Every Speck

No one can ever know the precise intentions of another. As I finished reading God's Debris, I realized that the central thesis of the book could well be a modern metaphor of philosophical Taoism. I don't know, however, if author Scott Adams is a Taoist or if he even knows much about Taoism. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Adam's postulates that everything in the universe represents the debris of an omnipotent being that has destroyed itself. Put another way, everything is part of what was once God.

The supreme being chose to destroy itself because it lacked the motivation or curiosity in doing anything else. Because this entity is omnipotent, every thought or whim instantaneously became part of reality. It knows and sees all things past, present and future. The only way it could escape this all encompassing knowledge (what in human terms could be described as absolute boredom) is by destroying itself.

Our reality -- life -- contains the debris of this destruction and the purpose of life is to reconstruct the entity again. Consequently, rather than living our lives to return to God, we our living our lives in the hope of resurrecting God.

While I might not describe the essence of life in these precise terms, I do see much congruency between Adams' thought experiment and some of the theses of Taoism.

For the Taoist, everything is connected and everything shares an essence of the ultimate reality. The purpose of life is to try to find the best way to relate to all these entities we're already connected to. We try to reestablish this connection through the achievement of balance and harmony.

The above description could just as easily be defined as God's debris.

This Ain't No Dilbert

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon, has written a most fascinating book, God's Debris: A Thought Experiment. First published as an E-book in 2001, it came out in paperback form last year. It's not the kind of book for a close-minded person. It challenges us to think about cosmic things in altogether different ways.

One of the first things Adams' writes about his book is that "It's designed to make your head spin around inside your skull". Since my brain tends to act this way on a daily basis, reading this work hasn't caused any new affects. Still, it's a very thought-provoking exercise.

I haven't finished reading the whole book and I don't plan to write a review of it. I will, however, pull from it some observations that are congruent with ones I've written about before. Expect to see references to God's Debris over the next few weeks.

One of the questions posed by one of Adams' central characters is "What sort of arrogance assumes God is like people?" I asked this same type of question in an earlier entry here. Since that initial post, I've thought about this topic some more.

From the Christian perspective, the acceptance of the idea that we humans are created in God's image represents a backward method of developing a sociological hypothesis. We observe what we believe is the finished product -- humankind -- and then postulate that, if we appear to be a certain way, then God must be that certain way too.

Imagine how this would work if we were looking at a loaf of bread. If we didn't know precisely who created the loaf of bread, looking at it would not get us any closer to the answer. If we theorized that it's creator must be a starchy substance with a dark brown outer skin and a lily white inner body, we'd most likely be wrong.

So, why do we presume to think that God has the same emotional makeup that we do? Why do we describe him/her as exhibiting anger, jealousy or happiness?

As Adams aptly points out, if God is omnipotent, God would not have the need to be angry, jealous or happy. We humans have that need because we can't see the future. But an omnipotent being sees and knows everything (past, present and future), so there is no need for emotion.

What is, is. What isn't, isn't.

When viewed from this perspective, it's readily apparent that it would be utterly impossible for humankind to be created in God's image.

My "Friends" at Linda Christas

For those of you who are regular visitors, you well know that I have engaged in quite a robust discussion with the staff and supporters of an educational tutoring outfit, Linda Christas. As a service, I thought I would update you on what they're up to.

For starters, as I think a counterweight to this blog, they started their own. Initially, unlike The Rambling Taoist, they did not allow comments. After I pointed out this fact, magically they decided to allow comments. Unfortunately, they must have changed their minds because they've now returned to the former policy of NOT allowing comments. (It wasn't because of me. I didn't attempt to leave any comments on their blog.)

Also, unlike The Rambling Taoist, you can't learn much about who is running their blog by looking at "View my complete profile". THEIR idea of "complete" is listing the name "LaTracy Renner". That's the ONLY bit of information they/she provide[s]. Makes one wonder what they would consider scant information to consist of.

I'm not a heartless person. I do feel a bit sorry for them. If you do a Google search with the words linda christas blog, their blog doesn't show up on the first page. Mine does, occupying the top two spots. Of course, as I've pointed out repeatedly, this is their own fault because THEY keep coming back.

If you change your Google search to linda christas blogspot, I still outrank them. I'm sure that is frustrating to them. It would be for me.

If you'd like to check out a potential career with Linda Christas Tutoring Services click here.

If you'd like to read past entry's on this blog about Linda Christas, including the interesting back-and-forth comments, use the links below:
Looking for a Few Good Saps
Getting Out the Heavy Lumber
The Continuing Linda Christas Saga

A Conservative View of "Discussion"

I can readily admit that I am sometimes a glutton for punishment. For example, rather than simply try to avoid those of a conservative bent, I often try to engage them in discussion. More often than not, this tact does not work because far too many conservatives will do almost everything possible to AVOID a genuine discussion.

These kinds of people see the world in stark black and white. There's one correct opinion -- their opinion, of course -- and they see no need to entertain any other possibilities. In fact, if a person might happen to disagree with one of their often unfounded assertions, such a person is trying to be divisive, mean or hurtful. Such conservatives simply can't accept the notion that a) a person may be merely asking a question about something that seems unclear or b) that someone might have a different opinion.

One of my "favorite" conservative (my way or no way) blogs is Where's Your Brain? The blog's author hides behind the moniker, Justadog. Here is a quote from the original entry about the so-called liberal media.

Liberals target people in attempted character assassinations. This is actually a tactic that is taught in any early college logic class or debate class - if you can't support your position then attempt to destroy the message of your opponent (however true it might be) by destroying the messenger. There is a lack of ideas, solutions to problems, or hope that comes from their programming. Liberals are very good at this.

From my observations of American politics, I would say this was an apt definition of rabid conservatives (think Swift boat people or Karl Rove). Since, in my personal opinion, Mr. Hound was turning this definition on its head, I asked for some documentation to back up this assertion.

How do you think he responded? By avoiding the issue at hand and attacking my character!

Don't get me wrong. If this unknown guy wants to attack my character, fine. I'm not going to get upset about it. No, what strikes me as so ironic is that this ultra-conservative is doing precisely what he accuses liberals of doing and he can't see it even though it's staring him straight in the face.

And this is no anomaly either. In discussion after discussion, the same scenario plays out. When he asks that I provide documentation of an assertion, I provide it. When I ask him for the same, he immediately tries to sidetrack the issue by calling me names.

As I written on this blog before, he is the kind of person who only wishes to engage in a monologue, not a discussion.

None of us can learn anything if the only voice we value is our own!

A Missing Tether?

When most Christians come face-to-face with Taoism for the first time, there tends to be a lot of head scratching and questions. How do you know what to believe? How does a person know what is right or wrong? How can you survive in the world without [a] God to talk or pray to?

More than a few fundamentalist Christians have tossed Taoist thought aside because, in their opinions, it's far too individualistic.

Of all their various criticisms, I find this one the most absurd. Every single religion or belief system is based on personal experience, observation and interpretation. The main difference between Taoism and Christianity is that the former readily acknowledges this fact, while the latter seeks to camouflage it at all costs.

I don't know of ANY Christian denominations that agree on all interpretations of the bible or the proper practice of faith. The Baptists, Lutherans, Church of Christ, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. have splintered into different incarnations of their particular denomination.

Even within specific denominations or congregations, you will rarely find any two people who agree on every single aspect of that church's doctrine and belief. Yes, many people may agree with almost everything, but there always seems to be at least one thing that each person has a problem with or misgivings about.

Stand on any street corner and you're bound to find Christians who are

• For & Against the death penalty;
• For & Against abortion;
• For & Against war;
• For & Against basic social programs; and
• Open or Not Open to homosexuality;

If there is but one truth and this truth originates from the Christian God, why can't corporate and individual Christians seem to agree on what that truth is?

A Taoist knows the simple answer -- Each person must find their truth on their own. And, in fact, that's what each Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist or atheist does.

Ultimately, each of us makes our own final call.

What Money Can Buy

For most people, the thought of coming into great wealth generates visions of cars, mansions, boats, jewelry, clothes, vacations and fast living. While each of these things can certainly be bought one hundreds times over, the key thing that wealth allows you to buy is justice.

Over the past several years several big-name athletes as well as Michael Jackson, Robert Blake & OJ Simpson have been found not guilty of serious crimes. Maybe all of them are indeed innocent! Or maybe their innocence is a byproduct of their immense wealth.

I'm NOT suggesting that Jackson, Blake & Simpson simply "got off" because they are rich and famous celebrities. What I AM suggesting is that each was able to afford highly trained, highly experienced and highly skilled legal counsel -- A good defense attorney can poke holes against almost any charge!

Do you think any of the three would have been found not guilty if they had to rely on public defenders?

One Missing Word

In Sunday's Oregonian, there was an article (National Guard Stretched to the Limit) on the woes of the National Guard and general military deployment problems. For me, this report typifies the state of American journalism. While the reporters covered most of the important aspects of the topic, they neglected to cover the most salient issue -- a possible D-R-A-F-T.

Reporters David Wood & Harry Esteve did a fairly good job presenting information that showed that military numbers in Iraq will most likely fall off dramatically this summer as many units will return from their deployments and, due to shortfalls in recruitment targets, there won't be enough new troops to replace them. This will create a dangerous situation for those troops still stationed in Iraq.

The military brass is aware of this potentiality and they are worried, very worried. And, if they're worried, you and I should be worried too!

This is, of course, an inherent problem with an all volunteer armed forces. Military leaders have to hope that enough people volunteer to serve. If not enough people volunteer AND our nation is in the middle of a so-called war, there's only one other mechanism to insure we have enough soldiers to wage the battle -- A Military Draft!

Wood & Esteve take us to the brink of considering the possible inevitability of instituting the draft, but, for whatever reason, they failed miserably in taking the needed step. I mean, the step was crying out on its own. It was the obvious next question.

Unfortunately, it seems that the obvious question was the ONE question the Oregonian didn't ask.

The Paradox of Originality

Throughout the blogosphere there are millions upon millions of blogs and probably billions upon billions of entries. Encased in all these entries are trillions and trillions of ideas and concepts. To top it all off, I bet there are quintillions of phrases, words, syllables and letters.

For all this cacophony of information, not a wit of it is original and yet a lot of it is.

Thought belongs to the commons of humanity. Whatever I might happen to write this very moment has been written before and will be written again. The flow of thought is both ephemeral and perpetual, personal and universal.

When an idea or conceptualization filters its way through the reaches of my consciousness, its origins come from somewhere outside of me. It's as if I plucked an apple from a tree. The tree nourishes the apple and, by biting into the fruit, the tree has nourished me as well.

Ideas and the understanding of ideas follow the same symmetry. The ideas themselves exist in the consciousness of all humankind. We each select one of these [unoriginal] universal items and, through the processes of self-analysis, self-enlightenment and self-realization, we produce a personalized way of expressing this thought which is both original and not original in the least.

It is original because it springs forth from each of us as a butterfly evolves from a caterpillar, yet the idea itself is wholly unoriginal because, in the consciousness of the ultimate reality, it was already a butterfly to begin with.

Religion and science treat this natural paradox in two distinct ways. Religion takes the dichotomy between originality and unoriginality and affixes it to a particular point in time. Consequently, the original conceptualization of unoriginal thought becomes ensnared in the words and ideas of particular individuals (i.e., via sacred texts) and is not allowed the opportunity to spring forth anew as different variations of the ubiquitous butterfly.

Science or rational thought, on the other hand, allows the butterfly to spring forth again and again and again. Each time we "discover" a new aspect of a universal (unoriginal) concept, it adds to our wealth of knowledge. This new expression of an already present concept takes flight in our imaginations until which time a new expression replaces it.

Bearing Arms

If one listens to the National Rifle Association (NRA), the most cherished of all American freedoms is the hallowed right to bear arms. Take away a person's gun and they become less of a human being. Well, I've thought about this issue for many years and I think I've come up with a great proposal to bridge the chasm between the NRA and those of us who are anti-violence and, therefore, anti-gun.

For starters, I've researched the verb "to bear". It contains a myriad of different meanings. However, of all the various meanings, not one of them includes the words to "own" or to "possess". Consequently, I've surmised that the right "to bear arms" means the right to have access to and to make use of.

If everyone of a certain age (like with a driver's license, a younger person could obtain a learner's permit to be used only in the presence of another with full rights) and not convicted of a felony possessed the right to have access to and make use of a gun, then their right to bear such would not be negated.

In other words, we could make it illegal for any private citizen to own a gun without removing their right to bear one.

Like books, videos, dvds and tapes, guns could be housed at a public facility akin to a library. If a person wanted to go hunting or target shooting, they would checkout the gun for a specified time period. At the end of the specified time period, they would return the gun to the public repository.

To make such a strategy work, we would necessarily need to stiffen penalties for crimes where a gun is used. If people know that they face a stiff sentence for any type of unauthorized use of a gun, it would lessen, to some degree, many people's desire to use a gun in the commission of a crime.

We would also necessarily have to stiffen penalties for people who returned their checked out gun late or who secretly owned one.

What do you think?

One Tie that Binds

According to one Maryland high school, religious beliefs trump cultural heritage. Thomas Benya was denied his high school diploma from Maurice J. McDonough High School because he planned to wear a bolo tie honoring his Cherokee roots. The school's principal decided that the bolo tie was not wide enough to be considered a tie.

Another student was allowed to deviate from the dress code due to religious beliefs. As reported in The Washington Post, "One senior girl wore a headscarf and long pants for religious reasons." This was viewed as acceptable because "the First Amendment protects religion, and we do everything possible to honor that."

Beyond being culturally insensitive, what really angers me about this incident is that religion is a choice while cultural heritage is not. People are free to believe or not believe what they want. A person can choose to be a devout believer or an atheist.

But none of us gets to choose who our forefathers and foremothers are. We are borne of this ethnic stock. While it is true that we can choose to honor or not honor our ethnicity, we can't change these cultural bonds.

So, a young woman who made a choice in her beliefs was granted a measure of leeway, while a young man who simply wanted to honor his ancestry was granted none.

Shame on the school district. Shame on America.

Message to the Public -- GO AWAY!

Hollywood celebrities seem to have a love-hate relationship with ordinary people. On the one hand, they want the common folk to love them to the tune of forking over millions and millions of dollars to catch a glimpse of their latest work (e.g., movie, tv show, book, painting, album, etc.) Yet, they don't seem the least bit interested in the common people themselves.

It seems like a weird reverse on the concept of objectification. For the big wigs, people are seen solely as consumers, not distinct human beings. When they aren't trying to get us peons to fork over money to line their pockets, they'd almost act like we have no other reason to exist.

I bring this up after reading an interesting article in The Guardian, "Bulldozer Tactics by Malibu's Super-Rich". It seems the beautiful people who live in their beautiful homes on the Pacific Coast don't like the fact that the non-beautiful people like to frequent the PUBLIC beaches in front of their manicured estates.

So, what's a nose-bleeder to do? Answer -- Dig up the damn beach!!

The association representing owners of the 108 palatial homes that front Broad Beach - one of Malibu's most exclusive locations, where the residents include Goldie Hawn, Steven Spielberg, Dustin Hoffman and Danny DeVito - has caused uproar by using bulldozers to remove the beach.

Tonnes of wet sand were pushed from the publicly owned area up to the high tide mark, creating a huge barrier.

According to a nine page letter of protest sent to the association by the California coastal commission, and quoted in the Los Angeles Times, the removal of sand has lowered the profile of the public beach so that "public access is cut off by wave run-up and standing water".

All I can say is that these people got a lot of nerve!!!

Everybody's Talking

"Everybody's talking at me. I don't hear a word they're saying, Only the echoes of my mind." This is what Harry Nillson told us back in the 60s, but he could just as well have been thinking of 2005!

We live in a world enveloped by a weird dichotomy: We're surrounded by a vast array of modes of communications and yet communication itself seems to be so lacking. Put another way, everybody's so busy "talking" that nobody has time to listen.

Many of the societal problems we continue to be plagued by either are caused by or exacerbated by a lack of adequate communication. The US divorce rate continues to hover near 50%. We have over 1.3 million runaways. Child abuse and neglect remains a serious issue. Far too many people succumb to substance abuse, spousal battering and workplace violence. And we spend far too much money going to counselors and mental health providers to try to help us figure out why we (or our significant others) are so screwed up.

If we were better able to communicate genuinely with each other, many of these statistics would quickly lessen.

It seems almost laughable to say that communication is such a pervasive problem in this day and age. We are surrounded by all sorts of gadgetry that has supposedly launched the communication and information era. We have Ipods, pagers, email, fax machines, television, movies, radio and the ubiquitous cell phone.

People are constantly yammering in one form or another -- Emails, text messages and endless conversations. Still, a common complaint is that people don't understand us or they don't get where we're coming from.

As indicated above, from my humble perspective, the primary reason we continue to have difficulty communicating is that we hear just fine, but too many people don't take the time to listen. There is a chasm of difference between hearing and listening.

You can hear someone without having to focus on what they are trying to convey. It's like grooving to a song with a good beat and/or melody. It can make you smile or tap your feet and you don't have to focus consciously on the lyrics.

Listening takes a good deal more effort than simply hearing. You can't have an ongoing conversation inside your head or be babbling yourself while you're listening to someone else. You must focus on the person you are conversing with. You must attempt to filter the information presented in such a way that you understand the message the person is trying to convey AND you must respond intelligently to what it is you THINK you comprehend.

Listening involves a give-and-take. And that's a hard skill to master in a world that puts too much emphasis on taking.

A Little Masquerade

My post on acrylamide (below and on BlueOregon) generated a response from an organization called The Center for Consumer Freedom. Sounds like a real progressive group, doesn't it? Not so. It is yet another example of a special interest front group masquerading as a public interest organization.

Here's how they describe themselves on their website:

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

The growing cabal of "food cops," health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know "what's best for you" are pushing against our basic freedoms. We're here to push back...

The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers.

In other words, this is a hatchet organization that seeks to undermine, discredit and attack any scientific findings or public concerns that might impact the bottom line of companies in the food industry.

This group seems to have it in for organizations like PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, Earth First!, and the Center for Disease Control. Oooh, a cavalcade of menacing groups that is!

What They Don't Say

According to the Capital Press, a regional weekly agricultural newspaper produced in Salem, a proposed labeling requirement in California is bad policy. Advocates want "consumers of french fries and other foods to know about acrylamide".

What is acrylamide? Is it a substantial health risk? Neither of these questions is addressed adequately in the editorial.

In fact, the only information that deals with acrylamide itself is contained in the repeated idea that it's "a naturally occurring compound that can be created when potatoes -- or many other foods -- are fried or cooked at a high temperature".

Instead of discussing the health concerns of this substance, the Capitol Press attacks the idea because it would be bad for business.

In this case, growers, processors and retailers stand to pay the price for labels that wonÂ’t protect the publicÂ’s well-being and distract residents from the important real business at hand.

It sounds like acrylamide is nothing to get in a tizzy about. Yet, according to the FDA,

A potentially cancer-causing agent used to manufacture certain chemicals, plastics, and dyes has recently been found to be a natural by-product of cooking certain foods. The Food and Drug Administration is taking a closer look at this white, odorless chemical, acrylamide, to determine how much of it occurs in foods and whether it could pose a health risk.

In April 2002, researchers in Sweden discovered that cooking at high temperatures could create acrylamide in many types of foods, particularly starchy foods such as french fries, potato chips, bread, rice, and processed cereals.

Scientists know that acrylamide causes cancer in laboratory rats. They also know that contact with large quantities of acrylamide can cause nerve damage in humans. But no one knows whether the tiny amounts of acrylamide in cooked foods can cause cancer or have any other harmful effects when ingested by people. "As soon as we heard about this problem, we took action and laid out a solid plan to learn more about acrylamide and to reduce exposure to it," says Terry Troxell, Ph.D., director of the FDA's Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages.

Some critics charge that the FDA is grossly understating the issue. As early as 2002, the Center for Science in the Public interest (CSPI) reported that "the amount of acrylamide in a large order of fast-food French fries is at least 300 times more than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows in a glass of water."

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of knowing what I'm shoving down my throat. If it has the potential for causing long term health issues, it would be nice to know this on the front end.

Consequently, I think the Capital Press has woefully missed the mark. Yes, labels may add some costs to certain products, but isn't our health and well-being worth the miniscule cost?

Who Needs History?

If one listens to the Radical Right, the whole problem with contemporary American society is that we've moved so far away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. We're told that the United States was erected on a Christian foundation and its the task of today's faithful to return us to these religious roots.

There's only one thing wrong with this analysis -- It's plain wrong. Not only were many of the beloved Founding Fathers NOT Christians but they took great pains to craft constitutional documents and laws that underscored this precise point!

A friend of mine recently forwarded to me an article about the Treaty of Tripoli (1797). Passed by the US Senate by a unanimous vote, this treaty states in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Many of the senators who voted in favor of this treaty are the very same people the Religious Right likes to wax eloquently about. Many of these senators are the same people today's fundamentalists point to when stating we need to return to our Christian roots.

As many sites point out, a good number of our beloved Founding Fathers defined themselves NOT as Christians but as Deists. According to Deism.com,

Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod."

Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit. It follows that we are intended to exercise them. Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason.

Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.). Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source. Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power.

With scripture and revelation removed, all that remains to know God is personal reason and observation of the universe. Essentially, this is getting to know the artist by studying the artwork. The only "Word of God" is the universe itself.

Deism has had many famous advocates throughout history, particularly during the Age of Enlightenment. Some of the most famous American examples were many of the Founding Fathers of America. Contrary to the assertions of Christian Fundamentalists today, America was not founded on Christian ideals. "Nature's God", as invoked by the Declaration of Independence, is a reference to Deism.

And which of our Founding Fathers considered themselves or were described by others as deists?

• George Washington
• Thomas Jefferson
• Benjamin Franklin
• Thomas Paine (author of "Common Sense")
• John Adams
• James Madison
• Ethan Allen

So, if all these leading lights were NOT Christian, who is the Religious Right referring to?

To get an idea of the breadth of information available on this topic, check out the following links:

• Early America
• Nobeliefs.com
• Sullivan County
• America's Most Famous Deists

The Not So "High" Court

Your doctor may prescribe for you all sorts of pharmaceuticals, many of which haven't been sufficiently tested and will later be recalled. Hey, it's legal! But if your doctor prescribes cannabis, you could be arrested!!

In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court decided that you can be arrested under federal law for inviting Mary Jane to visit your sick bed. According to a story from the Associated Press,

Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

Look, I'm not a personal fan of marijuana. I've never tried it. I've never been present when other people use it. (I've also never been intoxicated -- I'm a nerd.) But it's been proven that cannabis can help to alleviate the pain of certain conditions and it does so with the least amount of side effects. That should be lauded, not deprecated.

When you consider the witches brew of drugs that the FDA allows on the market, it seems so nonsensical to ban the use of medical marijuana. It actually makes far more sense to ban the use of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine -- the main ingredients fueling our meth epidemic. But, according to the Supreme Court, those drugs remain kosher.

We live in a strange world.

Now That's Democracy

Our ever-faithful shrub has declared over and over again that American foreign policy is guided by the principle of furthering the cause of democracy. If the [P]resident is serious, then he should be embracing the action's of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

As reported in The Christian Science Monitor, "Property tug of war hits Venezuela", the Chavez administration is set to take land from wealthy landholders to be redistributed to the poor. Now, before all you conservatives out there get into a tizzy, Chavez has been reelected by the people twice AND the land reform program passed the Venezuelan Congress back in 2001. This is called democracy in action.

Despite the fact that the actions of the Chavez government are based on democratic principles, Dubya, Blair and many a wealthy corporate head are fit to be tied. You see, conservatives LOVE democracy as long as it benefits the wealthy. They concurrently have little use for democracy when it benefits anybody else!

So Mr. Chavez needs to be on the lookout. I wouldn't be surprised if our own CIA isn't cooking up another scheme to try to remove him from office.

So much for the vaunted and publicized principles of democracy!

A Rumsfeld Moment

For FY 2006, the United States is set to spend over $450 BILLION on the defense budget. This figure represents a tad bit less than 20% of the overall budget. According to Jane's Defence Industry, as of 2003, US military expenditures accounted for "46 per cent of the global total".

China has released its FY 2005 budget. It calls for a 12.6% increase to the astonishing total of...$29.55 billion. Please take notice of the difference in the figures of $450 billion versus $29.55 billion. The latter is less than 7% of the former. This despite the fact that China is both geographically and demographically LARGER than the US.

So, it seems rather strange that we find US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld criticizing China for its decision to increase its military budget. Even more interesting is Rumsfeld's rationale -- China is under no known threat from another COUNTRY.

Well Donnie, the US is under no immediate threat from another country, yet we consistently up our military budget. Yes, we face a terrorist threat, but so does every other country, even China!

Look in the mirror Mr. Rumsfeld. Now you know what a hypocrite looks like.

A Whiff of Trust

One of the greatest problems that plagues contemporary society is our penchant for turning anything we can get our hands on into a commodity. We have commodified education, health care, religion and even basic things like plant properties, seeds, water and human genes. Now, according to scientists, we're on the brink of commodifying human emotions!

According to a wire service report, scientists have isolated the specific hormone -- oxytocin -- that is an essential ingredient in the human capacity to build trust. In an experiment, the researchers had participants squirt oxytocin up their noses with a spray and then measured whether or not it increased the ability to trust another. It seemed to work.

While a discovery such as this may well have prove beneficial for individuals suffering from autism (who often lack an ability to build trust), I foresee far more sinister uses. Even one of the researchers stated that he is very worried about the hormone's potential application.

Oxytocin could easily become the next date rape drug. What better way to convince the girl at the party to have sex with you than to slip a dose of trust in her drink! Hey, the rapist says, she willing agreed to let me tie her up and have my way with her.

The hormone could become a new weapon in the war on crime, particularly with juveniles and the developmentally disabled. Having trouble getting the suspect to talk? Shoot 'em up with some instant trust, tell them all sorts of outlandish things and watch them incriminate themselves. Hey, the detective says, I read him his Miranda rights and he voluntarily spilled his guts.

What about the world of high finance? Having trouble finishing off a merger or hostile take over? No problem. Just make sure you slip a little liquid trust to the board and watch them agree to anything. Hey, the financier says, is it my fault the board of Company X agreed to sell at 50 cents per share below market value?

In almost every situation in human discourse, TRUST is an essential ingredient. It is something that must be developed slowly and nurtured. In other words, trust must be earned! To have the means to bypass this process could easily alter the whole of human society and alter it in a very negative way.

At the rate we're going, we are unwittingly destroying the very essence of our humanity.

Don't Settle for Unhappiness

A friend of mine is trying to deal with an unhappy and unsatisfactory marriage. For months now, she's tried to wear a good game face. She talks about future plans and all the wonderful things she and her husband will accomplish. But underneath her public smile is a woman beset with anger, frustration and doubt.

Last night she finally admitted to me (and probably herself!) that there is little love in this relationship. Her husband has many unresolved personal problems and, instead of trying to deal with them head on, he attempts to exorcise his angst by calling my friend names and constantly belittling her.

He tells her she's fat and ugly -- She isn't, far from it. He tells her she's lazy and good for nothing -- She's a hard and dedicated worker. He tells her she's stupid -- She is, in fact, extremely bright.

More often than not, she doesn't fight back, instead she internalizes her hurt feelings. Of course, hurt feelings have a way of working their way out. In her case, she has found herself lately being very sharp with her two young children.

She realizes that the kids are bearing the brunt of her continued frustrations. This makes her feel guilty and then she starts thinking, "Maybe my husband's right".

My advice to her is to believe in herself, her worth and her loving demeanor. If each of us can learn to value ourselves as individuals, we will be a lot less willing to put up with this kind of abuse or worse.

I realize a lot of people view divorce as always a bad thing, but, in my humble opinion, divorce is a far better option than allowing yourself to be subjected to a life of unhappiness.

When children are involved, I think getting away from a bad relationship is even MORE important. Children soak in the atmosphere of the family. If the husband is cruel to his wife, the children soon learn not to respect mom or women, in general. Sons often grow into a carbon copy of dad and daughters often marry men who will abuse them.

This is what is meant by breaking the cycle of violence and yes, emotional cruelty is one such form.

While I certainly agree that each of us must take great care when entering into long term relationships, sometimes things just don't go as planned. When this occurs, my advice is always the same -- Don't settle for unhappiness.