Love.

In other posts, and especially in the just the previous one, I emphasized the idea that all one needs is love.  While that's sufficiently put for stating an ideal, it is a richly-nuanced and vast subject for a bit of elaboration.  If the premise is true, that means the subject of love is the largest possible subject.  So, to just leave the idea only as a song title, or bumper sticker slogan, doesn't necessarily lead to any of the reward from the rich understanding available.

First, a bit of consideration of love's largest implications.  Since it is a simple concept without any bounds of time and space, it is our best vehicle for contemplating the eternal and the infinite.  I've mentioned - what for me is - the very powerful phrase 'God is Love'.   As soon as one tries to intellectually conceive of God (let alone write anything about him/her/it in an entire text of scripture), one necessarily has come up far short of truly comprehending God.  Talking or thinking about anything for which words were not meant is all but pointless - perhaps except for the poetic use of metaphor.  Literal attempts to capture that which can't be captured inevitably lead to the sorts of trouble that Religion has brought us.  (This from a life-long church attendee and congregation member.)

From some experience with meditation, I know that thought is a distraction that keeps the goal of meditating just out of reach.  Doing it right takes practice for sure, and it's helpful for me to remember to simply sit and hold onto the feeling of love, without accompanying internal narrative.  Done right, all distinctions are obliterated, one becomes the whole.  It reminds me of other activities where any awareness of time and space is irrelevant and not included:  any of sort of creative or artistic endeavor, or any kind of deeply interpersonal exchange (conversation, teaching, play, lovemaking..), or any purely entertaining diversion, etc.  All these have in common an important ingredient: the loss of self.

Yesterday, on Public Radio, I heard David Broder talk about historical perspectives on society's view of the self.  Abbreviated here, the idea was discussed that, up until the blossoming of the Baby Boomers, even mention of the self wasn't heard much in common social discourse.  Only in recent decades has the self been in focus, to the extent that now even our institutions are hindered from attending to the common good.  Schools are encumbered with I.L.P.'s and I.L.A.'s, government is gridlocked and fractured by narrow, divisive and coercive agendas ("Keep your government hands off my welfare check"), etc.  Odd as it may sound, while No Child is Left Behind, the children have been forgotten.  Simplistically put, our pre-occupation with the self is keeping us from healthy functioning with regard to the other.

When one's attention is keenly focused on one's self there can't be any left to share with God or others.

Being inhabited by love, or giving one's self to love, necessarily annihilates the self as a distinct entity.  The concluding thought in the previous post is that love is the grand, unifying principle.  As such, it is simultaneously the biggest concept and the most personal one.  When the self is lost or set aside, one is joined to the whole.  To intentionally set aside one's self shouldn't imply a sense of loss (although we have become accustomed to feeling loss if our self is not our primary focus) - quite the opposite.  Losing one's self is to make room for a switch in perspectives and something to be wholeheartedly sought and welcomed.  Perhaps it would better said, giving one's self, or joining one's self.  If all were joined in this manner, with love for the other - expanding many fold the space formerly occupied by one - so many of society's difficulties would disappear in a blink.

Some pray to God to make this to happen, especially at this time of year: Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward All.  I've recited countless times,"...your will be done..."  Isn't this like waiting for some sort of magic trick to be performed?  And, isn't it like asking someone else to do my work?  When we hear that revolutions must to start within, it refers to all the way within: the self making room for, and joining with the other.  That happens, with intention and with attention, necessarily within one's own heart.  I make it happen, you make it happen and only then, at these moments, God is making it happen.

Of course, all of these notions are as old as time and they have in countless instances been discussed with greater eloquence.  Still if love (for the self and the other) is all-encompassing and timeless, then it's really about all that's worth talking about....  In fact, something really good is going to have to get a hold of me if writing another blog post will be worth doing.   Many thanks for your time.  With love - Bob

Bad News for Skeptics: You Can't Even Believe it When You See it!

This post is aimed, like a wave/beam of photons (light), at the subject of Faith, and may especially pertain to skeptics of faith.  In a purely rational world, they would be the vast majority instead of the majority who claim to be religious.  However, ours is a world full of mystery - genuine and invented - and is certainly far from purely rational.

 Humans make it hard on themselves.  As if there weren't enough real conundrums, added on top of dilemmas, compounded by a plethora of enigmas, we have to go around stirring the pot with invented puzzles of all kinds.  Simultaneously, we love - and hate - to be mystified.

Religion really doesn't help with this problem.  Adherents of organized religion are asked to accept the deepest truths on faith. And, for Christians, that's a gift either received or not.  Doubters apparently just didn't want the gift badly enough.  At the same time, the holy writings outline all manner of anecdotes and edicts to spell out the evidentiary details.  Is that to convince the fence-sitters?  Don't these two ideas (faith and scripture) sit mostly in opposition to one another?

Those with faith believe that God will take care of all the important stuff.  Many people believe this because others have said it is true.  He'll be the 'decider' about welcoming the good guys into eternal life and damning the others.  Until the Judgment Day comes, many believe He loves everybody equally.  (Ok, maybe not the gays quite as much.  And, He must not really love the animals at all because He put them under our dominion - not the most Intelligent part of the Design.)  People who accept the gift of faith don't need any more details than these.  In many cases, these are their marching orders and off they go.  Theirs is the perspective: I'll see it when I believe it.

Skeptics of faith will believe it, maybe, after they see it.  The problem is there is nothing to see.  I mean this in the most literal sense.  Just as religion is not helpful with the deepest mysteries, neither is science.

When we see water, we are told we are really seeing many mutually-attracting molecules made of two hydrogen atoms combined with one atom of oxygen.  Many people believe this because others have said it is true.  We are told further that each atom is comprised of sub-atomic particles in orbit around the nucleus.  The orbiting particles (electrons and protons) are best imagined as hollow, spherical shells because they can be found somewhere on that shell surface at any given time.  Within these component particle/shells, we are told there are smaller "particles", such as quarks and neutrinos (which are also more recently-conceived of as oscillating "strings"), and that these theoretically might be comprised, in turn, of their own structures.

At this point the size of things is reduced to the domain of ideas, cryptic symbols scratched on a chalkboard, certainly nothing than can be easily explained or observed, and yet these are the building blocks of all "solid" matter.  Presumably, each of these distinct ideas are separated by some amount of space - but what is that made of?  Nothing?  Is the world entirely made up of ideas, interspersed among volumes of nothingness?

How is this fundamentally different from faith in the existence of God, or anything else imaginable?  If, in its essence, matter cannot actually be observed, then what - exactly- are we looking at?  A uniformly-imagined projection of an idea?  And - in another direction - if a thing can be imagined, doesn't it necessarily exist somewhere in an infinite universe?  If the universe is not infinite, then...oh no, let's not go there again.  Never mind.

Advanced theoretical physicists have been dabbling with quantum mechanics for about eighty years, and the widely-held conclusion from them is that nothing really exists until it is observed.  Observation is the organizing principle behind the form of otherwise randomly moving bits of energy and matter.  It also, to some degree, destroys the thing being observed, because the corollary to this is that nothing can be truly observed in its naturally-occurring state.  (One simple example: the act of measuring tire pressure reduces the pressure when the gauge lets some air escape.)  Observation is not a benign force - any parent of a teenager can tell you that.  (It makes me think again about the many times I said, "Jeez, I was just looking!")

So a tree falling in the woods is not only silent, there is no tree and there is no woods.  Oh my...

Where are we left with all this inquiry?  What is real in our world after all?  In my world, I have faith that John Lennon pegged it in 1967:  All You Need is Love.  The only thing that makes sense to me is the purely-nonsensical idea of love.  (If I fail to write a directive elsewhere, somebody please be sure to have this put on my gravestone.  Oh, and please change to past tense.)

If (as I was told as a child) God is love - I'm still buying it - those are my marching orders.

Physicists believe they are close to finding the grail they call The Theory of Everything (T.O.E. - perhaps in the specifically named, "M-Theory", featuring 11 dimensions).  I'd like to sneak into their labs and write on the chalkboard:  T.O.E. = L.O.V.E. (...without any dimensions at all).

Three-legged Stool Pigeons

Joseph Campbell was a highly-acclaimed anthropologist, scholar and author, but perhaps his greatest gift was his clear vision into the stories we tell ourselves.  He understood better than most of his contemporaries a profound idea that is now commonplace thought:  everything human is story-based.  Everything.  As important as the blood that pumps continuously throughout our bodies, unceasing story-telling/crafting abounds in our minds.  Even during most sleep time. Only those who practice meditation can find respite from the incessant narration.

Much of the American story is based on three entangled, pervasive and enduring myths.  They are as mutually supportive as are the three legs of a stool.  Take out any one and the whole thing collapses. One does not trump the other, but is equally co-dependent with the others.

These three component pieces, Religion, Nationalism (Extreme Patriotism or Jingoism) and Militarism, necessarily have similar attributes and symbolic references:.  The term "Religion" is generally taken to mean "Church", and that's most often meant to be Protestant Christianity.  Although pluralism is a founding principle (according to Thomas Paine), the reality in America is that every other type of religious or spiritual pursuit is suspect, at least.  Religion demands respect for rules, artifacts or trappings, formality or regimentation, and a clear hierarchy of authority.  The same is true for Nationalism and Militarism.

Each of these three are contrivances and tools of suppression, if not oppression.  I am not necessarily saying God is contrived, only the human institutions that purport a belief in God.  Occasionally you can find an SUV or pick-up truck simultaneously displaying symbols of all three myths.  For example a fish symbol, a flag bumper sticker and an NRA decal.  Or, all-inclusive bumper stickers, such as, "God Bless Our Troops" on a background of red, white and blue.

These are extremely damaging myths that have been used to justify great violence when they're held on blind faith and, therefore, without examination.  In a nutshell, the tangled logic goes something like this: God favors with life and liberty those who, in his Name, take from others life and liberty.  America is specially favored by God (Exceptionalism), because we are so good at taking from others and it's a dereliction of duty to not impose His will on others.  God and American imperialism, taken together, justify the use of any means necessary to accomplish the Mission.  All three myths use the word mission those missions are usually justified in circular fashion with reference to the others.

Perhaps the key component of these three myths, which also holds together most social groups, is "Us and Them".  Every group necessarily defines itself in a closed set of beliefs and characteristics, and any outsider is to be ignored, or ostracized, or worse.  In fact, the pre-eminent religions and nations have arrived at their dominant status by killing-off "Them", simply because they are not "Us".   Groups who have a common belief of tolerance invariably meet up with, and are conquered by, groups with less tolerance.  The most intolerant naturally rise in power, by Darwinian principle.

There are small, independent-minded groups who actually are skeptical of group-think for this reason. (Quakers might be one example.)  These individuals tend toward compassion toward all, are neutral in party politics and are largely agnostic in their beliefs.  They are naturally ostracized by every other established group because they are a perceived threat.  The irony of this is that they actually behave most in accordance with the espoused beliefs of the major religions.  They aren't actually a threat and yet some of these gentle souls are often more brutally oppressed than any group's actual, self-professed enemies.

Is any of this making sense yet?   If so, please let me know how this is making sense.

Our society is responsible for some great accomplishments and some great crimes.  We champion the causes that ultimately lead to our own remorse and we can't seem to see far enough back in history to avoid the same trouble in the future.  I'm all for living in the present, but not if it's based on self-delusion.  This is the main reason for the name of this blog:  ('Funny that we chose an eagle for a symbol, because) we are sheep.  Although, I would never say that out loud in front of real sheep - I can imagine them humming and looking at their hooves, shuffling to the far side of the barn if I came in and tried to make the comparison.

a quick (sinful) thought

If cookies and candy were health foods, would we all be in tip top shape, or would we be sneaking out of the house to munch on carrots when no one was looking?

The point of the question is to highlight a quirk of human nature:  if we don't sin, is it because we choose not to, or is it because we don't really have the opportunity?  And if we don't have the opportunity at hand, won't we invent one in short order?  This is the point where most of us take a step back and reflexively defend our virtue to ourselves.  "No, not me; I'm noble and can abstain", we say with self-righteousness and pride, which is another kind of sin according to some. If we are naturally compelled to sin, why and what exactly is that?

Of course, sin has been debated by all manner of theologians and philosophers who have made a deep study of the subject.  Presumably one would like to see his own vices included on the list that is acceptable to the Lord; the other guy's sin is the abomination.  Sin, along with the other tenets of religion, is as necessary to the whole construct as are acts of worship, grace, forgiveness, etc.

In the simplest, objective sense, sin is a proscribed activity or state of being, as defined by a given, self-distinguishing (discriminatory) group.  The intentions behind the concept are that sin is used to clear-up the boundary between"us" and "them", and to keep the membership in line.  These are the practical reasons, but like so many of our odd behaviors and ideas, the list of sins is attributed to Divine Authorship.  I'm going on record here by saying the Creator of everything in the known and unknown universe doesn't give a fig if you eat meat on Fridays.  Besides, isn't that a special day of thanks, as in,"Thank God it's Friday"?  Why not celebrate it with a feast of fatted calf?

The list of sins for fundamentalist Christians used to be longer, but God is relaxing a little on all those abominations - Nice Guy that he is.  (I don't know if Allah is all that laid back with his flock.)  At one time you didn't want the Almighty catching you wearing garments woven of mixed fibers.  When you attended a public stoning, or went to collect taxes from the poor, you had better be wearing pure linen or pure wool so God would smile on you. (Deut.22:11) Also, you couldn't eat rabbit, or shrimp or flying insects, they were unclean.  (I still abstain from eating flying insects.)  Over the centuries, these have somehow become clean. If only he would relax on some of the other sins, those that are currently dearest to our hearts.

We find ourselves in possession of a magnificent mind that can turn its attention to God, and to showing compassion and taking care of others.  Or it can turn in myriad other directions.  These are distractions, at least, from the most important human business and most of these are on some list of sins.  Anything that would interrupt the connection to God or to higher callings is a sin, so naturally we're all guilty as charged - and there's not much point in drawing too many distinctions.  Let God do the judging.

Well, from one sinner to another...carry on.

Self-righteousness is the inevitable fruit of simple moral judgments.

Reinhold Niebuhr

Not Like the Animals...rats!

We are the only species - that starts off a sentence like this.  That is to say, we are fond of distinguishing ourselves apart from the other animals and everything else that is "savage" and natural ( -except when we buy 'natural ingredients' in our food and soap, etc.). We are advanced and sophisticated, so thinking we are apart confirms in our minds that we are God's chosen.  If the God that created everything in such beautiful harmony would then want to impose an outside landlord over it,  the concept of stewardship isn't going to ever be realized.  It's like the absentee owner who is only interested in getting the rent on time without a care for the property.

Why are we compelled to make ourselves seem so special to us?  It's the basis for our survival instinct, the defining image we project into our story, the character of the starring role we've written.  We must be special if we can make choices over the existence of everything else.  Just like God, except that the results of God's choices seem to last a lot longer. So far, the results of our choices are lining up to point in an unsustainable direction.  The screenplay we are writing is for a short run production.

So, we're not quite like God and we've declared we are no way like those dirty, savage animals.  That leaves us caught in the middle - truly apart.  This is a perfect image of falling out of Grace.  One can pursue in a quest the Grail of recaptured paradise, but it's certainly a futile journey, an ever-receding mirage.  We can't achieve God status (not here in the physical sense) and we can't return the "gift" of the knowledge of good and evil, that is, we couldn't be like the animals, even if we wanted to.

Speaking of gifts, evolution seems to have given us something of a Trojan Horse for a victor's trophy.  We developed superior weapons, and other means for winning the survival of the fittest contest, and the prize (of getting to procreate willy nilly) came with an unremovable tag on the package: The Ego.  The Ego makes everything human possible, and regrettable.  Greater minds have nailed down its definition, but in a nutshell, it is an abstract image created in our minds to play an intermediary, narrating role.  It's primary impact, if not it's most important function, seems to be deception.

A deep-thinking author by the name of Tai Carmen puts it this way,

"Metaphysically speaking, the Ego is a false construct of the mind that is not rooted in ultimate being. It is self-centric and lacking a natural sense of connectivity. In the living moment of the present, the Ego holds no power. Because the Ego itself  is imaginary and unreal, it can only hold dominion in the imagined and unreal moments of the past and future."

The reason we seven billion find ourselves in a planetary pickle is that we can't focus for very long on the present moment, in any unvarnished sense, without soon drifting forward or backward in imagined time to write and re-write some sort of narrative.  We're completely occupied with the business of self-deception and the result of that practice is that we will pretty soon be 'voting ourselves off the island', as it were.

At this point, we might wonder, would we see any sort of promise in giving ourselves over to doing things differently, if we could?  That is, through the practice of meditation, where we stop the incessant and inane script writing and simply behold our being, can we actually see an impact around us for the better?   Well, to enter meditation with a goal like that won't work, because that's a kind of script writing itself.  That would be to set up experiment in cause and effect, and it couldn't be conducted in the "Ego vacuum" of meditation. (We would have a conflict of interest, being too strongly invested in one outcome over the other.)  Secondly, it's never been tried by enough people to know either way, so like other unknowable things, it's hard to say.

Still, it might work.  We tend to try other solutions that completely illogical.  It seems we think having more than one or two children is a good idea.  We try burning garbage rather than burying it, but we haven't really tried reducing garbage.  We think overconsumption of biofuels will somehow be better than overconsumption of fossil fuels. Mass practice of meditation is no crazier than any of these.

I could advise we all take up meditation, but I would have to first have the practice rock solid for myself.  Besides, I don't think others' advice is too often effective, or followed, much less appreciated.  Almost everything of significance in one's life seems to come about through self-discovery.  That includes discovering love, small natural wonders, or the writings or teachings of spiritual leaders.  If they, who are credible, were in the business of giving advice, they would suggest we all take up meditation.

Meanwhile I would suggest you click on the following link to more of Tai Carmen's ideas:
http://taicarmen.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/the-world-in-a-grain-of-sand/

Abel - the first "Good Shepherd"

I tried staying away from writing for a month and I just about made it:

Having a Nice Day™?  That certainly seems to be the sincere wish of just about every convenience store clerk I’ve ever met.  Well, not wishing to go against their wishes, I’d say if you are having a Nice Day, you should probably skip reading this.  Seriously, these ideas (like a few of the more recent posts) are beyond just politics - pretty far beyond, actually.  I suspect this general subject is not really ready for prime time, but (to change metaphors) dancing around on thin ice is one of my specialties.


So, with that cautionary note, venture forth if you are strong or already bummed out for the day:

It’s not a day brightener to consider that our species, although increasing in number, is actually in decline in several key aspects.  We are realistically looking at, and at some point should give strategic consideration for, the end game for our kind.  But this really doesn’t have to spoil your day.  Everything’s fine, keep shopping.  We may not be able to change the outcome much but we have time to think this through.

We evolved, for better and worse, to possess a brain that outfoxed itself and we seriously botched the management of all our affairs related to species survival.  We sense this, and we try different solutions, but they seem to just create new problems.  (e.g. biofuels, cap and trade, carbon credits, etc.) We have exploited and overused the resources we depend on, spoiled the environment with waste of all kinds, and thoughtlessly mistreated members of other species, as well as our own.  We’ve been doing all this for several thousand years and the consequences are now showing up more frequently and urgently than ever before.

We can hang our heads in shame, but that's not an answer.  Also, while we are complicit in a crime so vast it can’t be fully appreciated, we can reasonably argue that there could not have been any other possible outcome to our evolution- but that still doesn't justify apathy.

At some point, we were simply tired of being eaten by saber toothed tigers, and we also wanted to more efficiently kill woolly mammoths.  And, we also wanted to kill those bad guys in the cave next door before they kill us, and do it from a safe distance.  Because we wanted these things, we made it happen with sharp sticks and rocks instead of clubs and fists.  In fairly short order, we had stealthy nuclear weapons and here we are.

In fact, humans evolved to be self-limiting.  (If, by the way, you believe in Intelligent Design, can you point out which is the intelligent part? ) Darwin pegged the motivation - survival of the fittest, period.  The fittest is us, but our fitness didn’t include the ability to project the distant future that holds the logical consequences of our “advanced” survival behaviors.  The distant future only stays distant for so long, and then it’s imminent.  Seven billion and counting....

. . . . .

I'd credit someone for the following if I knew the source(s):

There is an ironic take on particular aspects of the story of Jesus, the Savior, that illustrates some anthropological parallels for the development of man:  Because Jesus had such an uncomfortable message, and because he consistently delivered in the faces of the wrong people, he was persecuted and put to death.  But by killing him and silencing his message, we cut off our path to salvation.  (That was the path where we actually had to change our behavior to be like his.)  Luckily for us, there's the other path to salvation.  In his encore as the Holy Spirit, he offers a kind of a plan B route.  This route assumes no change is going to happen, so we can still find grace by simply praying for forgiveness.


(There's a joke going 'round the internet about this:  "I prayed to God to give me a bicycle, but then I remembered He doesn't work that way.  So, I stole a bicycle and prayed for forgiveness.")

In a symbolic sense in this metaphor, Jesus is the stand-in for our actual savior.  Our real savior is not an individual, but an archetype or at least a generic representative of a sort.  That is the prototypical "indigenous" human, of late Stone Age vintage, from any given inhabited region.  


In the Old Testament, Abel is a symbolic, Biblical precedent of this: one living in grace.  He stands for the kind of heathen that we despised and persecuted, not in the dramatic single event, or over the course of a week or so, but over millennia.  Civilized and settled man (descended from the surviving brother, Cain) is largely self-defined by his distinctions from, and his presumed superiority over, the hunter-gatherers.  It turns out they had the grace-filled, sustainable lifestyle about right, except for the fittest for survival part.

(In a double ironic twist, it is believed by some researchers that a period of climate change about ten thousand years ago may have forced hunter-gatherers to take up farming in the first place.  Eventually, they evolved to climb up on diesel-gulping combines to harvest the GMO corn that we enjoy today in our breakfast cereal, while we read the newspaper stories about the current climate change.)

We’ve systematically purged our planet from practitioners of a way of life that was our means of salvation.  We cut off our path back to an actually sustainable way of being.  Why?  The same reason they killed Jesus, and the same reason Cain killed Abel:  Those responsible (which could have included any one of us) didn’t want to be reminded of the way they had fallen from grace.  In our case, we didn’t want the natives to remind us of our own fall from grace, our lives of excessive greed and fear.  Eliminating those still living in grace was and still is the easiest way to assuage our guilt.  Kill the last of them and then swing by the mall for the clearance sale.

So, where does this all leave us, besides screwed?  It leaves us to finally and fully embrace reality on an individual basis.  Reality is that we should love one another, just as Cain should have loved his brother.  He was, and we are, our brother’s keeper.  At this point, love for one another is about all we have left, and in truth, that’s all that ever was important.  Jesus died trying to point that out.

(Hiatus)

I'll take a break for the month of October from any new posts.  There are sheep still out in the pasture, wondering which way to go to get back to the barn, but they'll have to wonder as they wander for a while until I get back in the shepherding business. I'm working on a couple of ideas but the call of autumn is too insistent and it overwhelms all non-practical thinking.  It beckons all able-bodied folks to get their affairs in order and gird their loins for the interminable, frozen siege.  I'll be only too eager to resume writing as I contemplate the icicle-refracted morning light.

Herdthink?

A herd cannot actually "think", in the sense of being deliberate.  Group "decisions" are reactive, not proactive.  It's been alleged here that our species 'made a choice' to remove itself from the equation that balances life on earth, known as natural selection.  Of course, no group choice was made to do that.  Choices were made by individuals faced with the struggle to survive.  Collectively, it appears in retrospect to be a progressive movement via technological innovation; it fits into history books better that way.

Individual choices among nearly all other species are also purely reactive, made in the 'fight or flight' moments, or in response to some other physical stimuli: sights, sounds, smells, etc.  Our species evolved to possess higher cognitive function and that trait has proven ultimately to make us too smart for our britches, as it were.

It would appear that the slow and steady march of evolution on earth has led inexorably to a self-limiting outcome.  It seems we'll be hitting the reset button within the next 50 to 100 years, if present trends continue unchanged.  In the 4.5 billion years of earth history, one wonders how many times the reset button has already been pushed?  Maybe by ancient asteroid and/or early climate change? Some astronomers think "our" sun has another 5 billion years to shine before it goes dark, so it's likely the same button will be pushed over and over, too many times to count.

Is it inevitable the same evolutionary outcome will happen each time?   The rules of natural selection, as they're commonly understood, would point toward this recurring, "tragic" conclusion.  The apparent point of species competition is not to maintain balance, but it is to simply prevail among all perceived adversaries and in so doing, hope to ensure one's own survival for another day.  (In fact, there is not even a sense of competition at all, as we consider it.  There's no game to be played in the struggle to avoid being eaten.) The individuals who successfully adapt and mutate to possess better traits for outcompeting others will get the reward of mating ('way better than any consolation prize!), perhaps pass along those clever genes and log the mutation in the historical record.  Excellent game plan, except for the two minute drill, as it were.

If the rules are followed to the end of the game, the dominant species will be the one that develops cranial capacity to house a smarter brain.  That's the same brain that figures it will be good to invent nuclear weapons and will later think it's ok to ignore environmental clues that we've seriously screwed up the biosphere.

This planet seems to be designed for bloodsport, like a giant colosseum for gladiator contests.  Humans get to come out on top this time around, but it looks like the curtain will come down soon on our show and the spilled popcorn, peanut shells and litter will be swept up in time for the start of the next show.  (I have a hunch that squirrels will be the dominant species next time  - they have mastered the birdfeeder in this incarnation and in the next go-'round watch for them to crack the cold fusion puzzle.)

Are all planets with developing life like this one?  Are there any out there where the model for interspecies relationships isn't based on eating whatever you can run down and catch in your claws?  Wouldn't it be nice to actually inhabit a place like the Rousseau painting entitled, Peaceable Kingdom?  It depicts a paradise-like, calm coexistence among creatures in repose with small children in their midst.  None seems interested in tearing the flesh off the bones of the others - how refreshing - 'must be all vegans.

Back on the ranch, it has been noted that humans are the dominant herd.  It seems we are now witness to a development that could be called 'species fragmentation'.  Others might call it "class warfare".   The same, scorched-earth approach we used on the other species - where, if you're not cheating you'e not trying hard enough - we are now using on each other in an intraspecies grudge match!  There's a real Smack DownTM going on like that in Wisconsin!  Winning at all costs is the battle cry and if that means bringing down the whole place and everyone in it, well, dammit - it beats losing!...(?.or isn't it just the same?..only worse?)

"It is possible to be provincial in time as well as in place; and the unfortunate truth is that all but a handful of people are narrowly provincial in time." (taken from excerpts from Confessions of a Philosopher, 1997 by Bryan Magee, as excerpted by the author of www.basicincome.com/bp/index.html - 'really worth checking out.)

It might be that we're just in a prolonged economic downturn, or we might be witnessing hints of the behavior some believe will be necessary to survive in the end-game scenario alluded to above.  Are the Republicans now foreshadowing the traits of those who will be scrapping over the last of the spoils?  They're certainly reminiscent of that one brat in the sandbox who simply would not share his toys.  That's the same child who so shocked others nearby that they each vowed then and there to either be just like him (Republican) or to never be like him (Democrat).

"In every age of transition men are never so firmly bound to one way of life as when they are about to abandon it."

Bernard Levin 

(copied from the source at the link below)

It could be that we are seeing the 'darkness before the dawn' in our herdthink behavior.  We might actually start electing people from the political center so that fruitful compromise might lead to actual beneficial legislation, and..... I might have the winning lottery ticket waiting for me at the convenience store.

Maybe we should all give Buddhism further consideration - but with this twist:
beyond embracing the pain which is human experience, we should think about embracing the pain which is right-at-the-end of human experience.

This notion leads us, at last, to the subject of a posting in the near future - excarnation.  What are the choices for a species looking to make a graceful exit - or perhaps, at least that specie's members who belong to a large and rapidly-aging generation where the needs for their extended care will soon far outdistance the resources to meet those needs?   (Writing for a fainthearted audience would be no fun.)

Not as Simple as Herding Sheep

No, posting the following line of argument is more like herding cats - and necessarily so!  This is an attempt to rationally argue for an irrational concept - the existence of God.  (Not to be confused with anything to do with church.)  This is an answer to skeptics of faith - those who will believe it when they see it.  But, I also argue for them of the non-existence of God.  On the whole, it is a messy, long-winded, free-ranging exercise that probably calls for a cup of tea.   Thanks, I hope it works for you, here we go:

 Scientific researchers continually extend the micro and macro ends of the spectrum of observable physical phenomena, and yet there remains an unknown portion beyond each end that contains imaginable, but unknowable, things - and probably, infinite unimaginable things. (All of known science was first unimaginable, then was imagined and only then could it become known.)  Somewhere in those fuzzy realms of unknowable things, we imagine that laws and truths exist, but we can’t prove them without evidence.  There, we come up against the limits of rationality and it is as enticing as it is maddening. 

In the vastness of our known world and of these unknown realms we simultaneously look for evidence of, and want to imagine, a grand, singular, unifying principle - because without that, everything is just too detailed and complicated to behold independently.  

Rational Thought and Imagination might be the defining characteristics of our species, for better and worse, and it would seem they are the tools by which we first separated ourselves from the unity of everything else at some point in our distant past.  We imagined a better way to live and made it happen through the very rational process of trial and error, in myriad permutations over millennia to become something like self-evolving.  (We left the chance of natural selection to the other creatures.) Because this  really hasn’t worked out very well in some important respects, we’ve been trying to use these tools ever since to find a path toward reunification with this grail of imagined singularity.

This last bit is the short explanation for why there is no god, gods or God - we imagined the story of God(s) and most humans have stuck with it, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary.  Some argue it’s only logical that a species possessing higher cognitive capacity should invent gods.  There might be evidence that it serves an evolutionary need for us to do so.  I have no argument with any such evidence, in fact, it supports the case I hope to make here.

Along with the ideas of the unifying principle and of God, let’s also consider that of the Truth:  At some recent point, since the ascendancy of Science, we seem overly occupied with the Truth.  Of course, it is the supposed outcome of the rational mind doing it’s thing and we certainly aspire to rationality.  On the other hand, the most rational of us know best the relativity of the concept of Truth.  The frame of reference, or context, largely determines the validity of, first, observation, and then interpretation and finally any conclusions or judgments.  Evidence supports the Truth?  Yes, and all of it exists in our minds after being sifted in there through our individual filters.  Can Truth exist apart from the mind?  ‘Not sure there has ever been a more pointless question.

For most of our history, we probably lived as much or more by imagination than we have lived by rational thought.  Only in the last five or six centuries has the trend been to hold rational thought in relatively higher esteem.  Just lately, as evidenced by our currently-imbalanced politics and policies, have we seen something like popular disdain for the supposed shortcomings of imagination.  One of the most celebrated rational minds in history belonged to Albert Einstein who made the matter clear when he simply stated, “Imagination is more important that knowledge”.  (It certainly precedes knowledge , but perhaps he sensed a growing imbalance when he proclaimed this for counter-emphasis.)

A word about imagination:  Since imagination resides in our minds, we believe its products are our own unique creations.  The terms denotes creation of a representation, or image, of a concept that hadn't been previously considered - where? - in one's mind.  Is it imaginable that there is a function of the mind that is similar to a receiver and that what comes to it, and what we truly originate, are often virtually indistinguishable to us.  It's possible we think an "original" thought is ours but exact ownership or origin is not certain.  It's possible that it happens far more than we can imagine.

Consideration from a different angle:

Certainly, unchecked growth in any petri dish, or on any single planet is a self-limiting concept, and yet it is the central, driving principal of being.  Flourish or face extinction.  We know on some level that we are living a lie, as it were.  We intuitively hold to the notion of indefinite growth, while knowing we live in a finite realm.  Since we made ourselves the exception to the governing rule of natural selection that holds species in balance, our mortal proposition actually is ‘flourish and face extinction.’  Something has eventually got to give, and that will probably be at the boundaries of our known experience: it could either be an unrecognizably-altered existence, or an abruptly-discontinued existence, or it could be continued existence in an unknown place/time.  

Darwin has clearly demonstrated that growth occurs in stages and not all advance to the next stage at the same time, if at all.  It can be assumed that any surviving organism is well-equipped for its present stage and only those that exhibit the requisite, superior traits will mutate or “matriculate” to the next stage.  Organisms cannot be expected to have full knowledge of their future stages of development until they “arrive” there; there’s no need for it yet.  

From the realm of unknowable things come this important question: what if evidenced-based, rational thought is the same tool God has used to construct obstacles or challenges to higher development? 

Successful organisms react to challenge by striving and so challenge is an important catalyst for growth.  Now, if there is a singular source, a creator of all things, it/he/she necessarily exists beyond, above and apart from our existence in time and space.  So, He, She, It - would have cards to play that we’ve never even seen in the deck.  Certainly one of those cards could mean that, at this stage of our development, all observable evidence will point toward the idea there is no god, so that only those who successfully strive will find hints of anything beyond known science.  

Einstein also said, “I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”

Picking up on these hints must necessarily call for imagination - the very tool we currently hold in relatively low regard.   We’ve long-used imagination to further our own evolution and we are all faced with using it to make a leap to the next level: attempting to imagine an eternal, singular source.  This is the proverbial leap of faith.  A majority of the species claims to have made it, but it’s not for everybody. 

  

Could it be that levels of development “await” us that are only knowable to those residing at that level and are only barely imaginable our present level?   Given what scientific theorists have to say about the time/space continuum, could it be that some advanced levels of development are beyond the known scope of mortal time and terrestrial space?  Is it a given that all of our species will make the grade, as it were, or does it take an act of will on our parts?  What is that prerequisite act of will?  Living a life of belief in, or that is imaginative of, that which is presently unknowable.

So, the case has been made (tediously, if not convincingly) that our imagination is an underutilized tool and it must be used, not to look for evidence, but to imagine a singular, infinite source in an earnest way, as a matter of survival in a future, unknowable stage of development.  There is mystery and that should be okay.  Some find meaning in the idea when put this way: salvation can be found in believing in God (I don’t find it meaningful particularly, but it works for a lot of folks). 

What is it that spurs the imagination most?  Reverence.  A deep and compelling affinity for that which is is bigger and better than us and seems to beckon our attention.  Beyond just the ability to notice, and even beyond careful consideration, we possess the capacity for loving and for devoted attention.  Why? Does it only exist as a evolutionary trait, a necessary parental instinct?  It seems we have evolved to a state of a surplus capacity for love.  More than a surplus capacity, it is actually seems to be a limitless capacity and in that unique regard, it is perhaps our best avenue to comprehending the infinite.  By definition, infinity is a singular concept and a comprehension of this realm naturally stirs deep-seated reverence.  This is Einstein’s God, and that works for me.

The Big Question.

It was mentioned in an earlier post that our existential conundrum is that our planet is too small.  Actually, it is the perfect size for us, and it’s we that have grown too numerous - by several orders of magnitude.  This is, of course, the mother of all problems and it’s no wonder that we chase after every shiny object trying forget about it.  Any and all distractions are welcome if they save us from contemplating how thin we have worn the welcome mat.   How else can you explain such phenomena as Rick Perry, Beanie Babies or the Home Shopping Channel?

There might be some readers who will insist this is an overly dramatic, apocalyptic view of things and that, even if the general trend is not good, we still have a lot of time to change.  Maybe, maybe not.  I’m betting that, if there is a seventh generation of our descendants, they will have wished we did more sooner to fix things.

 I think those who are planning for trouble based on the Mayan calendar have an apocalyptic view.  Others, who are paying attention to patterns of life on earth and see disturbing trends, are simply being observant.

Almost 7 billion of us are consuming resources at an all-time high rate, and creating more waste than ever before.  By 2050, it is expected that earth will be asked to host 50% more of us..... (I would ask any Tea Party member, if this many of us has had no significant impact so far, what is the magic number beyond which we've suddenly got problems?  Is there such a point in our future on this finite planet? - or maybe we should just worry about that question later - right now, it’s about jobs, jobs, jobs!)

Is it inevitable that this population prediction will come true?  By no means, that’s why predictions are so difficult. (Especially about the future. Predictions about the past are often right on the mark.) Climate change and rising sea levels will probably make many populous, coastal areas unlivable and widespread eco-refugee migration will concentrate population elsewhere which could lower regional birthrates, thanks to a way-less-than-romantic mood at that point. It is not at all unimaginable that the rate of population growth will flatten out or even decline somewhat in the next few decades, if circumstances get severe enough.  

All of our species’ problems are related to overpopulation, including those that are like the horses we’ve already let out of the barn - they’re running wild on their own now.  These are the ones that will probably have the greatest influence on birth and death rates:  climate change, drug-resistant viruses, invasive species, etc.   It also seems that our gluttonous rate of increased energy and resource consumption almost has a life of its own.  So, we can probably expect some “corrections”, as the market analysts are fond of saying when they get their lunch handed to them.

What is not hospitable for 8 or 9 billion can’t be too good for 5 or 6 billion either.  It won’t be wonderful for any number of billions.  We’re looking at a difficult scenario for the grandchildren.

So, what to do?  What to tell the grandchildren?  At the risk of taking this post on a wildly divergent path, and of boldly diving into ridiculously deep water, I’ll put out a couple of off-the-wall questions:  

For one, well, wouldn’t it be helpful to know for sure if there is a God?  If God swoops down out of the clouds on Judgment Day, like an ace thrown on the last trick, well then I owe the fire and brimstone evangelists an apology, and I’ll be packing my bags for hell!  It’s beyond bothersome that we can’t know for sure, not in the same way you can for sure know the contents of the phone book for example.  

Should we get really serious about recycling, turning out the lights and growing a vegetable garden, or just attend church regularly?  Both? Neither?  

This leads to the biggest of all the big questions and I’ll pose it here, but then address it in more detail another time soon: Did God create Man or did Man create God?  This can be “answered” by faith alone, or through a logical process we can at least examine the question a little more clearly and do a sort of “work-around” on the answer.  In any case, please stop by again soon with your thinking cap securely strapped on.

Our Herd in a World of Hurt

“Sustainability” is a term thrown around so much lately it has lost its meaning and now has about the same impact as baaa-ing from a flock out in the pasture.  Baaa, baaa, yada, yada....  Not unlike, “going green” and “all-natural” and all the other well-intentioned slogans for inspiring stewardship, this bumper sticker label has been commercially co-opted and leaves one searching for yet another term that will actually make a difference.  (It would be good for us to keep some important words from running around in the marketplace where they’ll get gobbled up and pooped out into a sales pitch.)

Our species has not done anything truly sustainable since we first decided to make permanent settlements for ourselves over five thousand years ago.  Since then we’ve had “investments” to protect and support.  These called for bigger families to outnumber other clans and to defend some piece of land, and to tend the herds and work the fields.  In turn, all that called for more land to support the bigger families and off we go, down the wrong road.  We are now a long way down that road and I’m am really sorry to say it seems its a dimly-lit, one-way, narrowing alley.

It’s pretty common for us to think of domesticating animals and raising crops as the start of Progress.  But play it out for yourself, the likely ultimate price of progress appears to be self-extinction or -excarnation - which, had we known....   We didn’t, or couldn’t, know - or didn’t want to know we we’re doing anything wrong for the longest time.  The evidence didn’t support any concern.  Dammit.  

Could anything we might have intentionally done at anytime have made a difference?  At what point along the steady march from village to town to city to metropolitan area to mega-sprawl could we have stopped and said, “This just ain’t right.”  There have been voices, but not loud enough to be heard over the din of the marching band blaring the fight song for Civilization, Scientific Progress, Innovation!

One recent voice, Wendell Barry, has said in regard to resource stewardship, anything we do today called “use”, future generations will call “theft”.  Thus it has been for millennia - it’s just that now, we have nearly seven billion thieves and the cost is so much more obvious.  What’s not obvious is how we will overcome the costs that are now already apparent.

So far this year, that is now still in its hurricane season, is the all-time priciest for climactic catastrophe recovery costs.  Hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, tornados, heavy rains, straight line winds. If we exclude earthquakes, we will still set a record for disaster relief expense. I would love to say this is an aberration and next year will be back to normal - I really would love to be able to say that with some degree of confidence.

I do not study the weather firsthand with any dedication, but I definitely pay attention to the patterns for the weather systems that come through our area, and they are shifting in a fluky way.  It seems a new jet stream path has caused wind directions, temperature ranges and rain amounts to be less predictable.  We’ve had three street flooding episodes this year, which is one more than the total of the previous 16 years (since we’ve lived here).

From this cheery vantage point, there are a few fruitful directions in which we can take our thoughts (not many, just a few).  And, these will be subjects of near-future posts and with those, we may find some ideas in which to find hope. 

The Real Tragedy Started on 9/12

I heard a snippet of a country-style song on the radio with the lyrics, “Where were you when the world stopped spinning?” (maybe it was, “...turning?”) in reference to 9/11.  There were thousands whose lives either ended that day, or whose lives were so disrupted that the world did indeed feel that way.  How can your heart not ache for them?  They were not in “harm’s way”, nor were they threatened by anyone - nor threatening anyone - by simply living their usual routines that morning. Yet their world stopped spinning because some fringe ideologues recklessly decided to make a grand, symbolic, criminal gesture.

For those who offered, or needed, or received help after the tragedy, everyone’s compassion is warranted.  Indeed, if there's a good thing about any tragedy it is the potential for growth through the demonstration of compassion.  This is why we so often hear, ‘it is not what happens to you in life that counts, it’s how you react to it’.

For a short while, a world that previously might have had mixed feelings about America, was unified in their show of support. What followed as “America’s” reaction gives clear, strong testimony to the power of fear and greed.  It took only a little while to turn aside the outpouring of goodwill,‘circle the wagons’ and reinforce the world’s previously-held disdain for the failed promise of the U.S.A.

It took the powerful greed of a very few powerful men to capitalize on the powerful fear that the attack had instilled in the American people.  Instead of quenching the small flames of public pain, jitters and anger through clear-sighted leadership, they fanned the flames into a consuming fire of terror and then turned their sights on selecting a profitable object for revenge.  

Donald Rumsfeld was appointed to a cabinet position by Dick Nixon, our criminal president, who once called Rummy “..a ruthless little bastard”.  For about the next thirty years, Rummy and his good friend and protegé, Dick Cheney each worked their ways into and out of key administrative positions in government and big business, helping themselves and each other up the ladder rungs of power and wealth, to where they stood on 9/11:  Secretary of Defense and Vice President.  These two mortal stand-ins for Lucifer somehow spawned an equally-evil, if dull-witted, offspring.

President George W(orst Ever) Bush, in roughly the same time frame, skipped out on Viet Nam by signing with and going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, bankrupted a small Texas oil company, got slapped with a DWI, lost a bid for a seat in congress, was handed an ownership stake of the Texas Rangers (and screwed that up), won the governorship with the strong-arm help of his father.  (Here is a link to a list of his “accomplishments”, in case you’re looking to become outraged: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushresume.htm)

The combination of these three men and the timing of the 9/11 attacks has proven to be a ‘perfect-enough storm’ for a shameful, disastrous and very dark chapter in the story of America.  The terribly sad irony is that they cloaked their greed with the U.S. flag and sold their fear-mongering scheme via paid “expert consultants” to the networks - and it was all about grabbing personal wealth and power and about helping their political and business friends to more of the same.  They ducked in and out with pockets’ full o’ cash and left everyone mesmerized, seeing stars and stripes and repeatedly mumbling the vow to never forget. 

9/11 makes some people want to cry for reasons of very personal loss.  It makes want to cry for the national sense of loss and for what we might have otherwise become by now.  The world really needed our story to continue as a heroic tale, instead of we’ve handed them something that reads like a rap sheet.

From Baaa-d to Worse?

“Sustainability” is a term thrown around so much lately it has lost its meaning and now has about the same impact as baaa-ing from a flock out in the pasture.  Baaa, baaa, yada, yada....  Not unlike, “going green” and “all-natural” and all the other well-intentioned slogans for inspiring stewardship, this bumper sticker label has been commercially co-opted and leaves one searching for yet another term that will actually make a difference.  (It would be good to keep some important words from running around in the marketplace where they get gobbled up and pooped out into a sales pitch.)

Our species has not done anything truly sustainable since we first decided to make permanent settlements for ourselves over five thousand years ago.  Since then we’ve had “investments” to protect and support.  These called for bigger families to outnumber other clans and to defend some piece of land, and to tend the herds and work the fields.  In turn, all of that called for more land to support the bigger families and off we went, down the wrong, unsustainable road.  We are now a long way down that road and - I really hope I'm wrong - it seems its a dimly-lit, one-way, narrowing alley.  

(If you live in a red state, I know, I know this is not making any sense.  Just move on to other blogs about puppies or outboard motors.)

It’s pretty common for us to think of domesticating animals and raising crops as the start of Progress.  In fact, almost nobody would say otherwise.  But play it out for yourself, the likely ultimate price of Progress appears to be self-extinction - or excarnation - which, had we known....   We didn’t, or couldn’t, know - or didn’t want to know we we’re doing anything wrong for the longest time.  The evidence didn’t support any concern.  Dammit.

Could anything we might have intentionally done at anytime have made a difference?

At what point along the steady march from village to town to city to metropolitan area to mega-sprawl could we have stopped and said, “This just ain’t right.”  There have been voices, but not loud enough to be heard over the din of the marching band blaring the fight song for Civilization, Scientific Progress, Innovation! 

One recent voice, that of Wendell Barry, has said in regard to resource stewardship, anything we do today called “use”, future generations will call “theft”.  Thus it has been for millennia - it’s just that now, we have over six billion thieves and the cost is so much more obvious.  What’s not obvious is how we will overcome the costs that are now already apparent.

This year, that is not yet over, is the all-time priciest for climactic catastrophe recovery costs.  Hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, tornados, heavy rains, straight line winds...  excluding earthquakes, we have still set a record for spending on disaster relief.  I would love to say this is an aberration and next year will be back to normal.  I would love that like I can't believe.  Make-believe is so appealing.

I do not study the weather firsthand with any dedication, but I definitely pay attention to the patterns for the weather systems that come through our area, and they are shifting in a fluky way.  It seems a new jet stream path has caused wind directions, temperature ranges and rain amounts to be less predictable.  We’ve had three street flooding episodes this year, which is the total of the previous 16 years (since we’ve lived here).

From this cheery vantage point, there are a few fruitful directions in which we can take our thoughts (not many, just a few).  And, these will be subjects of near-future posts and in them we may find some ideas for hope. 

It Gets This Baaaa-d, That's How Baaaa-d is Has to Get!

Thinking has a downside.  It really does.  There’s something like a dark tunnel that comes over the horizon after riding a train of rational thought a ways down the tracks. There are several whole segments of society not at risk of ever finding out about that.  Generally, any of the groups of fervent believers in any sort of ‘magical thinking’ are not likely to take logical thought to any point too far.  They can’t afford to. If one lives in a house of cards, don’t leave the window open, please no fresh breezes of honesty.

‘Magical thinking’ is a misnomer, of course it’s actually magical believing.  Belief doesn’t require a factual basis, it only means buying into a good story, regardless of its proximity to the truth.  These several groups in society are zealously evangelical in their attempt to make reality conform to the story they’re inhabiting.  The degree to which they harshly impose their story on others only depends on how much power they wield.  Right now, they control the legislative branch and have a good hold on the judicial.

These seem to be reincarnated witch-burners, they epitomize the Sheepness behind the blog name.  If I could reach in and tweak their simple little Sheep brains, it would become my full-time vocation and my life’s mission.  They’re not to blame for all our woes, because the rest of us play a supporting role as acquiescent or apathetic Sheep.  Stupid, violent sheep are easy to pick out of the herd, but why they are then tolerated within the herd is another question.

Stupid, violent Sheep will never find this blog.  They get their political views from Rupert Murdoch via Fox news, or from the NRA via their toothless cousin Billy Joe with the Confederate flag baseball cap and the spit-stained overalls.  Or, their analytical expert may be the hairdresser, who heard her boyfriend say said that his brother-in-law told him that he heard there was no such thing as global warming - the gummint’s trying to pull the wool over on us sheep agin - baaa...

note: The aforementioned dark tunnel is just around the next bend and it really is no fun at all to go inside.  I’m going to suggest that you can still “Have a Nice Day! :)®” if you don’t read beyond this point.  

The dark tunnel that becomes apparent after thinking a while starts with a feeling that there’s something fishy going on here.  Actually, there is a malaise that has a hold of society on many levels that has the same root cause.  We do what we can - as often as we can - to distract ourselves from following this troubling line of thought.  (In fact, almost all of modern day life is devoted to avoiding it.) Following the causes for that unsettling feeling will - sooner or later - develop into a full blown realization of our existential conundrum:  this lovely little planet just ain’t big enough for us.  

If we were bacteria studied in a lab, our species’ petri dish would be over half full of us, the medium would be over half-consumed.  We’re past the peak and on the downhill slope of our curve.  If you want all the depressing details, check out this link:

http://pastthetippingpoint.ca/node?page=1

The essential, founding story of this country is merely the latest chapter (written with accelerated pacing) in the larger fundamental human story as it has unfolded since the time of the introductory chapter entitled, “the Garden of Eden”.  The other title “the Neolithic Revolution”, somewhere between 50 to 130 centuries ago.   Either label refers to the same evolutionary development where we switched from hunter-gatherers to farmers-herders.  

This gradual change for our species resulted in a lifestyle of permanent settlements, after having followed migratory herds around in nomad fashion for the previous 200 - 500 millennia.  It is - in fact - where we went wrong.  We took a gradual wrong turn, but it makes a better story if we say it happened in a climactic moment because of a Villain.

Fast forward to the 19th and 20th century A.D.  The theme of this chapter would have us believe that we can grow indefinitely: resources are unlimited, the environment is too big to be impacted by humans, whether we are three, or six or nine billion.  This story line says this is all God’s Creation, given to us to trash out however we wish, because we are incredibly special.  We were made in God’s image and given this piece of paradise, except that one of us told a lie a long time ago and now we’re all doomed until we’re saved at the very end, just in the knick of time.  So, no worries.

The human species is essentially parasitic. We are the apex predators of all food chains, the ultimate invasive species.  If parasites have a plan B at all, it is one based on the hope that another host will come along just as this one is consumed.  We’re going to need a new planet pretty soon.  Some experts are guessing it will be within one or two generations.  

The real conundrum isn’t so much that the time clock is ticking for us, but rather does it do any good to point this out.  Can human nature be changed before dire circumstances   force it, or before it’s too late to make a difference?  

At this point, well inside the tunnel, the train seems to slow to a crawl.  ‘Really sorry about ruining your day.

In a post in the near future, I’ll get the train to back up out of the tunnel and point out a possible different set of tracks.  It has to do with the question:  Did we take a “wrong” turn? i.e., was our path inevitable?  Stay tuned.

Speaking of the weather....

Just because we're setting records with increasing frequency for extreme weather events doesn't mean it has anything to do with supposed global climate change.  Just because scientists have made observations, recorded data and made mathematical calculations based on factual information doesn't mean humans have anything to do with the causes of all these extreme weather events.  Just because hundreds and thousands of millions of people have been burning coal, wood and other fuels for centuries doesn't mean all those smoke particles in the atmosphere are the cause of changing temperatures that might be changing for other, natural reasons.  Just because the science isn't 100% conclusive, and couldn't possibly be - except until after the point at which it is too late to help, doesn't mean we should do anything about some of the possible causes that we do have control over while we can still make a difference...

    .... it doesn't matter to the ostrich what the weather is doing as long as its head is in the sand*.
                                                     .     .      .      .      .      .      .      .
Since it's unlikely a Republican is going to weigh-in with a response to this post, I'll go ahead with a wild guess at a conservative opinion on this matter:

'If you're suggesting that government should force business to spend money on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's obvious you don't know how costly that would be to my corporation's bottom line and how much that might affect the shareholder stock dividends for the third quarter!  The board of directors would never stand for it and besides, they've based my compensation package on short-term profit margins, so less government regulation is what we need - not more!

It's also unlikely an Evangelical would ever post a reply here, so again, I'll just have to offer a guess:
'These events are God's punishment for our wickedness!  We have committed an abomination before the  Lord by allowing homosexuals in our midst!  These are Signs of the End Times and the Almighty's Merciful Hand of JUSTICE shall smite the evildoers and lift up the Righteous to sit at His Banquet Table on the Judgment Day!'

..so there! take that, you so-called scientists and your inconclusive "facts".

Actually, there's no need to speculate about any of this.  Michele Bachmann has actually combined the unassailable logic of both positions and said (the earthquake and) the hurricane are God's message to the politicians in Washington to rein in the spending.  (You Tube videos of her speeches are too good to be true.) It will be so reassuring when she becomes president because we will finally have someone in the office with a direct line to the Creator of the Universe - that's a hell of a ticket!

* (for the record, ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand.  They will lay their heads down and stay motionless making themselves look like a lump if threatened.)

How Baaaa-d does it have to get?

The StarTribune sometimes can make me really angry.  This morning I just wanted to find the weather forecast and instead I stumbled upon the business section where the following was printed:

...Despite recording nearly $1.1 billion in profits last year, Ameriprise actually got back $224 million in federal income taxes...25 companies reported average global profits of $1.9 billion last year.  But through a variety of accounting techniques, tax breaks and loopholes they managed to shave millions off their actual tax payments, and in many cases got money back from the Internal Revenue Service...They averaged tax refunds or credits of about $300 million each...at the top of the (list), ranked by CEO compensation, Stanley Black & Decker (paid CEO) John Lundgren...$32 million last year, while the company got a federal corporate income tax credit of $75 million."

All I wanted was to find out the weather forecast, dammit!  This may teach me to look through the paper more carefully next time.

I've got a friend who is waiting to hear if she'll be able to keep her job, which doesn't pay all that well in the first place,  but her family relies on her monthly checks that go entirely to paying the mortgage.  Because the family was feeling a squeeze a couple of years ago, they refinanced along with most of the working class half of the country.  We all were convinced by lenders that house prices will just keep going up, so what might otherwise seem like overextended borrowing was really nothing to worry about.  The spiel given to anyone with a 98 degree body temperature went something like this:

"You can just keep refinancing; it's not only a house, think of it as living inside your very own ATM.  We've got the money right here waiting for you, all you have to do is sign some papers and walk out with a check in your hand - it's just that simple!

Still, my friend is not one to complain, even though her mortgage payment is for a loan amount twice the present value of her house.  Not that she would smile much either, she could use some serious dental work because she has deferred routine care for years and just has teeth pulled when they get too bad.  Instead, she has seen to it that her own children don't go without at least some visits to the dentist.  Insurance coverage under a dental plan? Nah...she's a teacher at a private school.  Her students have shiny white teeth, smiling all the way to the door of Mommy's Lexus as she picks them up at the end of the day. 'No insurance, no pension and she may be shown the door after twenty, dedicated years of service, which in her world means loving care and self-sacrifice.  That's who she is.

So, my friend is waiting to hear if bankruptcy and/or foreclosure are possibilities for her family.  She'll hear next week whether the school can afford to hire her back this year after the administrator returns (seriously) from a vacation in the Bahamas (unbelievably taking off the entire week just before the start of the school year!)  My friend waits on pins and needles while the one who determines her future sits sipping drinks in the shade of a oceanside cabana.

Meanwhile the CEOs of any of those 25 top companies are waiting to hear how many of their tens of millions will be in stock options.  They have good accountants who will make it seem like they're broke on paper, just like the ones who finagle the books before the IRS returns are filed down at the office.  They'll all be getting refunds. The weather forecast for them is always sunny.

I'm going to probably skip looking up the weather forecast altogether, I'll just end up thinking of the time I stumbled upon the business section.

She's Bach, mann!

Michele Baa-achmann worries some folks.  I'm not worried too much, but I am definitely disgusted.  Although my worry is limited to thinking of her effect on mindless followers who will vote, and on the quality of political discourse in her wake, my disgust has no limits.  She is a symbol more than an actual person.  I've seen enough of what she symbolizes to last a lifetime and I have no interest in getting to know the actual person.  Interested or not, I'll soon have my chance.

Can you believe it?  I'm shocked, shocked I tell you:  Michele Bachmann is coming out with a book!  It almost makes one skeptical about the sincerity of her campaign from the start.  Dare we be that cynical?? Although she has said God told her to run for president, it appears she's pulled another page right out of Sarah Palin's playbook and just staged a very long, well-financed, promotional tour for her memoir, or manifesto or whatever it will be.  Knowing how deeply she holds her traditional family values, it will probably be a cookbook.

So, this will have all been about the money after all.  There's another shock.  This has become America's story theme (and probably has been since the days of the robber barons at the turn of the last century): It's All About the Money.  We have no need of for a monarch, Cash is King.  The likes of Donald Trump should be locked up for life, but instead they are celebrated.  Can they dance, or sing? - nope, their talent is just being excessively greedy and crooked.  These are the ones that warn against raising their taxes because it will cost jobs.  I have a friend who takes that worn out argument one sarcastic step further by insisting we eliminate taxes on the rich altogether, so we can have full employment!  That usually shuts them up in a debate.

Michele is all about smaller government, except the part that hands out farm subsidies.  Her family farm has netted over a quarter million in handouts.  She's against intrusive government, except the part that would police same sex partners wanting to marry.  She's pro-constitution except the part of the 14th amendment that guarantees all citizens (it doesn't say... "straight"citizens...) equal protection under the law.  She drapes herself regularly in the flag of this wonderful democracy but would actually rather we had a Christian theocracy.  Pro-life 100%, all the way up to delivery at any stage of pregnancy, Michele would then say the child and family are on their own as they try to make it in a society she would strip of all health coverage and early childhood government programs.

Like everyone of her sad and noisy little flock, Michele wants everyone else's taxes raised and their programs cut, meanwhile she wants her tax-breaks retained and the highways and bridges she drives on to be well-maintained.  She criticizes the media for their left-leaning bias and yet uses them recklessly to further her own divisive agenda and she would have them investigate her colleagues in congress to make sure they're patriotic enough.

We Minnesotans used to say the best thing to come out of Iowa was 35W, but if that's how Michele Bachmann came here, I say rip the road out of the ground - just after she leaves following her defeat in the next election.

O-baaaaa-ma (Ba-Ram-Ewe!)

You may remember a cute movie from the 90's called, "Babe", featuring a talking pig that turned out to be a really good sheep dog because she learned the secret code for getting sheep to obey: Ba-Ram-Ewe!  These supposed secret words, previously only known to sheep, immediately turned them into cooperative, docile creatures.  Our dear president apparently found similar secret code words to woo the electorate: Yes We Can!  In 2012, will he be able to say, Yes We Did?  Over half of popularity poll respondents these days might say, No We Didn't -or-We Really Should Have!

I really like Baa-rac O-baa-maa, and not just because I can use him name to further the sheep theme.  What's not to like about a professor of Constitutional Law?  What's not to like about a good speechifier? He tells a great story and that actually counts for a lot with voters.  The story introduction, or rather, the cover on the book didn't seem to match up with the first few chapters we've read so far.  The disillusionment so many of us felt when our dreams for real change faded is on us, not him.  We held up the expectation for the man and the office and until a few fundamental things change, there is no one who can come into that office and make any real difference, beyond switching the decor.

The political process in Washington and in most states, is really messed up now - remember, you read it here first.  It is so twisted that individual politicians who sincerely campaign on changing things and believe they will, now instead find their hands tied by rules, and find themselves gagged by wads of cash.  Waiting in D.C. to greet each newly elected representative or senator is over a half-dozen of their very own lobbyists.  Might as well slap the cuffs on right at the airport, and begin stuffing them with large, unmarked bills.  Depending on which source you believe, there are some tens of thousands of registered lobbyists in Washington, and the Supremes have now laundered their money for them - so it's all good.

I'll reference another favorite animal story, Charlotte's Web, a book about a spider who can write words in her web.  What's written on the web in Washington is just a whole lot of dollar signs.  Those who get caught in it can't possibly free themselves until they're voted out.  (Term limits? No, that's a solution for another problem perhaps, and that just ensures nobody will gain enough experience to effectively function, should the system ever get back on the rails.)  The answer, as I've called for in an earlier post, is to get the money out of campaigns.  Spare, public financing, period.  No opting out.  Declaring a six month window for campaigns with no TV commercials would be adding frosting to the cake.

How can a bunch of Sheep actually come together to take back some authority for the story of this country?  I dare to imagine this is not a rhetorical question.  There will be specific directions in future posts, so stay tuned.  Until then, keep the faith, Baa-Ram-Ewe!

The Wolves are at the Door

Those who have made capitalism work extremely well in their favor could be considered like wolves in many respects.  (Our citizenry is about 1% wolves and 94% sheep.  5% are other species.) The wolves have a pack and pack rules, including a pecking order.  No point in speculating further about the inner workings of the pack; we'll never know firsthand and it makes no difference because whatever any one or all of them decide to do, it's going to hurt the rest of us.  What puzzles me is those Sheep who have sold-out and now shill for the wolves, thinking that someday they, too, will get to be wolves.   They've adopted their own label, the Tea Party, and they are absolutely the dumbest and the loudest of the Sheep.

Capitalism rewards greed and the greediest are best rewarded.  To be fair, Socialism rewards laziness (and greed) and while the laziest get rewarded pretty well; the greedy still come out on top.  In any case, aspects of our government (the public sector) are purely socialistic and in order to not let it go too far, checks and balances were built in to the Constitution.  The same were authorized for applying to the private sector, and it has worked now and then, until the private sector finds ways to neutralize or remove those checks and balances - which they have.  The table is set and mutton is on the menu.

Also 'need to mention in the interest of fairness that Capitalism can also reward initiative and creativity.  Socialism can also reward cooperation and compassion - you see, things aren't all baa-a-a-ad!  (You knew that lame one had to come out sooner or later)

The governing institutions and their regulations for business have been neutered by paid-off politicians.  (Gosh, I hope that wasn't breaking news for you just now.)  What we have now is not government for the people, or of or by the people.  It is a really dysfunctional branch of business and large parts of it now only exist to shovel our money (and our children's and their children's, etc.) to wealthy contractors.  Think of it as a contract clearing house, the locks were switched and now only the greediest have the keys to the door.  Their howling sometimes keeps me up at night.

Follow the Leader, Any Leader.

Sheep are skittish, but once they're reassured, they'll follow their leader anywhere without hesitation.  It works pretty well for sheep, but not for citizens of a democracy.  We need people to dare to think for themselves, as they were more likely to do before (and perhaps through the early years of) TV.  (Ok, maybe up to the point of Gilligan's Island.)

We're told lots of stories on the news, about the economy, about candidates' polling results and other issues.  It's likely that at one time or another in the past, we could actually trust the messenger - the newsroom of any major network.  Why? Because they were not viewed as a revenue source but almost a type of public service.  Money's deeply involved now and it's high stakes - in fact, there may be none higher.

The news is the news because it's unusual stuff in our everyday lives.  If it wasn't peculiar, titillating or statistically small, it wouldn't be broadcast.  It's good to remember that, just because a story is repeated often, it's not more prevalent in actual occurrence - only more apparent its perceived impact.  If a media consumer is Sheep-like, this makes all the difference.

It can be justifiably assumed these days that just about any significant media message we hear has a big money push behind it and that someone will profit handsomely if we believe the story.  A message that will have the effect of concentrating wealth upward will more likely find airtime these days (than those that don't, or than it might have had in earlier years).

A reminder now of the concept of triangulation:  two (or more) reference points offer enough information to (interpret, infer, compute, calculate, etc.) a third place that's closer to the goal, in this case - a truthier place.  "The Truth" itself is a whole 'nother blog.

Sheep do not triangulate, they ruminate.  And then they blurt out something profound, like "Baaaaaa".

A term closely related  to triangulation is "successive approximation", this is what scientists and artists and all other humans do all the time.  Any perception can make its way to the point in the brain where it needs to be interpreted in comparison with other perceptions and then moves onto judgment of its significance in relation to the whole.  Each repetition of this loop with new information gets one a little closer to goal of making sense out of all this - for one's self.  This is each citizen's responsibility.  Either we take this on, or we get out of the way and move to the back of the flock.