Archive for the 'dikastis/justice' Category

ben stein on the military

Published on July 21, 2008 in alethia/truth, dikastis/justice, epilogei/choice, politik/politics and zoe/life. 2 Comments

While I Swim at Home, Our Combatants Fight On
by Ben Stein (from NewsMax Magazine June 2008, Pg. 34)

THERE IS A MAGNIFICENT SCENE IN BLADE RUNNER, MY FAVORITE postwar movie, in which Rutger Hauer, who plays a replicant, a human-looking robot, prepares to die. He tells his possibly human pursuer, Harrison Ford, that he has seen amazing things in his short life far out in outer space, and then he folds himself up and says, “Time to die.”

As I get older, at a breakneck pace, I often think of the most beautiful, magnificent sights I have seen. The night sky in Santa Cruz, California, where I lay on a picnic bench and watched more stars than I had ever seen. It was a perfect moment of peace. I think of the Upper Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho, a lake three miles long, totally as nature made it eons ago, surrounded by forests and mountains, the Canada border a stone’s throw away, immense eagles soaring overhead, with only one other guest, a young man windsurfing along the placid waters. And people say there is no God?

Then I think of my German Shorthaired Pointers lying in each others’ paws as they sleep on the bed next to me. And I think of my saintly wife, with her perfect profile, reading in bed next to me, and I think of how lucky I was to find my soul’s perfect companions — my wife and my hounds.

But there is something I find even more amazing, even more moving: the sights of young men and women in the uniforms of the United States military, the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Reserves, and the Guard. It isn’t just that they look great in their uniforms and their tall, straight posture.

No, what is amazing to me, and a spectacular sight, is that these are human beings with the same wishes and dreams for a long, peaceful, fulfilled life as you and I have. But they have offered up their young lives and their bodies and their health and their peace of mind and their very sanity — and that of their families — to go out and fight for my worthless, selfish life and comfort.

I sit at home. I swim in my pool. I play with my dogs. I make fresh Alaskan salmon for my wife on the grill. Then I check my stocks and then I go to sleep with the loves of my life as the air conditioning and the electric blanket and the mattress keep me perfectly comfortable.

They — the military in combat — sleep in ditches if they can sleep at all. They get their legs blown off. They have permanent brain damage. They go to eternity before their time. They live with the fear of torture if they are captured by the terrorists. They leave their children behind. They miss years at a time of their babies growing up. Their wives — the true backbone of the nation — keep the family together while the soldiers keep the perimeter of terror far from our hearths.

And for this, they are paid modest wages, at best. They lose their families all too often. They live in extreme discomfort. They are treated like commodities to be moved on a chessboard of global struggle.

Imagine, just imagine, what it is like to be in combat! Imagine the smartest people on the planet, the Germans and the Japanese, armed with the best weapons man can devise, trying to kill our fathers and grandfathers while they struggled in mud and snow and hail and freezing rain. And then the war ends and we drive in cars with tail fins, and they who once tossed grenades at Japanese pillboxes now coach the high-school tennis team, and combat is just a nightmare. Imagine that while we complain about the stock market and how expensive gasoline is, they fight it out with terrorists who use retarded children as suicide bombers and have no such thing as conscience.

Then they come home and see that there is no mention of them in the news, that the media cares only about deranged movie stars and recording artists and how much people weigh. They, the soldiers, marines, sailors, pilots, guard, Coast Guard, reserves, are invisible and alone.

Then, the combat stars go back to fight again, and we continue to worry about interest rates.

God help us. God bless them, the thin pillars on which all of mankind’s tomorrows’ hopes rest, the most glorious sight on heaven and earth. They should be the first thoughts in our prayers every moment of every day. They are the real miracles.

//

If you liked that, then try these…

don’t forget

ann coulter hates you

been awhile.

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

the crash course

Published on May 22, 2008 in alethia/truth, allagei/change, dikastis/justice, epilogei/choice, koinonia/community, oikonomika/economics, politik/politics and zoe/life. 0 Comments

My good buddy Zach turned me on to this guy; his name is Chris Martenson, a Ph.D. scientist specializing in neurotoxicology who has shifted his empirical, research-based mind over to economics. He’s currently developing an online version of what he calls “The Crash Course” on topics like money, debt, growth, investing, assets, demographics, etc., and the social and political triggers and effects that intersect at all those points.

Obviously my Connectedness just eats this kind of stuff up, but I wanted to make you aware of it, because I think there is information in here that absolutely everyone living in America right now, in 2008, simply must have.

This goes back to a statement I made in one of my previous posts, where I said that “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” quoting Sergei Bondarchuk. Well, in this case, the evil is the greed and complete lack of foresight (or complete disregard for the future) of our last few American generations, and how their inconsideration for, frankly, US (who are, of course, the future of this country) will pose myriad challenges over the next 20-30 years, specifically in regards to our economy and general way of life.

I’ve posted his intro video below to give you a taste for his style. Please consider taking the time to watch a few or all of Chris’s video segments. Some of them may be slightly uncomfortable, but I’m guessing that more so, they will “connect the dots” for feelings you’ve had gliding under the surface for awhile now.

P.S. I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of his videos, if you’d like to post a comment below! What really surprised or shocked you??

//

If you liked that, then try these…

what if

college students

a future not our own

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

the triumph of evil

Published on April 2, 2008 in alethia/truth, dikastis/justice, oikonomika/economics, politik/politics and zoe/life. 8 Comments

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

Nobody seems to be sure who actually said this quote (and by “nobody” of course I mean The Internet), but it was probably Russian filmmaker Sergei Bondarchuk, from the dialogue of his epic production of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and not Edmund Burke, whom it’s normally attributed to.

Quotes and authors aside, it’s one my favorite thoughts, and I think it’s powerfully true.

The other day I watched a documentary called ENDGAME: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, by Alex Jones. It’s a bit long, but definitely presents some very interesting theories, that, I’m afraid, might not be just theories. Essentially it asks the question: Is An International Finance Conspiracy Driving World Events? Of course, according to the film, the answer is a resounding YES. Jones claims the driving force of the planet is an exclusive group of elites called the Bilderberg Group, who are intent on creating some form of “New World Order” by radically downsizing the global population, erasing national sovereignty, manipulating the masses, and instituting an autonomous and essentially all-powerful one-world government.

Now, at first glance this all seems a little too “Left Behind” for my liking, to be honest. Though I’ve only now been on the earth for a quarter-century or so, I’m sure there have been interesting, imaginative folks concocting schemes and dreams of world domination since long before I got here.

I’ve seen my share of Bond movies, too, thankyouverymuch.

But what if? What if it’s even partially true? What then?

The idea of a maleficent world dictatorship seems so crazy, so out there, so “never gonna happen in our lifetime” that it’s easy for us to write it off without even really considering it. (And then there’s always the wonderful deterrent of being labeled a Conspiracy Theorist, which we all know is right up there with people who bark, make various animal noises, chase parked cars and whatnot.) The other trick with considering an idea like this is simply the fact that it’s so BIG. There are so many threads of thought that play into a theory this vast: finance, economy, politics, technology, philosophy, marketing, media, and history — just to name a few. It’s difficult to wrap our minds around any small combination of these topics, much less envisioning all of them merging to form a coherent singular plan.

I’m not yet convinced that the ideas in ENDGAME or Zeitgeist are completely true, but I think they are plausible enough that we should watch them carefully and consider what they have to say.

Anymore, my concern isn’t as much that we, as a human race, will make horrible decisions when faced with tough choices. What worries me is that, because of the effortlessness with which the mainstream media seems to control our population (Election 2008 anyone?), we won’t bother to get an accurate picture of what’s really happening around us and therefore won’t even have the option to make good decisions. If we don’t pay attention, it’s likely that we’ll never have even known the real truth of the situation.

I also fear that our liberties could slowly be eroded to the point that choices will be made for us before we even hear the options.

When it comes down to it, if a group like Bilderberg really is trying to puppetize the human race, the issue is really all about choice, is it not? Our ability to make up our own minds about what we think? Our freedom to make our own decisions?

There is a component in all elitist philosophies that claims that “they” can make decisions for us better than we can for ourselves (and frankly, looking at the stupidity and ignorance of the public, sometimes I wonder if they’re right). But I have to believe that our ability to choose is a big part of what makes us human (a topic I talk more about in my book, blur).

In The Matrix Reloaded there’s a fascinating discussion concerning the notion of “choice” between the Merovingian and our group of heroes:

Merovingian: You are here because you were sent here; you were told to come here, and you obeyed. It is of course, the way of all things. You see there is only one constant, one universal; it is the only real truth: causality… action… reaction; cause and effect.

Morpheus: Everything begins with choice.

Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power…and those without. Look there, at that woman. My God, just look at her. Affecting everyone around her, so obvious, so bourgeois, so boring. Watch, you see, I have sent her a dessert… A very special dessert. I wrote it myself. It starts so simply… Each line of the program creating a new fate, just like poetry. First, a rush; heat. Her heart flutters. You can see it, Neo, yes? She does not understand why; Is it, the wine? No. What is it, then, what is the reason? And soon it does not matter. Soon the why and the reason are gone; and all that matters is the feeling itself.

And this is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it; we fight to deny it, but it is, of course, pretense; it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is: we are completely… out of control.

Causality. There is no escape from it. We are forever slaves to it.

Are we really slaves to the heartless cause and effect of the universe?

Or can we create the future?

Two days ago the Bush administration proposed a massive overhaul of the United States’ financial regulatory system. Does anyone understand why the Fed should have any more power over anything? Oh yes, that’s right — since they’ve done such a fantastic job so far, with the whole Great Depression thing, the endless stock market roller coasters, and presently, one of the most frightening impending recessions of all time. Yes, let’s give them a RAISE.

My goodness; it all just seems so decidedly anti-American. Didn’t we leave England to cast OFF the role of all-encompassing government? Maybe we’re not centralized under a “king” this time around but, holy shit; if we’re not making the brilliant, revolutionary idea of America into some kind of socialist nightmare I don’t know what we’re doing.

These little, noiseless choices are creating our future, whether we can see it now or not. And it’s things like this news about the Fed that really make me wonder if Alex Jones and the Zeitgeist folks aren’t on to something.

For whatever it’s worth, I encourage you to take the time and do some research. If there will be a war fought on American soil, it will most likely be a battle of marketing, fought over finances and economics, and waged for the subjugation of your mind. No bombs will be dropped, but our lives will certainly be lost if we thoughtlessly hand over our freedoms in the name of “homeland security.” We don’t need to be experts in the myriad topics above, but we must pay attention. We must be vigilant, always aware of what it happening around us.

If we are not, we shall have no recourse when our liberties are gone, because it will be us who will have frivolously given them away. Evil will have triumphed, and it will not have been the result of a fight — it will be because we have simply done nothing.

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

what to do with an alien

Published on March 23, 2008 in allagei/change, dikastis/justice, politik/politics and zoe/life. 5 Comments

And when I say “alien,” I don’t mean this kind:

Last September I posted an entry called “Church Sanctuary, Movement” about my desire to formulate an opinion on the issue of immigration, particularly in America. We’ve had some decent discussions since then, but I’ve found that, particularly with this issue, it seems too easy to slant the discourse toward the intellectual or emotional level instead of actually coming up with some practical suggestions.

Fortunately, Mr. Tony Campolo has stepped in to provide some further insight. I posted it below; let me know what you think!

A Proposal For Illegal Aliens
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The Hebrew Scriptures clearly call for the children of Israel to make room for the alien. The Israelites are reminded that they, too, were once aliens in a strange and distant land.

[For the Lord your God] …Who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.—Deuteronomy 10:18-19

The New Testament picked up this same admonition as Jesus explained to his disciples that they should treat the alien as they would treat him (Matthew 25:31-40).

St. Francis of Assisi taught his followers that Jesus is mystically present in the alien. They were told that when they look into the eyes of the stranger in their midst, they might see their Christ staring back at them.

Christians need to be reminded that in the only description that Jesus gave of judgment day, he specifically declares that God will inquire how we treated the alien. God will want to know, according to Matthew 25:35, whether or not we made room for “the stranger” to live among us.

Given such Biblical teachings, it is difficult to understand how so many Jews and Christians can call for harsh treatment of those 12 million illegal immigrants who presently reside within our national borders, and how they so often act as though U.S. citizens should not make them welcome.

There is little question that we need these men and women who have illegally entered our country. They are doing necessary work as farm laborers and in the manufacturing sectors of our economy. Elderly persons, like myself, should realize that millions of dollars taken out of these laborers’ wages each week go into our depleting Social Security fund. The evidence is clear that overwhelming numbers of these undocumented workers are hardworking, decent neighbors who are contributing much to our nation’s well-being.

Having made these points, we must go on to acknowledge that there are good people who justly point out that these illegal entrants have broken the law, and that granting them amnesty will only invite others to do the same. Furthermore, there are concerns about the possibility that criminals, drug pushers, and even terrorists, may be among those undocumented and illegal immigrants who daily come through our porous borders. There are fears that such undesirable persons pose a threat to our nation’s security and to the safety of our fellow citizens.

As I reflect on the pros and cons of dealing with amnesty for these undocumented brothers and sisters, I have to start by asking why so many of them choose to enter our country illegally. Could it be that the U.S. has made it too difficult and too expensive for them to come in any other way?

Back in 1910, when my father emigrated to this country, he came as an impoverished Italian peasant. He liked to tell me that when he came through Ellis Island, he came with a few dollars in his pocket and little more than “the shirt on his back.” He would go on to declare, in his broken English, that this country was, for him, a land of opportunity, and that he soon had a job and a future filled with hope.

The bad news is that today impoverished immigrants do not have the same opportunity that my father had. Nowadays, “the poor and huddled masses” who come to the U.S. have a much harder time, and the barriers that keep them living in our country usually appear insurmountable. If my father wanted to settle in the U.S. and get a job, given present requirements, he would have to get a “green card,” if he wanted to be legal. Getting a green card would take somewhere around two years or more, and would likely cost him a couple thousand dollars in legal fees. (The legal language in the forms is so complicated that often it takes a lawyer to help applicants fill out the forms, costing up to $2000 in fees.) Not having enough money to support himself during the time he was waiting for his green card to be granted, he probably would have his hopes dashed to pieces. Not having the means to hire a lawyer, he probably would have to face the reality that what is required to enter into the American Dream is beyond his reach. In today’s U.S., there would be little room for a poor man like my father. I have a sense that his desire for the better life that the U.S. could offer him just might tempt him to become an illegal immigrant.

What I propose is that our country should have a “high wall and a wide gate” at our borders. By a high wall, I mean that our borders should be secure. America should protect itself against drug pushers, criminals and possible terrorists. There should be a background check on every person who crosses into our country so that such undesirables would be kept out.

On the other hand, I believe that the gate should be wide. We U.S. citizens should make it fiscally possible for poor people who want to come and live among us. Green cards should be made available quickly and without the need to go through the kind of legal hoops that require lawyers. It seems to me that people in faith communities should work to create these conditions.

When it comes to dealing with those who are already here, I agree with those who claim that amnesty is not a good idea. These illegal immigrants did break the law, and amnesty would likely invite others to do the same. Law breakers should be dealt with seriously. Allow me to suggest some solutions to this predicament. I propose that undocumented entrants be granted green cards as soon as possible, but that they be required to pay a hefty fine for having broken the law. Also, they should be required to pay back taxes on their past earnings. But, knowing that it would be unlikely for them to have the money to cover these expenses all at once, I suggest that they have as much as 10 percent of their income deducted in the years that follow until such time as these fines and back taxes are paid off. Those who earn the higher salaries would pay off what they owe sooner, while those with lower salaries would have to take longer to fulfill their obligations.

The reality is that so many of these undocumented brothers and sisters are now being paid less than the minimum wage. With green cards in hand, they would be entitled to legal wages, which likely would be more than they are presently earning. Given this consideration, many, if not most, would come out with more money on pay days, in spite of the 10 percent that would be deducted by the government to cover their fines and back taxes.

To people with faith commitments who take the Bible as their guide for living, it seems as though this proposal could go a long way to treating undocumented entrants with God-ordained love and justice. I think that what I am proposing could satisfy those who want law breakers to pay their debt to society while, at the same time, satisfying those who are committed to showing God’s grace to those who, full of hope, come to live among us.

Original article here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/a-proposal-for-illegal-aliens.html

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

iraq = $12 billion/month

Published on March 10, 2008 in alethia/truth, dikastis/justice, oikonomika/economics and politik/politics. 5 Comments

On Netscape.com this morning I was naturally intruiged when I saw these two headlines at the top of the heap:

Of course the first thought in my head was how these two items were obviously connected, but as I went into the Iraq article I found a poll. I voted, and the results, while not surprising, still stunned me with their overwhelming one-sidedness. (I took this snapshot at about 9:17am today.)

I’m no statistician, but I think a sampling of that size is considered pretty accurate.

I actually posted this $12 billion figure before, back in July of ‘07. Of course it’s always a good reminder, though, as I don’t really feel that money coming out of my wallet, although, of course, it is. And yours, too. (We’ve been rather brilliantly conditioned by the government to think that it’s OK that they take it from us in the first place, don’t you think?)

A little further down the Iraq article, I found these paragraphs, which I found most profound:

These numbers don’t include the war’s cost to the rest of the world.

In Iraq itself, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion [included] devastating air bombardments and the looting and arson that followed, severely damaged electricity and other utilities, the oil industry, countless factories, hospitals, schools and other underpinnings of an economy.

‘No one has tried to calculate the economic damage done to Iraq,’ said spokesman Niels Buenemann of the International Monetary Fund, which closely tracks national economies. But millions of Iraqis have been left without jobs, and hundreds of thousands of professionals, managers and other middle-class citizens have fled the country.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: what are we doing?

One more quote from the article “Defining Victory Downward” by Slate writer Michael Kinsley:

Why was President Bush’s decision a year ago to send another 30,000 troops to Iraq called the “surge”? I don’t know who invented this label, but the word surge evokes images of the sea: a wave that sweeps in, and then sweeps back out again. The second part was crucial. What made the surge different from your ordinary troop deployment was that it was temporary. In fact, the surge was presented as part of a larger plan for troop withdrawal. It was also, implicitly, part of a deal between Bush and the majority of Americans who want out. The deal was: just let me have a few more soldiers to get Baghdad under control, and then everybody, or almost everybody, can pack up and come home.

In other words: you have to increase the troops in order to reduce them. This is so perverse on its face that it begins to sound zenlike and brilliant, like something out of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. And in Gen. David Petraeus, the administration conjured up its own Sun Tzu, a brilliant military strategist.

[But] the test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge: has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no. The proper comparison isn’t to the situation a year ago. It’s to the situation before we got there.

Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its “de-Baathification” campaign so that Saddam Hussein’s former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and “only” 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium.

You might have several words to describe this situation, but success would not be one of them.”

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

life on moorpark

Published on March 1, 2008 in dikastis/justice, oikonomika/economics and politik/politics. 2 Comments

Hello from my new residence on Moorpark in Toluca Lake!

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the economic situation, what caused its impending meltdown, and what might fix it. I am neither secure in my opinion nor in a position of power to really do anything about it, but I figure that as a human being it’s probably my responsibility to at least try to know what the heck is going on.

Maybe you’ve noticed, like I have, that our money doesn’t seem to buy what it used to. Of course, we’ve all been taught that a single word — “INFLATION” — explains why that’s the case. But it doesn’t explain why I didn’t pay more attention in my Economics class, and it doesn’t explain what actually causes inflation.

Of course, nothing in the world of economics/politics/business is completely simple, but with a little time and some good teachers I think we can make sense of it eventually. I’ll share more with you, the more I learn.

If you know anything about banks, you know that they are private institutions (not government entities!) who take our money and then use it to make themselves a varitable sh*tload of money. Which, of course, pisses us off, unless we happen to be Mr. Wells Fargo.

These thoughts formed a question in my head the other day… why couldn’t I just start my own bank? I only really need a bank for the convenience factor — it’s almost impossible to get paid or pay bills without a bank account these days. So I looked into it, and it’s not as simple, or cheap, as I hoped (but if you have a couple million bucks laying around, I think we should talk). But in my searching I did come across some interesting and clarifying info, to help us understand more of what banks “do.” It comes from an extract from the British humour magazine PUNCH, dated April 1957 — “What Are Banks For?”

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money that they have made.

Q: Out of customers?
A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually $500,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.

Q: But you’ve just said it. If I put $100.00 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same $100.00, isn’t it?
A: Yes, But…

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any money at all?
A: Theoretically…

Q: Never mind theoretically. And if they haven’t any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts?
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100.00 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half per cent. That’s their profit.

Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that…

Q: When I lend them my $100.00 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.

Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say half a per cent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course, I’m going to draw it out again. If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden, couldn’t I?
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have someone else’s money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too… and they’ve let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on is not having to meet their commitments?
A: I wouldn’t say that.

Q: Naturally. Well, if there’s nothing else you think you can tell me…?
A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account.

Q: Just one last question.
A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn’t I do better to go off and open up a bank?

Hmm… yes, I think you would. (And perhaps someday we should.)

But back to the recession. I think this is a pretty key thing; at least it has been to my understanding. I think we often put too much trust in banks. We think they’re there to help us, like some kind of charity or government service. But they’re not. Banks are just another example of a for-profit business in our capitalistic society (which sure helps explain those $27 overdraft fees).

OK, so we can’t trust banks to look out for our best interest. (Ha! Interest!) Can we trust the government? I’m afraid not. The explanation to this part is much more complicated, if you can imagine anything government-related being complicated, but I came across a really brilliant and relatively easy to understand explanation as to why the value of our money is going down the toilet Check it out here:

The Declining Dollar and What It Means For You by Barbara Minton

Of course all of this money talk is intimately connected with our blessed government, since politics and economics are so intertwined.

So the pieces are starting to come together. Although it’s looking like a messier and messier picture all the time.

I think that’s almost enough for today, but let me leave you with one more quote that seems rather timely. This is helps further explain why I believe we must start asking questions about how our government fits into the equation:

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done.

And I am Caesar.”

-Julius Caesar

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

zeitgeist & men behind the curtain

Published on February 20, 2008 in alethia/truth, dikastis/justice, epilogei/choice and politik/politics. 16 Comments

Does anyone else feel like our present “Information Age” is turning them into a conspiracy theorist??

Maybe it’s just me.

Allow me to explain; those of us who enjoy the constant input of information can (and do!) literally spend hours on the internet just learning things. Strangely, we may even feel that it’s somehow our humanly duty to stay informed and up-to-date about the state of the world.

At face value this is all well and good, but unfortunately, big chunks of the world are pretty messed up.

In our searching we start to notice things. Cracks in the corners. Fractures in foundations. For those of us that, dare I say, “pay attention” to what’s happening, we can’t help but become a bit distrustful of the mainstream current of news. Things just don’t line up. A person like me, willfully drenched in the latest information, and trained in critical thinking (a good liberal arts university will do that to you) simply can’t buy the homogenized bullshit that seeps from every media pore.

To be honest, I hate even talking like this because it makes me feel like some kind of conspiratorial wingnut, out there on the very fringes of reality, completely divorced from any sense.

But what if the status quo is the real nonsensical life? Anyone with even half a brain cannot deny the disappearing act that is the American Middle Class, and it doesn’t take very much economic research to see how this happens.

I’m still very much in research mode about all this and how to connect all the dots, but for now I want to focus on what’s possibly the most pressing, urgent concern in the mind of probably nearly all Americans right now — the fact that our economy is sitting on the edge of the toilet, ready to get flushed.

We all know that present events are never detached from a historical context, and naturally, this isn’t the first economic crisis the US has weathered. Of course, the biggest and most famous happened in 1929, but a few casual searches got me wondering: what in the world actually caused that one? Of course we were all taught that people started taking their money out of the banks, a la “It’s A Wonderful Life,” but what caused that?

I recently came across a documentary called “Zeitgeist.” I haven’t watched the whole thing, but I did watch Part 3: The Men Behind The Curtain. It has a lot of interesting things to say about our economic situation; the rabbit hole may go much deeper than I originally thought.

The fact is, the group madness of 1929 had to originate somewhere, and the more I learn about the nefarious, seemingly endless diabolical greed of humanity, a conspiracy such as “Zeitgeist” sadly doesn’t seem as theoretical as it used to.

What do you think??

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

jim wallis: american gangster

Published on February 5, 2008 in alethia/truth, allagei/change, dikastis/justice, epilogei/choice and politik/politics. 8 Comments

I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Jim Wallis speak at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena last night. He just released a new book called “The Great Awakening,” and has just started a book tour to promote it. (I haven’t read it yet, but I will soon!)

I’m a regular reader of Jim’s work (and in fact carry a nice link to the God’s Politics blog right over there in the sidebar), and almost always love what he has to say.

But I gotta admit, he’s even cooler in person. Or as my friend Jon said, “He’s pretty badass.”

We sat in the second row, about five feet from Brother Jim, amongst probably 150 other students, and listened intently as he brought hope to an otherwise rather dismal Super Tuesday. Of course, as of right now, 7am “the morning after,” we don’t know yet what will shake out because of yesterday’s primaries, but priliminary reports are saying that Mr. Hundred Years in Iraq McCain is leading the GOP (seriously, do we have to still call it that? It ain’t so Grand anymore, folks!), and Obama and Hillary are tied on the other side (and does anyone else hate that we have sides?).

But Mr. Wallis gave me some hope last night. Hope that despite whatever madness may occur between now and November, the real winner this year is CHANGE. We hear it everywhere, from the mouths of every candidate, from Democrats and Republicans, from reporters and journalists. And the reason they’re saying it is because they heard it from us, the American people, first.

There’s a social movement going on, and no matter what happens on Capitol Hill, it is US, the true grassroots force for change, that will make the difference.

Jim said that he started his book tour last week at the Bagdad Theater in Portland, and they were showing a movie after his talk. Up on the marquee it said:


J I M _ W A L L I S
A M E R I C A N _ G A N G S T E R

Ah yes, I believe so.

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

the rich young me

Published on January 29, 2008 in alethia/truth, dikastis/justice, epilogei/choice and zoe/life. 10 Comments

I had coffee last week with my friend Greg, and, as always, we had some great conversations about church, life, and the meaning of basically everything.

In the christian bible, there’s a story about a rich young man who, one day, approached Jesus, wanting the inside track to the Kingdom. Jesus responds by reciting a bunch of commandments to follow, and when the young man says he already does all those things, Jesus tells him that he has one more thing to do: go sell his stuff and give it to the poor. The man was rich; he couldn’t do it. And it’s in this context where Jesus introduces that timeless sticky idea we’ve all heard about a camel trying to squeeze through a needle’s eye, in reference to how difficult it will be for the wealthy to actually find his Kingdom.

If you’ve been in church for awhile, you’ve probably heard this story a million times; I know I have. And outside of painting a pretty cool picture in my head (as hard as that big ‘ol camel tries to suck in his camel-fat, he can never fit! Haha!), I never take too much away from it.

But today, Greg turned me into the rich young man.

I don’t ever really think of myself as rich. I look around and notice the wealth of the world, and, honestly, I don’t see me. I see a lot of other people, and strangely (or not), they’re all probably the same people you see when you think “rich.” But the fact is (and you probably already know where I’m going with this) that compared with the rest of the world, I’m pretty stinkin’ wealthy.

Take a look at this clip from Rob Bell’s NOOMA entitled “Rich” (if nothing else, watch the first 17 seconds):

The fact is, I don’t think we value truth very much.

We choose to make comparisons all the time, but only when they’re in our favor. We compare UP when it benefits us (”I’m nowhere near as wealthy as Mr. Gates!”) and then compare DOWN when that works better (”I’m tithing a full 10% of my income to my church. I’ll bet they don’t even give at all!”). To me, we’re ignoring the truth; we’re disregarding facts.

Once in awhile, I think it’s good to compare in the direction we’d rather not — UP to, say, a Mother Teresa. Or DOWN to kids in Rwanda. Might be good for us.

Otherwise we start to look at lot like that stupid, fat ‘ol camel.

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

charlie wilson’s war

Published on January 25, 2008 in alethia/truth, allagei/change, dikastis/justice, epilogei/choice and politik/politics. 2 Comments

Just finished watching “Charlie Wilson’s War,” and thoroughly enjoyed it. If you’ve not seen it yet, I must highly recommend it — especially if you’re even slightly intrigued by politics, enjoy a great Tom Hanks or Philip Seymour Hoffman performance, or are categorically attracted to Amy Adams (who me!?).

This is one of those films that almost makes me want to stop offering my opinions on things. It seems as though there are so many events that have happened behind the curtain in the scenes of the world that I know absolutely nothing about.

This film in particular really makes me wonder how much American activity during the cold war has affected the current socio-political state in the Middle East/Russia… any thoughts on that from anybody who knows more than I do (which wouldn’t take much!)??

(Allison’s friend Spellman is in this movie, too! Very cool.)

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.