"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
PL on SMARTMOM and MARRIAGE
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.
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."
PL:
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.
"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."
PL:
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.
PROTEST OVER PL's ANTI-VALENTINE ATTITUDE!
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.
"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.
FREE THE WHITTIER EIGHT!
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?"
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?"
HAPPY ANTI-VALENTINES DAY!
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).
HAPPY ANTI-VALENTINES DAY!
"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."
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).
HAPPY ANTI-VALENTINES DAY!
"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 I LOVE!!
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."
THANK YOU! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!
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."
THANK YOU! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!
SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO GET LAID!!!
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?!!?
HER PUBLICIST?! WHAT?!!?
SHOULD THESE KIDS KEEP THEIR BABY?!
JUST A REMINDER, FOLKS -
This is all it takes to become a parent. Cool with you, ABSTINENCE ONLY CROWD?!
BABY-FACED BOY BECOMES FATHER AT THIRTEEN
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.”
This is all it takes to become a parent. Cool with you, ABSTINENCE ONLY CROWD?!
BABY-FACED BOY BECOMES FATHER AT THIRTEEN
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.”
TONIGHT'S RUSH
CLICK ON THE PICTURE AND STUDY THE BODY LANGUAGE - NOTE THE LIDDED, SUNKEN EYES, LACK OF UPPER LIP AND ENLARGED FOREHEAD. THIS IS A CLASSIC PORTRAIT OF AN "ORAL-PSYCHOPATH," TYPICALLY CHARACTERIZED BY COMPULSIVE LYING, BLOATED EGO AND DRUG ADDICTION.AS ALEXANDER LOWEN, WHO COINED THE TERM "BODY LANGUAGE," ONCE SAID: "THE BODY NEVER LIES."
PLEASE TAKE THESE KIDS AWAY FROM THIS SOCIOPATH, NADYA SULEMAN!
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!!
CLICK ON THE PICTURE AND THIS LINK IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS.
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!!
CLICK ON THE PICTURE AND THIS LINK IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS.
"Dadloff" Comments on "MORE UNREGULATED PSYCHOPATHS HAVING CHILDREN!"
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.
PL
"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.
PL
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.
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.
"bonni" Comments on "MORE UNREGULATED PSYCHOPATHS HAVING CHILDREN!"
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?"
PL:
Exactly!
"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?"
PL:
Exactly!
Today's Quote (Submitted by Rick)
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Aristotle
MORE UNREGULATED PSYCHOPATHS HAVING CHILDREN!
Here's just another example of wanton, unregulated procreation by a worse-than-incompetent psychopath having children.
"HELP! SOMEONE SAVE THE OCTUPLETS FROM THEIR MOM!" by Bonnie Fuller.
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:
ARE OUR EGOS SO BLOATED THAT WE THINK ANY SELF-CENTERED, BORDERLINE PSYCHOTIC, EXPLOITER OR LUNATIC SHOULD BRING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN?
HELP!!!
"HELP! SOMEONE SAVE THE OCTUPLETS FROM THEIR MOM!" by Bonnie Fuller.
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:
ARE OUR EGOS SO BLOATED THAT WE THINK ANY SELF-CENTERED, BORDERLINE PSYCHOTIC, EXPLOITER OR LUNATIC SHOULD BRING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN?
HELP!!!
REPOST: TRICKLE DOWN STUPIDITY!
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.
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.
SEEKING... AND FINDING?
LOFF56:
"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?"
PL:
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.
Whew!
Thanks, L56.
And...
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."
PL:
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."
"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?"
PL:
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.
Whew!
Thanks, L56.
And...
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."
PL:
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
