Here's Part II of the video first presented at 7:00 p.m.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
A Pattern -- I See a Pattern
I must give kudos to the blog RealityZone where I saw this video first posted. It's rather eye-opening, don't ya think?
Locke and Load
I've got two more posts in this brief miniseries. If you haven't read Part 1 and Part 2, this one might make more sense if you did.
For Locke and other classical liberal philosophers, the act that confers ownership is when we take something from its natural state or further refine something that someone else took from its natural state to improve upon it or to make better use of it. In this post I want to explore this notion in terms of substantive or tangible things. In the next post, I will again return to the realm of ideas (i.e., intellectual property).
Regardless of how one views the ultimate mystery of life -- be it via a supernatural designer who continues to play a role in the design, a supreme designer who no longer plays a role, science or no real opinion at all -- I think most of us will agree that the world unto itself is perfect (for lack of a better word). Each being or entity has its own internal nature and it lives according to the way a designer or whatever else made it to live.
If you accept this notion, then it does lead to a most important question: How can any person improve perfection? How do we make something that is perfect MORE perfect?
In terms of the discussion of property, let's use Bob as our example.
Bob sees a forest. In terms of Bob's desires, the forest in and of itself is not very productive. So, Bob claims the forest as his own. He develops an idea to chop down all the trees and to turn the raw material into baseball bats. After investing his own industry in this enterprise, he reaps a profit for his efforts.
The forest has now become a barren field with various types of plants and the decaying stumps of the bygone trees. Bob goes off to follow other pursuits. In time, he returns to what he perceives as a barren field. He develops a new idea -- one that will improve upon the land again. He will dig up the stumps and till the soil. He plants corn and, in time, he sells the corn to feed a hungry community.
The way our civilization is set up, most people will look at this situation to say that Bob improved upon this parcel of land twofold. He took the raw material of trees to create baseball bats for the local little league and then he grew corn to feed his neighbors.
But did Bob improve the life of the trees? No, he cut them down. Did Bob improve on the life of all the plants, fauna, insects and other organisms that were sustained by the forest and then the "barren" field? Again, in most cases, the answer would be no. From the standpoint of the other beings EXCEPT humans, Bob may be viewed as a maniacal terrorist!
My point here is that what we humans consider to be an improvement of perfection represents a very narrow and misguided view of the interconnected nature of the cosmos. For us, improvement is defined by how it affects our species, front and center. If it meets our needs and desires alone, we deem it an improvement over what it was. If it does not meet our needs and desires, then we say that no improvement was achieved.
In truth, humankind cannot improve on that which is already everything that it needs to be. All we really are doing is altering or modifying perfection to serve our specific needs. In fact, that is what life is all about anyway. Billions upon billions of entities altering perfection in every moment.
I am NOT here to suggest that the process of alteration is inherently evil. Every breath we take alters something. Every time one organism feeds on another an alteration takes place. Alteration -- change -- is the constant of the cosmos.
All this brief discussion seeks to point out is that the manner in which we approach life leads to our own alienation of the depth of a better understanding of life itself. When we delude ourselves with the notion that we have the power to improve upon perfection, this creates the specter of separation. We create the very island of which we spend the rest of our lives trying to escape from.
For Locke and other classical liberal philosophers, the act that confers ownership is when we take something from its natural state or further refine something that someone else took from its natural state to improve upon it or to make better use of it. In this post I want to explore this notion in terms of substantive or tangible things. In the next post, I will again return to the realm of ideas (i.e., intellectual property).
Regardless of how one views the ultimate mystery of life -- be it via a supernatural designer who continues to play a role in the design, a supreme designer who no longer plays a role, science or no real opinion at all -- I think most of us will agree that the world unto itself is perfect (for lack of a better word). Each being or entity has its own internal nature and it lives according to the way a designer or whatever else made it to live.
If you accept this notion, then it does lead to a most important question: How can any person improve perfection? How do we make something that is perfect MORE perfect?
In terms of the discussion of property, let's use Bob as our example.
Bob sees a forest. In terms of Bob's desires, the forest in and of itself is not very productive. So, Bob claims the forest as his own. He develops an idea to chop down all the trees and to turn the raw material into baseball bats. After investing his own industry in this enterprise, he reaps a profit for his efforts.
The forest has now become a barren field with various types of plants and the decaying stumps of the bygone trees. Bob goes off to follow other pursuits. In time, he returns to what he perceives as a barren field. He develops a new idea -- one that will improve upon the land again. He will dig up the stumps and till the soil. He plants corn and, in time, he sells the corn to feed a hungry community.
The way our civilization is set up, most people will look at this situation to say that Bob improved upon this parcel of land twofold. He took the raw material of trees to create baseball bats for the local little league and then he grew corn to feed his neighbors.
But did Bob improve the life of the trees? No, he cut them down. Did Bob improve on the life of all the plants, fauna, insects and other organisms that were sustained by the forest and then the "barren" field? Again, in most cases, the answer would be no. From the standpoint of the other beings EXCEPT humans, Bob may be viewed as a maniacal terrorist!
My point here is that what we humans consider to be an improvement of perfection represents a very narrow and misguided view of the interconnected nature of the cosmos. For us, improvement is defined by how it affects our species, front and center. If it meets our needs and desires alone, we deem it an improvement over what it was. If it does not meet our needs and desires, then we say that no improvement was achieved.
In truth, humankind cannot improve on that which is already everything that it needs to be. All we really are doing is altering or modifying perfection to serve our specific needs. In fact, that is what life is all about anyway. Billions upon billions of entities altering perfection in every moment.
I am NOT here to suggest that the process of alteration is inherently evil. Every breath we take alters something. Every time one organism feeds on another an alteration takes place. Alteration -- change -- is the constant of the cosmos.
All this brief discussion seeks to point out is that the manner in which we approach life leads to our own alienation of the depth of a better understanding of life itself. When we delude ourselves with the notion that we have the power to improve upon perfection, this creates the specter of separation. We create the very island of which we spend the rest of our lives trying to escape from.
Derivations on a Theme - Can't Buy It
There is a marvelous essay, "To save the world, the Left must reclaim utopia," posted on the blog Climate & Capitalism. One section really spoke to me.
Why do we flock to substance abuse, religion, shopping malls and mental health centers? It's because we're looking for something -- anything -- to make us less afraid and to shield us from the emptiness we find in the way we live our lives. It is the inherent alienation of the ways our civilization has decided to order and define life on earth that lead us to be estranged from the cosmos.
Consumerism -- which lies at the heart of the capitalist system -- has deformed our ability to imagine possibilities. It has warped our creativity by placing all ideas within the context of a strict cost-benefit analysis. If any particular project or program doesn't pay for itself economically, it is immediately tossed into the dust bin.
And with it goes our hopes for finding sanity in an increasingly insane world.
The failings of economistic 20th century leftism have allowed capitalism and consumerism to run rampant to the extent that the biosphere of the planet is beginning to experience a catastrophic breakdown, best known in the form of climate change (although broader than that most pressing problem).This last paragraph is so true! Though most of us build our lives around "keeping up with the Joneses," we know in our hearts that the material goods that we surround ourselves with do not bring peace of mind -- in fact, we know it often leads us in the opposite direction!
Climate change and the ecological crisis are demanding a reinvigoration of the left’s imagination. No longer can workers settle for demanding pay rises and economic advances. No more can the left settle for reactive campaigns calling to stop this or that crime, or to save this service from cutbacks. These are the defensive posturing of a movement that has put their visions of a better future off indefinitely as impractical or impossible just now.
Climate change demands action now. It demands solutions. They are feasible, and we can fight for them, but they are a radical departure from the consumerist life. This life is what the Western working class knows. It is largely what the third world masses aspire to. It is the dominant mass ideology. It’s a powerful ideology because it gives the appearance of having left behind the grim poverty of yesterday, and it gives the appearance of some return on the hours of workday drudgery that pay for it.
But at heart, consumerism is truly a hollow ideology. Even the commonplace sayings of the consumer era refute it. Consumerism says “you are what you buy” – but everyone knows, as the Beatles sang, “money can’t buy me love”. It can’t buy very much happiness either. There is an intrinsic gap in the ideological hegemony of the consumer ideal...
Why do we flock to substance abuse, religion, shopping malls and mental health centers? It's because we're looking for something -- anything -- to make us less afraid and to shield us from the emptiness we find in the way we live our lives. It is the inherent alienation of the ways our civilization has decided to order and define life on earth that lead us to be estranged from the cosmos.
Consumerism -- which lies at the heart of the capitalist system -- has deformed our ability to imagine possibilities. It has warped our creativity by placing all ideas within the context of a strict cost-benefit analysis. If any particular project or program doesn't pay for itself economically, it is immediately tossed into the dust bin.
And with it goes our hopes for finding sanity in an increasingly insane world.
Line by Line - Verse 2, Line 12
they go through their processes, and there is no expectation (of a reward for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no resting in it (as an achievement).In nature, when things happen, they just happen. The sun shines, the wind blows and the rain falls. No one bothers to take credit and Mother Nature doesn't expect any plaudits.
~ James Legge translation, from The Sacred Books of the East, 1891 ~
Working, yet not taking credit.
~ Gia-fu Feng and Jane English translation, published by Vintage Books, 1989 ~
They act but do not presume
They succeed but do not dwell on success
~ Derek Lin translation, from Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained, published by SkyLight Paths, 2006 ~
They do the work without expecting any favors.
~ Ron Hogan rendition, from Beatrice.com, 2004 ~
Whenever we undertake an activity and our chief aim is to win accolades or achieve status, our attention to what we're doing is divided. Part of our focus is on the task at hand and the rest is bound up in our expectations. And so, because we're looking ahead, we too often miss those opportunities that present themselves to us in the here and now.
While we may prove very successful in our endeavors, imagine how much more successful we could each be if we focused SOLELY on the matter at hand. When a person gives their all to a project without any expectations, once the job is done, there is no need for congratulations. You know in your heart that what you've completed is good.
To view the Index page for this series to see what you may have missed or would like to read again, go here.
A Different Way to View the Bible
Many Christians view the Bible as the inspired word of God. Some take it even further. They believe that it is the inerrant word of their creator. Either way, both viewpoints are a real turnoff to most agnostics and atheists. It defies rational belief that a collection of documents so rife with error and contradiction could come from an all-knowing being!
If only more Christians would view the Bible like philosophical Taoists view the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu, maybe more skeptics would be willing to give Christianity a second look or at least not ridicule it so much.
Most Taoist scholars accept the notion that Lao Tzu most likely did not write the book ascribed to him. For one thing, Lao Tzu means "old boy" or "old master". Consequently, this title doesn't really provide much clue as to who Lao Tzu actually was. In fact, it is commonly accepted that Lao Tzu was most likely a fictional character anyway.
While there is some confirmation that Chuang Tzu was an actual person, most scholars believe that he only wrote a small portion (the "inner chapters") of the book named after him. The rest of the text most likely was written by later disciples and/or students.
How does this impact both books? For one thing, there is no claim to divine inspiration. These works simply were attributed to two sages, men of wisdom. There are many references to people or places that have been lost to antiquity. No one feels the need to try to fix errors or perform mental gymnastics in order to smooth over mixed messages or contradictions.
We acknowledge that much of the text from these works that exist today did not come from the pen or the imagination of the two individuals it was ascribed to. These texts were developed and brought together over hundreds (or thousands) of years and the messages contained therein represent diverse schools of thought. (Confucian and Mohist influences can be readily seen in places.) In time, these different perspectives coalesced into the philosophy we refer to today as Taoism.
Imagine if we applied this same perspective to the Christian Bible. It would remove the need for endless debates as to the authentic authors of particular books. People would come to understand that different sections of both the Old and New Testaments represent differing political, historical and philosophical schools of thought.
Such a viewpoint would provide an understanding as to why so many contradictions are present. An historical event, parable or principle told by one set of authors simply was viewed differently by those of a different school. It would no longer cause readers to feel the need to reconcile elements that don't add up into a whole.
Of course, this approach would change the nature of the Bible altogether. No longer would it be viewed as a direct communique between the deity and humankind; it would become a document by which people could read to gain insight and to spur reflection of their experiences in the here and now.
If only more Christians would view the Bible like philosophical Taoists view the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu, maybe more skeptics would be willing to give Christianity a second look or at least not ridicule it so much.
Most Taoist scholars accept the notion that Lao Tzu most likely did not write the book ascribed to him. For one thing, Lao Tzu means "old boy" or "old master". Consequently, this title doesn't really provide much clue as to who Lao Tzu actually was. In fact, it is commonly accepted that Lao Tzu was most likely a fictional character anyway.
While there is some confirmation that Chuang Tzu was an actual person, most scholars believe that he only wrote a small portion (the "inner chapters") of the book named after him. The rest of the text most likely was written by later disciples and/or students.
How does this impact both books? For one thing, there is no claim to divine inspiration. These works simply were attributed to two sages, men of wisdom. There are many references to people or places that have been lost to antiquity. No one feels the need to try to fix errors or perform mental gymnastics in order to smooth over mixed messages or contradictions.
We acknowledge that much of the text from these works that exist today did not come from the pen or the imagination of the two individuals it was ascribed to. These texts were developed and brought together over hundreds (or thousands) of years and the messages contained therein represent diverse schools of thought. (Confucian and Mohist influences can be readily seen in places.) In time, these different perspectives coalesced into the philosophy we refer to today as Taoism.
Imagine if we applied this same perspective to the Christian Bible. It would remove the need for endless debates as to the authentic authors of particular books. People would come to understand that different sections of both the Old and New Testaments represent differing political, historical and philosophical schools of thought.
Such a viewpoint would provide an understanding as to why so many contradictions are present. An historical event, parable or principle told by one set of authors simply was viewed differently by those of a different school. It would no longer cause readers to feel the need to reconcile elements that don't add up into a whole.
Of course, this approach would change the nature of the Bible altogether. No longer would it be viewed as a direct communique between the deity and humankind; it would become a document by which people could read to gain insight and to spur reflection of their experiences in the here and now.
Why We Cannot be Silent
I've written a lot lately about the vitriol and hate being spewed around the US by political conservatives and many evangelical Christians (who typically are political conservatives). The prime reason WHY I have spent so much time and energy on this generalized topic is that IT MATTERS. For many, it is a matter of life and death.
A recent report has uncovered something that should surprise no one: anti-Latino violence is on the upswing.
Where hate speech is prevalent, violence tends to follow. When popular demagogues control the airwaves, it tends to whip certain segments of the population into a frenzy. If the voices of peace, justice and diversity are muted, there is nothing to counteract the growing furor.
As it stands now, the purveyors of hate, suspicion and self-righteousness are running amok. If left unchecked, we will continue to see a surge in hate crimes. Consequently, it is vitally important to call these people out and not to mince words. It's not enough to say that, while I don't personally agree with their rhetoric, it's a bit over the top to charge them with hate-mongering because what they ARE doing is hate-mongering!
If we remain silent, all we end up doing is abetting their efforts and I, for one, want no part of that.
A recent report has uncovered something that should surprise no one: anti-Latino violence is on the upswing.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is reporting an upward tick in anti-Latino hate crimes, and apparently it’s a general trend that’s been in the works for years. Hate crimes against Latinos had already increased in each of the four years between 2003 to 2007, according to FBI statistics. After taking a slight dip last year, the trend seems to be picking up just as the national debate over immigration reform rages on...Of course, it's not just Latinos that are being brutalized. There has also been an increase in violence against Muslims!
Where hate speech is prevalent, violence tends to follow. When popular demagogues control the airwaves, it tends to whip certain segments of the population into a frenzy. If the voices of peace, justice and diversity are muted, there is nothing to counteract the growing furor.
As it stands now, the purveyors of hate, suspicion and self-righteousness are running amok. If left unchecked, we will continue to see a surge in hate crimes. Consequently, it is vitally important to call these people out and not to mince words. It's not enough to say that, while I don't personally agree with their rhetoric, it's a bit over the top to charge them with hate-mongering because what they ARE doing is hate-mongering!
If we remain silent, all we end up doing is abetting their efforts and I, for one, want no part of that.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Tao Bible - Genesis 24:35
And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.From this verse of the Bible, we learn that, when God bestows his blessings on someone, the individual will enjoy earthly riches and great stature.
~ King James version ~
Tao provides for all. Great is the individual who has much by having little.
~ possible Taoist alternative ~
Tao, on the other hand, bestows nothing to any specific person or entity. What Tao provides is provided for all. The sage is a person who does not pursue earthly riches nor stature. He or she understands that enough is enough.
If you're interesting reading more from this experimental series, go to the Tao Bible Index page.
Locke, Stock and Barrel
In the last post, I wrote a wee bit about John Locke and the concept of private property, mainly tangible, substantive property. But what about intellectual property? Might that be different?
Whenever one of us comes up with a grand idea, new theory or a wondrous innovation, did we simply pull it out of thin air? Of course not! Any sort of mental or intellectual thought is built upon the insights, knowledge and imagination of the collective consciousness. In other words, just like with tangible things, the seed and all of its constituent parts were already out there in the ether. All we have done is alter them ever so slightly to create this "new" formulation.
Consequently, in my mind's eye, intellectual property is no different than tangible private property. All those things (e.g., land, businesses, stocks, toasters, tampons, books, cars, ideas, dreams, etc.) belong to the commons -- the cosmos -- and those things that we call mine are the result of a minuscule amount of individual input on our part. Yet, our society tells us that we control these things absolutely.
Let's say you are the majority shareholder in a large corporation. Two of your managers come to you with divergent ideas of how to propel the company forward. After hearing their presentations, you begin the process of mulling over which direction to head. As you are about to come to a decision, you learn the decision has already been made and it's not the one you planned to choose.
"Who made this decision?", you thunder. "I'm the majority stockholder. I own 95% of the stock." You're told that a little old lady from Pasadena who owns only one share is the person with the final say so. "How is that fair?" you boom. Everybody tells you that this is just the way it is!
In the above example, the majority shareholder is the cosmos, Tao, God or whatever you want to call it. The person who holds one measly share is each of us. Every time you or I make a decision about something that we claim as our own, we are attempting to usurp the majority owner. We are granting ourselves exclusive authority that we don't possess.
Whenever one of us comes up with a grand idea, new theory or a wondrous innovation, did we simply pull it out of thin air? Of course not! Any sort of mental or intellectual thought is built upon the insights, knowledge and imagination of the collective consciousness. In other words, just like with tangible things, the seed and all of its constituent parts were already out there in the ether. All we have done is alter them ever so slightly to create this "new" formulation.
Consequently, in my mind's eye, intellectual property is no different than tangible private property. All those things (e.g., land, businesses, stocks, toasters, tampons, books, cars, ideas, dreams, etc.) belong to the commons -- the cosmos -- and those things that we call mine are the result of a minuscule amount of individual input on our part. Yet, our society tells us that we control these things absolutely.
Let's say you are the majority shareholder in a large corporation. Two of your managers come to you with divergent ideas of how to propel the company forward. After hearing their presentations, you begin the process of mulling over which direction to head. As you are about to come to a decision, you learn the decision has already been made and it's not the one you planned to choose.
"Who made this decision?", you thunder. "I'm the majority stockholder. I own 95% of the stock." You're told that a little old lady from Pasadena who owns only one share is the person with the final say so. "How is that fair?" you boom. Everybody tells you that this is just the way it is!
In the above example, the majority shareholder is the cosmos, Tao, God or whatever you want to call it. The person who holds one measly share is each of us. Every time you or I make a decision about something that we claim as our own, we are attempting to usurp the majority owner. We are granting ourselves exclusive authority that we don't possess.
In Locke Steppe
Students of American history know that Thomas Jefferson's oft repeated phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was borrowed straight from English philosopher John Locke. The only difference between the two is that Locke was far more direct; property was the third element. Of course, in Jefferson's time, a person couldn't feel secure and happy WITHOUT property, so the slight alteration in verbiage was understood to mean exactly the same thing.
Locke's political philosophy exerted tremendous influence on the Founding Fathers and much of his formulations are contained both in our founding documents and the great American ideal. One of these concerns private property and that is the subject matter for this post.
For Locke and other philosophers of the school of classic liberalism (it's ironic that today's conservatives unwittingly often embrace the antithesis of what one might think!) property becomes private or owned when an individual or collective of individuals take raw resources and, through their own sweat and industry, improve upon it. This adding of an element of the self allows that self to lay claim to the finished product.
For example, if an individual discovers a barren piece of ground and turns it into a viable farm, it is said that the individual has improved upon the land and, thereby, can lay claim to it as being an extension of the self. Today, we accept such definitions as self-evident and "the way it's always been." To look at such an accepted concept in any other way is...subversive or worse!!
Since I'm an avowed subversive, let's look at this whole conception in a different way!
The raw materials that form the basis of property belong to the cosmos. Before humans ever developed as a distinct species, this world was populated by untold numbers of flora and fauna. So, trees, ore, cotton and the like did not come into being because we willed them to; they were already here, marching along their own evolutionary routes.
Consequently, anything that we say we own is really a partnership. Yes, by our own wit, industry, muscle or monetary investment, we may have altered raw materials in such a way that they serve a different function, but the basis for ANYTHING we might develop or create was already here to begin with. In fact, if we look at the long history of the species we have altered for our own purposes, that history alone dwarfs our contribution to the process.
If anything, about the most that we can say is that we are minority owners in those things we call mine. Why is it then that we, as minority owners, believe that we alone can decide what will or will not be done to those things we lay sole claim to?
[I will thresh a few more thoughts along this line in subsequent posts today and tomorrow.]
Locke's political philosophy exerted tremendous influence on the Founding Fathers and much of his formulations are contained both in our founding documents and the great American ideal. One of these concerns private property and that is the subject matter for this post.
For Locke and other philosophers of the school of classic liberalism (it's ironic that today's conservatives unwittingly often embrace the antithesis of what one might think!) property becomes private or owned when an individual or collective of individuals take raw resources and, through their own sweat and industry, improve upon it. This adding of an element of the self allows that self to lay claim to the finished product.
For example, if an individual discovers a barren piece of ground and turns it into a viable farm, it is said that the individual has improved upon the land and, thereby, can lay claim to it as being an extension of the self. Today, we accept such definitions as self-evident and "the way it's always been." To look at such an accepted concept in any other way is...subversive or worse!!
Since I'm an avowed subversive, let's look at this whole conception in a different way!
The raw materials that form the basis of property belong to the cosmos. Before humans ever developed as a distinct species, this world was populated by untold numbers of flora and fauna. So, trees, ore, cotton and the like did not come into being because we willed them to; they were already here, marching along their own evolutionary routes.
Consequently, anything that we say we own is really a partnership. Yes, by our own wit, industry, muscle or monetary investment, we may have altered raw materials in such a way that they serve a different function, but the basis for ANYTHING we might develop or create was already here to begin with. In fact, if we look at the long history of the species we have altered for our own purposes, that history alone dwarfs our contribution to the process.
If anything, about the most that we can say is that we are minority owners in those things we call mine. Why is it then that we, as minority owners, believe that we alone can decide what will or will not be done to those things we lay sole claim to?
[I will thresh a few more thoughts along this line in subsequent posts today and tomorrow.]
Line by Line - Verse 2, Line 11
they grow, and there is no claim made for their ownership;With this line -- unlike the previous one -- Legge now falls in line with Lin and Hogan as ascribing these characteristics to the sage. Feng and English continue to present these principles as more general, in nature. Personally, I favor the more general tone simply because I think it is apt advice for anyone and everyone, not just those individual who are designated as sages!
~ James Legge translation, from The Sacred Books of the East, 1891 ~
Creating, yet not.
~ Gia-fu Feng and Jane English translation, published by Vintage Books, 1989 ~
They create but do not possess
~ Derek Lin translation, from Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained, published by SkyLight Paths, 2006 ~
They don't own much, but they use whatever's at hand.
~ Ron Hogan rendition, from Beatrice.com, 2004 ~
However one wishes to construe it, I like what John Lash has to say in reference to this line.
The Tao creates everything that exists, but it does not possess them. It makes no claim of ownership.In other words, Tao creates with no strings attached!
To view the Index page for this series to see what you may have missed or would like to read again, go here.
Everyone Has a Story
Regardless of what a person believes, we each have a story that has led us from birth to where we are right now. While my story is not the same as the one shown below, there are a lot of common threads.
When They Said the Sky Would Fall
I was reading an article on the National Public Radio website on how many people actually die in the US from the flu each year. As I read down the page, the following information really jumped out at me:
Do you remember when the news was ablaze with dire predictions about the so-called swine flu (H1N1)? We were told it was so lethal that, not an epidemic, but a pandemic was staring us in the face. TV and internet news sites covered the impending doom around the clock. People were clamoring for the vaccine and we found ourselves in a bit of public hysteria. Things got so bad that many school districts, when it was confirmed that a few students had contracted the H1N1 virus, shutdown completely for several days or a week or more.
Of course, the pandemic of pandemics never materialized. In truth, it turned out to be a run-of-the-mill flu season. The anticipated high death toll was within normal parameters. Here we are -- less than one year later -- and you rarely even hear it mentioned much anymore.
So, what happened? Is it simply a case that we lucked out, that we dodged the bullet?
Unfortunately, the answer is that the lethal potential of H1N1 was more hype than anything else. It wasn't based on science; it was born of capitalist economics!
It turns out that the people who first sounded the alarm about H1N1 had a vested interest. You see, the people who got the ball rolling toward public hysteria were from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture flu vaccines. The more they could whip up doom and gloom forecasts, the greater the number of vaccine doses they could sell and, with each sale, their revenues and profit margins grew.
It is a story of callous disregard for the public interest. It was nothing more than a ploy to fatten the bottom line!
As bad as this was, governments around the globe played a role as well. They fell hook, line and sinker for the manufactured hype. With their citizens clamoring for them to do something, they purchased millions upon millions of vaccine doses. After the money had exchanged hands, some people began to figure out this whole deal was a hoax. But most governments did NOT share these doubts with the public.
In essence, government found itself between a rock and a hard place. If they exposed the dubious nature and heavy conflict of interest of those utilizing scare tactics re H1N1, it would cause many to ask why their leaders could be so easily duped and manipulated. It might cause a massive loss of faith in government. Not only that, but the deficit hawks would lampoon them for wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money on snake oil.
So government did was government tends to do. It facilitated the continuance of the scare tactics to cover their derrières. And they continued to badger citizens to submit to this vaccine, even as more and more people learned that the great pandemic was make believe.
A few years back the US was in the throes of another such panic due to the West Nile virus. Owing to what transpired regarding the H1N1 situation, I'm now wondering if the companies that manufacture mosquito insecticides had a hand in this scare as well.
Deaths peak when the H3N2 strain of influenza A dominates. When it's H1N1 or influenza B, the toll is quite a bit lower...While it certainly wasn't the focus of this article at all, this information is astounding WHEN we remember what transpired last year.
Do you remember when the news was ablaze with dire predictions about the so-called swine flu (H1N1)? We were told it was so lethal that, not an epidemic, but a pandemic was staring us in the face. TV and internet news sites covered the impending doom around the clock. People were clamoring for the vaccine and we found ourselves in a bit of public hysteria. Things got so bad that many school districts, when it was confirmed that a few students had contracted the H1N1 virus, shutdown completely for several days or a week or more.
Of course, the pandemic of pandemics never materialized. In truth, it turned out to be a run-of-the-mill flu season. The anticipated high death toll was within normal parameters. Here we are -- less than one year later -- and you rarely even hear it mentioned much anymore.
So, what happened? Is it simply a case that we lucked out, that we dodged the bullet?
Unfortunately, the answer is that the lethal potential of H1N1 was more hype than anything else. It wasn't based on science; it was born of capitalist economics!
It turns out that the people who first sounded the alarm about H1N1 had a vested interest. You see, the people who got the ball rolling toward public hysteria were from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture flu vaccines. The more they could whip up doom and gloom forecasts, the greater the number of vaccine doses they could sell and, with each sale, their revenues and profit margins grew.
It is a story of callous disregard for the public interest. It was nothing more than a ploy to fatten the bottom line!
As bad as this was, governments around the globe played a role as well. They fell hook, line and sinker for the manufactured hype. With their citizens clamoring for them to do something, they purchased millions upon millions of vaccine doses. After the money had exchanged hands, some people began to figure out this whole deal was a hoax. But most governments did NOT share these doubts with the public.
In essence, government found itself between a rock and a hard place. If they exposed the dubious nature and heavy conflict of interest of those utilizing scare tactics re H1N1, it would cause many to ask why their leaders could be so easily duped and manipulated. It might cause a massive loss of faith in government. Not only that, but the deficit hawks would lampoon them for wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money on snake oil.
So government did was government tends to do. It facilitated the continuance of the scare tactics to cover their derrières. And they continued to badger citizens to submit to this vaccine, even as more and more people learned that the great pandemic was make believe.
A few years back the US was in the throes of another such panic due to the West Nile virus. Owing to what transpired regarding the H1N1 situation, I'm now wondering if the companies that manufacture mosquito insecticides had a hand in this scare as well.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tao Bible - Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.In order to test Abraham's devotion, God orders him to sacrifice (murder) his own son, Isaac.
~ King James version ~
Tao neither rewards nor punishes, tempts nor tests.
~ possible Taoist alternative ~
Tao asks nothing of us. We may believe in the Way or not. Tao remains all the same.
If you're interesting reading more from this experimental series, go to the Tao Bible Index page.
I Don't Get It
Throughout my life as an anti-war, human rights and environmental activist, I have been videotaped by the police numerous times. Never once have they sought my permission to do so. Never once have I been committing a crime of any sort while being videotaped.
What have I been caught on tape doing? Holding a protest sign. Participating in chants. Standing in a crowd. Marching. Delivering a speech. Driving a car. Even going into a grocery store. All this in the name of protecting the public from my dangerous rights of free speech and free assembly!!
So, a story posted today on CommonDreams, has me puzzled.
Because of dashboard cameras, the police now routinely record most of their traffic stops. Many such stops involve individuals who have broken laws. But some of them don't. In some cases, it's simply a case in which a car has broken down along the road or a citizen has flagged down an officer.
Do officers ask these people if it's okay that they film them? Well, of course not. Such a request would be unreasonable and impractical. So, why in this case would anyone argue that it WAS reasonable or practical?
Events like this cause me to shake my head. What is going on?
What have I been caught on tape doing? Holding a protest sign. Participating in chants. Standing in a crowd. Marching. Delivering a speech. Driving a car. Even going into a grocery store. All this in the name of protecting the public from my dangerous rights of free speech and free assembly!!
So, a story posted today on CommonDreams, has me puzzled.
A Maryland man is facing up to 16 years in prison for videotaping an overzealous state trooper who stopped the man for speeding.Why is it that police can film people doing all sorts of things -- many of which are not illegal nor immoral -- and then these videos can show up on various TV programs, yet a citizen can't film a police officer? I fail to see the logic.
But Graber, a sergeant with the Maryland Air National Guard, is now facing 16 years in prison, not for dangerous driving, but for a Youtube video he posted after receiving a speeding ticket.
The video, filmed with a camera mounted on Graber's motorcycle helmet designed to record biking stunts rather than police abuse, shows a plain clothes officer jumping out of an unmarked car and pointing a pistol at the motorcyclist.
It does not portray the policeman in a positive light...
Because of dashboard cameras, the police now routinely record most of their traffic stops. Many such stops involve individuals who have broken laws. But some of them don't. In some cases, it's simply a case in which a car has broken down along the road or a citizen has flagged down an officer.
Do officers ask these people if it's okay that they film them? Well, of course not. Such a request would be unreasonable and impractical. So, why in this case would anyone argue that it WAS reasonable or practical?
Events like this cause me to shake my head. What is going on?
The Firm Grip of Christianity
While membership numbers for almost all Christian denominations in the western world have shown a slow but steady decrease over the past few generations, the Christian mindset still holds a lot of sway, particularly in the US. This holds true for believers and many non-believers as well. I must admit frankly that I find this very galling.
It's not uncommon for readers leaving comments on this blog and many of the others that I read regularly to suggest that people like me, Bruce, Lorena and others like us would be better people who led more fulfilling lives if we would turn those lives over to Jesus! The very fact that we refuse to take this course simply means we're arrogant, selfish, and deluded.
Mind you, our blogs are NOT advertisements for Christianity. We state up front that we are not Christians or, at least, not fundamentalist Christians. Yet, Christians see nothing wrong with leaving comments of their own religious testimony. They see nothing wrong with attempting to browbeat us into submission. Worse yet, most of their brethren see nothing wrong with this tack as well.
HOWEVER, if we write about our objections or criticisms of Christianity, well that's altogether different. We're chastised for expressing OUR opinions ON our OWN blogs. We're accused of attacking and railing. We're charged with being insensitive to other people's beliefs. We're told we aren't walking our talk.
To my way of thinking, this represents a double-standard. Christians are free to go where they want and to write or say what they want and it's all good. It's their right. It represents their convictions. But this same standard does not seem to apply to those of us who are not Christians.
If we visit a Christian blog and leave a comment about our personal beliefs, more often than not, we are labeled trolls and banned from leaving future comments. If a Christian visits a non-Christian blog and leaves a comment about their personal convictions, they are merely sharing their perspective and many, many people will defend their right to do this. Same situation -- different rules.
If a Christian blog features posts questioning or attacking Taoists, Muslims, agnostics or atheists, most people will say it is within their purview to express their opinions as they see fit. If a Taoist or non-Christian blog features posts questioning or attacking Christians, people tell us that we're out of line and we should stick with our prime subject matter. Same situation -- different rules.
If a Christian blog or commenter expresses the opinion that non-Christian belief systems are destroying the world, many people again will defend their right to state this unequivocally. It seems that the vast majority will bend over backwards to agree that such subject matter is fair game. If a non-Christian blog or commenter expresses the opinion that the Christian belief system is destroying the world, we're accused of painting with too wide of a brush. Such subject matter is NOT fair game and we are criticized for even bringing it up in the first place. Same situation -- different rules.
Like I said, I find this double-standard very galling, to say the least.
It's not uncommon for readers leaving comments on this blog and many of the others that I read regularly to suggest that people like me, Bruce, Lorena and others like us would be better people who led more fulfilling lives if we would turn those lives over to Jesus! The very fact that we refuse to take this course simply means we're arrogant, selfish, and deluded.
Mind you, our blogs are NOT advertisements for Christianity. We state up front that we are not Christians or, at least, not fundamentalist Christians. Yet, Christians see nothing wrong with leaving comments of their own religious testimony. They see nothing wrong with attempting to browbeat us into submission. Worse yet, most of their brethren see nothing wrong with this tack as well.
HOWEVER, if we write about our objections or criticisms of Christianity, well that's altogether different. We're chastised for expressing OUR opinions ON our OWN blogs. We're accused of attacking and railing. We're charged with being insensitive to other people's beliefs. We're told we aren't walking our talk.
To my way of thinking, this represents a double-standard. Christians are free to go where they want and to write or say what they want and it's all good. It's their right. It represents their convictions. But this same standard does not seem to apply to those of us who are not Christians.
If we visit a Christian blog and leave a comment about our personal beliefs, more often than not, we are labeled trolls and banned from leaving future comments. If a Christian visits a non-Christian blog and leaves a comment about their personal convictions, they are merely sharing their perspective and many, many people will defend their right to do this. Same situation -- different rules.
If a Christian blog features posts questioning or attacking Taoists, Muslims, agnostics or atheists, most people will say it is within their purview to express their opinions as they see fit. If a Taoist or non-Christian blog features posts questioning or attacking Christians, people tell us that we're out of line and we should stick with our prime subject matter. Same situation -- different rules.
If a Christian blog or commenter expresses the opinion that non-Christian belief systems are destroying the world, many people again will defend their right to state this unequivocally. It seems that the vast majority will bend over backwards to agree that such subject matter is fair game. If a non-Christian blog or commenter expresses the opinion that the Christian belief system is destroying the world, we're accused of painting with too wide of a brush. Such subject matter is NOT fair game and we are criticized for even bringing it up in the first place. Same situation -- different rules.
Like I said, I find this double-standard very galling, to say the least.
Real Life Tao - Simplify
One of the themes that runs throughout the writings attributed to Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is the call to lead more simple lives. When we start adding layers of complication, it becomes that much easier to fall out of balance. When we become estranged from the natural processes of life, suffering and misery are soon to follow.
Many people view the "back to nature" movement as being incredibly naive. The very thought of getting out of our cars, growing our own food or using herbs to treat illness and disease seems so antiquated. Hey, these are modern times, they say. We have developed all sorts of technological wonders to further and enhance the human experience.
Unfortunately, while we too often focus exclusively on the tangible benefits of our technology, we either look away or don't see the costs we have wrought. Two recent articles, one on AlterNet and the other on CommonDreams, will provide apt illustrations of what I'm referring to.
It turns out that many of the cosmetic products used in the western world aren't half as healthy as we've been led to believe.
The other article concerns a known AND fully legal pesticide that, it turns out, may lead to problems with male sexual development.
How do we find ourselves in one mess after another? I would submit that the chief reason is our attempt to compartmentalize the world; we continually fail to see the connections. When one part of the organism of life is changed, it alters the connections to and with the other parts. It is when these downstream alterations are not taken into consideration that we land ourselves in trouble!
You see, this is why the simple life is so advantageous for all concerned. You get to know intimately the local environment and you live your life within its fabric. Small changes that are made flow more easily with the life around you and we are better able to understand how these small changes will affect the overall organism.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Many people view the "back to nature" movement as being incredibly naive. The very thought of getting out of our cars, growing our own food or using herbs to treat illness and disease seems so antiquated. Hey, these are modern times, they say. We have developed all sorts of technological wonders to further and enhance the human experience.
Unfortunately, while we too often focus exclusively on the tangible benefits of our technology, we either look away or don't see the costs we have wrought. Two recent articles, one on AlterNet and the other on CommonDreams, will provide apt illustrations of what I'm referring to.
It turns out that many of the cosmetic products used in the western world aren't half as healthy as we've been led to believe.
Numerous chemicals that are legally used in personal care products are untested, inadequately tested, or even proven harmful, but few are as widely used and as unnecessary as the endocrine disrupting chemicals triclosan (an ingredient in 75 percent of liquid hand soaps) and triclocarban (most commonly found in deodorant bar soaps). Scientists have recently found a number of new reasons why these chemicals should not be used in consumer products. In late July, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), calling on the FDA to ban triclosan and triclocarban from soaps and body washes.In the above cases, it turns out that what is being sold as a benefit to humankind concurrently is a danger not only to ourselves but the environment we live in! In the case of soap products, if we each followed the simple procedure of using an unadulterated bar of soap, we are just as protected against bacterial infections and we would cause far less ecological damage.
Together, triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels, and even toothpastes. They are found in brands as familiar as Colgate, Dial, Lever 2000, and Vaseline. Although they have been used for several decades for their antibacterial and antifungal properties, studies and even the FDA recognize that they are no more effective at preventing disease than regular soap and water. In other words, they serve two real purposes: allowing companies to market personal care products as "antibacterial," and contaminating the waste stream (and, ultimately, the environment)...
The other article concerns a known AND fully legal pesticide that, it turns out, may lead to problems with male sexual development.
Male rats exposed before birth to low doses of the weedkiller atrazine are more likely to develop prostate inflammation and to go through puberty later than non-exposed animals, finds a new study conducted by federal government scientists.In situation after situation, humankind's obsession with trying to manipulate and control Mother Nature tends to lead to unintended consequences. What often is viewed as beneficial in one narrow area causes untold numbers of problems in other areas.
One of the most common agricultural herbicides in the United States, some 80 million pounds of atrazine are applied across the country every year to control broadleaf and grassy weeds in crops such as corn and sugar cane. It is the main ingredient in about 40 name-brand herbicides.
"Atrazine is a staple product for producers, who use it as a critical tool for weed control in growing the vast majority of corn, sorghum and sugarcane in the United States. Use of atrazine fights weed resistance, reduces soil erosion and increases crop yield," according to the Triazine Network, an association of growers and researchers.
But atrazine and its byproducts are known to be endocrine disrupters that are persistent in the environment, making their way into both surface water and groundwater supplies...
How do we find ourselves in one mess after another? I would submit that the chief reason is our attempt to compartmentalize the world; we continually fail to see the connections. When one part of the organism of life is changed, it alters the connections to and with the other parts. It is when these downstream alterations are not taken into consideration that we land ourselves in trouble!
You see, this is why the simple life is so advantageous for all concerned. You get to know intimately the local environment and you live your life within its fabric. Small changes that are made flow more easily with the life around you and we are better able to understand how these small changes will affect the overall organism.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)