The Blank Screen

With a title such as this, one might think I'm going to launch into the use of metaphor to describe one of the many facets of Taoism. However, when I write "blank screen", I mean it literally! You turn on our television today and all one sees is black.

This is yet another example of the pitfalls of poverty. My wife & I have tried to pare down our ongoing bills as much as possible -- we've canceled our newspaper subscription, a few magazines, our blockbuster account and we rarely go out -- yet, it never seems to be enough. We had tried to keep up with our cable bill because a) being located where we are, it's difficult to pick up any local stations and b) it was a relatively cheap form of entertainment.

So, now we're left we no TV at all. I realize that many of you have chucked your TV and it may not be the worst thing in the world not to have cable, but this wasn't a conscious and planned decision on our part.

Hopefully, we won't lose our internet capability next. That potentiality would REALLY depress me.

Our Bloodstained Legacy

There's another good article posted on Alternet this morning concerning the carnage we've had a large hand in over in Iraq. John Tirman of The Nation takes a look at the really grim statistics. According to current calculations, there have been "about 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans".

While I think these estimates certainly are in the ballpark, I'm really growing tired of the alternative press laying the responsibility solely at the feet of the former president. Yes, Dubya got us into the war and, yes, he did it under false pretenses. But we've had a mechanism to stop the war from the get go -- at any point in time, Congress could have cut the purse strings which would have stopped the war dead in its tracks! You simply can't wage war without the necessary military appropriations.

But time and time again Congress -- with Democratic majorities -- continued to approve funding and, in some instances, for even more money than the Bush administration asked for. While the Dems stood at press conferences to provide sound bytes about how they "opposed the war" in Iraq, their actions told a completely different story!!!

It didn't matter how many of us across the country took to the streets in protest over this immoral war. It didn't matter how many phone calls we made, emails we sent or letters to the editor we penned. At the end of the day, Congress members on both sides of the aisle kept funneling more and more of our taxpayer dollars to Iraq to keep the war going.

Therefore, Iraq is not the bloodstained legacy of the Bush administration; it's a horrible legacy for our entire nation. Because almost none of our elected representatives would take a stand to stop the carnage, each and every one of us has the stain of innocent blood on our hands.

Far worse, it's not the kind of stain one can wash off with a little soap and water.

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Wife

A very interesting article, "Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women and Domestic Violence" was posted on Alternet this morning. It explores the issue of spousal abuse within the confines of fundamentalist Christianity and this exploration isn't very pretty.

What is a good enough reason for divorce? Well, according to Rick Warren’s Saddleback church, divorce is only permitted in cases of adultery or abandonment -- as these are the only cases permitted in the Bible -- and never for abuse.

As teaching pastor Tom Holladay explains, spousal abuse should be dealt with by temporary separation and church marriage counseling designed to bring about reconciliation between the couple. But to qualify for that separation, your spouse must be in the “habit of beating you regularly,” and not be simply someone who “grabbed you once.”

“How many beatings would have to take place in order to qualify as regularly?” asks Jocelyn Andersen, a Christian domestic violence survivor and advocate, author of the 2007 book Woman Submit! Christians and Domestic Violence, an indictment of church teachings of wifely submission and male headship. As she sees it, by convincing women that leaving their relationships is not an option, these teachings have laid the ground for a domestic violence epidemic within the church.

Andersen writes from personal experience, describing an episode of being held hostage by her husband -- an associate pastor in their Kansas Baptist church -- for close to twenty hours after he’d nearly fractured her skull. Andersen was raised in the Southern Baptist Convention, where she heard an unremitting message of “submission, submission, submission.” She saw this continual focus reflected in her ex-husband’s denunciations, while he detained her, of women who wanted to “rule over men.” Though Andersen was rescued by her church’s pastor, who had his assistant pastor arrested himself, she says other churchwomen aren’t so lucky, particularly when churches tell couples to attend joint marriage counseling under lay ministry leaders with no specific training for abuse survivors, who instead offer an unswerving prescription of submission and headship, often telling women to learn to submit “better.”

As a former licensed social worker, I realize that the plague of domestic violence isn't confined to any one religious tradition. It occurs across economic, religious, ethnic and geographic lines. However, while some atheist (or even Taoist) husbands most likely beat their wives, the victims of this violence don't have to fight through religious mores and laws to find safety!

In essence, this kind of violence almost is institutionalized in fundamentalist religions. This should surprise no one because these religions were created by men, not women. In fact, if we look at the Judeo-Christian tradition, women are not treated as feeling and sentient beings at all, but as property! Fundamentalists tend to favor the idea that a man (not a woman, of course) can do whatever he damn well pleases with HIS property.

If a person had no other issues with Christian thought, this particular issue should give one pause. Why should women be treated as property or second-class citizens? For that matter, why is God conceived of as a he? It would make far more sense if God was not gender specific. The very fact that a specific gender is indicated should inform anyone that the concept of God was conjured up by members of the gender that is forever glorified...at least in THEIR eyes.

Blast From the Past

Back when I lived in places other than South Bend, one of my favorite blogs was GreenInk. For reasons I do not know, the blog went silent in October 2008 and nothing has been posted there since. It's a shame because the fellow who authored this blog was very insightful and, often, quite humorous.

One of my favorite posts, "Easy immigration reform — legalize it" is shown below in its entirety. Hopefully, GreenInk will one day rise again!

The Mexican Consulate’s road show rolled through Eugene over the weekend, handing out the controversial matricula consular cards to a few dozen people who are, in all likelihood, illegal immigrants. People without green cards or other legal papers use the matricula to get a drivers license and open bank accounts.

Big deal.

Predictably, a handful of protesters were on hand as well. You can see their comments and pictures from the event by going to orblogs.com and surfing through the usual suspects — Vonski, Gullyborg, etc.

(I at least give the locals credit for not acting like bigots, but sticking to their message about illegal immigration being, well, illegal, which is a fine argument that does absolutely nothing to address the real issues.)

Politicians love this sort of event, of course, because they can play to their closet-racist base while proclaiming they just want to uphold the law. Well, they should change the law!

Make it legal to enter this country. End the dangerous desert crossings, the lucrative human trafficking trade and the stupid Minuteman vigilante border patrol. End the INS sweeps and the paperwork hassles for employers. Stop making people afraid to pay their taxes or send their kids to school. Legalize immigration and let workers demand good pay and benefits instead of taking whatever they can get, afraid to assert their rights to fair wages and fair treatments.

Morally, putting limits on immigration is wrong. Who gave anyone the right to say where someone else can and cannot live? What right do Americans, whose ancestors pillaged, plundered, murdered and stole their way across the continent, have to draw lines on the map and say, “this is ours, now go home”? What right does ANY government have to control people in this way?

When did America become a big country club, where we go out of our way to tell everyone how great we are and then tell them they can’t get in without a membership? Screw that. I say, if someone wants to come here, let them. Actually, “let” is the wrong word, because nobody has an inherent right to tell anyone else where they can go.

“But they are breaking the law,” people keep saying to me. Well, the law is wrong and deserves to be broken. People need to get over the idea that just because something is illegal, it’s morally wrong. No it’s not. There were a lot of perfectly legitimate laws passed in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s that no sane person would argue should have been obeyed.

If a law is clearly unjust — if it seeks to impoverish, discriminate or otherwise harm people — it should be ignored until it is repealed.

Think about it this way. You live in a small town. Most of the jobs are in a single large factory. It burns to the ground and the company decides not to rebuild. You have a family to support, so you drive to the city up the road to find work. But when you arrive, there are cops at the entrance to the city who refuse you entry because you don’t already live there. It seems the city council passed the law shortly after the factory in your town was burned.

What would you do? Go home?

The answer is simple. It’s called freedom, something Americans used to value above all else.

The Supreme Lie

Over at Church of the Churchless, Brian has written about a topic that's been swirling around in my mind for the last few days. So, instead of penning a post myself, I invite you to read what he has to say on the topic of religion and lying. Here's a snippet...

Sometimes it's fine to tell a lie. Everyone does so at one time or another.

But when lying is a permanent condition, a way of life, it eats away at the foundation that supports each of us.

Reality.

This is the big problem with religiosity -- lying. Believers lie continually.

Whenever they say some bit of dogma is true, knowing that they don't know such to be the case, the best word to call this isn't faith, but lying.

For many years I did this myself.

I gave talks, wrote books, had conversations with people, all the while proclaiming that this-and-that was the truth, yet having no good reason to back up my dogmatic assertions.

In these days of economic meltdown, we get outraged when a financial con artist promises lofty profits but doesn't have an honest way of producing them.

However, when religions do the same, claiming that salvation can be had without any proof that believers are reliably delivered the goods, we shrug our shoulders and meekly embrace the duplicity.

The only true statement about God or ultimate reality is...I don't know. Say more, and there's just one appropriate response: "You're a liar."

No Trumpets -- No Fanfare

The great Tao flows everywhere, both to the left and to the right.
The ten thousand things depend upon it; it holds nothing back.
It fulfills its purpose silently and makes no claim.

It nourishes the ten thousand things,
And yet is not their Lord.
It has no aim; it is very small.

The ten thousand things return to it,
Yet it is not their Lord.
It is very great.

It does not show greatness,
And is therefore truly great.
~ Tao Te Ching, Thirty-Four ~

In the monotheistic religions, the almighty (Allah, God, Jehovah) not only makes himself known, but demands your allegiance. He is described as a jealous supreme being who gets rather testy if you choose to worship a different supreme being. In a manner of speaking, the supreme entity is beset by all the petty emotions of his progeny.

In Taoism, Tao makes no claims at all. It doesn't announce itself. It doesn't demand you even acknowledge it. It simply is what it is. Each of us is part of it and it is part of us.

How can a supreme being be truly great, if it must tell you so? It's like those sorts of people -- we all know them -- who spend all their time bragging about their skills and exploits. No matter what anybody else says, such people will always try to one-up you.

We've learned from psychology that people who are too full of themselves tend to have a poor self-image. Therefore, they have an inherent need to pump themselves up in other people's eyes as a way to convince themselves of their own self-worth.

If we are created in the image of a God, does this mean the almighty suffers from this same malady too, that the supreme one needs to announce himself over and over again as a mechanism to convince himself of his own worth?

Different Shades of Green

In our society, the word green tends to engender one of two concepts: environmentalism and money. I often find that, because of my philosophical viewpoint, these two images constantly butt heads.

On the one hand, I'm an avowed environmentalist -- what some derisively call a treehugger. I believe that global warming and climate change are incontrovertible facts and that our society is set up to operate in an unsustainable manner.

On the other hand, economic justice is just as important to me. I find it vulgar and profane that a small minority of the world's population lives in opulent splendor while the vast majority struggles to get by each day. I embrace the mantra Live Simply So Others Can Simply Live and I believe that, if more people followed this rule, our world would not be so poisoned by such economic inequality.

In essence, I believe many of the world's ills could best be solved by a marriage of environmentalism with economic justice. Unfortunately, neither concept has been embraced by the powers that be and, when one of them partially is invoked, it always seems to be at the expense of the other.

For example, here in the U.S., various levels of government recently have created a variety of tax incentives to encourage people to utilize renewable energy and/or make use of less-polluting technology. Here I'm referring to tax credits for installing solar heating/cooling systems in your home or purchasing hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles (to name but a few).

On the surface, these seem to be excellent mechanisms to encourage folks to lead more sustainable lives. While it is certainly unfortunate that far too many people seem motivated to do the right thing for our planet ONLY when it benefits their economic self-interests, at least these types of strategies seem to get many people moving in a better direction.

When our elected leaders promote these various schemes, they do so in a way to make it appear that ANY citizen can take advantage of the tax credits or allowances. But the truth of the matter is that only the well-off will have the wherewithal to make these sorts of investments and, thereby, receive the economic benefits.

So, in reality, working class folks are giving money (taxpayer dollars) to rich people to induce them to buy a Prius or install solar panels on their roof. This is yet another example of the insidious transfer of funds from the least wealthy to the most wealthy (Robin Hood in reverse)!!

In the end, while such tax schemes sound laudable, they truly don't address the problem in a meaningful way. And the main reason they don't truly address the problem is that the vast majority of Americans are in the middle and working class -- the very people who can't afford to take advantage of these tax breaks, in the first place.

So, while a very small minority are driving hybrids or heating/cooling their homes from renewable energy, the majority are driving clunkers and heating/cooling their homes with coal-fired or nuclear energy. The overall positive impact is minimal.

If our government was truly serious about moving this nation toward sustainability, then we must pursue strategies that ALL Americans can take part in. For one idea, government could provide subsidies to the middle class and working poor to purchase hybrids and/or wind and solar heating/cooling systems.

Our Anti-Stimulus Package

While Congress and the media debate President Obama's economic stimulus bill, it's interesting to note that the total amount -- currently tabbed at $850 billion -- is in the ballpark of what this nation has borrowed and/or spent on conducting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consequently, had we not initiated either of these wars, this money would be available now.

I realize that the above statement is not entirely true. If we hadn't wasted so much money on this two failed military endeavors, we would have spent some of the funds on other things. In addition, a lot of this money are not funds we currently have -- the monies were borrowed. Still, had we not borrowed the money, we wouldn't be so deep in debt and our national economy wouldn't be in such shambles now.

While former [p]Resident George W. Bush bares a lot of the responsibility for our current dilemma, both political parties are equally culpable. Republicans, as well as Democrats, kept passing bills that funneled more and more taxpayer dollars down the holes known as Afghanistan and Iraq! Congress could have easily halted either war by simply cutting the purse strings, but this didn't happen.

The National Priorities Project (NPP) has done a great deal of work on calculating the costs of the Iraq war. As of March, this cost will equal $656.1 billion. Here's a note on their methodology:

The Cost of Iraq War calculator is counting up to $656.1 billion, the amount allocated by Congress through March 2009. When additional fiscal year 2009 war funding is approved, the counter will be updated.

The numbers include military and non-military spending, such as reconstruction. Spending only includes incremental costs, additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included, but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. It is also not clear whether the current funding will cover all military wear and tear. It also does not account for the Iraq War being deficit-financed and that taxpayers will need to make additional interest payments on the national debt due to those deficits.

The media (and others) sometimes cite a figure that is in excess of our estimate. However, the number cited by the media may include not just the Iraq War, but the Afghanistan War and for enhanced security abroad. Our figure is only covering the cost of the Iraq War as it relates to the U.S. federal budget (and does not include costs to others or other countries or any economic impact costs to Americans).

This number is based on an analysis of the legislation in which Congress has allocated money for war so far and research by the Congressional Research Service (latest report) which has access to Department of Defense financial reports...

When Death Trumps Life

Why do the people think so little of death?
Because the rulers demand too much of life.
Therefore the people take death lightly.
~ Tao Te Ching, portion of Seventy-Five ~

This particular passage is very timely. With the US economy in free fall, a recent article posted on AlterNet, "The Financial Crisis Is Driving Hordes of Americans to Suicide" only underscores how more and more people are viewing death as a viable alternative to life.

The body count is still rising. For months on end, marked by bankruptcies, foreclosures, evictions, and layoffs, the economic meltdown has taken a heavy toll on Americans. In response, a range of extreme acts including suicide, self-inflicted injury, murder, and arson have hit the local news. By October 2008, an analysis of press reports nationwide indicated that an epidemic of tragedies spurred by the financial crisis had already spread from Pasadena, California, to Taunton, Massachusetts, from Roseville, Minnesota, to Ocala, Florida.

In the three months since, the pain has been migrating upwards. A growing number of the world's rich have garnered headlines for high profile, financially-motivated suicides. Take the New Zealand-born "millionaire financier" who leapt in front of an express train in Great Britain or the "German tycoon" who did much the same in his homeland. These have, with increasing regularity, hit front pages around the world. An example would be New York-based money manager René-Thierry Magnon de la Villehuchet, who slashed his wrists after he "lost more than $1 billion of client money, including much, if not all, of his own family's fortune." In the end, he was yet another victim of financial swindler Bernard Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

An unknown but rising number of less wealthy but distinctly well-off workers in the financial field have also killed themselves as a result of the economic crisis -- with less press coverage. Take, for instance, a 51-year-old former analyst at Bear Stearns. Learning that he would be laid off after JPMorgan Chase took over his failed employer, he "threw himself out of the window" of his 29th-floor apartment in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Or consider the 52-year-old commercial real estate broker from suburban Chicago who "took his life in a wildlife preserve" just "a month after he publicly worried over a challenging market," or the 50-year-old "managing partner at Leeward Investments" from San Carlos, California, who got wiped out "in the markets" and "suffocated himself to death..."

These sobering facts should cause those in Washington, D.C. to take pause. Whatever legislation they end up passing to deal with this new Great Depression (and let's be honest about what's happening -- it's not a fleeting economic downturn -- it's a bona fide depression), it must contain strategies to get lots of people back to work. If not, then articles like the one above will become...ho hum...commonplace.

The only way for death to become a popular avenue is when people start to view life as unbearable. Being out of work with no realistic prospects of finding a decent job, lacking the ability to pay one's monthly bills, having no health care or no roof over one's head and being unable to feed one's family are surefire ways to make life unbearable for many.

Where there is no hope, there is no joy.

Where life seems like death, death itself becomes a perverse joy.

A "Stimulating" Discussion

So, the US House passed President Obama's Stimulus bill; now it moves onto the senate. I downloaded the entire text of the bill -- all 647 pages! It's a difficult read as most of the text is in legal mumbo jumbo. It's hard to understand, particularly because most of the earmarked funds are for broad (and vague) categories.

One thing jumped out at me though. Despite the fact we already have the largest military budget in the world, nearly $5 billion of the package is for the Department of Defense. Since, according to the War Resisters League, over 50% of the $2,650 billion 2009 US federal budget is for military-based expenditures, why on earth is there even one penny in this package for anything having to do with the military?

Why is it that ONLY $100 million is earmarked for the WIC program and slightly more, $150 million, for emergency food programs? Even Head Start comes out on the short end of the stick with a paltry $1 billion.

Americans are hurting and hurting badly. One of the chief reasons that our social safety net has been torn to shreds is because of the egregious amounts of taxpayer dollars being expended on two unethical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, if the military-industrial complex is one of the leading factors that is steering our nation toward financial insolvency, why is the military receiving a larger share of the pie than programs like WIC or Head Start?

Kiss "Em Goodbye

On Monday, workers at two Aberdeen Weyerhauser mills showed up for work to begin another shift. I'm sure for most of them thought it would be a typical workday. However, at 2:30 p.m., they all learned that they were out of work. The timber giant had decided to close both locations.

The official reason for the closures has something to do with "weak market conditions". In today's teetering economy, I don't doubt the company's reasoning. Most industries are having problems and layoffs are being announced daily.

What infuriates me to no end, however, is the manner in which it was done. The announcement was made abruptly during one of the shifts. There's no way in the world you're going to convince me that Weyerhauser officials made this decision on Monday morning or even over the weekend. Obviously, they've been mulling over this decision for some time and, at some point, made up their minds.

If you respect the people in your employ, the ethical thing to do is give them some warning. The workers are counting on their usual paychecks to pay their bills. Now those paychecks are history and there are going to be a lot of people hurting.

What's even more galling is that big corporations like this (and, of course, it's not just Weyerhauser) often exact big tax breaks from state, county and local governments to come to and remain in a locale. It often takes the form of legal extortion -- Give us x amount of a tax break or we'll take these jobs somewhere else!!

So, governments bend over backwards to make sure the honchos of these big companies don't get their feathers ruffled and yet, this is the kind of payback we receive time and again -- They simply pull the plug without notice and glibly tell their workers not to let the door hit their backsides on the way out.

This Is What You Get

Over the last few years the media has had quite a time reporting on corporate excess. A few years back the big name in the news was Kenneth Lay of Enron. In more recent days, John Thain and Dick Fuld have been cast to the forefront. Each time a new name takes center stage, we're told that such folks are the exceptions to the rule. Most corporate CEOs are good folks who would never ever take advantage of the system.

I've got news for you, corporate excess is part and parcel OF the system. The only thing the three men above are guilty of is what most CEOs are guilty of -- unmitigated greed and an economic system that promotes this.

As United for a Fair Economy has reported for over a decade, the gap between CEO pay and that of their workers is mind boggling! Within the last 10 years, the gap has been as high as 525 to 1 and, as of 2005, was 411 to 1. Put into wage figures, if an average worker earned $40,000, the CEO earned $21 million (2000) and $16.4 million (2005).

What on earth could A-N-Y CEO do to justify that kind of gap? Often times what they have done is laid off workers -- those people toiling away to make the CEO rich -- or they've run their companies into the ground. Yet, regardless of whether or not the company profits are up or down, the CEOs always seem to come out of it smelling like gold-plated roses.

Still, despite this, I do feel a bit of sympathy for the Lays, Thains and Fulds of this world. Since gouging the public and lining your golden parachute is par for the course, these fellows must wonder why they have been singled out to be made the poster children of corporate excess.

You see, the exception to the rule is those few CEOs who behave in a reasonable and responsible manner -- not the legions who don't. Until we create an economic system that values people over profits, corporate excess will continue unabated and this will lay the ground for more poster children to be born.

A Comment on Comments

As many of you may have noticed, I don't always respond to the comments left here. I realize this probably violates some net etiquette rule somewhere and it may cause some of you to think either I don't take the time to read your comments or I don't care what you have to say.

Neither is the case, however. I read and often reread every comment posted. I often spend time mulling over your words and thoughts. It's always a good exercise to try to look at issues or situations through another person's eyes.

So, if I do read them and I care about them, why don't I always respond? It's because of my general rule -- I only write those words that wish to be exposed! Often, I find that many comments simply don't need a response from me. They have the strength to stand on their own feet. At other times, I really don't have anything salient to add.

If I think a point made is really clear or important, I may simply respond with "Good point" or I may not respond at all. On the other hand, there are some comments left that I categorically disagree with, but I simply don't feel the need to get into a protracted back-and-forth.

Finally, a lot of it most likely has to do with my Asperger's Syndrome. It is not uncommon in typical face-to-face situations when a person I'm talking with expects that I'm going to respond to something said and I say nothing or they make a remark that doesn't call for a response, yet I act as if it does. Simply put, I'm never clear when a response is expected and when it ain't. So, my default action is to stay quiet. ;>)

A Sad Sign of Our Times

Many of us awoke this morning to news of another tragic murder-suicide, a family of seven in metro LA. While it's far too early to offer a cogent analysis, I am afraid that this may well become a sad sign of our times.

Since we live in a society predicated on work and income, as more and more people face layoffs or business shutdowns, more and more people are going to feel like there is no alternative better than death.

What Now?

Now that a new study has been released that declares that climate change has passed the tipping point, what do we do now? Should we sit around and cry in our beer? Should we just say "Screw it" and keep on heading down this same road?

Of course, chances are that society will rush to embrace both of the actions listed above. Both represent the easiest route and, besides, what's done is done.

On the other hand, western society could take a page from Taoist belief and decide that now is a good time to practice societal wu wei (i.e., doing without doing or going with the flow). If our government leaders and all of us average citizens decided today to embrace wu wei, we could certainly leave the planet in much better shape for future generations.

For example, nuclear power is trying to force an energy source. It doesn't exist of its own volition and, even worse, it routinely produces deadly byproducts that we can't seem to figure out how to store safely.

Gasoline is also another attempt to manufacture an unnatural energy source. The petroleum industry has spawned our car culture which is one of the leading factors in irreversible climate change.

Wu wei informs us that we need to utilize those energy sources that surround us daily -- sun, wind, water, hydrogen, etc. It's actually downright amazing that the elements most within our reach are the very same ones we utilize the least! If nothing else, it only proves how we humans again and again seem incapable of grasping the obvious.

Them Darn Migrants!

I had to go today to my local Social Services office for an appointment. While awaiting my turn, I shared the waiting room with two other people. At one point, the young woman groused about having to wait so long. The other fellow told her to chill out because the wait here was nothing compared to Seattle or LA. In fact, he said, you probably couldn't find a place to sit because those waiting rooms are almost always jam packed.

The guy then launched into a brief diatribe about how, in California, those darn migrant workers are draining all the resources so that folks like us -- all three of us were lily "white" -- aren't able to receive the various services that WE are entitled to.

I could have simply sat there quietly and allowed the fellow to yammer on, but that's not my nature. I told him that, while it's true that many migrant workers do receive services from various social service agencies, they also make significant contributions into our overall economic system. For example, there are many rich people who owe their fortunes to migrant labor.

"Don't get me wrong, " the fellow responded. "I'm not a bigot. I realize that most migrants work very hard to make a lot of white Americans rich." If he had stopped there, then the conversation would have ended, but he still had another comment or two to add.

"You know what their problem is?" he asked. "They sell themselves short by accepting too little pay." Of course, he continued, this caused them to seek out social services to help them make ends meet.

And why do migrant workers accept such meager wages? Because slave wages in the US are still better than slave wages in their home countries, if they can find jobs at all, and the US plays a huge role in their home country's poor economic situation. Regardless of where a person hails from, we all share the same basic needs: food, shelter, clothes, leisure, etc.

Again, the fellow reluctantly agreed with me. "But if they would learn to organize, then they could demand better wages," he offered.

Migrants tend not to organize because they are here illegally and they're afraid to stand up for their rights because of the fear of being deported. I also pointed out that MOST American workers aren't organized -- though they should be -- because many of today's labor laws don't provide adequate protection against company reprisals. Often, if any worker speaks up, they get fired.

The one other point I would have made -- had I not needed to leave to pick up my wife -- is that there's even a bigger reason why migrant are paid so poorly -- the US economy would collapse if migrant workers were paid a living wage!!

While produce prices have certainly gone through the roof lately, these price spikes are nothing compared to the prices we would have to pay if the farmworkers were paid, at least, minimum wage. Prices like $5 for a head of iceberg lettuce or $20/lb. for pecans would be the norm. The poor in this country -- a number that is increasing daily -- would get to the point in which we couldn't afford groceries and this would result in higher crime and food riots.

No president or governor wants food riots, certainly not in the so-called most prosperous nation in the world. So, the easiest political answer is to pay migrant workers a subsistence or less wage and then to scapegoat them for accepting the terms that we, in fact, created.

Rules, Rules & More Rules

When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise.
When wisdom and intelligence are born,
The great pretense begins.
~ Tao Te Ching, portion of Eighteen ~

When a person reads the above passage from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, it seems to make no sense at all! Being kind to others and living a moral life are said to be virtuous attributes. Wisdom and learning are things we should strive for.

But from a Taoist perspective, Tao is impartial. It's not kind, moral, wise or intelligent. It just is and, if you allow yourself to be one with Tao, you do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. Period. End of story.

In essence, you don't try to live your life by a set of arbitrary religious rules -- ones that often were written down long ago and by someone external to you. Such rules are problematic because they lack context. What may seem to be the correct move in one instance, may not be in the next instance.

Another problem with arbitrary religious rules is that it seems to be the human condition always to try to find a way around them. Almost all of us like for rules to be rigidly applied to others, while we expect a lot of slack, in our own particular case!

The other chief problem with arbitrary religious rules concerns WHY most people seek to follow them -- that is, when they DO follow them. This specific point represents one of my chief critiques of Christianity. If you do or do not do something to please God, then, in my book, you're not truly doing or not doing it for the right reason anyway.

If you do something positive, then you're expecting brownie points or a reward (heaven). If you do not do something negative, then you're hoping to avoid a demerit or sanction (hell). In either case, you hope to get something out of the behavior or action. Therefore, your genuine emphasis is on you, not the supposed almighty. This means, of course, that your true motivation is nothing more than a bold attempt to serve your own selfish needs.

Reflections on Blagojevich

To be candid, I'm not that eager to jump on the "Damn Blagojevich" bandwagon. One thing I've learned in my many years is that what appears clear and easily defined in the political arena, often is anything but. So, while I grant that Governor Rod may indeed be a dirty and corrupt political parasite, I'm equally open to the idea that things may not be as they first appear.

So many aspects of powerful politics appear to be "wag the dog" scenarios. At first, the media blares headlines. People immediately make up their minds yea or nay based on spotty and, often, extremely biased reporting. Slowly, but surely, the truth comes out and it tends not to resemble the original headlines at all.

Whenever I hear or read stories of this nature, the very first question that pops into me noggin is: What advantage do the various players get out of this situation? If the answer to this question can be approximated -- and often, it can't be -- then you have a better than average chance of deciding the veracity of the various claims.

I guess what bothers me the most about the Blagojevich case is that I think this kind of horse selling goes on everyday in the backrooms of politics. Each time a contentious bill comes up, there are all sorts of [shady] deals being brokered out of public view to convince others to vote the bill up or down. So, what is it about this particular instance that caused criminal charges to be lodged?

One thing that jumps out at me is that Gov. Blagojevich was about ready to announce his selection of a replacement for the departed Rohm Emmanuel. It is more than conceivable that some in Illinois and/or the national Democratic Party leadership knew who the selection would be and they didn't like it. Therefore, they needed a quick strategy to derail the selection and arresting the governor fit the bill.

Like I said, they could have Blagojevich dead to rights and the charges against him are true and bona fide. I'm simply not ready to hang the man yet...not until some more of the dots are filled in.

An Old Love

As I dosed in my recliner last night -- slipping in and out of lucidity as I suffer mightily from an intestinal virus -- my wife was watching one of those forgettable flicks on the Hallmark Channel. I can't tell you the name of the movie nor much of anything about the plot, but during one of my semi-conscious moments, I heard one of the characters exclaim, "Nothing is as beautiful as young love."

At almost the same instance, both my wife & I blurted out the same basic sentiment -- Older love is better!

I suppose we often think that love in our younger years is better because it's so fresh and new. When you meet the "right person" your world seems to get turned upside down and it often feels like a fireworks display is erupting inside your heart and soul. At times, life almost feels surreal, sort of like an out of body experience.

But young love generally is subject to great highs and lows. The first time you intimately hold your beloved in your naked arms is the kind of experience few of us can put into words. On the flip side, the first major argument tends to make us feel like we've made the most horrid mistake as our idealization of the perfect partnership has been torn asunder.

In essence, young love often is like a roller coaster ride -- breathtaking rushes followed by the feeling like you're going to puke out your lunch and all your entrails too.

An older love is much deeper and is characterized by contentment and harmony. You and your beloved know each other inside and out. You've been through the best of times and the worst of times together. Those of us lucky enough to emerge from this struggle -- and any quality marriage or partnership IS a struggle -- find we have a much deeper relationship than anything that came before.

I often compare my marriage to the feeling one has for a favored pair of worn out jeans. The pant legs may be a bit frayed. The color is certainly faded. There may well be a hole or two in the material. But they feel so comfortable to wear, like a second skin. The very thought of chucking them in the trash is unthinkable!!!

You will wear them until there is almost no material left and you will keep sewing them up and patching them up to extend your relationship as long as humanly possible.

Tao of Obsession

Back in the day when I was part of the "working" world and, like most people, had the unmitigated joy of going to job interviews, one type of question always befuddled me. The interviewer[s] would ask me either to name 3 positive or negative traits about myself. I suppose this type of question was asked to gauge a person's self-confidence and openness to criticism.

I always noticed at group interviews that none of my fellow applicants had the slightest problem answering this style of question. Each, in turn, would extol his/her positive attributes and would then provide 3 negatives that were actually backdoor positives (e.g., "I work too hard -- but it's because I always want to get the job done right").

When it came my turn, my answer tended to leave everyone -- fellow applicants and interviewers alike -- with a dropped jaw expression! I would explain that my personality exhibits certain traits that can be viewed as positive or negative, depending on a person's point of view.

For example. One of the hallmarks of my AS is that I'm obsessive-compulsive. Just stating it, in a sterile sense, makes it appear in a negative light, but there are many situations in which being obsessive can be a very good thing indeed!

Let's say a person is an investigative reporter, an attorney or some type of advocate. Being obsessed with getting the story right or defending a client or group of people against all odds is a noble trait. In many instances, only an obsessive person can win the day because the non-obsessive person would have given up long ago.

So, if you support the aim of the news article or the person/people being defended, you would view absolute persistence as a strong quality in a person.

If, on the other hand, you stand on the opposite side of the fence -- you believe the reporter's aim is bogus or the people being defended are as guilty as sin -- then such dogged persistence will be viewed very negatively. Such people are apt to say that the reporter or advocate simply can't let go and they're causing no more than a tempest in a teapot.

And that's how I view each of my personality traits. Every single one of them can be viewed in a positive or negative light -- it all depends on the reference point of the person doing the analysis.

I do understand, however, that my opinion on this matter probably is greatly influence by my AS. I readily recognize that a great many people don't understand this topic this way at all and, when I try to explain my reasoning, they look at me as if I just landed from the planet Mars.

But what can I do? I'm obsessed with explaining my take on obsession. ;-)