OK--I admit it: I stole this directly from Politics Plus [thanks TC]--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjR-O5cCXlI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticsplus%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F
April 28, 2007
April 25, 2007
Uncanny Parallels
Last night on PBS, the show Independent Lens outlined the Enron scandal. As the story unfolded, I saw more and more parallels with the Bush administration to date. Of course, this isn’t tremendously surprising, given the close friendships back in the late 1990’s between both Bushes and the top executives of Enron.
As noted during the program, as the house of cards began to crumble during the first months of the 21st century, ‘All the Bush administration had to do to help Enron was—nothing. That was something they did very well.’
In the midst of the study on Enron, the producer of the show noted the parallels between Enron and the Milgram study [see 4/20 below] as I have been noting for years on both my blogs as regards the Bush administration, the resemblances were uncanny. I found it interesting to say the least: that two completely different entities [the producers of the program and myself] recognized the parallels between these two scandals and a study which, though well known among select professions back in the 1960’s, has been essentially out of public awareness for decades, now.
Today, I believe, this country is, increasingly, resembling a house of cards—just as Enron did six years ago. Bush and Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Rice, are the top executives. The Cabinet and the West Wingers who implement the policies of the administration are the traders whose practices were being winked at by those executives. They’re also the equivalent of Arthur Andersen, cooking the books. Most of the Republicans and some of the Democrats in Congress make up the next tier of execs who knew and didn’t know what was happening. The vast majority of people of this country are the rank-and-file employees who placed their trust in the company [country] and are shut out as the execs take their huge bonuses, sell their stocks and fleece the company [country].
I was also interested to note, as I did some further research into the parallels in preparation for writing this post, as BBC and other publications reported back in 2002, G. W. Bush was very quick to denounce his erstwhile ‘friends’ and demand investigations into the scandals.
The man who demands loyalty from those around him demonstrates precious little of that commodity to others.
As noted during the program, as the house of cards began to crumble during the first months of the 21st century, ‘All the Bush administration had to do to help Enron was—nothing. That was something they did very well.’
In the midst of the study on Enron, the producer of the show noted the parallels between Enron and the Milgram study [see 4/20 below] as I have been noting for years on both my blogs as regards the Bush administration, the resemblances were uncanny. I found it interesting to say the least: that two completely different entities [the producers of the program and myself] recognized the parallels between these two scandals and a study which, though well known among select professions back in the 1960’s, has been essentially out of public awareness for decades, now.
Today, I believe, this country is, increasingly, resembling a house of cards—just as Enron did six years ago. Bush and Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Rice, are the top executives. The Cabinet and the West Wingers who implement the policies of the administration are the traders whose practices were being winked at by those executives. They’re also the equivalent of Arthur Andersen, cooking the books. Most of the Republicans and some of the Democrats in Congress make up the next tier of execs who knew and didn’t know what was happening. The vast majority of people of this country are the rank-and-file employees who placed their trust in the company [country] and are shut out as the execs take their huge bonuses, sell their stocks and fleece the company [country].
I was also interested to note, as I did some further research into the parallels in preparation for writing this post, as BBC and other publications reported back in 2002, G. W. Bush was very quick to denounce his erstwhile ‘friends’ and demand investigations into the scandals.
The man who demands loyalty from those around him demonstrates precious little of that commodity to others.
April 22, 2007
The Wrong Question
Last night, on CNN3 I heard a panel discussion about Presidential powers during time of war.
One of the questions posed about eavesdropping on citizens was decidedly the wrong question:
The man asked, 'What harm could it do?"
Amazingly, no one challenged this absurd question.
'What HARM????'
This is the litmus test we have come to, today? Measuring the harm our country is doing and deciding how much is too much?
What has happened to the notion that a governing body is supposed to at least pretend to do good? That it is supposed to at least pretend to do the will of the people?
This one is blatantly asking, 'What can we get away with before sparking a rebellion in this country?'
Before all is said and done, it may come to that if these are the questions our government officials are asking themselves these days.
One of the questions posed about eavesdropping on citizens was decidedly the wrong question:
The man asked, 'What harm could it do?"
Amazingly, no one challenged this absurd question.
'What HARM????'
This is the litmus test we have come to, today? Measuring the harm our country is doing and deciding how much is too much?
What has happened to the notion that a governing body is supposed to at least pretend to do good? That it is supposed to at least pretend to do the will of the people?
This one is blatantly asking, 'What can we get away with before sparking a rebellion in this country?'
Before all is said and done, it may come to that if these are the questions our government officials are asking themselves these days.
April 21, 2007
Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
Lee Iacocca and Catherine Whitney have written a new book:
here is an exerpt:
I
Had Enough?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
---
Excerpted from Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. Copyright © 2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserved.
xxxx
Obviously, Iacocca doesn't read the blogs I do if he thinks he's alone in his outrage. Unfortunately, given human nature [see the articles in yesterday's posts] we WILL just go along and go along while the world crumbles around us. We may protest -- even vigorously. We may scream at our television sets. We may march.
We DID vote last year to show what we thought of the status quo. And, then, we got more of the same. The new Congress that promised change hasn't given it to us.
I believe we ARE outraged. But, I also believe we feel helpless to do more than we have done and are doing to change the situation. If Congress isn't going to impeach and convict the criminals--what can we do?
I know what I WON'T do-- I won't take up an assassin's gun in order to rid the country of the vermin that are running it into the ground.
So--what else is there? What CAN we do beyond voting our consciences? We DID that! What else is left ?
here is an exerpt:
I
Had Enough?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
---
Excerpted from Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. Copyright © 2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserved.
xxxx
Obviously, Iacocca doesn't read the blogs I do if he thinks he's alone in his outrage. Unfortunately, given human nature [see the articles in yesterday's posts] we WILL just go along and go along while the world crumbles around us. We may protest -- even vigorously. We may scream at our television sets. We may march.
We DID vote last year to show what we thought of the status quo. And, then, we got more of the same. The new Congress that promised change hasn't given it to us.
I believe we ARE outraged. But, I also believe we feel helpless to do more than we have done and are doing to change the situation. If Congress isn't going to impeach and convict the criminals--what can we do?
I know what I WON'T do-- I won't take up an assassin's gun in order to rid the country of the vermin that are running it into the ground.
So--what else is there? What CAN we do beyond voting our consciences? We DID that! What else is left ?
April 20, 2007
Rebellion? I Doubt It
I dusted off these two posts from my previous blog and placed them here after I read a couple of people over on Pissed on Politics [http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/] talking about rebelling against our government or, alternately, about our troops refusing to follow orders in Iraq or, if worse comes to worst, here at home if a rebellion were to begin in this country.
First, for the reasons given in the bodies of these 2 articles, I seriously doubt that a rebellion will begin here. We're simply not equipped to dissent against our government in the way suggested by the commenters.
Secondly, our military is even less likely than the norm to say, 'no' to authority. They have been rigorously trained to obey orders unquestioningly. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan, their lives depend on obeying now and, if necessary, asking questions later.
Given the situation as it stands, I wish this weren't so. But history and the 2 studies outlined below suggest that it is.
First, for the reasons given in the bodies of these 2 articles, I seriously doubt that a rebellion will begin here. We're simply not equipped to dissent against our government in the way suggested by the commenters.
Secondly, our military is even less likely than the norm to say, 'no' to authority. They have been rigorously trained to obey orders unquestioningly. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan, their lives depend on obeying now and, if necessary, asking questions later.
Given the situation as it stands, I wish this weren't so. But history and the 2 studies outlined below suggest that it is.
Obedience to Authority
This study is well known among helping professionals—it’s called the Milgram Study—and it’s quite infamous.
*_*_*
The question had to do with the Holocaust and the events leading up to World War II. The world was stunned with the happenings in Nazi Germany and their acquired surrounding territories that came out during the Eichmann Trial.
Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The question was, "Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Or could we call them all accomplices?"
Stanley Milgram performed a series of studies on the obedience to authority. The experiments were done at Yale in 1961-1962:
*_*_*
In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, you agree to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning.
You are introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The researcher explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" the other the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that you will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where s/he is strapped to a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his/her arm. You, as the "teacher", are taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. You are instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to repeat them. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, you move on to the next set of words. If the answer is incorrect, you are supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.
The ‘generator’ has 30 switches marked at 15 volt increments. up to 450 volts. Each switch is marked with a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". You are supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a set of words on the list.
*_*_*
The drawing of lots was rigged and the “learner” was always a ‘stooge’—part of the experimental team who responded to a light the ‘teacher’ could not see. When prompted by the light, the stooge acted as if s/he had been shocked, though no shock had actually been administered.
At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such high levels. Upon receiving the reassurance that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, the subjects continued shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable doing so.
Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts.
Milgram also conducted several follow-up experiments to determine what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. In the ‘touch-proximity condition’ the teacher was required to hold the hand of the learner on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts.
The most amazing thing to note from this follow-up experiment was that 32% of the subjects in the proximity-touch condition held the hand of the learner on the shock plate while administering shocks in excess of 400 volts.
Further experiments showed that 'teachers' were less obedient when the experimenter communicated with them by telephone versus in person.
Males and females were equally likely to obey the authority figure though women generally demonstrated more nervousness while doing so.
Other researchers replicated the study and demonstrated similar findings. The experiments spanned a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985 and were carried out in Australia, South Africa and in several European countries. In one study conducted in Germany, more than 85% of the subjects administered a lethal electric shock to the 'learner'.
Today, the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but it revealed some extremely important findings: the theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would follow such cruel instructions is disclaimed. Findings show that "two-thirds of the study’s participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes.
*_*_*
This tells us much about human nature. As with the study outlined in an earlier post, people will follow the orders of those they perceive to be authorities. One doesn’t need to be in the military or otherwise especially indoctrinated to follow orders in order to do so. In fact, we’ve all been taught since infancy to do what we’re told—and we do.
Of course, each of us hopes we would be among the minority who would rebel under such circumstances—but we can’t know, until we’re faced with such an order, how we would respond.
And, of course, these findings have relevance during the disillusioning times we find ourselves in today. We can all stand to find the rebels within ourselves during this time of turmoil.
*_*_*
The question had to do with the Holocaust and the events leading up to World War II. The world was stunned with the happenings in Nazi Germany and their acquired surrounding territories that came out during the Eichmann Trial.
Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The question was, "Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Or could we call them all accomplices?"
Stanley Milgram performed a series of studies on the obedience to authority. The experiments were done at Yale in 1961-1962:
*_*_*
In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, you agree to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning.
You are introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The researcher explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" the other the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that you will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where s/he is strapped to a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his/her arm. You, as the "teacher", are taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. You are instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to repeat them. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, you move on to the next set of words. If the answer is incorrect, you are supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.
The ‘generator’ has 30 switches marked at 15 volt increments. up to 450 volts. Each switch is marked with a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". You are supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a set of words on the list.
*_*_*
The drawing of lots was rigged and the “learner” was always a ‘stooge’—part of the experimental team who responded to a light the ‘teacher’ could not see. When prompted by the light, the stooge acted as if s/he had been shocked, though no shock had actually been administered.
At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such high levels. Upon receiving the reassurance that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, the subjects continued shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable doing so.
Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts.
Milgram also conducted several follow-up experiments to determine what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. In the ‘touch-proximity condition’ the teacher was required to hold the hand of the learner on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts.
The most amazing thing to note from this follow-up experiment was that 32% of the subjects in the proximity-touch condition held the hand of the learner on the shock plate while administering shocks in excess of 400 volts.
Further experiments showed that 'teachers' were less obedient when the experimenter communicated with them by telephone versus in person.
Males and females were equally likely to obey the authority figure though women generally demonstrated more nervousness while doing so.
Other researchers replicated the study and demonstrated similar findings. The experiments spanned a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985 and were carried out in Australia, South Africa and in several European countries. In one study conducted in Germany, more than 85% of the subjects administered a lethal electric shock to the 'learner'.
Today, the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but it revealed some extremely important findings: the theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would follow such cruel instructions is disclaimed. Findings show that "two-thirds of the study’s participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes.
*_*_*
This tells us much about human nature. As with the study outlined in an earlier post, people will follow the orders of those they perceive to be authorities. One doesn’t need to be in the military or otherwise especially indoctrinated to follow orders in order to do so. In fact, we’ve all been taught since infancy to do what we’re told—and we do.
Of course, each of us hopes we would be among the minority who would rebel under such circumstances—but we can’t know, until we’re faced with such an order, how we would respond.
And, of course, these findings have relevance during the disillusioning times we find ourselves in today. We can all stand to find the rebels within ourselves during this time of turmoil.
Prelude to Guantanamo
This study suggests that people will respond not by outright rebellion but by subverting the system or doing what they can to manipulate it for their own benefit.
The experiment was carried out at a university back in the 1960’s. It was designed to discover what happens to people who are in prison and what happens to their guards. The results were amazing.
Here’s a synopsis of the experiment:
I. The student volunteers were interviewed and determined to be your run-of-the-mill undergrads who were just going to school and minding their own business. They were in no way unusual.
After their personality profiles were taken, they were sent home and told they would be contacted if needed for a study then being designed. Several weeks passed before anything else happened giving the students time to forget the fact that they had signed up for the experiment.
II. The students were randomly assigned to become ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’.
III. ‘Guards’ were notified to come to the school the day before Spring Break began. They were issued reflective sun-glasses and arm bands and told to report for duty that night.
IV. The ‘prisoners’ were woken from sleep in their homes in the middle of the night and taken to a makeshift ‘prison’ in the basement of a school building. They were given very little if any information but were simply issued identical nightshirts, footies and hairnets.
V. The ‘prisoners’ were fed regularly [though the food was not particularly appetizing], allowed to use the bathroom as needed, given places to sleep, etc.
The ‘guards’ were told to maintain a formal distance from the ‘prisoners’ but were otherwise given no instructions.
VI. Once the shock experienced by the ‘prisoners’ wore off, they began joking among themselves and attempted to include the ‘guards’ in their banter.
Following the instructions they’d been given, the ‘guards’ maintained their distance.
VII. Slowly the two groups polarized. The ‘guards’, who experienced some anonymity behind their sunglasses, became harsher toward the ‘prisoners’ and began taunting them.
The ‘prisoners’ became beligerent toward the ‘guards’. Bit by bit, members of both groups began perceiving the other group as being somehow less virtuous than their own. It became acceptable to treat the 'other' in more and more negative ways.
VIII. As tensions escalated, the prisoners threw food at the guards and the ‘guards’ turned the school’s fire extinguishers on the ‘prisoners’.
IX. On about the 3rd or 4th day, the ‘prisoners’ began planning a prison-break. Word leaked out and a ‘guard’ reported the development to the professor who had designed the study.
X. At this point, even the top of the pyramid collapsed. The professor, who had designed the study had assigned himself the role of ‘warden’. He had envisioned himself as the dispassionate observer and as simply answering questions brought to him by the students. Instead, he became overinvolved:
A colleague dropped by to discuss the variables in his study and received a shock. He was met with the statement, ‘Variables be damned! We’ve got a prison-break being hatched down there! We’ve got to stop it!’
The experiment was ended several days before it was scheduled to be completed. Neither the professor nor the 'guards' were interested in the termination of the study but the Dean ordered its closure and that was that.
After it was over, all participants were sent to the school’s counseling department to help them recover from the aftereffects of their experiences.
This study was undertaken to determine how people who are given absolute power over others are affected and how those who are subjugated respond. All parties got more than they bargained for.
*_*_*
This dynamic occurred within three or four days after an experiment began that involved people who started out perceiving themselves as equals.
How much more terrible it becomes in the prison system generally and, to an even greater degree, in Guantanamo Bay where the individuals involved do not enter the situation recognizing their similarities but focusing only on their differences.
The experiment was carried out at a university back in the 1960’s. It was designed to discover what happens to people who are in prison and what happens to their guards. The results were amazing.
Here’s a synopsis of the experiment:
I. The student volunteers were interviewed and determined to be your run-of-the-mill undergrads who were just going to school and minding their own business. They were in no way unusual.
After their personality profiles were taken, they were sent home and told they would be contacted if needed for a study then being designed. Several weeks passed before anything else happened giving the students time to forget the fact that they had signed up for the experiment.
II. The students were randomly assigned to become ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’.
III. ‘Guards’ were notified to come to the school the day before Spring Break began. They were issued reflective sun-glasses and arm bands and told to report for duty that night.
IV. The ‘prisoners’ were woken from sleep in their homes in the middle of the night and taken to a makeshift ‘prison’ in the basement of a school building. They were given very little if any information but were simply issued identical nightshirts, footies and hairnets.
V. The ‘prisoners’ were fed regularly [though the food was not particularly appetizing], allowed to use the bathroom as needed, given places to sleep, etc.
The ‘guards’ were told to maintain a formal distance from the ‘prisoners’ but were otherwise given no instructions.
VI. Once the shock experienced by the ‘prisoners’ wore off, they began joking among themselves and attempted to include the ‘guards’ in their banter.
Following the instructions they’d been given, the ‘guards’ maintained their distance.
VII. Slowly the two groups polarized. The ‘guards’, who experienced some anonymity behind their sunglasses, became harsher toward the ‘prisoners’ and began taunting them.
The ‘prisoners’ became beligerent toward the ‘guards’. Bit by bit, members of both groups began perceiving the other group as being somehow less virtuous than their own. It became acceptable to treat the 'other' in more and more negative ways.
VIII. As tensions escalated, the prisoners threw food at the guards and the ‘guards’ turned the school’s fire extinguishers on the ‘prisoners’.
IX. On about the 3rd or 4th day, the ‘prisoners’ began planning a prison-break. Word leaked out and a ‘guard’ reported the development to the professor who had designed the study.
X. At this point, even the top of the pyramid collapsed. The professor, who had designed the study had assigned himself the role of ‘warden’. He had envisioned himself as the dispassionate observer and as simply answering questions brought to him by the students. Instead, he became overinvolved:
A colleague dropped by to discuss the variables in his study and received a shock. He was met with the statement, ‘Variables be damned! We’ve got a prison-break being hatched down there! We’ve got to stop it!’
The experiment was ended several days before it was scheduled to be completed. Neither the professor nor the 'guards' were interested in the termination of the study but the Dean ordered its closure and that was that.
After it was over, all participants were sent to the school’s counseling department to help them recover from the aftereffects of their experiences.
This study was undertaken to determine how people who are given absolute power over others are affected and how those who are subjugated respond. All parties got more than they bargained for.
*_*_*
This dynamic occurred within three or four days after an experiment began that involved people who started out perceiving themselves as equals.
How much more terrible it becomes in the prison system generally and, to an even greater degree, in Guantanamo Bay where the individuals involved do not enter the situation recognizing their similarities but focusing only on their differences.
April 19, 2007
Words to Live By
The Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant. They, too, have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your dreams. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive it to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Be careful. Strive to be happy.
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant. They, too, have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your dreams. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive it to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Be careful. Strive to be happy.
April 16, 2007
The Way the World is Going--Someday
I left a comment on the blog, Goodness Graciousness in response to Jennifer's April 5th post.
Then, I decided to post it here, as well--
***
The Michael Teachings [a good starter book to check out is: The World According to Michael by Joya Pope] say that the world tipped from a majority of Young Souls to a majority of Mature Souls in 1986.
Right now, the majority is very slim-- only a portion of 1% more Matures as compared to Youngs with the rest of the population spread among Infants, Babies and Olds.
Youngs perceive the world as a place to plunder for personal gain while Matures begin to realize that that method of existence doesn't really work-- either for the individual or for the species or, ultimately for the earth or for the universe.
Based on this view, I believe we have a l-o-n-g way to go before most people will truly embrace the vision that it's not all about garnering personal wealth and power over others and begin moving the planet in another direction-- namely that of sharing and equality-- especially since those people who share the Young viewpoint will, for some time to come, be those who will want the 'power' that comes with holding government positions. So Youngs will be disproportionately respresented in the Parliaments, Congresses, the White House, etc.
Still, the Mature values are starting to make themselves heard and felt around the world-- it's a beginning. . . .
***
If we apply this info to current events, we can garner some hope for the human race--and the rest of the world.
The ground swells regarding global warming, for instance, and Imus for another, suggest Mature viewpoints coming forward.
The down-side to Mature thinking, though, is that Mature souls share one trait with Baby souls: they like to tell others how they should live. As witness the ban on smoking-- in some cases, even in one's own home.
Then, I decided to post it here, as well--
***
The Michael Teachings [a good starter book to check out is: The World According to Michael by Joya Pope] say that the world tipped from a majority of Young Souls to a majority of Mature Souls in 1986.
Right now, the majority is very slim-- only a portion of 1% more Matures as compared to Youngs with the rest of the population spread among Infants, Babies and Olds.
Youngs perceive the world as a place to plunder for personal gain while Matures begin to realize that that method of existence doesn't really work-- either for the individual or for the species or, ultimately for the earth or for the universe.
Based on this view, I believe we have a l-o-n-g way to go before most people will truly embrace the vision that it's not all about garnering personal wealth and power over others and begin moving the planet in another direction-- namely that of sharing and equality-- especially since those people who share the Young viewpoint will, for some time to come, be those who will want the 'power' that comes with holding government positions. So Youngs will be disproportionately respresented in the Parliaments, Congresses, the White House, etc.
Still, the Mature values are starting to make themselves heard and felt around the world-- it's a beginning. . . .
***
If we apply this info to current events, we can garner some hope for the human race--and the rest of the world.
The ground swells regarding global warming, for instance, and Imus for another, suggest Mature viewpoints coming forward.
The down-side to Mature thinking, though, is that Mature souls share one trait with Baby souls: they like to tell others how they should live. As witness the ban on smoking-- in some cases, even in one's own home.
April 14, 2007
Only in America!
Heard this morning on Wait, Wait! Don't Tell Me! on NPR:
'Since, if McCain secures the nomination he'll be the oldest Presidential candidate ever, a hair salon in the DC area [I think] has suggested he cultivate a goatee or Van Dyke in order to appeal to the younger voter. It would, supposedly, make him resemble people they admire--like ummmm--Satan, f'rinstance.'
***
Yep, that about sums him up. . . .
'Since, if McCain secures the nomination he'll be the oldest Presidential candidate ever, a hair salon in the DC area [I think] has suggested he cultivate a goatee or Van Dyke in order to appeal to the younger voter. It would, supposedly, make him resemble people they admire--like ummmm--Satan, f'rinstance.'
***
Yep, that about sums him up. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
