Economically Savy and Religiously Biased Breed a Culture of Mis-Guided "Interests"

Yesterday, I listened to a presentation on economics, and heard about a religious incident. Both concerned me, in where our country is "going".

The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.

Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.

The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.

Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.

The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?

The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.

What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.

A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.

Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.

History in the Making...

Many people who live in free societies, understand that humans have the ability to "make history". These like to "make their mark" in the world through many creative avenues. And free societies allow and encourage such activity.

History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.

Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.

Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.

In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".

But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".

I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.

So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.

I am so grateful for our liberty.

I Have Concern For Our Nation

I have concerns for our nation with the recent subway shootings at the Pentagon!

The disenchanted and disillusioned culprit was a man who felt helpless about making a difference in his government. He had become angered by ethics violation and abuse of power that runs rampant in the halls of power. I don't blame him there.

But, is there some other way to express anger than taking a gun to shoot others. This is where public engagement diminshes into tribal slug fests! And where bombing of abortion clinics outweigh reasonable influence.

I am concerned because of the demonization of the "world of ideas". Ideas are what our Founders based the "founding of our country". These were what created our "worlds" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"!

But, what most don't stop to think about is that these ideals have to be defined in real world terms. And what does "THAT" mean? Real world terms is real world values that are reasoned expression of support for one's position.

Take the word "life" for instance. What is life? What makes for "life"? What is important to "life"? Who determines the value of life? Why do you believe these things? or How do you support your position?

What about "liberty"? What does "liberty" mean? How does one promote liberty as a value? Is liberty absolute? Where does one draw a line around liberty? Why does one think liberty should be limited? What values limit liberty? ETC....

We must understand that our country values diversity, so we will understand and frame these terms differently. But, we are all Americans, who value these "ideals" and we must stop fighting each other and determine to engage ourselves within our value systems and commit to being engaged politically.

Public engagement without abusing power is what I hope for America, without this "ideal", then there is no hope!

Brain, Mind, Emotions, and Memory Response and Living in the Real World

Last night my husband and I watched a movie with Morgan Freeman. His moives usually have some meaning or message, and they are usually good. We thought we might be "headed to see" some B rated movie, as we'd gotten several movies from Sam's Club for under $5. But, we were delightfully surprised!

The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.

To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.

In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".

I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.

My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.

Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.

I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.

This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.

And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.

Why Would I Be Suspicious?

Tonight I watched a former Muslim who had converted to Christianity talk about Islam. He admitted that all of Islam is radical. There is no moderate Islamic faith. But, his openness disturbed me. I just wondered why he could be so open about his conversion and Islam itself without endangering his very life.

I say this because of the facts of history. Remember the many faces that hid from those who would take revenge. Rushdie and Ali are only two. But, these took to hiding and lived in isolation. Why would we think that this person would be priviledged and protected from Islamic factions that would want to bring about justice? I am suspicious.

Would there be a possibility that Islam being so violently opposed to Christianity would love for Christians to think that Islam was tolerant? Or would there be a possibility that Islam would use "converts" to infilterate Chrstian circles to promote propaganda?

This morning. I listened to a former Muslim woman talk about her experience of wanting her independence. She explained how Muslims do not think in individual terms. Tradition forms and shapes their thinking and lifestyle. The American ideal of seeking one's destiny is not a way of seeing oneself in the world. She was fortunate to have lived in a free society where she freed herself from the traditions of her past and became a professor.

How can people think that those that are so narrow and confined in their views would be open, accomadating or tolerant to diversity or when it is expected that Muslims will not be open to tell the whole story to the "infidels"? And especially because those that have been Muslims have warned about the political agenda that these have for the West?

Politicizing the Census

The Democrats are on the war path this morning. The census is being discussed and a question came in about the wisdom of giving out this information to the government. The discussion then turned into an opportunity for politics. The Republicans were demonized by saying that the Republicans had politicized the census by sending out questionaires for fund-raising, insinuating that Republicans were being deceptive. These were not the overt words of the discussion, but it was the insinuation. Were the Democratically leaning panel not politicizing the discussion?

The census is done because the Founders believed that it would be the best way for the publics' interest to be represented, as it determines where the boundaries are that will determine a certain district.

Giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, could the Republcans be sincerely interested in what the American people want? After being "dismissed" and not being allowed to be players in the major decisions facing our nation, could they have learned that it is important that we all have a voice? Certainly, the tea parties and the town hall meetings over the summer gave these politicians a clear picture of how the American people feel about being left out of the political process by the dismissal of their voice!

I find that today so much is politicized that the American people cannot discern what or whom to believe. Has this always been so, and I am only waking up to the real world of politics? Perhaps so, but this morning's presentation by the Democrats made me more aware of how a "fact" can be interpreted.

Simplistic Thinking

I hate simplistic thinking. And I have identified a hatred to this "simplicity" with Voltaire's "Candide". I have valid reasons for such hatred and I think I am justified in such hatred.

I hate simplistic thinking because leaders who make policy must think through their goals and think about how best to implement them. Simplistic thinking in leadership does not take into account the vast complexity of such goals, if these goals are set in complex networks and situations. The world itself is such a context. Those that follow such leaders are prone to pay the costs of such "simplicity".

I hate simplistic thinking because it leads others to follow uncritically. These people are bound to "pay the costs" without realizing it. But, they are pawns to the deceptive manipulation or lack of forethought of their leaders. Such people are simplistic themselves and are uncritical to life, the world, and its politics.

I hate simplistic thinking because it isn't based upon real problems in the real world, but pacifies these problems with platitudes of "answers" that fall short of coherency. "God" is used in such a way.

I hate simplistic thinking because I and those I love have paid a price for such thinking. This is how I have learned to not think simplistically. Simplicity is navete'.

Simplicity is the way children think, but this way of thinking must be outgrown, if we are to be good for the real world.