At his closing speech at the CPAC conference, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh doubled down on his widely-controversial claim that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, insisting that he meant what he said, and chastising those who were critical of him.

Here's Rush:

"What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail?"



Instant karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do
Its up to you, yeah you

Instant karmas gonna get you
Gonna look you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin'
Join the human race
How in the world you gonna see
Laughin' at fools like me
Who in the hell do you think you are
A super star
Well, right you are

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well we all shine on
Everyone come on

Instant karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Everyone you meet
Why in the world are we here
Surely not to live in pain and fear
Why on earth are you there
When you're everywhere
Come and get your share

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
Come on and on and on on on
Yeah yeah, alright, uh huh, ah

Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
On and on and on on and on

John Lennon



"In a nutshell. Bravo."

Thanks, Ginger. Original post is HERE.


"We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad."
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele

"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man."
Minnesota Republican Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann

And of course, this beauty:

"Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that."

Joe the Plumber


Webster’s Dictionary – health: the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor, vitality.

Psychiatric Dictionary – mental health: psychological well-being or adequate adjustment, particularly as such adjustment conforms to the community-accepted standards of human relations. Some characteristics of mental health are reasonable independence, self-reliance, self-direction, ability to do a job, to take responsibility and make needed efforts, reliability, cooperation, ability to work under authority, rules and difficulties, ability to show friendliness and love, to give and take, to have tolerance of others and of frustrations, a sense of humor, a devotion beyond oneself, and an ability to find recreation.

Freud - "In the final analysis, the stabilized personality is one that has achieved, through learning and maturation, a balance or equilibrium between “cathexes” and “anti-cathexes.” The nature of this balance, that is, whether it falls more on the side of fulfillment or more on the side of restraint or somewhere in the middle, is determined by the influences which are brought to bear on the developing personality. By and large, the presence of strong anti-cathexes will increase the tension level of the personality since the anti-cathexes prevent psychic energy from being dissipated. However, in spite of the existence of considerable tension the personality can be quite stable as long as an equilibrium of forces is maintained. Stability is also produced by the resolution of conflicts between opposing instinctual forces or their derivatives."

Broch (Pathwork “Guide”) – "Physical health and well-being is totally regulated by and dependent on the state of pleasure a human body is capable of allowing. Health and longevity are the results of the capacity for pleasure. Conversely, to the degree you deny yourself pleasure – due to shames, fears, misconceptions, negativity – to that degree you cut off your body from the wellspring of the universal flow. Any kind of physical illness or deterioration, therefore, also physical death, as it were, is a manifestation of division, conflict and denial of pleasure."

Candice Pert ("Molecules of Emotion") – "Health is not just a matter of thinking happy thoughts. Sometimes the biggest impetus to healing can come from jump-starting the immune system with a burst of long-suppressed anger. How and where it’s expressed is up to you – in a room by yourself, in a group therapy situation which can facilitate the expression of long-buried feelings, or in a spontaneous exchange with a family member or friend. The key is to express it and then let it go, so that it doesn’t fester, or build or escalate out of control.
Emotions are what unite the mind and the body. Anger, fear and sadness, the so-called negative emotions, are as healthy as peace, courage and joy. All honest emotions are healthy emotions. To repress these emotions and not let them flow freely is to set up a dis-integrity in the system, causing it to act at cross-purposes rather than as a unified whole. The stress this creates, which takes the form of blockages and insufficient flow of peptide signals to maintain function at the cellular level, is what sets up the weakened conditions that can lead to a disease."

John Pierrakos – "In the totally healthy organism, energy flowing into and out of the person could move freely as circumstances permit, in something of the way that a rose gives off perfume and takes in sunlight through its petals. Integration and creativity require freedom of movement from the innermost reaches of the unconscious to the outermost perimeters of consciousness. The uniqueness of each person comes from the form of his or her individuation from the universal life principle. The person’s fundamental identity, therefore, is shaped by the purposeful movement of the energy of the core.
Illness is a process, or rather an interruption of the life process, that penetrates the entire person because the flow of living energy in the organism is integral to the organism. Armoring anywhere affects the entire organism. Vital force cannot stop moving; thus, when it meets a barrier, it must circumvent this or back up in the opposite direction."

Jane Roberts (“Seth”) – “Your health is an extension of your creativity. Your body is an artistic creation, formed and constantly maintained at unconscious levels, but quite in line with your beliefs about what and who you are. The miraculous constant translation of spirit into flesh is carried on with inexhaustible energy by the inner portions of being, but in all cases the inner self looks to the conscious mind for its assessment of the body’s condition and reality, and forms the image in line with the conscious mind’s beliefs. So - once more - you form reality through your beliefs, and your most intimate production is your physical body. You organize on an unconscious level the atoms and molecules that compose your cells to form your body. But the blueprint is made by your conscious beliefs. You constantly give yourself suggestions about your body, your health or ill health. (For example, many individuals are given glasses to correct an eye difficulty at an early age. When you believe that only glasses will correct poor vision, then only glasses will. Left alone, in many cases, the eyes would correct themselves. The glasses can impede any such self-correction by providing a crutch that further weakens eye muscles. Instead, you must discover the reason for the belief behind the physical non-function, and if this is done the condition will automatically clear up. Now, for most people it is easier to get glasses!)
You think about your body often. You send a barrage of beliefs and instructions to the inner self that affect your physical image. To change your body, you change your beliefs, even in the face of physical data or evidence that conflicts. Now thoughts in general possess an electromagnetic reality, but whether you know it or not, they also have an inner sound value, the sound of your thoughts within your own head. Inner sounds have an even greater effect than exterior ones upon your body. They affect the atoms and molecules that compose your cells. In many respects it is true to say that you speak to your body, but the speaking is interior. The sound is formed by your intent. Suggestions, repeated often enough and believed in fervently, take on a deeply habitual nature. They are no longer examined, but taken for literal truth. They are then handed over to the more automatic levels of personality, where they may trigger specific actions. These suggestions may be remarkably long-standing, and consist of beliefs received in childhood.
You were not given a certain amount of “life force” at birth that you use up as you go along, contrary to many schools of thought. The atoms and molecules within you are quite literally dying and being completely replaced all the time. You are being created physically in each instant. A sick body is performing that function then, in its way, as well as healthy one. [The body] is a mirror of [your] beliefs, and will accurately materialize in flesh those ideas held by the conscious mind. That is one of the body’s primary functions. It is your most intimate feedback system, giving you in flesh the physical counterpart of your thought. So it is futile to become angry at a symptom, or to deride the body for its condition when it is presenting you with the corporeal replica of your own thought, as it was meant to do. It is just as useless to berate your environment or your experience in it as it is to deride your body, for the same reasons.
Your ideas of good and evil as applied to health and illness are highly important, for instance. If you are bound and determined that “GOD” creates only “good”, then any physical deficiency, illness or deformity becomes an affront to your belief, threatens it, and makes you angry and resentful. If you become ill you can hate yourself for not being what you think you should be - a perfect physical image made in the likeness of a perfect God. If on the other hand you carry the idea too far that illness can also be a learning process, then you can fall into the other extreme, glorifying sickness or disease as a necessary ennobling experience in which the body is purged so that the soul can be saved. Following such a belief, you will confuse suffering with saintliness, desolation with purity. Under such conditions you can even seek out illness to prove to yourself the strength of your own spirituality - and to impress it upon others.
There are people who firmly believe that the pursuit of pleasure will lead to pain, and others whose beliefs cause them to feel very uncomfortable when they are in states of health. For these individuals, poor health brings a sense of security and safety. Some individuals become anxious and worried if they think they are too happy, for to them it means that they are not paying sufficiently for their sins. Quite ordinary people often believe that suffering itself is a way toward personal development and spiritual knowledge. In matters of health, such beliefs can have most unfortunate results.
Another attitude detrimental to good health is that of self-condemnation, or dislike of the self. A feeling of self-approval is absolutely necessary for any true sense of well-being. It is not virtuous in any way to put yourself down, or to punish yourself, because you do not feel you have lived up to your best behavior at any given time. All creatures are basically of good intent; even when they commit the most dubious of acts, these are usually caused by misdirected good intent.
Worrying about future events, or dwelling upon past unfavorable situations, only confuses the body’s mechanisms because the physical body can only react in the present moment. [Also], while it may seem natural enough to consider disease as a threat, an adversary or an enemy, this is not the case. Many body events that you think of as negative – certain viruses, for example – are instead meant as self-corrective devices, even as fever actually promotes health rather than impedes it. You are not attacked by viruses, nor do you catch a virus, for all kinds of viruses exist normally in the body. There are no killer viruses, but certain feelings and beliefs can promote an exaggeration of viral activity beyond their usual bounds.
There is no such thing, basically, as a disease. There are instead only processes. So-called states of health and disease are changing constantly, and in vaster terms, disease in itself is a kind of health. Diseases can be eliminated, even those that seem fatal – but only if the beliefs behind them are erased or altered enough so that their specific focusing effect upon the body is sufficiently released. If you shed the distorted concepts of unnatural guilt and accepted the wise ancient wisdom of natural guilt instead. You would understand the living integrity of each organ in your body and have no need to attack any of them.
This obviously does not mean that the time of the body’s death would not come. It does mean that the seasons of the body would be understood as following those of the mind, ever-changing and flowing, with conditions coming and going but always maintaining the splendid unity within the body’s form. You would not have chronic illnesses. Generally speaking, and ideally, the body would wear out gradually while still showing far greater endurance than it does now.
For adults, ideas of health and illness are intimately connected with philosophical, religious and social beliefs, and even more entangled with science’s views of life in general. Children, however, are far more innocent, and though they respond to the ideas of their parents, still their minds are open and filled with curiosity, and they still possess a feeling of oneness with the universe, and with all of life, even as they begin to separate themselves at certain levels from life’s wholeness. Seeing themselves as separate and apart from other individuals, they still retain an inner comprehension and a memory of having once experienced a oneness with life as a whole. At that level, even illness is regarded as simply a part of life’s experience, however unpleasant it may be. Children pick up their first ideas about health and disease from parents and doctors, and by the reactions of those people to their own discomfort.
Children may be quite conscious of the fact that they will themselves to become ill (i.e. - in order to avoid school or a family event). They soon learn that such self-knowledge is not acceptable, however, so they begin to pretend ignorance, quickly learning to tell themselves instead that they have a bug or a virus, or have caught a cold, seemingly for no reason at all. Parents who are aware of this fact can start helping their children at an early age by asking them simply the reasons for their illness. Again, the reasons for such behavior are often quite clear in the child’s mind."


VERY INTERESTING ASSESSMENT of sincerity versus falseness in a speaker by Howard Fine, acting coach.

Here's Howard:

"I would like to examine from my perspective as an acting coach, the reason Bobby Jindal's speech did not work. I have heard a great many theories espoused and none of them actually addresses the root of what made him seem so inauthentic in his prepared remarks and why he comes off better in live interviews. It comes down to the difference between "How and Why."

In life we have thoughts and feelings and then we find the words to express those thoughts and feelings. It is a straight line. In acting as in public speaking, we start with the words. What should the great actor and the great orator do? They should find the thoughts feelings that make them need to say these words. In short they should find The Why.

What is a common mistake? It is focusing on The How. The actor or orator in this case is thinking about How to make the speech effective. If you supply the Why, The How takes care of itself. What Jindal did is focus on How he wanted to come across. In acting I call this a General Attitudinal Choice. He thought of the effect he wanted to have on the audience. He wanted to come across as likable and friendly. He wanted the audience to think that he is a good guy, so he adopted a general demeanor of kind and empathetic. This is why he came off as condescending. No matter what he talked about the the pose was the same. He was trying to project his idea of a warm and friendly guy. Therefore he came off as patronizing.

Chances are that he didn't write the speech. He needed to find a way of making the words come from him. In order to do this he would have had to contact sources within his own life experiences and opinions that are in agreement with what he was saying. His feelings and expressions needed to travel freely. Instead he locked himself into a false demeanor.

Obama is effective because he is in the moment. He is helped by the fact that he is a writer. Chances are that he wrote some of his address to the joint session of Congress. In any case, Obama connects his real feelings to what he is saying. He therefore comes across as the real deal."


THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU! For treating us like adults once again.


I'd like to use this opportunity to explain to Dadloff and many other long time GOP supporters exactly how this works. I've heard this question over and over again, "How are we going to pay for all this spending?" It's as if they believe that the $787 Billion is being shoveled directly into a furnace to vanish in smoke and ash forever.

Here's how it works: Money gets spent on projects, (really anything at all), but let's say for arguments sake we're talking about building a bridge. The government hires a contractor to build that bridge. That contractor in turn hires sub-contractors who in turn hires workers in all sorts of industries to build that bridge. We're talking, architects, engineers, steel workers, electricians, pavement crews, sign makers, you name it, the list goes on and on. Thousands of people. All of those thousands of people are paid a salary. In turn that salary is subject to income taxes, so right off the bat, the government directly gets back anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of what they just spent! Now, the workers walk away with the other 85-70 percent. So what do they do with that money? Put it under a mattress? No, they spend it. They spend it on housing, food, clothing, electronics, health care, entertainment, a college education etc... Most of which is subject to some sort of tax. Sales tax, property tax etc... More money back to the Government. In addition there's a growth in demand for those very products that those bridge employees can now afford to buy. So the companies making those products see growth and growth = more hiring. And again, more employees = more tax revenue, and the cycle continues. Before you know it, the money the government spent on that bridge comes back to the government and then some. (Despite the likely prospect that somewhere along the line, some contractor might skim a little off the top, or some of that money may get mismanaged. It's an unfortunate bi-product of spending like this, but even if 80% of the money is put into this system the government will still get it's money back and then some.)

On the other hand trickle down economics advocates tax cuts (the more the better), little or no spending and very little oversight so that the rich people who now have all that money can go ahead and spend their money at will on our economy. Here's the problem, we've been doing that for the past 8 years and all we have to show for it is a stock market that got bloated selling paper possibilities, a crumbling infrastructure, health care system, etc. etc. etc. and unemployment that's higher than it's been in decades. Why? BECAUSE RICH PEOPLE DON'T SPEND MONEY ON BRIDGES!!! It's a simple fact of human nature, power and greed breeds more power and greed. All those people that were the beneficiary of Bush's tax cuts spent that money inflating the stock market so that they could turn their 1 million dollars into 2 million dollars. There's very little tax revenue the government can make on that transaction. Those tax cuts actually cost a lot of money which the government doesn't get back. But maybe someone can show me how we can get everybody who gets a tax cut to use that tax cut to build a bridge.

The answer to the question at hand is this: Obama's plan will pay for itself. That's why it's an "investment". And not an investment in the stock market sense but an investment in the industry sense. A business buys a new piece of machinery, in turn they make more product which increases their TOP line. (That's the revenue line.) More Investment = More Revenue!!!

I would suggest that everybody go to www.recovery.gov and actually read the bill. The whole thing is up there for anyone to read. The investments that the bill makes is quite comprehensive. Just the incentives and money for alternative energy alone is really phenomenal. It could perhaps help in giving our country a leg up on this industry so that maybe our scientists and engineers will create products that will revolutionize the energy production. Imagine foreign countries once again turning to us for our innovative solutions. Talk about revenue.

But, hey, Perhaps I've got it wrong. Maybe the wealthy execs at Mobil would be willing to invest their tax cuts on wind energy. ??

I do have to agree with Dadloff on one thing though. Term limits. I actually believe that the president should be limited to one 6 year term. This would give them enough time to do what they would like to do, but would also prevent them from spending the whole of their first term campaigning for their second term. And congress needs to be limited too. Maybe 2 three year terms or something.

Anyway, I hope this clears up the confusion. I'd hate for all my GOP friends to keep thinking that their tax money is being sent to another galaxy on a rocket ship.


Here's the thing, DL, I, too, have long felt that politicians have been so flawed during most of my adult lifetime that I have chosen to focus exclusively on facilitating positive change in the world one person at a time through the work that I do. But in Barack Obama, I see something different. I see someone who understands that leadership isn't about power for power's sake, not "power over," but "power for." And I see that he gets that rigid ideology is a crutch for the limited minds of the world. Finally, like all true leaders, he knows that his role is to inspire more leaders, not to inspire more followers.


Dadloff's reaction to Obama's speech last night:

"Do you really believe that Obama can live up to all he was saying last night? If you think the republicans put us in debt, what in the world do you think all his proposed spending and tax cuts and giveaways will do to the national debt and also to us, who do pay our share of taxes? You say you are neither gop or dem, but are for the man and his ideas? Has he explained to you exactly how he is going to pay for all these things or where all the money is coming from? I suppose the government could just print more as it always does. Doesn't matter if they are gop or dem, they are all the same to me. Once they get into office they do the same old same old, all the promises fall by the wayside. I don't think I have seen a honest politician in my lifetime. Perhaps it is time to get rid of all congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. and elect all new people with term limits so that maybe we can get people to do the right things for this country, rather then spending a lot of their time and other peoples money try to get re-elected and not spending enough time and effort working for us and not the people who give them lots and lots of money to get elected. These are my words and thoughts. I am tired of all these promises and lies. I want to see things get done the way they are supposed to.


COMMACK, Long Island (WABC) -- A veteran police officer, 45-year-old Glen Ciano, a father of two, on the Suffolk County force for 22 years, was responding to a call when a drunk driver slammed into his patrol car.

Ciano is dead.


What is a drunk driver? Ask yourself. Do you drive a car? Have you ever gotten drunk, or even tipsy? Probably. Would you do both at the same time? More than once? If so, your problem isn't alcohol; your problem is that you are ruled by destructive and self-destructive masochistic impulses that must finally end in an explosion of acting out.

It is not more tragic that the victim here was a policeman. But it is very telling. When you refuse to see the destructive path you are on, your inner GPS, your Higher Self, will make sure that before you check out, you get the message that your denials about your life are exactly that.

When I was a teenager, I got my father to give me his car one snowy night so I could supposedly go to a required religious ed class, which made driving at night legal for a 16 year old. I had no intention of going to that class, but was on my way to meet my friends instead, cool in my big wheels. I wasn't drinking, but I was deep into my masochism, so I slid down a snowy hill and plowed that car right into the car of our family's INSURANCE MAN!

You see, every masochist, just like every psychopath and criminal, wants to get caught finally. The question is, how high will the ante have to go up before it happens? In this case, the final bet was a life.

I was lucky, or maybe willing to see what I was doing ultimately. But the Universe is ruthless in getting us to see what we came here to see.

Think about it.


Chair Bought For $28 MILLION At Christie's Yves Saint Laurent Auction!


CHECK THIS OUT - This is an interesting perspective by Daniel Gross because it puts forth the proposition that it wasn't primarily sleazy psychopaths who screwed up the economy, but rather intellectual heavy weights who were acting stupid. I like this idea because a fact of character structure reality is that intellectualization is a defense mechanism, not a measure of true intelligence, so apparently smart people can often be found to be engaged in very dumb behavior.

Here's Daniel:

"Dumb Money: The villains of the financial catastrophe aren't criminals. They're morons."
By Daniel Gross

Feb. 23, 2009

"My book explains how during the late, great credit bubble, an Era of Cheap Money devolved into an Era of Dumb Money, and then into an Era of Dumber Money.
In the past few months, we've been riveted and disgusted by the exploits of scamsters like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford (characters who, if they didn't exist, would have to be invented by Tom Wolfe). It's both easy and convenient to hold them up as the ultimate symbols of the just-ended boom. But we shouldn't. While there was some crime in the mortgage industry, law-abiding, respectable, upstanding citizens caused the overwhelming majority of financial losses suffered thus far. Skeezy money managers and mobbed-up boiler rooms didn't create the economic catastrophe. It was visited on us by firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500—companies that trace their origins back to the 1800s, run by graduates of Yale and Harvard. The people who blew up the system weren't anarchists. They were members of the club: central bankers and private-equity honchos, hedge-fund geniuses and Ph.D. economists, CEOs and investment bankers. And the (overwhelmingly legal) con they perpetuated on themselves, their colleagues, their shareholders and creditors, and, ultimately, on us taxpayers makes Madoff's sins look like child's play."

Today's Quote

“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.”
Lao Tzu


This is by Jeff Zeleny of the NY Times:

"President Obama is benefiting from remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence among Americans about his leadership, and a job approval rating of 63 percent, providing him with substantial political clout as he confronts the nation’s economic challenges and opposition from nearly all Republicans in Congress, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

This is by Jacob Heilbrunn on the Huffington Post:

"When Obama delivers the State of the Union address Tuesday, he will wield the one of the most powerful hands history has ever bestowed upon an American president. Obama will undoubtedly seize the opportunity to sketch out his program for American renewal, both in domestic and foreign policy. His speech, I predict, will not only be seen as a pivotal moment in restoring American democracy, but also an epitaph for the conservative movement that has finally run American into the ground."

This is from Senator Richard Shelby in Washington yesterday:

"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. "You have to be born in America to be president."




I am going to say something brutally honest, radically direct and certainly provocative, but that's what I am compelled to do at times.

Here I go:

The primary motivation of what remains of the Republican Party and the right wing fringe in this country is no different than what drives all fundamentalist groups throughout the world - FEAR. Specifically, fear of the Other. The driving mania behind a ludicrous economic philosophy that presumes that welfare and socialism for the wealthy is good for the country, while the same for working class citizens is destructive is rooted in a primal terror - of all races other than one's own, of femininity in general, and sensuality overall, of the young and elderly, of artists, of truly spiritual people and of any whose overt sexual orientation is other than heterosexual.

Who does that leave, obviously? Pseudo religious, pseudo-straight fanatics between the ages of 35 and 65, lacking in any real depths of sensuality, artistic sensibilities or true spirituality, latently riddled with castration anxiety and misogyny, who are full of paranoid rage and the hormonal balance of a pubescent boy.

Oh... and Ann Coulter.


Paul Newman's quote below, from an Oscar night memorial, says so much. I have often said that the difference between people is that some are working on themselves and some are not. Paul's quote tells us what the results of working on ourselves leads to.

Pleasure and love are the essence of life, and if you do the work necessary to clear away the baggage and debris accumulated over any number of years of living within the confines of a character structure, you arrive to pleasure and love.

To have seen Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward from a distance over the years was to see two people who've apparently kept pleasure and love alive in their lives. Their relationship has always been an inspiration to me.


"The biggest of all differences between people is between those who have had pleasure and love and those who haven't."
Paul Newman

Today's Oscar Night Quote

"The instinct that pulls us toward art is the impulse to evolve, to learn, to heighten and elevate our consciousness. The Ego hates this. Because the more awake we become, the less we need the Ego."
Steven Pressfield


I've got a great idea! I want to make a lottalottalottalottalotta money. I've got a product to sell, a product not unique to me, but my brand - let's call it a "Chevy" - if I can sell a lot of Chevy's, and make a profit on each one, I can become rich.

Cool! Let's call this system of making a profit "capitalism."

Now, I could make said profit by making my Chevy's really reliable, efficient and high caliber performance-wise, and sell them at reasonable prices, let's say 10 percent above what it cost to make it and sell it, and then as my brand becomes popular, voila! I would make sure, of course, that the workers making the Chevy's for me were satisfied in their jobs, both financially and in terms of working conditions, so they would give me their best effort at reasonable wages.

OR... I could make less reliable, less efficient, lower caliber Chevy's that mostly just look good, keep the prices regularly going up anyway, but get consumers to buy my Chevy's by using really slick, subliminal advertising campaigns that makes them think that buying my product over someone else's will enhance their social status and gratify their fantasy life. Of course, to really maximize profit, instead of hiring American workers at livable wages, I can hire Third World workers not so used to livable wages, and pay them not so livable wages. I can also use the threat of those Third World workers to get the workers in the U.S. to swallow lower standards of living, as well. Man, I'm really getting rich, now! And if I can get tax breaks and deregulation from people in government by shoveling money into their campaigns or by slipping goodies to them under the table, and I can get other big car manufacturers to keep prices high and wages low, too... man, I'm getting super rich!

Now, that's what I call capitalism!


I posted this note to Joe Scarborough who now has a column on the Huffington Post called "THE LOYAL OPPOSITION."

Joe, as you say of yourself: "Make no mistake of it. I am a proud conservative."

What is hard for you to realize, apparently, is that there can be no other kind of conservative these days. Conservativism was supposed to be a philosophy, not a team sport of some sort. The problem with being "proud" is that it prevents you from being truly open-minded. When you say, proudly, that you have liberals and democrats on your show, you sound like the guy who touts the fact that he has gay or black "friends" to prove that he's not homophobic or racist.

Being truly open-minded means being pragmatic, not political, objective, not dogmatic, humble, not proud.

I have watched your show, Joe. You're certainly not evil, and any vitriol coming at you is repulsive, of course, but you certainly do protest a bit too much about how even-handed you are, don't you think?

Today's Quote

"Your negativity is not a gift that the world needs. Be silent, learn, and let the rest of humanity repair the damage that you have done."


This would be hysterically funny if it weren't so pathetic. A conservative group is putting out a commercial this weekend using Jesus to emphasize the scale of the Obama stimulus package. The American Issues Project, which briefly aired a TV spot in last year's presidential race, will go up on Friday with a TV spot that compares the dollars spent in the package with the passage of time - "One million dollars a day since the birth of Jesus." Clever, huh? Sounds like a lot of money, too.

Here's what's missing though: the money spent on the Iraq war, at a million dollars a day, would take us back to around 380 A.D., when Christianity first became the official religion of the Roman Empire, another misuse of the legacy of Jesus by authoritarian fanatics, I guess.


Check my blog, my old conservative friends, do a search, and see if you can find anything I've ever written where I praise democrats or the Democratic Party. Find even one word if you can.

I have maintained that I am not political, and I'm not. My support of Barack Obama is based on my assessment of the man, not on his party affiliations. You never hear me writing about democrats. To me, politicians are politicians.

Likewise, my lambasting of the Republicans is not based on political bias, but on my assessment of what remains of a diminishing group of retrogressive, terrified, bitter individuals who have dug their heels into remaining in their childhoods, people whose time has come and gone, but refuse to go out with dignity.

There is no idealized father, kids. Daddy was a drunk. He was abusive. He stole all of the family's money. He cheated. He lied. It's over. Get over it.


Are you expressing yourself in a creative, joyful work-life that energizes your mind and spirit and brings you financial comfort? Are you contributing light into the world with your positive thoughts and actions? Are your relationships harmonious and full of laughter and open, honest communication? Do you regularly reveal yourself to others and seek to know others at deeper and deeper levels? Are you fulfilled in your love life? Are you having invigorating, soul-quenching sex with someone you love? Are you so in love that you can't help but feeling like the luckiest person on earth? Do your children feel comfortable being emotional, self-assertive and independent? Is your body a temple at which you celebrate life?


Are you isolated and angry? Fearful that the world and life are slipping away from you? Sexually frustrated? Cynical about love? Do you need medication in order to sleep, get it up, bring your blood pressure down, keep your anxiety and depression levels manageable? Are you frustrated creatively and financially? Are you engaged in a work-life that is meaningless to you? Does your body feel like it is deteriorating and betraying you with the passage of time?

If your answer to the top paragraph is "Yes," then congratulations, and keep doing what you're doing, and please share the knowledge and wisdom you've acquired.

If your answer to the bottom paragraph is "Yes," but you're working to heal yourself in any kind of serious way, or at least seeking guidance from someone, then know that you are not alone.

If your answer to the bottom paragraph is "Yes," but you're not working to heal yourself in any kind of serious way, or at least seeking guidance from someone, then you should be silent. You don't have a contribution to make to the discussions about the direction of the country or the world. You are a dependent child, pretending to be a victim, and your negativity is not a gift that the world needs. Be silent, learn, and let the rest of humanity repair the damage that you have done.


Dear FPL Readers - After tonight, I'm trimming down my mailing list. If your name was taken off of it and you would like to still be sent e-mail notices of when I have posted things, let me know.

"Anonymous" on "Today's Quote"

"Love the quote. almost two years ago, I took a leap of faith and left a corporate job that I hated after working their for almost 20 years. Scary stuff. today I am happier (and more economically challenged) than ever."

Dear Anonymous - Congratulations! By taking such a leap and pursuing your own happiness, you have set the stage for more happiness and eventual financial abundance. Consider these two years and your current "economically challenged" state as part of the transition time. Stay focused and keep leaping. The universe is on your side!


Today's Quote

Somebody sent me this today. It's particularly important to remember this message during a time of economic anxiety.

"There is no security in doing something for a living when you are dying inside while doing it. That is taking care of the body at the expense of the soul. And a withering soul cannot help but produce a withering body. So do not think you are "taking care of yourself" by killing your spirit to keep your body alive. How long will you put off what you are dying to do?"

Thank you!


In an article on THE BIG MONEY website, entitled "There Is No McDonald's America and Starbucks America," by Dan Mitchell, the author says this:

"We are constantly confronted by false choices: Are you conservative or liberal? Do you prefer Letterman or Leno? You either shop at Barnes & Noble or at an indie bookshop. "Free trade" is either an unalloyed good or destroying society. You must take sides, whether or not there really are two "sides" to any particular question, which there usually aren't." (SEE THE FPL PIECE BY THAT SAME NAME)

I love that!

Then Dan goes on to say that asking people if they prefer McDonald's or Starbucks is like "comparing apples to kumquats."

Well, Dan, it used to be, but unfortunately, Howard D. Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, has attempted to turn Starbucks into McDonald's and as a result caused the demise of what was once the go-to model of a successful franchise.

I used to love going to Starbucks when it was exclusively a high-quality coffee bar. It was serene, cerebral even, with perhaps a touch of college town ambiance, and they made great coffee! But alas, even though Schultz made a fortune with the original business model, he apparently wanted to become McDonald's. So, there appeared the cheap snacks, and the little boxes of chocolate milk, and the sweeter and sweeter non-coffee drinks. In other words, Starbucks became - KID FRIENDLY!! And here I go... WHO WANTS TO HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE WHILE NAVIGATING AROUND SUV-SIZED STROLLERS AND LISTENING TO VERY LOUD TODDLERS FLINGING THEIR GOOEY RICE KRISPIE TREATS ALL OVER THE FLOOR?!!?

Clearly, not me. I stopped going to Starbucks a couple of years ago. Maybe the desperate mothers who couldn't stand one more day trapped in their brownstones with those loud, treat-flinging kids were grateful that Starbucks became a romper room, but judging from the way Starbucks has been losing money hand over fist and closing franchises down lately, something's gone wrong. And contrary to what some might think, it's not the economy. During recessions, people continue to do certain soothing things out of emotional necessity, like watching movies or TV and drinking coffee.

No, Starbucks, either out of greed or bad business judgment, blew it. Catering to kids - and of course, now we're onto one of my favorite themes - is not only bad for the kids and bad for the adults, its bad for business. Unless you're McDonalds.


UPDATE: Aerosmith has asked the House GOP to stop using their song, "Back in the Saddle."



Just a reminder.

Let the man speak for himself. Here's the new Republican leader in his own words:

"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
Rush Limbaugh

"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed."
Rush Limbaugh

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
Rush Limbaugh

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
Rush Limbaugh

"They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
Rush Limbaugh

"I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he [Barack Obama] succeeds.' Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: 'I hope he fails.”


A new study appearing in the March 3 issue of Circulation found that drinking coffee might reduce women's risk of stroke -- and that drinking a lot of coffee might reduce it even more!

Yeah! That's what I'm talking about!


"I'm the eternal optimist, but I'm not a sap."

With that simple statement, and with the passage of his stimulus bill without needing one single Republican vote in the House of Representatives, President Barack Obama signaled the end of a 28-year period that has left our country a financial wreck. In spite of the protests and vindictive, bitter behavior of the remaining few right wing fringe-aholics, there is no legitimate debate about the fallacy of Trickle-Down Reaganomics, especially in a country with so many greedy, psychopathic people in charge of our business institutions.

I have said this many times, and it has angered some of my relativistic friends and readers, but there aren't always two sides to things, at least not two legitimate sides rooted in reality. Dualism is one of the paradigms we are here to transcend on Planet Earth. It is a mental construct that stands against the reality of oneness, which is what we are here to experience consciously.

The universe isn't fair, but it is just. The will of All That Is, of this conscious universe, is inexorable and singularly driven by love and eternal movement. While any individual or group of individuals may choose to try and go against that movement, the laws of cause and effect will provide the appropriate course corrections.

Einstein once said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." I would, however, add that God does take sides. Not for or against particular persons, countries or religions, of course, but for love, oneness and movement, the essence of All That Is.

It may not be fair that the Republicans are now so outnumbered in Congress that their nay votes are irrelevant, but it is just.


Last week the Federal Reserve released the results of the latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial report on the assets and liabilities of American households. The bottom line is that there has been basically no wealth creation at all since the turn of the millennium: the net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2001.

Geez, maybe we would have been better off for the last 8 years with the monkey I unfairly put at the bottom of the Republican Devolutionary scale as president.


"Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if--or especially if--the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it's not Rovian hardball he's playing. More like Gandhian hardball."
Hendrik Hertzberg


I responded to a recent "SMARTMOM" column, "SMARTMOM STILL LOVES HEPCAT," on one of my favorite blogs: ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN. The column was a very courageous expose by the author, Louise Crawford, of herself and her own struggles with married life.

Below is my response to Louise/Smartmom:

You know, Smartmom, it's not supposed to be that way. The decline of Eros and sex isn't "part of the package" of marriage. Not at all. There is "more to life — and marriage — than the giddy fun of being a couple in the first throes of pre-marital love" - it's EVEN MORE giddy fun! In fact, the passion and the pleasure between two people who are in love is naturally inclined to deepen and increase over time. If you have found that careers, kids, money, family crises, etc., have left you "too tired" and "distracted" for sex, then something has gone awry in your marriage. You have lost site of where the well is. Perhaps you and your spouse have stopped revealing yourselves to each other past a certain point. Perhaps you erroneously think that you know all there is to know about each other. Undoubtedly, you have become mired in the two most common, but UN-natural Eros-and-sex-killing dynamics that occur in relationships: transference ("unbelievably handsome in his father’s double-breasted tuxedo") and co-dependence (feeling like "conjoined twins"). And by the way, if you've spent a "small fortune" on couple counseling, and transference and co-dependency weren't addressed, you should ask for some of that money back!
Your heartfelt piece touched my heart, Smartmom, and the fact that you wrote about it for all to see is powerful and brave and I salute you for that. Don't hunker down, though. Don't resign yourself. Not only does the best love, Eros and sex potentially lie ahead of you, but so, too, do the best years of your life.

"LOFF56" comments on "SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO GET LAID!!!" PL Responds

Here's L56:

"I've been thinking about this Octo-Mother problem recently...
Clearly this woman is off the scale psychotic. What's not so clear to me at this point is whether or not the authorities in California are going to attempt to try this woman on charges of reckless endangerment which would undoubtably be within the jurisdiction of those laws.
But this case may fall into the unfortunate realm of the old axiom, "you can't legislate against stupidity." (Arguably her actions are more than just stupid, (psychotic, narcissistic, etc...) but the same sentiment applies I think). Stupidity has almost become as much of an American right as the freedom of speech. It's not in the Bill of Rights, but it might as well be. Obviously nothing that she's done is illegal by the letter of the law, (yet), but just as free speech has its limits, (oral threats are in fact a form of assault), this invisible freedom of stupidity also has its limits. If your stupidity endangers you or any one else, you should be held responsible for it.
What's unfortunate is that since this case is so prevalent in the media, any attempt to try this woman might cause a frenzy in the media as they tend to go like moths to a flame to any human interest story that involves the apparent obstruction of someone's personal rights. In this case this woman's right to be stupid. I'm sure the California officials are nervous that any attempt to bring her up on charges will bring down every Johnnie Cochran wanna-be lawyer who's looking for his 15 minutes of fame to California to defend this crazy woman. I can just see the slogan now: "As long as the kids aint' gettin' hit, you must acquit."
Oy, let's hope California has the balls to stand up and do the right thing."


Yes, L56, in a country rooted in a Constitution and Bill of Rights that protects our freedoms of self-expression and more, we cannot prevent or abridge individual stupidity, unless it harms the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It has been established that you cannot shout fire in a crowded movie theater, and likewise it should be established legally that you cannot wantonly have children that you cannot take care of. This isn't China where the state cravenly controls the lives and bodies of women. We certainly won't ever force anyone to have an abortion or even to use birth control, but we do already have the laws in place that make child abuse a crime and to remove children from homes where they are being abused or neglected. It is simply a matter of examining this situation and making that call. I'm rooting, along with you L56, for California and Governor Arnold to stand up and take action on behalf of these 14 kids.

Thanks for the comment.


Here's dadloff:

"You have a warped sense of what valentines day is all about. When we were young and in grade school, we would give valentine cards to everyone in the class including girls, boys and teachers. As we grew older, we would give cards to those that were special to us. As we grew even older, we would give valentine cards to those we loved and cared about, including wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, even fathers,sons, brothers and close friends. You are so far off base to think that showing this kind of affection and love is to cover up something that we did wrong, and that we need to buy candy, flowers and jewelry to make things right. Did it ever occur to you that most of us do these things just to show our love and affection to the people we love and care about on this special day. Remember, valentines day was made so we can outwardly show our love to the ones we really care about. Most of us do these things all year long, not just one day a year. Get a life and accept the fact that most of us like this special day of the year to express our love and affection to the ones we really care about, not to cover up wrong doings as you seem to think."

Hmm... okay, Dloff. I hear you. Guess I watched too many episodes of The Honeymooners and The Flintstones when I was growing up. By the way, the day was originally a pagan festival that was renamed after two Early Christian martyrs named Valentine. No romantic elements are present in the original early medieval biographies of either of these martyrs.


Here's a brief piece, in its entirety, written by Patt Morrison, entitled "It Takes a Judicial Bench to Raise Octuplets."

I couldn't agree more with your conclusion, Patt.

Here's Patt:

"California's prisons are so overcrowded that three federal judges say it's damaging the physical and mental health of the inmates. So they've tentatively ordered the release of tens of thousands of non-violent prisoners to stop it from continuing.

With that in mind, may I issue an invitation to these judges?

Your Honors, please get yourselves on down to Whittier. Check out a three-bedroom house occupied by an older couple, their daughter and -- soon -- by her 14 children.

None of these children is older than seven. Three of the six older children have some kind of disability. Eight are infants, octuplets, with possible health complications, the scope of which is still unknown. Their mother has no job. She has no income, apart from the food stamps and disability checks for her children. She still owes $50,000 in student loans.

The six older children already sleep in bunk beds and get fed in shifts. Where will the other eight, the newborn octuplets, squeeze in when they come home? Who will pay for their food? Their medical needs? Who will change their diapers and look out after them not only now, in the glamor of their celebrity, but in the years to come?

So Your Honors -- please. If you can look out for the welfare of inmates, please look out for the welfare of these children. Find out whether all these circumstances mean that they too are in peril -- and if so, please consider ordering them to be released from these risky conditions, to homes.

[Who can still, in good conscience, say that this single heterosexual mother is de facto a better parent than a gay couple with the love and better means to adopt and bring up even one child?]

Give it some thought, Your Honors: do you think you need to Free the Whittier Eight?"


Anti- Valentines Day?

Well, yeah, I must admit, I've never liked Valentine's day, or at least not since I was in grade school. Back then, it was sort of fun because I could tell girls that I had crushes on how I felt. It was a day that sanctioned revealing secret crushes. But after becoming a man, secret crushes became a sign of immaturity. If I had love feelings for someone, why wouldn't I just tell them outright, everyday of the year? The idea of a holiday to express one's love seemed antithetical somehow to the way love was supposed to work. And the commercial aspect of the holiday was worse than Christmas.

Also, looking around as I grew up, I couldn't help but notice that the type of men who bought their girlfriends or wives candy and flowers on Valentines Day were usually the type who didn't express their love very openly the rest of the year, or they were "cheating." Cynical I know, but I often thought - the bigger the Valentines Day gift, the more certain the man was having affairs.

On the flip side, needing to be acknowledged on Valentines Day seemed to go hand-in-hand with co-dependency and insecurity in a relationship, like the person who's always asking, "Do you love me?" (The unspoken demand being: "Prove it!") Nothing kills the love, Eros and sex in a relationship like co-dependency.

So, on that note, here's a wonderful passage from another "Conversations With God" book (since I've had the series out lately).


"As parents, spouses and loved ones, seek not to make of your love a glue that binds, but rather a magnet that first attracts, then turns around and repels, lest those who are attracted begin to believe they must stick to you to survive. Let your love propel your beloveds into the world - and into the full experience of who they are. In this will you have truly loved."


This is what I'm talking about. Raising children to evolve our society and world to a higher place is not about biology or matrimony or the ego-driven ownership of an offspring's identity so you can pass down your name or bloodline or relive your own childhood. It's about honoring the transfer of life from the spiritual to the physical.

This passage is from "CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD" (BOOK THREE, I believe) by Neale Donald Walsh. It is beautiful in its unabashed truth and simplicity. If we could only step out of our rigid paradigms and really examine ourselves with love and objectivity, we would see things so much more clearly. That's what I love - seeing things the way they are, not the way the ego-driven side of us wishes they could be.

Savor this:

"In highly evolved cultures, elders live closely with the young ones. The elders are not shuffled off to live by themselves. They are not ignored. Instead they are honored, revered, and held close, as part of a loving, caring, vibrant community. Elders organize and supervise the learning process, as well as housing, feeding, and caring for the children. Offspring are raised by the elders in an environment of wisdom and love, great, great patience, and deep understanding. The young people who gave the children life are usually off somewhere, meeting the challenges and experiencing the joys of their own young lives. They may spend as much time with their offspring as they choose. They may even live in the Dwelling of the Elders with the children, but it is the elders who do the raising, who take the responsibility. And it is an honor, for upon the elders is placed the responsibility for the future of the entire species. And in their societies, it is recognized that this is more than should be asked of young ones."



LOS ANGELES — Police said Thursday they will investigate death threats against octuplet mother Nadya Suleman and advise her publicist on how to handle a torrent of other nasty messages that have flooded his office. Word that the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother is receiving public assistance to care for the 14 children she conceived through in vitro fertilization has stoked furor among many people. HER PUBLICIST?! WHAT?!!?



This is all it takes to become a parent. Cool with you, ABSTINENCE ONLY CROWD?!


BOY dad Alfie Patten yesterday admitted he does not know how much nappies cost — but said: “I think it’s a lot.” Baby-faced Alfie, who is 13 but looks more like eight, became a father four days ago when his girlfriend Chantelle Steadman gave birth to 7lb 3oz Maisie Roxanne. He told how he and Chantelle, 15, decided against an abortion after discovering she was pregnant. The shy lad, whose voice has not yet broken, said: “I thought it would be good to have a baby.
I didn’t think about how we would afford it. I don’t really get pocket money.”




And I am saying that as a clinician capable of identifying psychopathy and sociopathy.
Damage is already being done to those FOURTEEN children.
Whoever is in charge of child welfare in California's state or local government with jurisdiction in this case... PLEASE TAKE THESE KIDS AWAY FROM HER!!



Here's Dadloff:

"Just a comment on this latest note from bonni: I guess my taxes will further be increased so the government can take care of 14 more children and a dimwit mother who knows how to get what she needs from us "rich" taxpayers (maybe, I should say a smart mother instead of dimwit mother). In my lifetime, I have seen an awful lot of people like her take advantage of the government without any regard for us law abiding citizens and honest taxpayers. perhaps our lawmakers should smarten up and do something about this and other wasteful spending. But, don't quit your day job waiting for the ear marks and pork barrel to end any time soon. What are your thoughts on this issue."

Well, we all seem to be agreed that the woman in question is psychopathic at best, if not outright delusional and psychotic.

But what is the role, if any, of government, especially when there are innocent children involved?

This woman should not get public money to support her life of craven irresponsibility, though I could see charging her with reckless endangerment, and if found guilty, mandating that she receive treatment. As far as the kids, they would clearly be best served in a foster home or something similar, and yes, that does require taxpayer dollars. But what's the alternative? Allow the kids to grow up with an insane mother, deprived of their health and well-being, only to later plague society as criminals, drug addicts or homeless adults?

We are all one, Dadloff, and that often means that the true adults and wise elders of a society have to set the limits and provide the necessary remedies in order to improve the life of all, and in our current economic paradigm, that requires that we all chip in as needed.

Thanks for the contribution.


P.S. Dadloff

A huge portion of my tax dollars went into funding a war in Iraq that I not only didn't support, but that I know didn't improve my security. Nonetheless, I financially supported, as part of the collective called the United States of America, something I knew was a big mistake.

A huge portion of my tax dollars also went to bailing out corrupt bankers and CEO's who wreaked havoc on our economy. These are the hard choices of living in a democracy. Enough people felt that supporting the war was a good idea, so they elected George Bush in 2004. Last November enough people felt that enough was enough and so, elected Barack Obama.

Now, we'll see.


Here's bonni:

"Actually, this woman didn't even get laid. Some so-called medical professional implanted her with six embryos. SIX! Of course they couldn't have known that two of them would split into identical twins, but since when is ethical to implant six embryos in the womb of an unemployed woman who already has six children? Where is the responsibility there? It's clear to a lot of people that the mother of these children is loopy. Why didn't the doctors involved notice?"



Today's Quote (Submitted by Rick)

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."


Here's just another example of wanton, unregulated procreation by a worse-than-incompetent psychopath having children.


Here's an excerpt:

"Now, we are faced with a woman who I suspect may have planned on her children's bankability even before they were conceived. How else to explain how a single mother of already six young children, with no current means of employment, and no home of her own, could possibly
have imagined providing for them. I can only imagine that she was counting on cashing in on her new brood with her own reality show to rival "Jon & Kate Plus 8," and her own slew of million dollar cover shoots to rival Brangelina's. These babies have no other chance to be cared for unless they pay their own way. Suleman claims she is going back to school next fall to earn a master's degree in counseling, but I haven't heard of any million-dollar salaried counselors. And that's what you need, millions, to raise 14 children, especially when one is autistic and some of the new eight could have medical conditions that require special care. Suleman's own mother has spoken out about her daughter's irresponsibility saying, 'The truth is Nadya's not capable of raising 14 children. We're already all living in my humble three-bedroom home, and it's really pretty crowded."

Like I said in my blog piece, ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET LAID:

"Hey, folks, I know that for the human race to continue, we need to procreate, but what kind of world do we want to populate when we copulate? If we insist that in order to become a lawyer, you have to get two or three degrees and then earn your way up to partner by working 60-hour weeks for years, why should something as crucial to the well-being of our planet as parenting be left to rank amateurs and incompetents? Shouldn't prospective parents have to have a minimum number of years of some kind of therapy or self-work? Shouldn't parents need to know the basics about child development? Shouldn't they have to have the same drug-tests imposed on them as professional athletes do? Shouldn't they need a licensing process?"

Remember those other "parents" I wrote about who named their child "ADOLF HITLER?"

Here's my question:



Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin: "We're beginning to find our voice."

CLICK HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE


Since 1981, the U.S. economy has operated under the principles of what became known as "Reaganomics." Even during the Clinton years, Republicans were in control of congress, so the basic approach of Reaganomics stayed in place, and of course, during the Bush, Jr. years, it ran rampant.

The 4-pronged approach of Reaganomics (also known as "Supply Side Economics" or "Trickle Down Economics") is this: Cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulation, cut the money supply. In other words, it's a trust-the-market-and-the-private-sector philosophy, while shrinking the size and scope of government.

If you believe in full permission living, Reaganomics sounds like a sympatico idea on the surface, right? Well, only if you are reading selectively, folks. What it says on the home page of this blog is:

"Full Permission Living is the based on the understanding that human beings are, by first nature, sane, loving, cooperative, creative, humorous, intelligent, productive and naturally self-regulating."

Those three words mean everything - "by first nature."

Most of our dysfunctions, created from the wounds and distortions in our childhoods, have become second nature, and it is from that place that people who have not developed the child inside of themselves operate. Greediness, neediness, engorged egos, gross insecurities, rigid thinking, sadistic pleasure-seeking, psychopathic cravings for power, etc., rule the motivations and behavior of most unenlightened human beings.

So, for Reaganomics to work, in other words to be able to rely on private enterprise and the "profit motive" to maintain our schools, roads and health system in good condition, and to insure equitable opportunities for personal growth and financial well-being, the private sector would have to be operating from their healthy, enlightened first nature.

What do you think? Are we even close to that? Of course not.

The greedy psychopaths deal with crumbling roads by flying over them, they deal with deteriorating public schools by going to expensive private schools, and they deal with health care costs by paying the highest price for the most expensive doctors. The needy, just as dysfunctional, deal with deteriorating conditions by collapsing and indulging their victim identity. And the profit motive as an engine of our economy? Not a chance. The greedy dysfunctionals will make higher profits not by making better and better quality products at reasonable prices, but by employing slicker and more subliminally charged advertising, union-busting and outsourcing labor to third world countries. The needy actually watch the commercials in a stupor, fantasizing about the gorgeous women who will fall all over them for drinking Budweiser Light.

No, Reaganomics is at worst a scam, at best a fantasy, an illusion that somehow the foxes in the henhouse won't go on a gluttonous rampage if allowed to. Reaganomics has led to the unmitigated disaster we are currently in.

The solution, obviously, is that we need adult supervision, no less than any child, and rehabilitation, no less than any addict. Barack Obama is the change we need because he represents that adult supervision that we need.

Not everything is debatable.





"Wow, I'm a little befuddled, (and impressed I might add), that you managed to turn this: "I believe every single person has their own lower case "t" truth which is of equal validity to my truth and of everybody else's truth." around into meaning I think with my ego. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd have to argue that thinking that everyone else is on equal footing with myself is exactly the opposite of thinking with an ego. If you ask me, believing that one knows what 'God's' will is (or at least purports to be riding the river in the right direction as it were) is not only thinking with an ego, but is delusional in any assessment that would make them believe that the Truth with a capital T' that they seek differs in any basic way from any traditional Religion with a capital 'R.'
Furthermore, to bestow an absolute quality to the Truth that you personally seek, is to transfer your personal responsibility to an entity that is larger than yourself (that you created). That's what you do when you 'eliminate beliefs and opinions in myself'. In doing so, you also eliminate personal responsibility.
And it's not that I don't seek truth. I do. I seek my own personal truth with a lower case "t", because that's what I feel comfortable being responsible for.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Is the Church of FPL taking new members at this time?"


Definitely no churches here, L56, so there's nothing to join.

Let me clarify. When I speak of the ego, I don't mean it in layman's terms. Most people only think of ego as making someone act arrogant or self-aggrandizing, but ego can just as well make someone act self-effacing and impotent. This can lead to not taking responsibility for oneself and one's actions.

Here's a great passage attributed to both Nelson Mandella and Marianne Williamson on this subject:

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.' We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. And as we let our own light shine, we subconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

As you yourself just said, L56: "I seek my own personal truth with a lower case 't', because that's what I feel comfortable being responsible for."

When I seek to eliminate my beliefs and opinions, L56, it is not to avoid responsibility, it is to take full responsibility. Full permission living can only be undertaken when one is ready, willing and able to take full responsibility, and not just for what one is "comfortable" taking responsibility for, but for what we are all really responsible for in the big picture - each other. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."

We don't need moral or legal principles to rule our behavior if we are connected empathetically to all others. We won't hurt others because it will hurt us, not because there are judgments or legal repercussions.

Finally, the current of God's will that I speak of is not coming from a parental deity that dictates our actions (again, you're caught in a dualistic paradigm), but rather from the collective consciousness of All That Is. Just as every cell in our body has its own life force and "will," but yet is subject to the greater will of the whole body, as individual "cells" within the entire body of beingness, each of us is uniquely free and yet one with the movement of all.

Now, just as people can create evil and dysfunction or peace and harmony, the cells in our body can create vibrant health or illness, but not without it being part of the person's ultimate intention for itself, even though that intention might indeed be subconscious at times. This is why it becomes so important to make what is subconscious in yourself conscious, so you can have more direct access to where you create your individual life from at this level.


Thanks, L56.


LOFF56 again:

"Well, to clarify, I do understand your definition of ego, and it doesn't change the way in which I used it.
I do love the quote from Nelson Mandella and Marianne Williamson. Although I think I interpret it differently than you do. I see the "fear that we are powerful beyond measure" as being a fear of being on our own, away from any comfort that "God" or equally (by your definition) the collective consciousness of All That Is.
And I agree, one must take responsibility for one's own actions and as they put it "let our light shine" in order for others around us to have permission to let their own lights shine. That's very well put. But I just don't believe that someone will get that "permission" if we allow our light to be defined in any way as absolute or part of a greater power.
I like your analogy of the cells in a human body, it does highlight your point particularly well. But I think it breaks down in a specific way. The human body is a concrete entity that we can measure. The collective consciousness (or God depending on your point of view) is an abstract construct subject to the relative interpretation of an individual like you or I. It depends solely on what you believe the entity of your choosing actually has control of. If at all.
This is a pretty in depth discussion, but I hope you realize that you and I are ultimately after the same thing. The same goals for ourselves and humanity. I think maybe our search is the same, but perhaps how we define what we've found is bound up in semantics or the filter of our own egos (now I'm simply defining ego as simply a personal identity). I do find merits in some of your arguments. I hope you find some in mine too."


I do indeed find great merit in our dialogue, LOFF56, and I believe that many readers of this blog do as well.

I will only respond to the latest by saying this - there are some things that you cannot know with the intellect alone, or even with the intellect at all, as Einstein, considered one of the greatest "intellects" of his century, tried to tell us when he said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Today's Einstein Quote

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. I do not believe in a personal God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Albert Einstein


Here's L56:

"For starters, I do hope that Obama turns out to be the Adult Supervision that we need. But realistically speaking I'm not convinced that he'll be more than just a little bit of that Adult Supervision. As you state, (correctly in my opinion), we need a lot. I'm just not convinced that he'll be able to provide all of what we need. There's a lot of Government disfunction that's built into the system and no matter what he does, he's just not going to be able to root it all out. But I'm hopeful that at least some things will improve.
Regarding relativity... again... You said so yourself that for Reaganomics to work, 'the private sector would have to be operating from their healthy, enlightened first nature.' Hypothetically, what if that were true? Wouldn't Reaganomics be correct then? By your own definition the success of Reaganomics is relative to the enlightened nature of the private sector. If the private sector were in fact enlightened in the manner which you speak, would you then consider Reaganomics to be Truth with a capital 'T'?
Clearly, the bulk of the private sector achieving this state of enlightenment is a far fetched prospect at this point. On a more practical level, I believe at one point you mentioned the likes of Bill Gates, who does in fact donate a lot of money to charity. For him, Reaganomics is a completely successful construct for the benefit of all of humanity. Let's cut taxes for Bill Gates, because he actually WILL use that money for good. So relatively speaking Reaganomics is effective... for him...
In the Bill Gates scenario, it's a truth with a lower case "t" because it only applies to him and his likes. For the vast majority of other wealthy private sector people the truth is just the opposite. I believe that you confuse Truth with a capital "T" with an overwhelming majority of one truth versus another truth. In this case let's arbitrarily say it's like 50 million versus one thousand. It's quite a lopsided victory for the truth against Reaganomics versus the truth of Reaganomics. But for Truth to possess a capital 'T', (by my definition), it has to possess complete, one hundred percent compliance.
I'm not about to make a similar defense of relativity out of all of the issues you stated, (though I probably could), cause it would just take up too much space, and I'd start to feel my soul deteriorate because my personal opinion sides with the "correct" side of the issues, obviously. But let me tackle one just to prove the point...
Genocide. Clearly, there was at least one person, Hitler, who decided that genocide had a benefit to the greater good of humanity. No matter what we do, we can't change the truth (with a lower case "t") that Hitler felt this way. We can all shout out for eternity that he was wrong... clearly... but for whatever reason it was his truth. Using the same logic that Truth with a capital "T" must possess complete 100 percent compliance we can't mathematically assess that genocide being wrong is a Truth with a capital "T". Despite the fact that it's probably 500 Billion to one in favor of that. It's still relative. It's very lopsided, but it's relative.
I do believe that the truths when stated in the quote, "We hold these truths to be self evident", is much better defined by the degree of lopsidedness in this truth v. truth battle. It will be self evident when one truth dominates another. I don't think the authors of the Declaration of Independence had in mind the truth that slavery was wrong when they wrote it. In fact many, if not all of them, had slaves at the time. Their truth was that slavery was just fine. By proxy of lopsided victory over time against slavery, they turned out to be wrong. But their Truth with a capital "T", if that's what they were espousing, turned out to be anything but definable, extremely fluid, and ultimately, relative.
Thank about it... 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,... Really? Except black people apparently. Self evident truth better be fluid and relative for all our sakes.
Relatively yours,


Okay, here's the thing, L56 - if you are talking at the personal level only, then yes, truth, with a small "t" is relative as is reality, small "r." What I am saying on this blog is that while there are personal and relative truths and realities, which we may believe in and create on a day-to-day basis, there is also Truth and Reality that is absolute. The fact that our founding fathers understood the absolute Truth about humanity's inalienable rights, but couldn't themselves live up to it, yet, doesn't mean it was relative. That's why we kept struggling with slavery and its derivatives through the years, because there was an absolute Truth (oneness) driving us to end the enslavement of our fellow human beings. That Hitler thought his genocide was justified only means he thought it was, not that genocide's violation of the Reality of our oneness with other living beings was relative.

It's the age-old religious "mystery" I'm talking about here, L56 - how can we be doing "God's" will at all times ("Thy will be done"), yet still have free will at all times?
I've posted this a few times before, but here's how I visualize it: God's will is like a powerful river that we're swimmers in, and as such, we can choose to swim with the current or against the current. In either case, someone watching from the banks of the river would see that however we exercise our individual will, we are being taken downstream. In other words, going against the current or going with the flow will determine our relative experience of reality, but nonetheless, the absolute Reality is we're all heading in the same ultimate direction - back towards our oneness with All That Is.

Regarding Obama and his provision of adult supervision for the greedy-needy children in grown-ups' clothes who've wreaked havoc on our country, yes, I agree, it is a daunting task, but hopefully, other true adults will be inspired to join the president and stand up to the crooks and liars until they stand down.

Thanks, L56.


"AHA!! So it seems we're defining our positions very simply as the difference between Agnostic and Atheist. Agnostic in the sense that although you may or may not believe in an actual God, you do believe in an absolute will or Truth of some sort that guides us in a direction. And an Atheist in the sense that I believe that there is no entity, God-like or not, and that WE have absolute and total control of 100% of every outcome personally and more broadly based as humanity on the whole.
Your question: '...how can we be doing 'God's' will at all times ('Thy will be done'), yet still have free will at all times?'
My simple Atheist answer is: We Can't. It's one or the other. To me free will is completely free, 100%. If it's tempered by the will of a 'God' or a 'Truth' with a capital 'T' even in the smallest amount it's not 'free'. 'Free' is an absolute term. If something cost one penny, it's not free.
The advantage of my point of view is that your differing view of there being a capital 'T' Truth is 100% compatible with my view of there not being. Because I believe every single person has their own lower case 't' truth which is of equal validity to my truth and of everybody else's truth.
The disadvantage to your belief is that my very rejection of a capital 'T' Truth is completely in conflict with the very capital 'T' Truth that you believe in. According to your absolute Truth, I'm one of those Salmon that keeps swimming aimlessly up stream.
Well, I don't feel like a Salmon. But in the end it's no skin off either of our backs. You can continue to think I'm a Salmon, and I can continue to think that it's totally fine that you think I'm a Salmon."


You reveal something about where you're coming from, L56, when you talk about the "advantage" of your "point of view" versus the "disadvantage" of what you perceive to be my "belief."

Points of view and beliefs are created by our egos to seek advantages and manage our lives when problems feel too difficult to resolve through ordinary intellectual efforts, especially in childhood. From a place of egolessness, however, one can attain access to the Truth, as I've said before and in so doing attracted some ire. Nonetheless, we have all had the experience, even if just for moments, when we transcend our egos, our intellect, even our bodies to a certain extent, and suddenly just know something to be True.

My efforts to evolve my consciousness in this lifetime have taken me to a place where eliminating beliefs and opinions in myself is the goal, so that I may seek and connect to what is actually True. It is surely a process that I will be in for the rest of this lifetime, and one that at times feels to have advantages or disadvantages. Even so, as I discover more Truth, rest assured sure that I will reveal it!

Oh... and the reason that it seems contradictory to you that one can be taken by the current of God's will while simultaneously having personal free will is because you are caught up in thinking dualistically, the only way in which the ego can think.

Thanks again, L56!

blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online