DO YOU KNOW HOW

TO SPOT A PHONY?

I'm like to give President Obama kind of a mid term evaluation at this time. People who voted for Obama wanted someone who would cut the huge deficets piled up by the Bush Administration. Many wanted to close down Guantanamo Bay. Many others wanted the secretive activities of the Bush administration investigated and military abuses like renditions investigated. Many others hoped for single payer health care. This President would not do a sell out to insurance companies and give them compulsary free business the way a Republican might do. Many others developed the idea that the President had strongly held religious convictions and a sense of loyalty to his friends. Yet at first oppertunity he threw Reverand Jeremiah Wright under the bus. He disowned him along with twenty years of church attendance. Any traditional Christian would say "He did the cowardly thing, and for the worst motives". Others might conclude "Well if Obama says he's a Christian this incident only proves that Christians are phoneys". Others voted for him because he favored election laws and favored matching funds and not "opting out". Others voted for him because they thought he would work for a more open congress posting legeslation on line without these "Christmas tree" bills that are unamendable. Certainly few voted for him because he would praise Ronald Reagan and bringing about the Reagan revolution. Others voted for him because they though he would faze out the use of dangerous energy sources such as coal, or nuclear power. Others voted for him because they thought he would bring about a more open society and would not try and have whistle blowers such as wikkileaks arrested. Some voted for him because they thought "The Audacity of Hope" meant aiming high in your goals, and not compromizing your asperations. Others hoped the President would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in general end this state of "perpetual war" the country has been in the past ten years. But of course there were others in the race in 2008. Hillary Clinton pointed out that the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson and that it was Johnson who in the end, who was more instrumental in getting things done than was Martin Luther King. She pointed to the virtues of political experiance in working with the opposition and not letting them derail your agenda. OK, after all this, how is our President doing? Not very well, is he? In April of 2008 I had already heard enough about Obama to conclude he was a phony and not worthy of my vote. I went on to predict that Obama would lose the nomination and that in the fall I would vote for Mc Cain because at least Mc Cain unlike Obama was an honorable man. Of course by November- - voting for Mc Cain became unthinkable because of his VP pick. Any chance of my voting republican went out the window the day he picked Sarah Palin for his Vice President. And Mc Cain further lost my respect when it became more than apparent that she and not he was setting the tone for the entire campaign. Even if you should disagree with a candidate you could still respect their ability to stick to an agenda. But this President from day one let his enemies define him in ways which Johnson or Kennedy would never have allowed. I mean if a conservative says that liberals are every bit as culpable at creating a climate of hate in this country, than this President, in one of his endless attempts to placate the insatiable right- will just say "OK both are equally guilty of formenting hate." Parenthetically if the tea party really right really believed the left was equally guilty with themselves, they wouldn't be saying "But I'm better than you". Only in Neil Savedra's world is the line "everybody is doing it" acceptable. The President in that speech fell into the trap of "false equivelency". In this way the President showed an apalling lack of leadership which reveled what his enemies were saying all along, that this man did not have enough experiance to be President.

You know I believe in judging a man or a woman for their character, their integrety, and their ability to relate to others in a caring, relivent manner. Are they fair in dealing with others? When they open their mouth do they know what they are talking about? Unfortunately there are others will size up a man on the basis of whether he has made the strictly arbitrary decision to "turn their life over to Jesus". If they haven't done this- - some would say they are not entitled to the human respect to which otherwise they'd be entitled. Neil Savedra says basically all you have to do is say the words, "Jesus is Lord" to assure a ticket to imortality. But unlike what Spencer Tracy says in "Inheret the Wind" you can't just agree with them and "they will be your friends and everything will be fine". Christians are far too xenophobic for that. I'm not saying they can read your minds (But if God can read minds HE knows if you are just "faking it") but Christians have this paranoia about they they confuse with "the gift of dissernment of spirits". Why not just tell people you're an atheist if that's what you are. Why not just "come out", like gay people are doing? Randy Rhodes was going of on atheists. She said they were all arrogant and I was offended at that. Randy said that atheists don’t give any more thought to their beliefs than your typical Joe Blow on the street. She was put off at the idea that an atheist said to her, “You’re too smart to believe in Christianity”. OK. Well, if an atheist said that to me I might just think, “maybe the guy is right. I am too smart to believe in this religious hocus pocus.” By way of object example, if a person said, "I have looked carefully into the matter of the existrence of UFO's and concluded that they don't exist", could you not respect a man for having this belief. Now, what is easier to prove the existance of- - a UFO that people have actually seen, or a God who remains for the most part undefined? I guess in a way "belief" has become the new Sex. It's not something you air in public. They say never talk about religion or politics in bars. Because the worst thing that could happen as you might prove yourself to be more knowledgable than others in the room and that would be unthinkable! Keep in mind often a school teacher will say to a student that hands in a sloppy piece of work, “You’re too smart to be doing inferior work like this”. Should the student be offended and walk off in a huff and say to himself “Well I’ll show her. I’ll do even worse work in the future”. If a boss is hired by a CEO to get a particularly inefficient branch of the office in line, does the new supervisor say “Well, I’m going to put this office’ laziness up to a vote”. Certainly not. He’s going to be taking names and kicking ass. To equate God with Love is the oldest phalocy in the book. Love like infrared or ultra violet rays they talked, is a demonsterable commodity. But you can exhaust yourself looking for evidence of God and you may never find it. I myself am a deist simply because I don’t believe the Universe got here by accident; it’s too intelligently constructed. But the idea of a “fundamentalist atheist” is one of those words, which if he had any legitimacy as a word- - would have been around for centuries and not the creation of Thom Hartman only a few weeks ago. Atheists asks questions and people are afraid of their questions. As was pointed out fundamentalists don’t ask questions. For them all truth was handed down on stone tablets from God. What Randy is really saying in her attack on Atheism is “I’m afraid I’ll lose if I get in an honist dialog with someone who may have thought more about the issue than I have”. You know it was Gene Scott who said “I hate know-it-als”. Well, I don’t hate know-it-alls, if they really know what they are talking about. The thing is with a Christian is you can’t learn anything from a Christian, at least constructive, but anything you managed to assililate from them, even if by accident, will only do damage to your soul in the long run and somewhere, somehow, will come back to bite you in the ass. This is a free country and people are free to believe what they want. They can believe Jesus Christ stood for peace and non violence, when it’s only out of anti semetic racism that these passages were put in scripture. Jesus never condemned the violence of Rome against his own people. Who will stand up to condemn the crusades and all of the other violence of the church, or the rape of the native peoples of the New World started by Columbus and continuing? In short many liberal Christians like Thom Hartman believe in a phantom that doesn’t exist. And to me it’s silly to condemn others for not believing in some religious opiate. And one more thing. No atheist would ever use the line on people “You may think you have a disagreement with me but in reality your battle is with God”. Churchmen use this line on people all the time whom they want to subjugate. An atheist doesn’t have to hide behind something he intented to begin with in some attempt to play a mind game on the person they are trying to subjugate. It really sounds suspicious to say “Well, I’ll respect an atheist as long as he not a fundamentalist atheist”. That’s like Chuck Smith claiming that he has the power to dissern a genuine question about God from one that’s disingenuous. For instance, according to Craig, if you say “Who is God?” that’s an acceptable question. But when told of the Love of God if you bring up all the deaths and violence in the world than that’s not a permissible question. Of course their next line is most likely “Why do you care?” And it’s asked more ion the form of an accusation, as though there was something wrong with you for caring, rather than a question they want you to answer. Let me just add one more thing. Now Craig is a lone wolf in his fundamantalism around here. I admire his bravery. Christians as a whole tend only to be brave in numbers when they have you surrounded, like the characters in Pac-Man. Often they take pride in their cowardess and being able to do fence straddling, like at work, in order to get ahead. Sean Hannity went so far as to say that if you're doing a Philosophy blue book assignment and a religious question comes up, it's just "smart" go give the teacher want he wants and get the grade. In reality getting back to our main point- - Christians don't want to know if you believe A God exists, but rather that THEIR God exists. And remember their watch word, unlike what they say publicly, what they believe in private is "Your God is too Big". Meditate on that a while.

IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

BEING COMPROMISED?

I was just watching a debate between Newt Gingrich and two others on C-Span on the topic of Islamic terrorism and national security. Some point out that many who are released from Guantanamo go on to commit more terrorism. Does this mean we suspend all legal protections for those in this country accused of terrorism? Does it mean that we invent some new category of criminal that falls neither under legal protection or the laws of the Geneva Accords? I don’t think so. It’s pointed out that bomber who was arrested in New York around May first of last year was spotted by an alert vender who told a cop and they took it from there. Some may say “It’s dangerous to assume that any criminal arrested is not a radical Islamic terrorist. Some say militant radicalism in any religion is dangerous. Newt pointed out that there aren’t many radical Lutherin Norweegens, for instance. Therefore according to Newt this proved that only Islamic people are radical. We move on to the Egypt situation now. Rush Limbaugh yesterday said that the Islamic Brotherhood is a radical organization connected with Al Qaeda and they want to impose radical Islam by force on the nation of Egypt and make the nation of Egypt as a whole numbered among our enemies. Rush went on to say that the “Drive by media” spent all weekend saying that the Islamic Brotherhood was not dangerous and “apologizing for them” or whatever. In point of fact the only time I heard the first hint they were not dangerous was on one four minute interview on “This Week” and it was the guest who said it and not the talking head reporters. Rush went on to attack the Federal Reserve of this country saying that because of what they did last year in its “monetization of the debt” drive, drove up the price of corn in Egypt and therefore all the food riots in Egypt are really our fault. It was pointed out today however that the Islamic Brotherhood neither organized the protests, but were relative late comers to the movement. Neither are they leading the movement now. Rather it seems to be young people who are suffering economically who are spear-heading the movement. They say they genuinely want democracy and this just isn’t some ruse for radicals to get power, like took place in Iran over thirty years ago. We need to be aware of these things. Now Mubarek has stated that he will not run for reelection this coming September. But this concession is not enough for the protesters because they think between now and then he’ll “pull something” to stay in power. But we can’t let the tea bagger right like Gingrich telling us how to think and what to think. They’ve done it their way for ten years and it hasn’t worked. As was pointed out today now Turkey is becoming radicalized. Of course if we sent 150,000 troops in a small country with advanced weapons we are going to win in that area, at least for a while. But we won’t be getting to the underlying causes of radical movements, or whatever political perswasion. Few people would take President Obama to be some kind of a closet Islamic sympathizer who is weak on terrorism. Indeed there seems little difference between the Obama foreign policy and the Bush foreign policy. If George Bush were still President would Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich be calling him “the enemy” simply because terrorism hasn’t vanished overnight? I don’t think so. Rush Limbaugh is such a congenital liar- - I couldn’t believe what he said even fifteen years ago when I agreed with him. How much less now, that we disagree on virtually everything. We need to deal with events one by one as they present themselves.

PANDEMIC OF MIDEAST PROTESTS CONTINUES

President Mubaric is still holding on in Egypt. Of course you know there has been a lot of arson and looting. The death toll was 75 and then went over a hundred, but I’m not sure which side is getting killed the most. These protesters are anything but peaceful. Of course I’m glad they stop everything to pray. It can’t hurt to consult God at a time like this. Now vigilante groups of property owners have been formed, to shoot looters, and I don’t blame them. The idea of a withdraw of the police force to “teach the people a lesson” seems idiotic to me. If you listened to Mubaric’s speech the other day it sounded conciliatory. I don’t entirely get it myself. All we know is that after thirty years of Mubaric rule the people are economically discontent and feel politically repressed. Personally, recent history has shown that you can’t trust the results of elections in this area because Moslem extremists will hijack them for their own perposes. I don’t think the US is helping one bit by threatening to withhold aid. Mubaric is kind of backed into a corner. My hope is that we reassure him to “stay the course” and eventually things will settle down, after the people have it all out of their system. The US has steadfastly supported far more corrupt dictators. Mubaric has appointed a Vice President for the first time, whom he might want as his successor. Of course this wave of mideast protests began in Tunisia a few weeks ago and toppled a government. There also have been protests in Yemen, Lebanon, and in Jordan, which don’t get the press. I think the President needs to be more resolute in his support of Mubaric because if he goes, then the mideast treaty with Israel of some 33 years duration is in jeopardy. Some have said that “this would encourage Palistinians to seek peace”. I see it completely the opposite. There are going to try and “poke the bear” and attack when they think their enemy (Israel) is backed into a corner. (and they will lose) But these protesters don’t want democracy; most seem to want chaos. And they say even the Army wants chaos and some of the protestors are chummy with the Army. Unlike in Iran in June of 2009, the Army shows no inclination to fire on the protesters or to quell the rebellion. This is because they hope to take over. Also this Moslem Brotherhood, which nobody head of till last week, seems to be a dangerous thing. They want to turn Egypt into another hard line Islamic state. I think we had enough of that thirty years ago with Iran. People like Mitch Mc Conell on the other side of the fence see things pretty much the same as those on the left do. Obviously these events have eclipsed anything Obama said in the State of the Union address, which now seems ages ago. It worried me that religious whackos in this country might be rubbing their hands in glee thinking that Armageddon has arrived. You’d think Sunday sermons would advocate peace, but don’t hold your breath. If there is any late news I’ll add it to this posting if it occurs in short order.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S

GRAND VISION FOR AMERICA

The question with last night’s State of the Union speech was how many times the President would use the words “civility” and “investment”. It’s kind of silly for a conservative to balk at the word “investment”, since they say they are so fond of it. But if it involves spending they don’t like it. Dr. Levy said the bailing out of General Motors was a bad thing because what should have happened was that the labor unions would renegotiate their contract to cut worker’s salaries, and now that didn’t happen. Only someone who was basically anti workers rights would make such a statement. Dr. Levy also said that any involvement in government in a business venture is bad. I asked him, “What about the New Deal?” and he had no answer. Dr. Levy is truly a DINO or Democrat in name only. Last night was “date night”. I wasn’t sure about all of this strange pairing up. People were making jokes about it. I will say that things went faster than usual. There was less of a built-up before the speech. There were fewer government dignitaries pointed out. The three most conservative Supreme Court justices were not there. That sends a message loud and clear. The President started by talking about how great America was and dwelt for a while on Congresswoman Giffard. I wouldn’t have done that. He went on and on about how Americans are supposed to act. Then he started talking about energy. Dr. Levy believes we should drill for more oil here. But of course we are over forty years past “peak oil” and this is why prices are up. Even at ten times the price it apparently is not worth reopening long capped wells in Texas. The President had an “anything but oil” philosophy. He wants natural gas and nuclear and “clean coal”, if there is such a thing. But he singled oil companies to say he wanted their subsidies yanked. He then went on to education and spoke at length about that and the restoration of respect for teachers in the classroom. Does he aim to bring back corporal punishment in the classroom? He talked about kids turning off the TV and doing their homework and studying hard to compete with the college grads from India. Though from what I have seen of India they are still living in the seventeenth century, at best. Apparently their government isn’t spending a dime on the poor. He said the US was ninth in the percentage of college grads, though I suspect we are worse than that in some subjects. He then moved on to immigration and getting illegal aliens out of the shadows. He alluded to the dream act of enabling college grads who are illegal aliens to at last obtain citizenship. He moved on to infrastructure and didn’t talk about this nearly enough. It’s the elephant on the room that will be ignored by Republicans. Of course we need more roads and bridges and better sewers and such. But Judy thinks high speed rail is some kind of a commie conspiracy, and voted against Kurt Pringle in Anaheim, because he advocated high speed rail. So what is China and every other nation has it. The president moved on to talking about a universal wireless internet for even the most rural areas. Maybe. Next on the agenda was easing the regulations on business. The President also wants to CUT corporate taxes, after of course, closing tax loopholes. He talked about how many jobs his trade deals with various nations have gotten. However here he again ignored the elephant in the room, mainly our soaring deficit, particularly our 250 trade deficit with China. He talked about the national debt and says he wants to freeze federal spending for five years and even cut some personal favorite programs of his, and says he wants to cut defense. He spoke fondly of his famous deficit commission. The President brought up Health Care and how many people it has helped and will help. He then talked about reorganizing the whole federal government and gave the example of Salmon. It would seem that completely restructuring the entire cabinet would be complicated, and in my estimation, that in itself would mean hiring more beaurocrats to do it. Finally he got around to foreign policy and spoke of our victories against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and spoke of getting tough with Iran and South Korea. He mentioned the separatist election in Sudan but I’ll believe that when it actually happens. Finally he talked about supporting our troops and congradulating gays for obtaining their full rights. One way to cut veterans hospital expenses is not to have them fighting in any more wars for a while. He concluded by one again saying how great America was and how our best days are ahead of us. The speech ran an hour and one minute, which is definitely short by the old Bill Clinton standards. There were fewer references to various individuals but these were in evidence. The applause he got seemed much more curt. Paul Ryan started his speech by saying that the President made many good points, if he’ll follow through on them. In terms of the issues Thom Hartman raises, these were almost completely absent.

Former Justice Thergrood Marshall came under attack today from Jeff Sessions and other "tea party" senators on the committee. I haven't heard it directly- - yet - - but I've heard about it. They are trying a real low-ball character assasenation attack against Solicitor General Helena Kagan. They are saying that she is "consorting" with activist judges the same way you might fear your teenaged son consorting with gang members and ruining his character. Elena Kagan was a law clerk to Justice Marshall and as you know from any knowledge of how the legal system works, being a law clerk places you in the position of having a lot of power, often to shape preliminary drafts of a document, and you're also privy to an awful lot of inside information, so if one were of evil intent, one could do a lot of damage (or just possibly a lot of good) Justice Marshall left the court in 1991 and not in 1983 as they were saying on the radio. The guy later corrected himself. The time frame is indellibly etched in my mind because Clarence Thomas replaced him, and it was a dark day for people of color everywhere. Marshall argued his most famous cases as the legal rep. of the NAACP. He argued cases in 1940's setting a lot of preliminary legal mile stones such as not having racist provisions allowed in deeds, or integrating graduate schools. In Brown verses the Board of Education the vote was unanamus. I didn't know that. Marshall must have argued his case exceedingly well. I remember from the movie that the turning point in that case was when Marshall raised the stakes of the case and broadened the parameters. I see a pop up "scheduled task started". Today we get inanimate objects like software to do our grunt work. Obviously Roberts and the reactionary four took a page out of this book themselves with the Citizens United case. Marshall was a judicial activist. He was solicitor general under Johnson for two years before getting on the High Court in 1967. (in 1967 everyone was high) I suppose Marshall was an activist. But Black people needed an activist. One would have hoped that is Ancient Rome were like Israel and had democratic representation, that Jesus Christ might run for senate or something and be an advocate for the Jewish people and nation. (Jesus was not a social activist in that he never spoke out against either oppression or slavery and as such would not get high marks today) Having said all of this I still would not vote for Kagan because I believe she is a statist. She believes in the perogatives of the State over the rights of the individual. One person on the radio said "The power of the Presidency has grown imensly in the past fifteen years". 1995 was not that long ago. I may have conservative leanings but I do not have NEO-conservative leanings. I still cringe as the notion of Black and gay rights being spoken of in the same breath, and I'm sure that there an awful lot of people of color who agree with my sentaments on this issue.

You know I was rereading Sol Allinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" and I'm wondering whether any of his ideas would even work today. We have so much more of a locked down police state mentality and the media is so far to the right they wouldn't even cover it. Just think about how Republicans are afraid to speak against the Rush Meister himself. I don't think this truth can be over-emphasized. I think there would already be a massive push from the left of the democratic party if people sensed the media was behind them. Contrary to what Christians teach and I believe, if you aren't doing something for an audience, it's hardly worth doing. Howard Beale said "Don't look at us. We are not reality. You people are the reality". There used to be a song that went "The revolution will not be televised; the revolution will be LIVE". Perhaps what we need is a new updated version of Sol Allinsky to teach us how to protest with today's realities. And I think it would involve knowing a broker on Wall Street like Buddy Fox in the movie, who knows what levers to pull and when. I wish Jesus had taught (and I would have in his place) that there are a lot more of US than there are of THEM and if we all work together like Lennon sings about in "Only People" if we all pull the chain the biggest weight can be lifted off our backs, with the proper preliminary engeneering. They can't survive without we the workers, who are the muscle in all of their doings and who enable them to make all the money they make. We need to organize strikes and also perhaps a little organized financial chaos, or at least the threat of it.

I guess I'd like to call this third paragraph, "Have you ever thought about it?" Just think of what constitutes "The Church" legally. It isn't the people who attend it. Obviously they must have had laws on corporations way back in the middle ages for the Catholic Church to be a legal entity. If there's a scripture I'd expunge from the Bible it would be in acts 5 where Peter is able to threaten people with death for not giving ALL their money to the Church. I know in Sunday School we were all told "We were the church". We know what that's worth. The Churches just may have been the original corporate entities. If I'm God I'm thinking at judgement day, "I'm only judging people; I don't DO corporations. So it's just a question of whom I decide to pin the blame on for something you want to blame IT, the corporation for doing." My second observation was when I weighed myself today and discovered I was right and the doctor had me ten pounds light. That takes a load off my mind. I didn't lose ten pounds in a few weeks after all. Do you ever notice how the numbers run in a straight progression? How come they aren't logerithmic or in some other complex progression? Does it really mathematically using physics and geometry work out that the position of the weight denotes a straight numeric progression? It's something that just struck me. My final observation is- - - Shapes. You know Shapes are the realm of the Gods. In Peru that thing that looks like some kind of cosmic air port can only be viewed from the Heavens, before human beings had flight. Snow flakes do not realize they are forming in a hexagon. Neither are other crystals possessed of a conscious Will when they form into their pretty shapes. Bees aren't conscious, I don't think, of the shape of the homey combs they build. So when it comes to the shape of the Universe, is this not something for God alone to know. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it- - - - if a Universe is formed in the shape of a donut and nobody sees it can it be said to really be that shape? The answer is "Yes" if you do the proper measures and prove that light doubles back on itself and you see the same things over again. You could prove it like the ancient Greeks proved the world was round. Of course there are other shapes. You can generate a saddle shape from Wolframalpha.com by entering certain algebriac formulas. But certain things such as we might expect to encounter such as Black Holes, we know from Einstein's math that can't exist in this universe. Therefore when you see one of those green grid things- - even ones I've described in previous postings, where the lines go around in circles- - those can't exist. If they DID exist you would have certain parts of the grid that wasn't squares or rectangles or some derivitive thereof. You would have shapes with five sides. Then you have the problem "Where do the shapes with five sides go?" I was wondering this a couple of years back. Well, it's no problem because the whole black hole in a golf green doesn't fly. It doesn't exist, so we don't have that problem.

At the risk of destroying the four movement symphonic pattern of this blog, this is the next day and I feel the need to add in this important addendum. First of all while there are not Black Holes there ARE "Black Parabolas", so we are still left with the problem of "where do you place the non rectangular grid segments? Next, what I meant to say yesterday was that certain shapes that men uses are constructions of man to aid in his perception of nature. While the rings of Saturn form in perfect circles due to laws of gravitational attraction, certain other patterns such as the golden mean spiral are kind of abstractions by man. Also when we speak of the possibility of time "bending" we have to infer that such "bending" is caused by some foreign object, otherwise time would be "straight". Some might want to infer that a supernatural deity "bends" time. Others who believe in feng chue - - believe that the physical placement of objects in the room might gravitationally "bend" time and alter their future. It's important, as Scientologists teach to always make sure word definitions are understood in advance by the reader. This will be the last posting in this blog for a while. Now enjoy the final paragraph.

In my prophecy book I allude in one of my brighter moments, to certain people posing as Christians really being like cancer cells. They may multiply, but they never seem to bear fruit, except unto themselves. They never do anything for the body at large. In fact like cancer cells they are IN the body but not OF it. They are like parasites who lack the initiate to say who they are but have to trade on someone elses' name, such as Jesus. The Neil Savedra Show would not sell as well as the Jesus Christ Show. And there is a dirty little secret. While their affect on the host body is to kill it, the secret is that They are doomed to die along with it. I think this pretty much happened with Gene Scott and Faith Center. Does Faith Center even EXIST any more? And as Thom Hartman points out, Corporations nowadays are like cancer cells in the US economy. Once again they think they are prospering but they are killing the economy, and when it dies, THEY die. And Churches are Corporations. The next supreme court justice will have to be mindful of these things, and as such I would grill him or her heavily on this subject.

Senator Robert Byrd died last night at age 92. He was the longest serving elected US senator, who came to the House in 1952 and was elected to the Senate in 1958. Of course Byrd’s last dying act was to get this health care bill passed, and he was taxed by the Republicans by numerous votes “or else” at all hours of the day and night to keep the bill alive. He was hospitalized yesterday for a “serious condition” but apparently they were more than serious. Byrd was one of the lions of the Senate who along with Ted Kennedy stood up and opposed the War in Iraq in 2003 saying it was unconstitutional, and in this, of course, he was absolutely right. Byrd got my attention in 1991 when he cane out against the Clarence Thomas nomination. I was in kind of a place where I didn’t know which side to believe. I didn’t particularly trust either Anita Hill or Charence Thomas. I will only say that Thomas had an “unlikable, hostile” quality every time he spoke in public and of course he is the one person who never participates in questions in oral argument. I tend to be of the school where “If the person isn’t asking any questions, it’s probably because they don’t understand any of it”. Of course Larry Elder reminded us all that Byrd used to be in the K K K. To this I will say to Larry that “It’s not where you’ve been but where you are headed that counts”. Where are the Republicans headed. They aren’t like progressives who believe in facing the future bravely and head on. Rather – their slogan appears to be “The only thing we have to offer is fear itself”. Their prime tactict these days seems to be “raw, unreasoning fear, that paralyzes needed action” to quote FDR. Without Byrd and Kennedy now all we have on the political landscape are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Glen Beck. Chris Matthews had some contest or challenge to any republican senator to come on his show and oppose Rush Limbaugh head on. So far he hasn’t had any takers. If a republican congressman dares to oppose Rush Limbaugh on anything, such as this “shakedown of BP” line we’ve been hearing, they go for a couple of days and then break down with a sniveling apology to Rush. Rush Limbaugh honestly believes that the twenty billion fund of British Petroleum is a “shake down”. He’s also saying that “Mark my words, it’s going to end up being another Obama bail out” I’m not entirely sure what he means by that. Sarah Paylan has chimed in with all those who say the 20 Billion BP fund is “unconstitutional” and Bill Press was debating a woman who declared that the fund was secured under extortion and pressure. And Bill Press had to keep correcting her to say that British Petroleum said going in that they had to clean up the whole spill. The law states plainly that oil offenders have to entirely finance the clean up of oil spills. The Republicans back when I was a teenager like the famous Sallenger – Murphy debate of September 1964 Murphy said “I would like to go back to the America of fifty years ago” and Sallenger responded “I was not alive fifty years ago, but from what I know- - “ and listed a number of reasons why he would not want to go back to 1914. Today Republicans want to go back to the same period only now that is one hundred years ago. Who would dream that one of the primary political parties wants to go back a hundred years ago? And even at that they would be ad odds with “Progressive” Ex President Theadore Roosevelt. Of course another modern lightning rod is the General Stanley Mc Crystal firing. They were saying on the Stephanie Miller show this morning that “Perhaps it’s a beneficial thing for Mc Crystal to get himself fired. It might have been deliberate. Because he knew the whole campaign of this war was doomed to failure and what better way to get himself off the hook in advance is to leave, so you won’t be the general who is blamed for it when it takes place”. That’s an interesting thought.

The Supreme Court said that States and Cities don't have the power to limit gun ownership. I strongly disagree with this decision as an infringement on local rights. There was also a ruling involving patents that came down. Elena Kagen this week is having her senate hearing for Supreme Court justice, and I will be tuning into that in a while.

Some of you may wonder how my no cigarettes campaign is coming. Well I doubt highly that it will succeed. Still there are so many health indications I should quit including that cough I had for weeks, and the fact that an uncle of mine died of throat canter a year and a half ago. And then there is you know who’s remark of “You just don’t look healthy”. I’m continuing with all the medical quackery to see if it works. I don’t know why I shouldn’t be the picture of health with all the vitamin C I’ve taken taken. I think that nurse knocked ten pounds off my weight when she took it. I don’t lose weight like that in a matter of weeks since my last weighing.

WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING 2010

Yesterday was June 25th. the one year anniversary of the day Michael Jackson died. Legal hassles are still in progress. Yesterday June 25th. was a rather memorible day in terms of my busy schedule. In the morning I was informed that I was to have an E K G done, which I have never had before and wasn't entirely certain of the procedure. As it turns out Dr. Saran said my E K G was normal but that my heart rate was only 49 beats per minute, which is way slow and may explain why I have been feeling so tired. So Dr. Saran took me off of the beta blocker blood pressure medication I was on, leaving one other one. Later on I had to satisfy my housekeeper that I had cleaned out the cabinet under the bathroom sink to her satisfaction. She was satisfied with what I had done. We had barbecued chicken for dinner. Yesterday afternoon Judy was over here to download and update my Norton 360 so that it is valid for another year, in fact till July 23rd. of 2011. They say doctors no longer make house calls but Dr. Judy prescribed an ancient Greek remedy for the fungus on my finger and toe nails. It involves using a Silver-Biotic jell locally and ingesting some solution that tastes like dirty water of Silver-Biotic solution internally to kill all invading organisms, and they can't build up any resistance to it. I'm also taking acedocipholus, ( ) which is the equivelant of ten yorgurts. Then I got a haircut done by a barber without all that much experiance, but my hair had grown absurdly long so I was happy to get it. My concern was I hoped the bill would be applied to next month - rather than this immediate Tuesday. Later on in the evening I looked at the 85 photographs done in a specially processed software that involves layering. There is stuff like Lindsey Lohan in the local halls, and three residents sitting in a sofa at the top of the Seattle space needle. There's also stuff that involves painting- - and other photo guimics that make me look like a blooming genious. I watched Wheel of Fortune but I'm not as sharp with that as I was back in my apartment. My mind was sharper and more intuitive then. Ever since I've been taking anti psychotic medication in late 1999 I've had "senior moments" where I forget names, for instance, the attorney's names in the O J Simpson trial.

That unemployment bill has been under consideration for eight weeks, or eight times (or both) and every time it has failed, and it failed again last night. As you know the majority of the improvement in job figures comes from the hiring of US Census workers, and very little of that is from the private sector. Randy Rhodes says that not only can you be “over qualified” for a menial job and they are afraid you’ll leave, but with some executive jobs if you aren’t already employed they will refuse to hire you. Thus if you are unemployed you are pretty much “marked off” by the system. One must bear in mind for every dollar spent on unemployment outlays the economy gets back $1.35 into the structure of the economy, so that there is a definite human investment dividend. The banking bill finally got passed. The liberals say the bill is hopelessly watered down. The Republicans and the banking community say the bill is too constrictive and restrictive. I would hope now we would have a little economic equity in our society. The government is constantly giving big business breaks that it would never give the little man. This is an issue to be gone into with the next Supreme Court nominee.

There are countless blogs you can read on the subject of the British Petroleum leak, and there are numerous entries under George Washington's blog. Randy Rhodes has been talking about something called "fracking", which sounds like a cross between fragging and cracking. It involves injecting lots of water and other poisonous substances into the ground to force out the remaining natural gas. But the thing is they don't know what to do with the water afterwards and so they put it in an unlined pit where it contaminates the community water supply. As it turns out the Gulf area is geologically unstable and if that weren't even the case the piping of the well is weak and unstable, such as if they put a cap on the well that actually fit right, either the piping would give way, or else the whole geological structure of the sea bed would collapse. They say this is one of the biggest oil deposits in the Gulf. British Petroleum has an even bigger platform called the Atlantis that many believe prudent to shut down at least to inspect the thing before IT blows. But of course they won't. And now we're into hurricane season. Tropical storm Alex is now making its way tword the Yukatan pennisula. Some southern senator days ago said he thought the then "tropical depression" might be headed straight tword the Gulf. Well the thing is, I think we can say that it isn't a question of whether a storm hits, but when.

I wanted to review for a moment why I say that Calvinism "lets people off the hook" as far as Christian salvation is concerned. Under Calvinism you can neither will yourself to be saved if you are not meant to be, nor will yourself to be lost, if you are meant to be saved. We are all totally depraved, which means that any decision we make, including the decision to accept Jesus' salvation, is a decision devoid of any moral insight, but it's as if it were made by an utterly depraved person without two brain cells that work together properly. Under Jewish law, the whole world is saved because Jesus died with sufficient power to cover the sins of the whole world. And there are certain universal salvation scriptures in the Bible such as in Peter where it says "God is not willing that any should be lost". If you believe that if it's the will of God, that ends the issue right there. But there is one doctrine called "limited election". The best way to describe this one is to picture Palm's Sunday and the money changers at the temple. God said to come with the sacrifices you have. But the temple authorities want their special kosher tag or else they won't accept the sacrifice. In a similar vain, the Church works off a "Jesus- - Plus- - " formula where you take Jesus, PLUS all of their little rules and regulations to proved that you are really saved. The "I" stands for Irresistable Grace. This simply means that Everyone who is Meant to be Saved- - Will be Saved. This takes the human decision factor out of the equation. The P stands for perseverence meaning that if you are among the lucky chosen- - if you have the million dollar wedge and land on the $100,000 now million dollar slot in the circle, you have a chance at getting a million dollars if you persevere to the end. An epistle of John states that "They (the unsaved) went out from amongst us, that it may be made manifest that they were never really one of us". I hope I've cleared things up for you all.

OBAMA FORCES STANLEY MC CRYSTAL TO RESIGN

I wasn't sure whether General Mc Crystal would be forced to resign or not. I didn't know if this President had the balls. After all the simple minded right wingers reason "Mc Crystal is the general in charge of pursuing the War, therefore he is one of the good guys". There are problems we all had with General Mc Crystal to start with. He engeneered the Pat Tillman cover-up. He helped to cover up abuses at Abu-grave. And he signed off on the "Mission Accomplished" slogan. Mc Crystal wants to widen the war expanding the peramaters to an overall remaking of society in Afghanistan with massive counter-insurgency. Other Generals don't think his approach will work and Mc Crystal has run afoul of a couple of others along the way. Still as resignations go, we liberals can take little solice in it. Because just like all of the other "teachable moments" and turning points, the President passed a golden chance to modify policy but instead went out of his way to praise Mc Crystal for following his orders explicitly. Also he said he bore no personal animosity tword the General. I think if I were President I'd inspire more confidence than our current one. Take this unemployment bill for instance. Yesterday Republicans explained that they were not against extending unemployment compensation but wanted only to pay for it as we went. They offered various ways we could make up the 33 Billion shortfall. Personally I would take these Republican messages to heart and not dismiss them out of hand. But were I chairing the senate I would simply say "All of you who want to abolish the health care bill just passed to take down the national debt, raise your hands". I imagine a rather sizable portion would raise their hands. Then I'd say "All those who want to cancel the current hostilities in Afghanistan raise your hands". Perhaps a smaller number would raise their hands. Then I say, "Very well then, let's compromize. Let's abolish both things and that way we will accomplish twice the cuts in the national budget". This seems like a simple thing to do with me.

I would now like to broach what some liberals might call an unpleasent topic but it's something that's been on my mind. As you may know by now I am not an accross the board liberal. So when I hear people on the Stephanie Miller show talking how the Catholic Church ought to be reoriented to accept gays and to say that Jesus would have accepted gay marriage, I have to raise a note in protest. I did a posting on this topic a couple months back. Were you to take a poll of theologians in any 25 year interval going back through century after century, various theological ideas no doubt would come and go. But rest assured all of them would agree that the idea of gay marriage would be abhorant to Jesus, and untill the last few years it would have been unthinkable that anyone would raise such a topic. As you know I also take exception to the liberals' views on abortion and euthanasia. Whether I believe in God or not, I personally believe it's a sin to artificially termanate suffering of those struggling for life. I don't know what's in the afterlife but I don't want it on my record that the last thing I did in my previous life was to dodge suffering on a gamble that would be the end of it. I'm not a total extremist on the abortion issue because I don't believe that cells in a test tube have the same presumptive right to life as a living fetus in the womb. As you may also know I have always been against no fault divorce. i believe marriage ought to be taken seriously and that there be consequences for dissolving it. I also would not metaphorically dumb dirt and other debris on the marriage altar by some perverted notion of what marriage is- - that not even the most decadent civilization endources.

I would also like to talk about perverted views of God himself. Theologically the proper view is to view God as an entirely Good being and sufficient unto himself in the absence of any created matter. As such I do not subscribe to the perverse proposition that goodness somehow "needs" evil in order to properly manifest itself, or that goodness would somehow be detracted from were not evil present. God knows every man's heart whether he does a heroic deed like rescue victims from a burning building or not. In scripture it says "That you intended to do these things- - you do well". We have the notion I've also heard uttered "Don't try and FIX so and so". This means "If you think a person is a wierdo, just keep it to yourself. You can gossip about it in secret if you want but don't confront the individual in question with your notions". This view is diametricly opposed to my own where I say if you see a problem, confront and eliminate it. In this line of reasoning you have the Jesus of KFI alias Neil Savadra, who states "Don't try to fix what is broken, that God says is not broken". You can see without too much effort that such a stance could be applied to gay people. I regard gayness as a disease. I can love the person and hate the disease. To call me "homophobic" is to say that I'm afraid of this disease afflicting society or my children, and as a parent my instinct is to protect my children from danger. There was one anti gay web site I visited a while back that cataloged the disadvantages of being gay. Their lives are alltogether more unstable. According to Dennis Prager it's not at all uncomon for a gay man to have over a hundred sexual partners. Dennis explains "Without the moralizing influence of women- - the brakes of restraint are off". As such gay people suffer disproportionately from sexually transmitted diseases, and their life expectancy is shorter, so I imagine their Life Insurance expences are higher. I honistly don't believe given the choice any man would prefer to be gay. If you were to suddenly heal them- - in that instant they were healed there'd be no way in hell they'd ever go back. The fact that gay men try out hetrosexual marriage is proof that basically they regard marriage as the normal thing. Now personally I think trying to "reprogram" a gay person is of dubious merit. Personally I would not want to tell a woman with AIDS coming to me for counceling that I knew her husband was gay when he married her but did nothing to protest the wedding. Of course Neil Savedra is the guy who first made his appearence on the Bill Handel show apparently as part of a one time gag where he pretended to be Jesus. He calls his show "radio theater". As "theater" he seems to claim exemption from the normal standards of theological decency. There were some web sites defending Neil that take up the chant "Judge not least you be judged". Guess what? I'm already been judged and rejected by Christianity and I have little doubt were I to call in on Neil's show I'd be vilified by him as have so many other callers. One trait of Neil is to polarize his callers into "Good guys" and "Bad guys". And once you have the "bad" label you can't shed it. Neil Savedra is of Mexican extraction, and apparently he's an ex security guard who is good in street fights. He's definitely a fighter and not a lover. As for me I make moral judgements- - and the Bible encourages us all the time to make moral judgements and evaluations about a lot of things. Neil claims to be the embodyment of Truth and yet he's putting on an act and doesn't tell you it's an act. This whole "radio theater" slogan is not one you'll hear on the air. What I do in my blogs is not theater. It's the way I really feel about issues from incidents in my personal life. I don't think Neil Savedra knows what is real and what is not. His "parent show" Bill Handel features numerous blasphamies of God, particularly around Christmas time. And a highlight of the Bill Handel show is to have practicing wiccans on right around Christmas time. Some may come back at me wish "You just said God was good apart from Evil. Is this what you really think or do you believe God is A-Moral?" What I personally believe about God and what theologically we are "supposed" to believe are two different things. As a Bible apologist I would have to go with the notion that God is entirely good. Neil Savedra has as much as said "Satan has as much right to be here and influencing the world as you or I do, and to try and chafe at what Evil has planned for your life would be wrong". I believe that Neil's beliefs are an affront to virtually every page of the Bible from Genisis to Revelation. The Bible, for instance, from cover to cover describes God as a being who heals and makes people whole. Instead Neil prefers to quote one passage of Paul about a "messager from Satan" and we don't even know what that is. One pastor suggested it might be an ex wife out to play mind games on him. Neil Savedra is going to continue to do damage to the Faith in a manner that it's possible for few people to do as he seems to fly "under the radar, seemingly amune from any criticism of the faithful church goers. But once you turn on the light in a dark room you know it needs dusting and can't go back into believing all is well. But if every time you turn on a light those in spiritual slumber scream "turn out that light" and after a while you just get up and leave. (Selah)

Buddahism on the other hand doesn't even bring up the idea of God or any outside force that shapes the destiny of man. Buddah belives that man can save himself by looking within and meditating. As I look at Bhuddism I see similar goals to Scientology as far as removing all of the strange hang-ups of the soul. Buddah believes that man is born in this world to suffer and the cause of this suffering is craving things that he doesn't have. Then the Buddah has an eight fold path to escape this condition and they all begin with "Right", such as right speech, right actions, right motives, etcetra. The Buddahist believes in objectivism saving the day. That is that he believes if we see things as they really are, without emotional hangups, we will transcend either our desire for or avirsion to them. One riddle of Buddahism goes "Things you think ARE- - - really aren't. Nor are they any other way". Another one a bit less confusing goes "You should sense what can be sense and think what can be thought- - and you should not mix the two." People can't do this. It's like if they are losing an argument they can't just "let it lie" and say "OK that's the way things are now". But they have to kenive and struggle and manipulate untill they are back on top. This is what Neil Savedra does. A Christian "meme" goes "Win every argument in the here and now at all cost". An enlightened individual can look at things as they are and say, OK that's how things are, and not get in a panic over it. A Christian if he sees pornography gets all hysterical and goes on a rant about society going to hell. An enlightened one would say "OK there it is- - but it isn't my thing" and move on. The idea of "Ortho karma" for lack of a better word flies in the face of this notion that you have to embrace some polar opposite. If something isn't extreme left or right- -some doctrinaire people would say "If it's not one or the other it can't be valid". On the other hand doing something "Right" means doing it without error, which one would have thought would be something Christians would strive for. (Selah)

"I Know What It's Like To Be Dead"

Today is June 20, 2010 and it's Brian Wilson's birthday. How appropiate that the leader of a surf music band would be born the day before summer starts. This morning they had under discussion the orirgen of various Beatle songs. John Lennon has often said he regarded "Run for your Life" as a throw away song that was added in at the last moment. However historic fact proves him wrong because this was the first song that was rehearsed for Rubber Soul. In keeping with the theory that the most important songs get first run through, "There's a Place" was the first song recorded in that marathon session of February 11, 1963, and they did more takes of this song than just about any other recorded that day. I have thought of replacing on one of my Beatle compilation albums posted- - replacing that trial version of "Standing There" with "There's a Place". But the Federation takes exception to that saying they have problems with that song because Vee Jay Records, which is under the Neir Reigelians, still claims ownership of that song in that portion of the galaxy. Moving right along- - John Lennon appears to have thrown a hissy fit about his contributions to other member's songs. Lennon claims that Harrison regarded him as an elder figure "Because I'm five or six years older than George". Of course that is not correct. John is less than three years older than George. John claims to have done a little "bits" on "Tax Man" where George got stuck, and contributed "Declare the pennies on your eyes". On Eleanor Rigbee- - Pete Shotton said that John's contribution to that song was virtually nill. Later Paul modified that to say "John contributed about twenty percent". By process of elimination (because the other lyrics are accounted for) John is left with "- - writing the words to a sermon that no one will hear" and also "- - wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave, no one was saved". As you know John rebelled against Pete Shottons notion of tying Father Mc Kinsey and Eleanor Rigbee's lives today. John said "It just isn't what we are lyrically aiming at here". John regarded the tying together of the lives as- - alltogether too symetrical. George wrote "Ah, look at all the lonely people". John was getting bored and was preparing to leave the room and George said this line and John turns and points to George and says, "That's it". In terms of Yellow Submarine, some say that "yellow submarines" were nebutal capsules. I know there is some downer that's called yellow jackets. I thought nebutal capsules were blue and red. I remember taking nebutal, secconal, and butasol at my suicide attempt in May of 1972. In terms of "She Said" new evidence comes to light today. I always regarded the origen of the song was John and Peter Fonda were at this party and both stoned on Acid and were sharing experiances. It turns out that John didn't even know who Peter Fonda was but he kept saying to John "I know what it's like to be dead" and it kind of creaped John out and me would move away from Peter so as not to spoil his own pleasent psychedelic experiance, but that Peter kept following him. In terms of "And Your Bird Can Sing" this apparently refers to Phil Specter's wife, Ronnie Specter, the 1960's girl group singer. Apparently the song was a rebuke saying to Phil, "You will never manage the Beatles". In terms of Paperback Writer, I had the name wrong. I always thought it was "Neir" and not "Lear" who was a real author, apparently. "Neir" is a Reigelian word meaning "nether" or "distant". The Neir Reigelians were called that because they were the farthest away of anybody from the old Reigalian Federation, even though clossest to earth. Other Reigelian words are "Bashier" (a Star Trek character) and that word means eligant or graceful and if often used to described horses. Then there is "Riesen" (as in RISE-N) I thought this word meant some kind of grain, but it apparently means "blowing" or "rustling". On Reigel VI - - the wind seldom blows and the heat and humidity can be oppressive in the northern part of the planet. When the wind blows it's a sufficiently rare event that everybody trips out and says "Look, the wind is blowing".

I wanted to talk just a little about current politics. As you know President Obama gave his weekly address yesterday on the topic of getting a needed jobs bill passed that the Republicans were holding up. This bill did a lot of other constructive things besides extend unemployment though. The President is also upset because there are those hundred - plus appointments to key positions in government that need to be filled so that the work of government can proceed. These are qualified people who would win easily on an up or down vote. Few of the appointments are contraversial. And yet the Republicans are stonewalling. But then in the Republican rebuttal, the speaker spent most of HIS time talking about the oil slick, and how the President is not cleaning it up. He said that commerce was being hurt and jobs and resturant business were languishing. The Republicans don't want any drilling halted or anything which will slow down the economy. In like manner they are against "Cap and tax" because that will export jobs away from the US to China and other places. In this one area I must agree with the Republicans. I might add that even China is looking tword becoming energy "green". Also this oil slick is continuing to grow and has now made its way further down the coast of Florida to "Panama, Fla". I don't know if the slick has made St. Petersburg yet. The political news is like some kind of stalled weather front. The Federation has spoken about "the Texas group" (of spirits) that steered Katrina away from Texas, protecting it. This same group appears to be on its ascendency in control. This group is a sub group of Cassiopeans (which cover a vast array)

JUNE 19, 2010

You know I am reminded that as with today when you hear or read a letter from a loved one or a relative who is deceast, you get fresh insight into their lives that you didn’t have before. [Pete Richards] pointed this out himself. “I knew him better from this letter than I did when he was on the earth”. You know in “Oh God” George Burnes remarks “As to the present I’m very keen on that. Also I’m very much into what was. But as to what hasn’t happened yet, I haven’t a clue”. As for us and the origin of the Universe it’s safe to say that we are very keen on what is. And through the miracle of delayed light travel we can even grasp a present knowledge of what was. However some will place a higher value on what they think “was” than what presently “is”. Let me elaborate. Some teleological creationist of several centuries ago happened upon the image of some native savages coming upon a watch. We don’t know if it was a running watch or not, but this too would have added mystery. We are to conclude from this example that some force beyond ourselves created the Universe and that force is named “God”. Let’s just stop leaping to conclusions for one moment however. (I touched also upon this topic in a September of 2007 entry in Psychic Balance, so read that) Because first of all we can say “I couldn’t have made this and it has a curious fascination as though some force directed it”. But then we are left with the choice of “Is this force some unseen incoporial life form? Or is this perhaps some alien being from another planet who left this device here for us to find. Or (as if saving the most likely for last) Might this device have been made by a human being who was just recently here and mightn’t we encounter this human being and find that basically he is just like us?” I say this because in September of 2007 I did not know that in a couple years scientists will have discovered the formula to life and DNA with the help of computers (which they also created) and so at last we see that life is not beyond the grasp of mankind.” You know- - when a crime is committed police look for evidence of the crime, which can be seen, to deduce what cannot be seen, and that is the crime in progress and who committed it. We work on the assumption that a crime can actually be proved. If we doubt this basic axiom, we are in the wrong line of work. It would be an absurdity to come up with some obsessive belief based on one piece of evidence- - when others are waiting to be found. People said “They still haven’t found the missing link”. But meanwhile all sorts of “missing links” have been unearthed. There is the book out “Evidence that demands a verdict” and yet all of the evidence is not in. Neither the prosecution nor the defense has rested its case. Calling for a rendered verdict is altogether premature. I would rather call the book “Evidence that Suggests a Verdict”. Certain facts about the Bible are pointed out very aptly that many people including me didn’t know. But in some cases there are “suggestions” of evidence on both sides. That Italian guy might well say that the historic evidence “suggests” –rather loudly, I might add, that Jesus as we know Him never existed. But in 1993 there was one book I read that suggested that we were very close to “The Answer” concerning the life of Jesus. The author goes “It’s as though you walked into a room. The TV was still on, and you could smell the man’s cologne and there is a cigarette still smoldering in the ash tray. You might even feel the warmth on the couch where he sat. Yet in reality this whole line of reason is just artistry. It would suggest that if we run hard down the block we might just catch up with him. When in reality the evidence of his existence is so “absent” that people got all excited from a piece of furniture with a forged inscription perporting to be a man of the same name as his brother, James. If we can get that excited over something that amounts to nothing- - we are indeed desperate to find any evidence Jesus ever existed. Facts are known truths. Something doesn’t cease to be “true” simply because no human is aware of the fact of its existence. This line of reasoning would suggest that an all knowing Being would see things as “facts” that we human beings don’t. If things which have yet to actually happen are already known by such a being, such future events could be “facts” though they have yet to happen. (Selah)

I said something some of you may take issue with. I said that the Federation does not look for “pre-fab” human beings to fit together as cogs designed to run their machine, but that each human being is a free being. Certain detractors such as the Bajorans would indeed say that the Federation robs people of their culture and national pride. These detractors see the Federation as little better than the Borg who say, “resistance is futile, you will be assimilated”. Some like the Andromadans see the Federation is a little too much like the old Soviet Union in this respect. But the Federation do not see themselves this way. They see a future ruled by the Federation but they see this rather in the spirit of the Christian dominionists, who say that mankind itself will openly embrace the future.

Some may also be puzzled when I said that Tibettan Buddhism was something I found appealing even though it deals with death and the soul. Because I also said, “I do not welcome a religion (such as Christianity) whose only promise we can bank on is one of the afterlife. The two aren’t really contradictory. Because I remind you I have read my Bible and I know that humans are promised “the grave” when they die and the meek will inhered the earth- - and not heaven. Further there seems to not be one thing that we actually do in heaven once we get there. The place is one big void devoid of substance. And I al also aware of the reason why Christians even say “the only thing we can really bank on is the afterlife” is because they themselves do not believe in anything that can actually be shown or proven, so have to take refuge in a sphere that we know absolutely nothing about. It’s like men of old saying “the moon is made of green cheese”. For a long time men assumed we would never know otherwise since no one had been there- so their statements would never be refuted. In January of 1976 I was having suicidal thoughts. And yet nothing in my daily life would suggest that I should suddenly be so depressed. I had my new ten band radio I’d gotten for Christmas. I was progressing in my sound engineering class, though a bit dissatisfied with the slow pace. I had received the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” from [Pete Richards] that Christmas. Obviously that book did not give me “hope”. If you read a letter of mine to Doug Clark it is very nihilistic with reference to Mao Tse Tung and Communist rhetoric. To me revolution was romantic because it involved death. You who don’t know me might assume several things from all of this. One logical possibility is that I myself don’t even know why I was so depressed at this time. Perhaps it’s something that would be revealed in psycho-therapy. In Star Trek they discuss certain metaphysical particles and those of a certain time point, or are aligned a certain direction- - such that one upon examination can deduce which “particles” don’t belong there with the others. It is my contention that with first and early second century Church history- - certain “particles” or pieces of evidence don’t belong there but a police detective could examine them and deduce that they were moved there by others so that they would be found where someone wanted them found. Certain pieces of evidence “don’t fit” and a key example is the utter absence of any reference to Nero or the burning of Rome in the early Church writings. A police detective would conclude “This is just too major of a reality to be so utterly ignored”. People speak metaphorically of evidence “pointing” in a direction. May I suggest that the picture would make more sense if all the “pointers” were lined up properly so there were no obvious “photo shop edits” in the picture. Just think about it.

EXPLORING OTHER METAPHYSICAL FORMS

I was looking forward to today's class today where I arrived just after three. The DVD was already rolling on the subject of Buddhism. I had been looking forward to leaving "western" religions behind and getting back into expanding my mind. Certain observations become apparent. It says in the Bible that Jesus had all the trappings of royalty and gave it up to become a servant. However even apologists will say that Jesus did not do this but stayed with his oh so well adjusted textbook family upbringing. Buddah left the pampared life in a pallace, and his wife and new son, and went about searching out the realities of the rest of the world where he came upon pain and suffering. Buddah chose to become an acetic and denied the flesh and concluded that we are born in this life to suffer. However the Federation word "suffer", which they use, refers not to physical discomfort but rather to "put up with" or "allow". As such suffering is not some clensing virtue but is rather morally neutral in and of itself. But of course the Buddah discovered the "middle path". In the film they announced not the eight fold path you've heard so much about but rather five percepts. The first is that you should not kill anything, man or beast. The Buddah took exception to the ritual and sacrificial system of the Hindus and declared that ritual in and of itself cannot cleans the soul or bring enlightenment. Another tennant is that you should not inject mind altering substances. Also you should not engage in illicit sex and that you should not steal and you should not spread untruths about your brother. Christians are not so hot on this last one. The Buddahist is not prevented from practicing other religious ritual while at the same time practicing Buddhism.

In the film there was much talk of higher plains of heavenly existance. It is said that in some extreme planes of pleasure you may experiance so much pleasure in a hundred thousand years that feels as though it were but a day, and it all comes to an end as this "reverse pergitory" finally levels all your good karma, and you are knocking at the door waiting to be reincarnated again. It's a bit skin to Commander Reyker when he goes to bed and is ready to doze off for seemingly well deserved rest when a knock comes at the door informing him that it was seven AM and time to get up. I can't help but think of Pete Richards' doctrine of "the blessings of consumption" where you feast on the grace of God and put back nothing in the pot. A similer analogy might be a drug addict (and religion is the opiate of the people) who passed out in bliss and dies and X number of years later after this present Universe has vanished and a new one is formed, behold he's the same self obsessed jerk he used to be. There was much talk of being above personal emotions either for good or for bad and even things like love had their limits. It was rather better to rise above yourself and see everything objectively, which is exactly what the Federation teaches. Another term brought up was mahayana Bhuddaism where the whole world enters Nirvana at once and it would be selfish for a sole individual to enter Nirvana with no thought to his bretherin. And so the doctrine of the bodesapha, or one who forgoes his own karms. Mal Evans used to teach that the Steely Dan song "Bodesapha" was about Dennis Wilson. Also in the film was Tebettan Bhuddism where they talk a lot about Death and obtaining safe passage to the next life. To me this seems the most appealing form of Bhuddism. The Dali Lama, if you didn't know is selected as a small boy by an elder who has things of the prior Dali Lama and the young boy who correctly picks out the things that the old Dali Lama used in his prior life, will be the next Dali Lama. There was talk about Zen and how self awareness can involve all the mind games that Zen uses. There was a lot of discussions of various war lords and battles in Japan taking place during the middle ages.

Finally there was the notion that time itself is circular. There is never any beginning or ending to things but that things are always shifting and emerging leading to eventual dissolution and reformation. It is said that the personality, the DNA blueprint we westerners charish so highly, is something that will be disolved in the course of time. One should not hold too tightly on to things even if it's your own personality. If you live around here you know personalities can be altered depending on which drugs they are taking. When you are dreaming, often your values are different and what is important to you in that dream state is different from when you are awake. If the life force dispurses the body and travels the Universe seeking alternate forms, then truely what we value is an accidental collision of particular egg and sperm at conception. The Federation teaching that the notion of a "Divinely created purpose for one individual unique to his abilities- - is a highly egotistical one. As to the notion of time traveling in circles, you know that Stewart Sutcliffe teaches the porcupine quill analogy where time emerges as a series of needles or spikes from a central point in all directions. We have talked about this many times in prior postings. Sometimes it's a good idea to be exposed to multiple ideas. As I have often said, many ideas I have espoused in blogs are postulations. They are propositions that theoretical constructs based on a set of assumptions about reality. Since there is so little we know in the way of hard evidence about the after life, such theorizing is not wrong to do. Suppose rather the universe is seen as a gigantic bar magnet where the iron particles form that grid flux from the north and south magnetic poles. In this analogy there would I suppose be theoretical electrons flowing in a coiled wire around a steel bar. In this construction time would lead from the central point to a future of which there would be an ultimate extreme before time doubled back on itself. In this construction there would be some fifth dimensional divergence or sideways time, but less of it than in Stewart's construction. Time would begin flowing the other way to an "ultimate" past where one would thence catch up to the present moment again. Unlike the Federation model, which is considered dogmatic truth, this time would bend. But similar to the Federation model, the time lines would never cross each other. I don't know where the Easteners got their idea of circular time but the Ptolomists of Egypt and the Mayans also believed strongly in cosmic cycles so in the natural model of the Universe, such inductive reasoning makes half way sense.

The film did not weigh in on the topic of determinism, which the Federation and Calvinists teach. However there was much talk of free will. Karma basically is the will acted upon, and nobody can deny that all animistic life posseses karma. The Bhuddists like the Hindus do believe that bad karma results in a bad next life whereas good karma results in a better next life. Rats have karma. Smart rats act smarter because of their environment, but they are no freer in the metaphysical sense of things than the slower rats. All are equally unfree. Some such as Jesus of KFI would say "Just because God knows everything that will ever happen does not limit man's freedom". To him I would like to say "Suppose I am praying a marathon prayer over an important decision I am to make in my life". Now further suppose that the decision will ultimately turn out to be a woefully incorrect one, based on knowledge that I never posessed ahead of time". To some it may be said of me "Even though you wern't volitionally at fault you still comitted an error because you didn't have the mind of God in your action, and any action short of the mind of God is sin". Now before I make my decision, what is in the mind of God when he thinks of me. Jesus would have you believe he looks over at Marcus and sees a man with a free choice to make. But we know otherwise. God rather looks over at Marcus and knows he will be sought earnestly, but God knows also he will deny me the wisdom I so crave and allow the error to occur". How can it be said "You are free to make a choice" when the wisdom TO make that choice is denied me? This is just another of religion's hypocracies. Some people believe piety is doing good deeds all day long and getting brownie points. Christians on the other hand such as Calvary Costa Mesa count virtue not by the deed done, but by how many acts of grace you have received. Either way a Buddahist would say both are wrong. You don't do good deeds to get some cosmic feel good buzz. You are to become Enlightened and as an individual objective and without error, as Scientology suggests, you act naturally out of your own inate good. It's this inate goodness on mankind that Conservatives will deny, but in the end this denial of the basic goodness in mankind will be their downfall and undoing.

President Obama gave one of his typical weak, limp wristed speeches last night. There were things suggestive of action, without action. When Jimmy Carter gave his infamous energy speech in July of 1979 he declared that the United States would never again import more oil from the mideast or anywhere than it did in 1977. He also rolled out legeslation that was acted on by congress. The President set a goal of twenty percent solar power by the year 2000 and made some concrete moves in that direction including putting solar pannels on the White House, that Ronald Reagan had removed when he became president. Franklin Roosevelt got tough with the big corporations in 1936 and overtly stated "We are after their power, and that's what they are afraid of". Harry Truman was no woos either. President Kennedy in spring of 1962 got US Steel and other steel companies to roll back their planned price increases. What all these presidents had was a mission and a goal that they worked tword achieving. President Obama said something about a carbon tax or cap & trade last night but it was all murky and indistinct. Many people say a President should use any crisis that comes along to pass his political agenda, like President Bush did with the Patriot Act. But this President can't get anything right because he's pretending to be bi-partisan when nobody else in congress is, especially the leaders of the Republican Party. I can't believe the President is really that stupid. He couldn't have passed all those graduate courses if he didn't have intelligence. And yet he is willfully abandoning the people in his own party who voted him into power. He doesn't seem to care whether he has their vote in the next election or not. The President said he'd rather be a one term president if it meant sticking to his convictions. Yet if he doesn't get off the dime and move the country forward he most surely be a one term President who was noted for NOT getting anything done but he could give a good speech- - well a respectable C minus anyhow. The president never talked about this climate and energy bill that got passed in the House but is stuck in the Senate. Apparently the President has no preference whether the bill is passed or not. The President really isn't forthcoming in this banking bill and is allowing it to be gutted and watered down. This is the president's middle name, "watered down". He claims to have been on top of this oil leak crisis from day one but nobody believes him. I don't believe him. The President never addressed the criminality of certain British Petroleum officials. He should have been taking names and kicking ass. These oil executives should be perp walked before the media on their way to a long jail term. But of course they aren't. As for that twenty billion- - that isn't immediate payment but over several years and that figure they say is only a fraction of the total damage inflicted. Last night would have been a good time for an all out assault of the priveleges big international corporations get in tax and liability laws, as opposed to anyone else. People like Thom Hartman say "The President needs to be pushed to do the right thing". I honistly don't believe the President is interested in doing the "right thing" in any of his business dealings, with all of the Bush cronies still in the federal government. People want a leader and not someone who can fake people like Stephanie Miller and Randy Rhodes into thinking he's taking action when he really isn't. The Republicans aren't going to let up on this President merely because the President says he wants to be Bi-partisan. Again this president is not stupid. So if he appears to be acting "stupidly" there is obviously another modas opperandi at work in his administration. I'm tired of hearing people on the radio say "You can't blame the president for anything because of all the Bush holdovers in the government." Others say "The president Tried to close Guantanamo but found out he couldn't". The president Tried to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, but found that he couldn't. The President tried to have a transparent administration. The President tried to qualify for matching funds during the campaign. How many of these "tried and failed" routines do we have to endure? If he would do a thorough spring cleaning of his administration and appoint all new people, a lot of us to the center-left would feel a whole lot better about this President.

MEANWHILE - BACK IN JUNE GLOOM

As you will note we jumped from December to June just like that, as we are wont to do. Of course on the national front there is still that British Petroleum oil slick that casts a pall over the Gulf, as well as our national psyche. But on the local front my TV going on the fritz, apparently for good, last Thursday, casts a pall over my personal life. As you know the summer is riddled with one yest anniversary flash points, if you will. The first was the chaos that ensued going digital on TV stations last June 12th. The second date is June 16th. on a Tuesday when my internet went out for nearly a month and was not restored till July 13th. So Bastille Day was a good day for me. The next date is July 4th. when my Mom just wanted us to "visit this place she was thinking about" among so many places she had been thinking about. It was said by family members she just liked being invited out to lunch by other old ladies all the time. But before the day was out it was like they were having a fire sale and everything had to be moved out of their house. The next date is one week later, July 11th. This was a funeral of a relative, but also featured a lot more moving furniture. The next date was in late July when my computer was in the shop, this time to have the hard drive cleared of viruses, and to have two new anti virus programs instilled. Then we have Saturday August first- - - you don't want me to go on, do you, because the news never seems to get better. Weather wise, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday qualified as "June gloom". Yesterday the sun came out at two, and today the sun was out mid day and the temperatures are a little warmer. But I'm in a June gloom state of mind.

They have some new kind of wood product they refer to as "real wood" because you can do anything with it you can do with real wood, like saw it, plane it, varnish it, ect. But it doesn't burn because it has minute particles of glass embedded in it. Don't ask me how they do that but if it catches on we'll really have something. And there aren't any "dangerous chemicals" in the product as there are with these pressed wood products. Some people say the internet is dumbing us down. A few think it is making us smarter. From what I have observed of the younger generation they appear to be maturing early and seem years of where we were in the early school and pre school years. Of course that sixteen year old Abbey got pretty far with her attempt to sail around the world before she ran into a bad storm in the Indian Ocean that knocked her sailing mast down, and a fishing boat picked her up. I heard she'll have to spend the next two weeks with the work crew, fishing. Some say the internet feeds our attention deficet disorder. I think more than ever we need courses in independent thinking. And also programs that encourage getting outdoors and manual dexterity are excellent for the young.

There is a raft of people calling themselves the Messiah, the Son of God. There is one Russian candidate in Syberia, who fills the bill and has long hair. There is a joker in Britain who also claims the title of the Son of God. However nobody believes him. He has no followers so is kind of an easy to ignore nut case. Then there is that man in the Philipines. Just between you and me Christians from that part of the world bother me. You know, from South Korea or Tiwhan or the Philipines. They all seem to wound up and emphatic and self obsessed. This guy lives in this Garden of Eden compound - and it's the height of honor to be chosen as one of the people who gets to personally fan him with a big fan, because you get to enter the compound. And finally we have Jesus Christ of KFI. Today Jesus wanted to remind us of the dangers of moral relativism. You know something that will turn you into a moral relativist quickly- - - getting the crap kicked out of you in a dark alley. Till then we all like to think we alone have the perfect Truth. Jesus reminds us that he has followers world wide on the internet, and that his radio program is nationally syndicated. I didn't know that but now I feel better about bashing him so much, because at least now people know who I'm talking about. But how do you Google a man like that, who doesn't even use his own name? Chuck Smith says he won't even read a letter that isn't at least signed in long hand. Any number of ways occur to knock him off his pedistal. You could say "Being the son of God you can't lie. Now tell me- - - have you ever made love to a woman?" That one will nail him quickly as a fraud. But a more obvious means of discrediting him is right in the Bible where it ways "If any one says says behold he is out in the desert- - or he is in the secret chamber- - - don't believe him". Untill Jesus of KFI can fake a really great thunder storm, he's toast and he knows it. And since Jesus is an absolutist he'll appreciate that the Bible does not qualify the statement with things like "But this doesn't apply if you're only pretending".

Could Sarah Palin be running for President after all??? She appears to want to be the "mother grizzly" to all the baby grizzlies out there- - who won last Tuesday, many of them women. Some say she just looks to where a crowd is rushing and runs to get in front of it and claims to be their leader. Sarah wants to somehow take credit for all of last Tuesday's victories. She really is a piece of work, isn't she. She's trying to prove she's politically smart. Of course perhaps the perfect running mate for her is Minnisota's governor, Tim Pollente. They have a ready made slogan of "The Perfect Political Marriage consists of One Man and One Woman". Maybe Pollente can show Sarah his "big shtick". Sarah has already proven she lacks the discipline to actually hold political office but that doesn't bother anybody. Just like it doesn't bother anybody that the Republican Senate mominee- - has actually exported more jobs to China and India than the rest of us can imagine- - at her post with H P. And of course her colleague running for Governor of California spent money like a drunken sailor and is trying to convince the people she's really spartan, like Jerry Brown, who drives around in an old Plymouth and sleeps on a mat on the floor. I think tat Jerry Brown is going to make mince meat out of Meg Whitman, that is if she ever decides she's brave enough to face Jerry Brown in a debate.