Why Now?

The paranoid corrupted Christian militia group that was arrested Saturday had leaders about my age. They were 45 and 44, respectively.

Yesterday, I was considering how, for the most part, my generation has escaped serving in a war. I have one friend in the Air Force in South Korea, another is a national guard member who serves in law enforcement in Missouri. Neither have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, whose soldiers are our young generation, boomer's children and sometimes our children.

I know that most of the Tea Party activists are boomers, still grinding out a battle with the hippies that they hated in the 1960s. Even Jon Yoo at Berkeley is still fighting that fight with his rhetoric. But he is my age, the oldest child of the youngest boomers.

I believe that he, and the militia group in Michigan, are on the same page in that they have an abstract view of life and war.

This separation from the real horrors of war and cruel death allow both a civilian policy of torture for the unrepresented accused and a plot to kill innocent American policeman. It seems so departed from human rationality because it is.

Considering our heroes

I've said recently that we choose weird heroes. I waver between seeing the truth of Michael Jackson as a perpetrator and a victim. People are choosing to see Michael Jackson as a misunderstood artist who has been falsely accused of crimes he did not commit (even though he settled a case for millions of dollars).

Was Michael like Woody Allen? Or Mike Tyson? Mike actually went to jail and people still see him as a hero. He was recently given a movie roll in The Hangover (I guess he's served his time).

I used to question why people supported Woody Allen and Mike Tyson in the face of such damning testimony. Usually, the victims were written off as setups, or temptresses.

It often seems that the real victims, mostly women and children, get ignored or worse, accused of false accusations, while the perpetrators get forgiven (even when they are obviously NUTS).

Maybe the truth is that we are each both perpetrators and victims; and this is what we really want and recognize in our heroes. Is this what I tell my children? Is this the epitome of lost innocence?

So Michael, may he rest in peace, may have victimized children, but he was an amazing talent that was definitely victimized by his father, by his industry, by the press, and by his AWFUL plastic surgeons (does anyone talk about how disrespectful his surgeries were and who was responsible for that?). And this same family and this same industry and this same press glorified Michael's death yesterday.

I wonder, where were these glorifications these past 15 years?

Backfire

Everything of which McCain accuses Obama, McCain is. He puts politics before country, HE wants to be President out of ambition, not patriotism, he isn't trustworthy; McCain is insane. He's volatile, reactionary, desperate and this "maybe I'll get lucky" choice reminds me of that scene in "Nemo" when Gill hatches yet another plan to escape the fish tank...all his fish followers say, "Okay," except the last guy who says, "I think you're nuts!!" But McCain doesn't listen to that guy.

The Evolution of Peace

I keep goading my husband into agreeing with me that violent and non-violent people are biologically different. He's not buying it and keeps poking holes in my theories (he's awesome). But that description is the closest I've gotten to getting his approval..."liberal" vs "conservative" didn't cut it for him and he quickly gave me an example of a violent liberal and a peaceful, patriotic conservative. I myself have been a very angry liberal, a "fighter" and now that I have kids I'm trying to check myself so that they will be more like their father, a judicial, playful, principled and peaceful man (of course, both of my children know this about their father already!).

There are a few reasons I keep thinking about violent vs. non-violent. It has always bothered me that the liberals have been assassinated so much more than the conservatives (attempts were made on Regean, but the liberal list is long: John Lennon, MLK, JFK, RFK, and even the recent killings of the Democratic chairman and the Unitarians.)

It's like the peace symbol is a target for some people, and it helps me to realize that there are just some people who think that peace is threatening to their future. It helps me realize that peace is really something we need to advocate, stand for, and educate each other about. It means that I no longer take it for granted that people want to be good...being in a state of goodness, tranquility, and peace is a battle inside each one of us to some degree. A peaceful world is worth securing for the safety and health of our families and country.

Terrorism in Tennessee

A very sad, tortured man committed this hate crime and I believe that he will be tortured further since he did not die. I hope to see that the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys who encourage hatred toward liberals will be held accountable as well--they owe us sincere apologies and a change in their behavior. If this isn't a wake-up call to ALL of us that we need to tone down our rhetoric toward those who hold different opinions to us (mea culpa) I don't know what is. I also believe that if this man is not tried on terrorism charges, then our government is sanctioning fascism in this country. I believe that anyone who takes a gun and shoots down innocent civilians should be tried as a terrorist.

This was an abomination to our liberty and our freedom of religion.

How do couples get here?

It is my belief, once divorced and married for real only the second time, and based on the book, Will Our Love Last? by Sam R. Hamburg, that couples need to have a successful two out of three of the following agreements, or dimensions, in order to be happy:

Sex (frequency, level, desire)
Wavelength (morality, spirituality, politics, world-view)
Practical (money, neatness, schedules, home environment, food)

My husband and I have the first two in spades, although one or two aspects of the Practical dimension are sometimes treacherous for us, but we're getting better at understanding each other there. I belatedly realized that I had none of the above with my first marriage (that guy I married role-played being a liberal, among other things, for years).

I can't imagine how a marriage can work successfully when Wavelength, which must be the Arnold and Maria strike out, isn't working. I mean their respective endorsements are "100 years in Iraq," "Scalia," and "cutting spending" vs. "a change in military-use mindset," "Pro-choice," and "universal healthcare and environmental health investment." But according to the Will Our Love Last book, these marriages can survive. But how can Arnold and Maria not place top value on Wavelength when they are both so involved in politics?

Emotion in Politics

I thought this was a very interesting post, particularly apt description about how so many liberals are tied to rationality above all other principles or appeals--sometimes to our detriment.

Be scared about your children, and scare your children.

This is outrageous. All in the name of saving children from harm! It shows how a friendly stranger can lure our young children into dangerous situations. No shit. I have no idea how this video would prevent these occurrences. Do they advocate using the tactics in the video? If so, what doesn't come out in teaser for the DVD is this:

1) Fooling children teaches them to not trust US--it's the adults crying wolf and it's a foolish thing for a parent to do to a child.

2) In both of these situations, the children trusted actors who, as far as I can tell, weren't actually criminal or insane. Not to say that the criminal and insane can't be pathologically charming; but I remember being a suspicious kid who could read people pretty well. So these kids actually displayed good judgment about the PEOPLE who approached them--only to have that judgment later questioned within a humiliating "don't you listen to me about strangers?" gotcha atmosphere. Great job, parents--it's like morphing a puppy into a monster!

Let's make sure these kids are scared to ask for help from anybody when they might actually need it!

Which gets to my political point here; we are in such a culture of FEAR that we're teaching our kids that they must fear all adults. No, we can't leave our kids alone until they are a mature 16+, but that doesn't mean we have to scare the bejesus out of them, and us, until then.

The assault rifle

In what civilized world is an emotional human being allowed to own an object that will allow him to stand in one place and kill people from 100 yards?

Recently, a vigilante in Texas walked outside of his house and killed allegedly black thieves who robbed his neighbor in Texas, and a suicidal Nebraska teenager killed innocent mall employees and shoppers in Omaha.

Both events took minutes.

The 2nd Amendment does not protect this behavior, and the NRA neglects the fact that guns AND people kill people. I don't care WHERE we live (urban or rural), we need to make guns harder to get and use against people.

Anyone who argues against severe limits for guns is advocating easy, casual murder. The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own guns in our homes, it does not protect every gun, or the unlimited use of them.

LATER:
Okay, one of the reasons this kid decided to shoot a bunch of people, he said, was to become FAMOUS. Why did President Bush grant him this wish by addressing the event at a special press conference? Can't he just call the individual families himself? Let's just inspire more nuts to go shoot people--BushCo just doesn't care about the public welfare!

Bill Clinton

Sure, he's a wonderful communicator and he has sex appeal.

Why do women and even some men want this charmer back in the White House?

It's like the stereotype of a woman wanting the man that keeps cheating on her. Not only is he literally a philanderer, he's also been unfaithful to gay issues and progressive economic policies. Don't Ask Don't Tell; NAFTA; Welfare to Work; etc. And I think he's the friendly side of the Clintons--but he won't be in charge.

Wake up, people.

Enlightened liberals and a reconsideration of "emotional" political tactics

I've just finished reading the Power of Now which is a great spiritual inspiration and a call for emotional balance in one's life. The idea of enlightenment becomes simple...live in the present, the NOW and nothing should bother you! Become close to that watcher inside of you and you will be at peace (not necessarily HAPPY) all the time; plugged into God (the Source, the inexplicable unmanifested consciousness that unifies all of life) inside and shared by all of us; although we are our own point of consciousness within the greater whole.

One sign of an enlightened individual is one who can state their position without defensiveness, fear, anger, etc.

This makes me rethink the appeal to "emotional" voters. Anger and defensiveness are based on fear...and who needs to show or appeal to fear? The Right. I'm not against liberals "using" emotion to win elections; but we must acknowledge that this would be an absolute fake to such an enlightened individual. The only thing that Obama lacks, according to the Eckhardt definition if I may, is too much of an identification with Obama's ego. He must realize that he cannot control how the "image" of Obama is spun, he should not worry about it! It's like he's an artist and the artist's intention matter's very little to the resulting work of art, or in this case, to his political candidacy.

I haven't watched the Lehrer Newshour in months; I used to watch it daily. My husband and I started getting angry with it because they constantly put on a "liberal" and a "conservative" viewpoint. And usually, the conservative is living in La La land, in total denial, and lies are the truth. It's maddening to see it. So tonight I watched again and they had two former Justice Department officials on, I believe the woman was from Clinton's administration and the man was definitely from Reagan's.

The Reagan Justice Dept. guy was visibly angry when he made his arguments, that basically the Justice Dept. is just fine, it's the press and "partisanship" that are giving it all a bad name. DENIAL! His anger and defensiveness was clearly registering over the TV waves. I was actually thinking it was HIS partisanship that was making him defensiveness (criticisms of others are always about us--believe me, I'm angry and defensive a lot!). On the other hand, the Clinton (I think, possibly Carter) Justice Dept. veteran was cool and collected when she made her arguments. She spoke second. She absolutely disagreed with the Reagan guy but didn't get mad or seem upset. She made her arguments with authority and without passion. She was right--the problems in the Justice Department are real and she gave evidence of it. She had to say the obvious and the opposite of angry man to make her point! This is why the PBS news and other media news have become a farce--who takes anyone seriously when two people are saying the exact opposite of each other? It's ridiculous.

My point is, should we be won over by angry guy because he showed more emotion and passion in his arguments? Should we be even trying to appeal to voters who use emotional appeals to make their decisions? That's a ridiculous way to run a government!!

Hillary is probably the coolest candidate out there. She's seems to have her emotions well under control, and she uses humor, but she's also arguing for the status quo--so where is the passion in that? Edwards is angry and passionate about many issues that I'm angry and passionate about, and I think he's pretty enlightened about what's important in life. So is that our ideal candidate? Is he faking his passionate appeal? Maybe. Does that make him an enlightened guy who's faking emotion? Does an enlightened guy lie to show feelings...or does he go back to normal humanness and learn to exploit them instead of letting them pass through him without reaction (like I'm learning to do)?

Does Obama learn to exploit his spiritually controlled emotions for base, human appeal? I don't think he'd do it.

Looking at these three candidates, Edwards and Obama seem the most authentic. But Hillary acts like the most enlightened. Hmmm. Therefore, I think I'm in favor of voting on folks based on their ideas and values rather than their emotional and spiritual aspects. As much as we need enlightenment in this country, we could use a healthy dose of critical thinking in the interim.

Peace.

Education, Joy, and Hope

Those are the "things" that all people need. The amount of controlling our government and especially religious leaders do has nothing to do with what people need to live healthy lives in thriving communities.

We need to provide, not limit, and then our children, our people, will take care of themselves.

What can we provide every person in this nation?

Education (education), Joy (emotional and physical health), and Hope (self-worth).

Newsweek and introverts

So parents, an article in Newsweek informs us, if your child is "pathologically" introverted (God help me), just encourage the extroverted tendencies that you want and all will be well. Otherwise, he will be socially unacceptable.

It sounds so easy, doesn't it? Does that feel like 1958 to you?

It implies that we're all socially and emotionally smart and it's just those pesky introverts that are causing US problems, and occassionally, mass murders.

How about we suggest educating PARENTS to actively seek and learn about what it means to be socially and emotionally healthy, and then it will rub off? A good start, and the only start, I think.

Social hell for the quiet among us

I only skimmed the New Republic's article about Blacksburg, but it seems to sum up the events of that day as a kind of "evil in man" that can't be avoided...pity the Columbine generation.

That is such BS and a cop out, no, we can't control the hearts of men, bla, bla, bla, but shouldn't we at least try to understand man? What do we know about humankind?!! Why don't we all know it?!

An event such as this, in its extremity, in its direct and fatal attack on our social agreements (love, friendship, learning), shines a bright light on exactly these aspects of this world, that the Columbine generation, and the rest of us, have to endure.

I've read SO many books on childrearing because, frankly, healthy childrearing didn't go in (which is a big part of the reason I rant on this blog).

The bottom line is this: What goes in, comes out, what doesn't go in, doesn't come out.

In essence, we are, with some genetic influence, what our parents and the adults around us, create. I humbly think that most of us need to give parenting a hell a lot of thought and work, and that means mostly on ourselves.

As for parenting/adult influences on children, the most eye opening thing I've learned since my son was born is that boys are born more emotionally sensitive than girls, and guess what? We generally ask them, more than girls, to stifle/ignore their feelings for their entire childhood (albeit this very often happens to girls, too). That's a powder keg in the making. Most people wind up raging at their own kids, and themselves (you probably know them, you're lucky if you don't, and wow, do I crave that community), but some, like Cho, take out their rage on the rest of us.

As for the genetic influence, this can compound the environmental influences:

We are a society that loves EXTROVERTS.

Most experts believe that we are either born extroverts or introverts. The majority of us our extroverts. The extroverts normally make it very difficult for introverts. And, low and behold, introverts are MORE EMOTIONALLY SENSITIVE than extroverts.

Introverts are prudent, they think before they speak, they take time to process what they experience, and being around people drains their energy.

Extroverts speak as they are thinking, they don't take much time to make decisions, and being around people increases their energy.

In other words, extroverts and introverts are nearly opposites. It becomes painfully clear how an extrovert, or extroverts, can dominate an introvert and make life difficult for them. I am an extrovert with introverted preferences, and I've seen how Generation Y, more than any other generation before it, has been defined by its "team" mentality. One could also read that as "clique city." There is enormous pressure on young people, even my young son who will be TWO this year, to JOIN THE GROUP. He can manage it, but he still needs breaks from the crowd that his teachers don't see or get. I can spot the introverted children, they are so genuine they haven't learned to hide their preferences yet, they make it clear to us that they want to be alone with us, or by themselves, and it makes me sad that parents are constantly haranging them to join the group, go play, be with those children, JOIN! I know the parents don't mean any harm, but this is such a symptom of how we are taught so little about ourselves, or how to understand ourselves and our children. How to accept our DIFFERENCES!

I'm just thinking about how we could go a long way as a nation by becoming emotionally aware, understanding different personalities, and by making way for and accepting that normal people need space alone, away from the group.

My brother is one of the happiest introverts I know and he says, "I enjoy being by myself for hours." He admitted to me recently how he was a very emotionally sensitive child. How often do you hear people say that?