communism". It's called these words by people playing the scarcity game- greed. It causes people to give up the idea of sharing. It makes them think that unless they only think of themselves, they will lose. It pushes self achievement at the expense of others. It's where slavery and child labor come from. It's where nationalism comes from.

Instead I aspire to be a socially responsibile capitalist. That means effort is made to help others, as well as yourself. That we don't make decisions that put the good of one citizen over the other. it's comming to common ground rules so we can all live free, reasonable, high quality, full lives. To get where I am going by helping others get where they are going. It means rules that make sure we consider others, that we share risk and reward.

It means we make good on our promises to Veterans, Retirees and Employees. It means that business shares in the maintenance of the community that they pull on and contribute to. In some cases, it means we forgo profits for the public good. It means we understand contribution varies - some cand and will do more than others (that's the case in any system).  It doesn't mean neglecting oneself. It means maintaing oneself and sharing.

In reality, we have done all of this - your water and other utilities are publicly owned. We have rules about how pensions are funded, how jobs are protected, how public safety and property are maintained. We have national plans that aspire to care for all of us. We work to help others, both here and abroad. We do it every day at work, with our families and friends.It's how the best of our lives are actually lived.

Those that are greedy, work to tear those things down and turn them into tools for their own profit, at the expense of all of us - wheras if we built these up, everyone benefits. Those that are greedy use terms to talk about others like "they want to raise taxes" to defeat the idea of public investment. They try to find ways to skirt the idea of sharing.

And again, isn't this what our parents taught us? Isn't this what we hold up as an example of living a good and just life? What Thanksgiving and Christmas are about?

If we are truly thankful for our bounty, we open our eyes and see our neighbors and invite them to it. We invite everyone to walk the road together. Because together is how we get there. Not seperately, not by shunning or hoarding. Not by winning at the expense of others.

We do it by winning together.

Nice guys don't finish last.

There are lots of personal philosophies to pick, but I'd like to address two major themes today. The first is the "Nice guys finish last" philosophy.

Yesterday, I read a posted article in which argued that the reason for keeping Trump was this (and I paraphrase) - the majority are just going to end up picking someone like him because you don't want a nice guy in the office, you want someone who can be strong.

First - they couldn't be more wrong - I want a nice person in the office and second, who says nice people can't be strong. It's a popular cliche but one that is false.

"Oh but Toby, you know what they mean, they mean someone who can make the tough decisions."

Yes. Look, I want my president to have a tough time with decisions that affect people's lives. I want that person to wrestle with decisions until they find the best ways. I want that person in charge of my military, and thinking about business, the economy, foriegn relations.

If we break it down, I want the country run thoughtfully. But these folks argue that nice people can't be tough and that's not true. They can stick to their morals. But frequently it's sticking to a different philosophy. Winning together. Getting where you are going by helping others get where they are going. Sharing.

See, in the Trumpian "nice guys finish last" world, each person is only out for themselves and life is a matter of grabing whatever you can, your neighbor be damned. America First relies on greed. You might remember, but at least a lot of our parents taught us to share.

It's not that sharing is not "getting what you want". It's just bringing others along. That's key to being nice. And sharing doesn't mean giving up or losing - it means being willing to see the needs of others.

People that follow the "Nice guys finish last" philosophy make horrible managers. They think management is about telling others what to do. Good managers know the role may include guidance, but a lot of it is about support - helping take obstacles out of your employees way so they can suceed.

That doesn't mean the nice guy doesn't ever get mad. That doesn't mean they don't occassionaly say "go do". But that "go do" needs to be matched with "how can I help you" or at least "holler if you run into trouble".

I don't want "America first" all of the time. We need to recognize our neighbors needs and understand sometimes, you need to put others first. Especially when you have prviledge. That doesn't mean neglecting your own (for instance, we should not have homeless - vets or otherwise). But it means we also give aid to other countries. Not because we are going to get something in monetary exchange, but because we want to help.

Folks - the double win - the art of getting where you are going by helping others get where they are going is harder than yelling, dictating which are short term strategies but long term failings The double win nurtures relationships. It cultivates goodwill. But it also requires restraint. Kindness. Understanding. Intelligence. Compassion. And a true wish for others to suceed too.

There is a reason for the term "Public Servants". Because they are - they are not supposed to be dictators or dicks. They are supposed to be interested in promoting the success of their constituents. All of them. Together.

That is not who is in office now, but that is who we have to put there when we vote this November and in subsequent Novembers. It is who we need to be too. Because this "every man for himself" crap ultimately ends itself. It doesn't sustain. It burns everything behind it down. We weren't meant to live life that way. Art, Music, Sports, Literature, Dance, Theater and all of our livelyhoods are based on sharing with others.

And if you don't think this is the case, please step back and look at the world around you and remember the first people that helped you. Fed you. Clothed and housed you. And then remember each of us has experienced that in some way or some degree to be here. The world started with sharing and that is the only way it continues. Peace and love.

Remember Animal Farm?

The effects of misinformation. In 6th or 7th grade, George Orwell's Animal Farm was required reading (Orwell notably was a democratic socialist - who believed in equality, but very much against Stalinist Communism). An alligorical tale reflecting on the Russian revolution, where Lenin's communists took over - and then on to the rise to power of Joseph Stalin.

In the tale, the animals revolt against humans and take over the farm and develop the tenants of animalis. It starts with "All animals are equal". When the Lenin figure is removed, Stalin is left and the phrase is revised to "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

This is the implementation of Stalinism, or essentially and oligarical dictatorship which Russia had become and remains today, although still mistakenly associated with "Communism"by the rest of the world. Further confusing things, they were called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or "USSR". They were not a socialism or a communism.

In the 1950's "Communism" became the focus of Joseph McCarthy and a very black period in our history where people that believed in communism and people labeled communist sympathizers, were labeled as enemies of the state and indeed the american people.

A main message of Animal Farm is to show us that Communism easily mutates to Stanliism, something that Orwell saw happen and wrote an published in 1945, prior to McCarthy.

Communism itself never really has been implemented in a lasting situation. Idealically, everyone is equal and the group owns the means of production and an equal distribution of wealth. I personally believe it is impossible to reach a lasting communism, because of the nature of man - we have changing desires and are by nature competative.

Socialism in a course has some of the same problems, but itself is not the same as Communism, because it is looked at more as the common management of means of production - but allows for ideas like profit and wealth.

Conservatives have lumped these two (Communism and Socialism) together since McCarthyism, but the truth of the matter is they are 90 degrees from each other. And they then conflate these to the Oligarchical Totalatarianisms that are the old USSR, newer Russia and China, in an attempt to scare people off.

But if we go back to the idea that "all animals are equal", we see that Democracy, Socialism and even idylic communism have this idea at their core. And it is at thsi point where we have to step back and look at ourselves and understand

When we start trying to label "Immigrants" as dangerous, When we allow oppression of people by race/origin, religion, age, sex, gender identy, sexual preference we are losing that basic ideal and pushing into the dominance of one group over others.

And when we ask ourselves, what do American soldiers sacrifice their lives for, it needs to be the removal of oppression, not the implementation of it. It is easy for the unscrupulous to use conservatism as a route to facism. When does communism as and idea stand it's best chance of contemplated? When our pendulum swings so far in the direction of capitalism, facism/autocracy that people are oppresed, enslaved and hungry.

And lest we think that "Hey, the economy is good, that's not happening here" - think again. The economy is great for people with money. There is plenty of hunger, homelessness, unemployment. But oppression happens lots of ways. It happens as voter suppression. It happens as police violence towards people of color. It happens with women making less than men for the equivelent work. It happens as elderly and vets get pushed to the sidelines, as corporations pull retirement plans out from under their employees, as they discontinue benefits for retirees. It happens when we don't care to feed children lunches, care if our population starves or we degrade their education - in fact with all government privitization, as the public investment is stolen. It happens with tax cuts that affect our social security and medicare.

What keeps this revolution from happening? Balance. Progress. Investment. Caring about people - all people. Real opportunity. Things that are squarely in the middle of the spectrum - they are not Democrat or Republican ideas - they just site as a collaberation between sides, rather than a swing to the polar end. With as far right as we are, we need a long, sustained push from the left to get anywhere near center.  So not just this November. But in multiple Novembers to come. And the left and center win when people show up. So show up. Vote. If you run into a real issue getting there, call around. Call assistance. You can get to the polls. You can vote. Please.

Government and the profit motive - part 1

In our democratic capitalism, profit and legality (compliance) are the two milestone by which we judge a business and how business judges itself.

Because business is a collective and authority is to an extent decentralized, we are bound by rules and in business, rules and strategy is to drive down costs and maximize the output of investments. That's all fine and good. But left unchecked, without rules, there is no good moral guide for business because it is a diverse collective. In medieval times, the church played the role of bringing the collective social conscience to t, mahe trades – for instance, making Fridays fish only (keeping fishermen employed, even if you owned cows, chickens or pigs) or forcing particular garments, rituals or tithing.

But we are diverse now, with many religious and non-religious beliefs driving our groups and religion can be the arbiter for an individual still, laws are what drives behavior. That secular approach gives us freedom to move within who we are and very ethically, provides freedom of religion.

But in order to have a set of guidelines that promote the overall social welfare that individual religions cannot, we must not only have regulation, to prevent harmful behavior, but contribution, in taxes and in action by business.  It's a safety net against the very raw terms in which market economics works. For instance;

Your house, let's say, sits on top of a natural gas supply. In an unregulated environment, the business takes over your land by any means necessary and claims your gas. That doesn't happen because we have rules in place. You own your land and business cannot just walk in and take what it wants.

Here's why government still matters:

The city could claim eminent domain – and push you off your land for a nominal fee, if business were able to convince them it served a greater good.

Now – if business has lobbied government and funded candidates to make rules that you own your land but mineral and gas rights are the governments right – and the government sells those to business and now they have the right to go after those resources and it is unethical if you didn't understand that when you bought the property – but it's legal.

So you need representatives that work on your behalf – and respond to business environments and needs, but work for the good of the people first.

And those that argue that business provides jobs and therefor profit is for "the good of the people" let's remember that business is profit driven – jobs are not created by creating more profit. Jobs are only created by a need that results in profit (said another way, business does not hire when it earns more money – it only hires when it has an opportunity that the current staff cannot carry out – and is constantly looking for ways to reduce cost, of which, people are usually the largest). So the only way the community benefits from additional profit (cost savings) is through taxation.

Because of taxation, business set up foundations, which donate money which can be leveraged to bring costs in balance with revenue. There is moral good at work here too, but very much subject to the rules of profitability so those cannot be counted on.

Safety and above board behavior is driven by regulation as well – in the 1940s (less than 80 years ago) collective bargaining started in the US because laws were put into place regulating business to stop heavy on the job mortality rates and starvation wages.

Capitalists call regulation communism or socialism, but that's inaccurate – in fact it's a lie. The means of production remain in private interests. In (true) communism, the means of production are held by the people and in socialism they are held by the government.

In a democracy, they need to be regulated in order to be privately held and still support society. Taxes and the infrastructure of government to regulate and enforce regulation is necessary in order for the socio-economic system to work. To promote individual welfare, balanced economy, education, scientifc advancement and basic human rights.

Right now, that government is being disassembled and the controls that keep people safe, educated and able to live are being removed, taking us back to a pre-1920's condition and beyond the individual risk in that is the risk that unregulated business will do what it did in 1929 – and even what moderately regulated business did in 2008 – it will allow greed to prevail over security and the economy collapses.

Yes, the invisible hand works. It's elegant in moderation – but in excess, it's scales tip to the ruination of many people and society. In 1930's and 40's we realized this and put protections in place, for the economic system and for social welfare – like social security and Medicaid. Like the Fed and the support of collective bargaining. When businesses lobby against these things, it's understandable, they are costs and they are counterintuitive to that closed system – but in the greater machine of human existence, democracy and society cannot survive unregulated capitalism. We need the balance.

This makes your choices at the poles urgently important. Voting for additional pro-business reform results to condemning society to unbridled greed, which only benefits a very few and only benefits them for a short time. Look for candidates that want secular social reform, universal healthcare, fair labor and trade laws. That's true freedom, where the system works for all (including business, who still make profits).

To be clear - I'm not anti-business or communist or socialist. I am in favor of democratic, socially responsible capitalist society. That means we put the needs of people first in with businesses needs. Some equate this to socialism, but it is in fact not - I'm not in favor of state owned means of production. I do believe in regulation and in some state run institutions, like government, water services, prisons, roads and health services - necessities where profit motive corrupts the basic nature of the endeavor (anything that is required access for everyone).

Healthcare - now that sounds socialist you say? Well, the basic idea of any health insurance company is to provide insurance where risk is spread over a group - and that way, everyone pays in a moderate fee, to allow everyone to use benefits if needed. The fee is high in the case of private insurance because the company has to make money. That means that not everyone is covered and not everyone can afford coverage. Having the pay system state run removes profit, which lowers cost. It doesn't keep hospitals and doctors and nurses from being paid market rates, just like private insurance - in fact it is like private insurance in every way except it doesn't have to make a profit - the goal is to break even.

Companies work like this for internal charges. They work for Net Zero. There is nothing uncapitalist about this - just that not everything needs to be exposed to the larger market - it's still a market, but is closed to profiteering. Invisible hand is still at work. What destroys healthcare (privately insured or publicly is the attempt to subject care to accounting rule rather than medical necessity. If we did our best job of care, however, Doctors, not accountants or actuaries, would decide on treatment. That doesn't happen in the private insurance market. Business people decide on what formularies are available and what treatments are considered normal. These are done with consultation with medical professionals, but the evaluation still needs to include profit - an extra layer of money.

Conversation invited.

Welcome to the Matrix

In the Matrix, the big shocker is when we find out that humans are being used as batteries. And to some extent, the analogy exists in our society.

In business, people generally are responsible for continued generation of capital products for business.  And as consumers, we pay for that production with the result of our production.

Nothing evil about that in the abstract. In the Matrix, the issue is people are enslaved to the system, unable to see the real life they are living for the one that is being fed to them.

This is where the analogy starts feeling a little to real and you start thinking about stuff like, well, free will and “why am I here”.

The poor are absolutely enslaved as are most of the rest, even the 1% - everyone has to do stuff to generate or consume or in many situations both. Could go deep down that Rabbit hole, however, let’s stay here for a moment.

Let’s realize that this is how capitalism works and why we put regulation around it so it impacts more people reasonably. The better and more compressive the regulation, the better we cover those who don’t or cannot produce as much. In regulations we set baselines for quality of life, at least in regards to important things… how much necessities cost, how we educate, so that kids can generate revenue, and contribute and enjoy into adulthood, how we pay for research and healthcare, the quality of food and medicine, safety in life and workplace, access to technology and so on.

It’s regulation that is frequently seen by business as infringing on their ability to make money, however some have embraced the novel idea of doing both - that is helping society and making a profit.

Regulation keeps Nestle from owning all the water supplies. Regulation keeps big Oil from being the only source of energy - it prevent monopolies and closed markets. Because in closed markets, we really are just batteries and not human beings.

As humans we need education, art, music, debate and love. In order to get to these things, we need safety - food, shelter and some physical things that mean we stay alive. That’s well documented in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

The real tragedy in the Matrix is it’s a closed market. Everything’s a simulation by a few for others to live in. The current leadership thinks of us as batteries. They are removing regulation to make it easier to close markets, to become monopolies of both consumerism and power.

You can take the red pill or the blue pill. The red pill is voting and active consumerism. The blue pill is doing nothing.

“You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.” - Morpheus (from The Matrix).

Vote and consume from companies that work to be socially responsible. Renewable  energy. Progressive candidates that support open markets with regulation rather than closed markets. Healthcare for all. Food and shelter and education for all. It’s not a pretty reality right now, but this is our way to actual free will, actual freedom. It’s not through nationalism, closed borders, coal fired electricity and gasoline only cars. It’s not through privately owned water. We’re not just batteries, are we?

Common ground

You walk into the timeshare demonstration sceptical - and you should be. Perfect pictures, a slick pitch and they won't let you out of the room for 90 minutes. You are sitting on wooden chairs that make it impossible to get comfortable. The literature is in front of you but it looks old. They tell you that there's is a unique and special deal - only they can provide you with the goods. Then comes the kicker - you cannot see the place before you buy. Pictures yes, but there's no demo unit. And there is an option, to stay there without prepaying a years worth of money, but it's the equivalent of spending $1000 a night.

Do you buy the timeshare for $10,000 with the idea that you can stay there two weeks year for perpetuity - and accept the unknown as a prerequisite for a potential great experience? Do you take it on faith that you will get what you are paying for?

This is how I feel about organized religion in general.

I believe there is a higher power in the universe. I'm not sure if it has consciousness or just is. But if god exists in the way organized religion proposes - that we have to take it on faith, then I'm sceptical. An all powerful being that requires you recognize and accept that theirs is the only way, prior to death - otherwise it's too late? There are certainly signs that power exists, but the idea that it emanates from traditions that are only a few thousand years old - doesn't provide a plausible base for belief.

I personally think this higher power is reachable directly. No middleman. Really. If you are able to see the miracles of life and nature directly, what claim does any organized religion have on this - life existed long before the organization did. There were no Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu dinosaurs. My actions create ripples in the world that come back and are reflected in others actions. We find power in universality, when we support each other, even when we are on different paths. We see it in paying it forward or feeding a stranger. We see it when the world bends our way.

It's much more reasonable, in my mind, to think that life happens in harmony or discord  with this higher power - that it doesn't intervene in my day to day life per se, but it influences the way the world works.

And in that case, I'm not sure about multiple planes of existance and other things, but I have to pay attention to now. And if organized religion is right and there is a concious being in control, why would they require a set of rituals? Wouldn't they make decisions about your direction as you move tot hat next plane of existence? Have data to evaluate?

If they are are all powerful then they know what each of us does and can make that judgement. We cannot judge others actions against imortality - nor can we live for others.

It's a better likelyhood that man invented religion as early law, with an understanding that we had to curb our animal instincts and as an explanation for the unexplainable. And some of these are universal truths. Being good to and not killing others. Moderation. Building lasting relationships. All good concepts to help people live. And to that extent most organized religion teaches those kinds of things. But there are people that will use religion for control. For gain.

And in those self proclaimed prophets and preachers lies the problem. Mine is the only way. Follow my rules and you will find eternal bliss - follow any other path and you are eternally damned.

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him (a statement attributed to a 1st century zen master Linji Yixuan). Anyone that claims to have the answer doesn't. Life is a journey not a destination. My father introduced me to these ideas and in them I have found my direct connection. It's not an answer, it is just recognition that freewill is what we carry as both a responsibility and a gift. Because people recognize and define entitlement in many different ways, we need a governor on freewill in order to live together, in order to share.

Laws that are truly secular are fairest - they do not benefit or prefer a faith. They govern freewill in a way that defines our boundaries at the point where we infringe upon others. Secular ideals are why their themes show up in religion and law - not killing, loving each other, not stealing, It's why they are common. It's why our laws need to be secular - to ensure that the discrimination inherent in being part of a group is not the deciding factor of what is right. Faith based law is inherently exclusive. Secular law is fundamentally inclusive.

It's not to tell you your religious beliefs are wrong or that you should drop them - but it is to challenge that your religious beliefs are the only path to the power. There are many paths. We are each on our own journey.

All this leads up to, each of us being able to follow their freewill in how they conduct their life - where they live, who and how they love, how they care for themselves. It also requires standards of care for others when they are unable to care for themselves for whatever reason.

Religion and politics inform our world view and each contributes ideas to our journey. We must be careful to recognize that what we know is dependent upon what we have learned so far in our journey and that others on a differing path or a different point in their path, still are legitimate unto themselves - and we need to support and respect them under the universal boundaries of peace and goodwill.

We can do this as ourselves, without burdening a higher power with responsibility for it. We are each responsible for it. For those that believe in ultimate judgement, you will be judged well because you followed the basic tenants of respect. And for those that don't believe in judgement, you can rest assured that you live the best life you can in relation to your fellow beings. And we can each love and worship in our own way because of it.

There is little there to be taken on faith. Our interaction with our fellow beings in real and now. It is generally easy to see if something we are doing is beneficial or detrimental to them and their worldview. It is compatible with reasonable faith (not fundamentalist or evangelical, which demand they are the only road and that people must be converted - these cross the boundaries of individual respect). It is a way forward. For all of us.