In a "Dear John" letter to presidential candidate, John McCain, Erica Jong takes umbrage at the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Jong:
"Dear John McCain,
We're not that stupid. Sure it would be nice if the women of America believed that everyone with breasts and a vagina believed in equality. But it ain't so. To take the struggle for equal rights that has gone on for two centuries and embody it in the person of Sarah Palin is not just misleading but abusive. Charging rape victims for rape kits is a travesty of equal rights. Insisting that government impose your own views of abortion on others is anti-equality. Cutting funding for black teenage mothers is anti-feminist and racist. Lying to the electorate about your record is insolent. Do you think we're too stupid or indolent to check? We have checked. You are lying and so is she."
Today's Quotes: "BLIZZARD OF LIES"
"I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again."
Paul Krugman
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE
Paul Krugman
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE
Today's Quote
"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
Harry S Truman
Harry S Truman
And while you're at it...
...listen to this and hope it's true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqEhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqEhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
HOW STUPID ARE WE STILL? PART SEVEN: "PLEASE TELL ME MORE LIES"
A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, EVEN THOUGH HIS PLAN WOULD ACTUALLY CUT TAXES FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. Obama has proposed ELIMINATING INCOME TAXES ON SENIORS making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.
Check it out at: "As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone" in the Washington Post.
Check it out at: "As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone" in the Washington Post.
Today's Quote
"One is rich in proportion to the number of things one can afford to let alone."
Henry David Thoreau
Henry David Thoreau
Today's Liars Quotes
"In fact, I told Congress, I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere."
Sarah Palin
"Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."
John McCain
“The ones the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the ones they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
Henry Louis Mencken
Sarah Palin
"Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."
John McCain
“The ones the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the ones they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
Henry Louis Mencken
Today's Quote
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong - is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Deepok Chopra on Sarah Palin/Barack Obama
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention inMinneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palins message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palins message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Today's Quote
"In seeking to avoid evil, humanity is responsible for bringing more evil into the world than organisms could ever do merely by exercising their digestive tracts. It is our ingenuity, rather than our animal nature, that has given our fellow creatures such a bitter earthly fate."
Ernest Becker
Ernest Becker
Today's Quote
"I am now hearing from the Karl Roves of the world that having a 17-year-old daughter pregnant out of wedlock will make Palin sympathetic to millions of Americans who know the pain of that situation. But my question is WHERE WAS THE ADVICE? Do we want a president who cannot communicate to their own child that possibly having a baby a year after you get your driver's license is not the smartest thing to do? Is this the new way for women to break the glass ceiling? To have their daughters throw their babies at it? I want my president to control their children, then they can tell the Navy what to do."
Albert Brooks
Albert Brooks
GUT FEELINGS? LET'S CLARIFY...
"Gut Feelings" is one of my favorite subjects, and a matter of genuine importance. I have written about it often. So, this morning, after reading Frank Rich's editorial on the current crop of Republicans who claim to prefer operating from "gut instincts" rather than methodical, intellectual assessments, I have to issue this correction.
Here's Frank Rich:
"The ideological sellout, unfortunately, was not the worst leadership trait the last-minute vice presidential pick revealed about McCain. His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless."
No, Frank - George Bush, and John McCain are nowhere near connected enough to their inner life or self-aware enough to be operating from their "guts." Not at all. People, including the men in question, and pundits like Rich, who I enjoy reading, are confusing impulsive, ego-based acting out with genuine instinct.
To clarify, here is an excerpt from a class I taught on the nature of feelings and how crucial it is to be connected to our emotions, especially those that we've come to refer to as "gut feelings."
Enjoy the read:
How do we make the big decisions in life? Whether or not to accept a new job offer, whether or not to go back to school, whether or not to move to a new place to live, whether or not to marry, to have a child, to see a therapist…? How do we make decisions that can’t wait, that have to be decided in the moment? Whether or not to respond to a romantic overture, to return a first kiss, whether to throw the fast ball or the curveball, whether or not to order tonight’s special in a restaurant?
Using our minds through deductive reasoning and checklists of criteria is laborious, time consuming, and finally, when the pros and cons of a situation are about equal, ineffectual. These decisions can only be made by feeling.
"It just feels right."
When we make a decision from our feelings, from our "gut", that’s the accompanying thought, and we are much less likely to second guess ourselves afterwards, and indeed, much less likely to end up regretting our choices. Even major decisions can be made in just a moment, without hesitation. On the other hand, how often have we found ourselves regretting having not followed our gut and said things like, "I should have gone with my first impulse?"
So, what are "gut feelings?" Are they "real?" What are they based on? Superstition? Random, irrational impulses? Or something more definable, even measurable? Science began making some remarkable advances during the end of the 20th Century in understanding and charting some of the very essential purposes of emotions in human beings and how feelings operate within us.
In a science article entitled, "Gut Feelings", in the New York Times a few years ago, Sandra Blakeslee wrote about our "second brain", otherwise known as the "enteric nervous system" located in sheaths of tissue lining the esophagus, stomach, small intestine and colon. "Considered a single entity", Blakeslee wrote, "it is packed with neurons, neurotransmitters and proteins that zap messages between neurons, support cells like those found in the brain proper and a complex circuitry that enables it to act independently, learn, remember and, as the saying goes, produce 'gut feelings." She also wrote: "The brain in the gut plays a major role in human happiness and misery… Ever wonder why people get ‘butterflies’ in the stomach before going on stage? Or why an impending job interview can cause an attack of intestinal cramps? The reason for these common experiences, scientists say, is because each of us literally has two brains - the familiar one encased in our skulls and a lesser known but vitally important one found in the human gut."
Candace Pert, best-selling author and professor of biophysics, corroborates these findings in her book, Molecules of Emotion: "Recent technological innovations have allowed us to examine the molecular basis of the emotions, and to begin to understand how the molecules of our emotions share intimate connections with, and are indeed inseparable from, our physiology. It is the emotions that link mind and body. Repressed emotions are stored in the body - the unconscious mind - via the release of neuropeptide ligands, and memories are held in their receptors. The entire lining of the intestines is lined with nerve cells that contain neuropeptides and receptors…and may be why we feel our emotions in that part of the anatomy, often referring to them as ‘gut feelings."
Various scientists explain that when the mind perceives that a situation is critical to the well-being of an individual, chemicals are released that stimulate the gut’s brain into action triggering instantaneous hormonal releases. A whole lifetime of accumulated relevant experiences can be accessed without thought. We are compelled to action by an irrepressible feeling, and as anyone knows who has ever been "in the zone", in athletics or any creative moment, there is a clarity and single-mindedness that goes beyond thinking.
Here’s an illuminating passage from the bestselling book, Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman: "Sociobiologists point to the preeminence of heart over head at crucial moments when they conjecture about why evolution has given emotion such a central role in the human psyche. Our emotions guide us in facing predicaments too important to leave to the intellect alone - danger, painful loss, bonding with a mate, persisting in a goal. Each emotion offers a distinctive readiness to act."
Goleman continues, "The intuitive signals that guide us in crucial decision-making moments come in the form of limbic-driven surges from the viscera that Antonio Domasio (in the book, Descartes Error) calls ‘somatic markers’ - literally ‘gut feelings.’ Feeling is crucial in navigating the endless stream of life’s personal decisions. While strong feelings can create havoc in reasoning, the lack of awareness of feeling can also be ruinous, especially in weighing the decisions upon which our destiny largely depends: what career to pursue, who to date or marry, where to live…Such decisions cannot be made through sheer rationality; they require gut feeling and the emotional wisdom garnered through past experiences. We usually do not, in the moment, recall what specific experiences formed the feeling, but when the signal of a gut feeling rises up, we can immediately drop or pursue a course of action with greater confidence, and so pare down our array of choices to a more manageable decision matrix. The key to sounder personal decision-making, in short: being attuned to our feelings."
I would extend the scope of Goleman’s statement about the importance of weighing decisions by accessing feelings. I would say that not only our personal destiny but the destiny of humankind as a whole rides on this capacity. This type of understanding and appreciation of the value of our emotions is critical in our world right now, in this time of high technology and super-destructive weaponry. With such instruments at our disposal, making choices only from the calculating mind without the involvement of our heart and gut, without feelings, is frightening indeed. Without compassion, empathy and the wisdom of the heart, how can we run a country, a business or a family without creating a disaster? Indeed, the calculating numbness to feelings which permits all kinds of cruelty and deceit is one of the hallmarks of the psychopathic character structure.
Another factor that is critical in decision-making is self-honesty. If we are feeling one thing, but trying do another, trying to overrule or deny our gut feelings about a situation, in a sense, trying to deny our inner truth, our bodies will tell us. When a person is being honest, aware of their true intentions or purposes, and following them consciously, the body enters into a state of balance at the biochemical level that we experience viscerally as a state of harmony and confidence.
Candice Pert writes: "There is a profound physiological reason why honesty is stress-reducing…emotions bring the whole body into a single purpose, integrating systems and coordinating mental processes and biology to create behavior."
Pert found that the body "gets behind the intention [of an emotion] and does what needs to be done" by mobilizing systems, and enzymes, etc. However, if we are not internally and externally aligned in truth, if we are at "cross purposes…going through the motions…saying one thing and doing another, then…emotions are confused" and the lack of integrity is expressed physiologically as well.
In other words, the body is preparing for one kind of action, while being forced into a different one. A common example would be smiling when we’re really angry. Biochemically, the body is preparing to assert itself in an aggressive way, perhaps pumping adrenaline, tensing muscles for a fight or flight action in response to the anger, yet the face is being forced into an expression of pleasantness, welcome, maybe even delight. This is, of course, the typical "frozen smile" one encounters throughout the rounds of our daily lives, a look that is usually betrayed by blazing eyes or arched shoulders or other aspects of body language which we will be looking at later in this lecture.
"The result", Pert states, "can be a weakened, disturbed psychosomatic network, leading to stress and eventually to illness." She concludes, "Honesty, it seems, is supported by our biochemicals, and it only slows us down to choose otherwise."
Many people in therapy have also experienced the relief and grounded feeling that comes from facing a truth about oneself, even about something they had been quite ashamed of for years. A person will frequently laugh out loud with revealed pleasure when confronted with a previously denied truth about their inner life. For example, after insisting over and over - "But I do want to have a successful career", or "I do want to be in an intimate relationship", if one finally admits the hidden negative intentions that also reside in the subconscious - "Well, actually, I really don’t want to work at all. I just want to stay home and eat and watch TV all day", or "Yeah, relationships are too much pressure, having to listen to someone else’s problems or share my space. Who needs it?!" - immediately comes alignment and relief.
Here's Frank Rich:
"The ideological sellout, unfortunately, was not the worst leadership trait the last-minute vice presidential pick revealed about McCain. His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless."
No, Frank - George Bush, and John McCain are nowhere near connected enough to their inner life or self-aware enough to be operating from their "guts." Not at all. People, including the men in question, and pundits like Rich, who I enjoy reading, are confusing impulsive, ego-based acting out with genuine instinct.
To clarify, here is an excerpt from a class I taught on the nature of feelings and how crucial it is to be connected to our emotions, especially those that we've come to refer to as "gut feelings."
Enjoy the read:
How do we make the big decisions in life? Whether or not to accept a new job offer, whether or not to go back to school, whether or not to move to a new place to live, whether or not to marry, to have a child, to see a therapist…? How do we make decisions that can’t wait, that have to be decided in the moment? Whether or not to respond to a romantic overture, to return a first kiss, whether to throw the fast ball or the curveball, whether or not to order tonight’s special in a restaurant?
Using our minds through deductive reasoning and checklists of criteria is laborious, time consuming, and finally, when the pros and cons of a situation are about equal, ineffectual. These decisions can only be made by feeling.
"It just feels right."
When we make a decision from our feelings, from our "gut", that’s the accompanying thought, and we are much less likely to second guess ourselves afterwards, and indeed, much less likely to end up regretting our choices. Even major decisions can be made in just a moment, without hesitation. On the other hand, how often have we found ourselves regretting having not followed our gut and said things like, "I should have gone with my first impulse?"
So, what are "gut feelings?" Are they "real?" What are they based on? Superstition? Random, irrational impulses? Or something more definable, even measurable? Science began making some remarkable advances during the end of the 20th Century in understanding and charting some of the very essential purposes of emotions in human beings and how feelings operate within us.
In a science article entitled, "Gut Feelings", in the New York Times a few years ago, Sandra Blakeslee wrote about our "second brain", otherwise known as the "enteric nervous system" located in sheaths of tissue lining the esophagus, stomach, small intestine and colon. "Considered a single entity", Blakeslee wrote, "it is packed with neurons, neurotransmitters and proteins that zap messages between neurons, support cells like those found in the brain proper and a complex circuitry that enables it to act independently, learn, remember and, as the saying goes, produce 'gut feelings." She also wrote: "The brain in the gut plays a major role in human happiness and misery… Ever wonder why people get ‘butterflies’ in the stomach before going on stage? Or why an impending job interview can cause an attack of intestinal cramps? The reason for these common experiences, scientists say, is because each of us literally has two brains - the familiar one encased in our skulls and a lesser known but vitally important one found in the human gut."
Candace Pert, best-selling author and professor of biophysics, corroborates these findings in her book, Molecules of Emotion: "Recent technological innovations have allowed us to examine the molecular basis of the emotions, and to begin to understand how the molecules of our emotions share intimate connections with, and are indeed inseparable from, our physiology. It is the emotions that link mind and body. Repressed emotions are stored in the body - the unconscious mind - via the release of neuropeptide ligands, and memories are held in their receptors. The entire lining of the intestines is lined with nerve cells that contain neuropeptides and receptors…and may be why we feel our emotions in that part of the anatomy, often referring to them as ‘gut feelings."
Various scientists explain that when the mind perceives that a situation is critical to the well-being of an individual, chemicals are released that stimulate the gut’s brain into action triggering instantaneous hormonal releases. A whole lifetime of accumulated relevant experiences can be accessed without thought. We are compelled to action by an irrepressible feeling, and as anyone knows who has ever been "in the zone", in athletics or any creative moment, there is a clarity and single-mindedness that goes beyond thinking.
Here’s an illuminating passage from the bestselling book, Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman: "Sociobiologists point to the preeminence of heart over head at crucial moments when they conjecture about why evolution has given emotion such a central role in the human psyche. Our emotions guide us in facing predicaments too important to leave to the intellect alone - danger, painful loss, bonding with a mate, persisting in a goal. Each emotion offers a distinctive readiness to act."
Goleman continues, "The intuitive signals that guide us in crucial decision-making moments come in the form of limbic-driven surges from the viscera that Antonio Domasio (in the book, Descartes Error) calls ‘somatic markers’ - literally ‘gut feelings.’ Feeling is crucial in navigating the endless stream of life’s personal decisions. While strong feelings can create havoc in reasoning, the lack of awareness of feeling can also be ruinous, especially in weighing the decisions upon which our destiny largely depends: what career to pursue, who to date or marry, where to live…Such decisions cannot be made through sheer rationality; they require gut feeling and the emotional wisdom garnered through past experiences. We usually do not, in the moment, recall what specific experiences formed the feeling, but when the signal of a gut feeling rises up, we can immediately drop or pursue a course of action with greater confidence, and so pare down our array of choices to a more manageable decision matrix. The key to sounder personal decision-making, in short: being attuned to our feelings."
I would extend the scope of Goleman’s statement about the importance of weighing decisions by accessing feelings. I would say that not only our personal destiny but the destiny of humankind as a whole rides on this capacity. This type of understanding and appreciation of the value of our emotions is critical in our world right now, in this time of high technology and super-destructive weaponry. With such instruments at our disposal, making choices only from the calculating mind without the involvement of our heart and gut, without feelings, is frightening indeed. Without compassion, empathy and the wisdom of the heart, how can we run a country, a business or a family without creating a disaster? Indeed, the calculating numbness to feelings which permits all kinds of cruelty and deceit is one of the hallmarks of the psychopathic character structure.
Another factor that is critical in decision-making is self-honesty. If we are feeling one thing, but trying do another, trying to overrule or deny our gut feelings about a situation, in a sense, trying to deny our inner truth, our bodies will tell us. When a person is being honest, aware of their true intentions or purposes, and following them consciously, the body enters into a state of balance at the biochemical level that we experience viscerally as a state of harmony and confidence.
Candice Pert writes: "There is a profound physiological reason why honesty is stress-reducing…emotions bring the whole body into a single purpose, integrating systems and coordinating mental processes and biology to create behavior."
Pert found that the body "gets behind the intention [of an emotion] and does what needs to be done" by mobilizing systems, and enzymes, etc. However, if we are not internally and externally aligned in truth, if we are at "cross purposes…going through the motions…saying one thing and doing another, then…emotions are confused" and the lack of integrity is expressed physiologically as well.
In other words, the body is preparing for one kind of action, while being forced into a different one. A common example would be smiling when we’re really angry. Biochemically, the body is preparing to assert itself in an aggressive way, perhaps pumping adrenaline, tensing muscles for a fight or flight action in response to the anger, yet the face is being forced into an expression of pleasantness, welcome, maybe even delight. This is, of course, the typical "frozen smile" one encounters throughout the rounds of our daily lives, a look that is usually betrayed by blazing eyes or arched shoulders or other aspects of body language which we will be looking at later in this lecture.
"The result", Pert states, "can be a weakened, disturbed psychosomatic network, leading to stress and eventually to illness." She concludes, "Honesty, it seems, is supported by our biochemicals, and it only slows us down to choose otherwise."
Many people in therapy have also experienced the relief and grounded feeling that comes from facing a truth about oneself, even about something they had been quite ashamed of for years. A person will frequently laugh out loud with revealed pleasure when confronted with a previously denied truth about their inner life. For example, after insisting over and over - "But I do want to have a successful career", or "I do want to be in an intimate relationship", if one finally admits the hidden negative intentions that also reside in the subconscious - "Well, actually, I really don’t want to work at all. I just want to stay home and eat and watch TV all day", or "Yeah, relationships are too much pressure, having to listen to someone else’s problems or share my space. Who needs it?!" - immediately comes alignment and relief.
TEENAGERS HAVE SEX!!
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Read this - it actually makes SENSE!
Here's an excerpt:
"Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy. To wit, our ridiculous experiment in abstinence-only education seems to be winding down with a study finding that it didn’t work."
Read this - it actually makes SENSE!
Here's an excerpt:
"Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy. To wit, our ridiculous experiment in abstinence-only education seems to be winding down with a study finding that it didn’t work."
Today's Quote
"I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower
ANOTHER ROUND BETWEEN LOFF56 & PL
Loff56:
Well, that's an interesting counter argument. I'll concede that speculating where the country would be had Gore been elected in 2000 is exactly that, pure speculation. Though I think you should also concede that saying that Gore is who he is now because he lost the election is exactly the same thing, pure speculation.
There's another point I think you're missing here though. The Gore that you saw in 2000 was the Gore that was being presented by Bush and equally as erroneously, the DNC. Just in the same manner that the Bush we saw in 2000 was a very different Bush that we elected into office. Remember that he was touted as a man of good integrity and morals, (thus winning over the people that were frustrated by the immorality of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal), I don't think that's the same man we saw for the last 7.5 years by any stretch.
Ironically the same thing is happening to McCain. McCain has fallen in step right in line with the Republican platform, despite the fact that he was anything but for as long as he served in the Senate. Now, I have no intention of voting for McCain, but my feeling is that if he won he'd be a lot less monstrous than the Democrats have made him out to be.
So where does that leave us? The candidates that are running are never who they appear to be in the election season. Period, end of sentence. BUT, they are someone. In the sense that underneath the mass of BS presented by both Parties, they do have beliefs and "character structures", as you say, that will inevitably affect the way they make decisions about our government. Just because we can't see the real people, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to peel away the onion and make a decision about them. My opinion is that it's our responsibility to do so. Otherwise, they win and we lose...again...
So, although you did not personally blow the election for Gore in 2000, your reasoning (which is shared by millions of us in this country) that you shouldn't vote because you don't like either candidate is, by definition, weakening our democracy and our voice in our own government.
And you still haven't answered the question I asked in the beginning. Will you vote in November?
PL:
Actually, I've said several times in various posts of mine that I voted for Obama this year in the primaries and will definitely be voting for him in November. Regarding most of the rest of what you say here, Loff56, I say: "I hear ya!" Except for this one thing - abstaining from voting in a Democracy IS participating, especially if it's done thoughtfully and not out of laziness or apathy. Choosing to vote for someone you don't believe in just because the other guy is an even bigger asshole is foolish, and denigrates democracy.
Okay, I'm done.
PL
Well, that's an interesting counter argument. I'll concede that speculating where the country would be had Gore been elected in 2000 is exactly that, pure speculation. Though I think you should also concede that saying that Gore is who he is now because he lost the election is exactly the same thing, pure speculation.
There's another point I think you're missing here though. The Gore that you saw in 2000 was the Gore that was being presented by Bush and equally as erroneously, the DNC. Just in the same manner that the Bush we saw in 2000 was a very different Bush that we elected into office. Remember that he was touted as a man of good integrity and morals, (thus winning over the people that were frustrated by the immorality of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal), I don't think that's the same man we saw for the last 7.5 years by any stretch.
Ironically the same thing is happening to McCain. McCain has fallen in step right in line with the Republican platform, despite the fact that he was anything but for as long as he served in the Senate. Now, I have no intention of voting for McCain, but my feeling is that if he won he'd be a lot less monstrous than the Democrats have made him out to be.
So where does that leave us? The candidates that are running are never who they appear to be in the election season. Period, end of sentence. BUT, they are someone. In the sense that underneath the mass of BS presented by both Parties, they do have beliefs and "character structures", as you say, that will inevitably affect the way they make decisions about our government. Just because we can't see the real people, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to peel away the onion and make a decision about them. My opinion is that it's our responsibility to do so. Otherwise, they win and we lose...again...
So, although you did not personally blow the election for Gore in 2000, your reasoning (which is shared by millions of us in this country) that you shouldn't vote because you don't like either candidate is, by definition, weakening our democracy and our voice in our own government.
And you still haven't answered the question I asked in the beginning. Will you vote in November?
PL:
Actually, I've said several times in various posts of mine that I voted for Obama this year in the primaries and will definitely be voting for him in November. Regarding most of the rest of what you say here, Loff56, I say: "I hear ya!" Except for this one thing - abstaining from voting in a Democracy IS participating, especially if it's done thoughtfully and not out of laziness or apathy. Choosing to vote for someone you don't believe in just because the other guy is an even bigger asshole is foolish, and denigrates democracy.
Okay, I'm done.
PL
Today's Quote
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi
"Loff56's" Response to PL on "A No-Brainer Election" & PL's Response
"Loff56 wrote this:
"So does this mean you are voting this year? As imperfect as our political system is, and as wretched as our politicians can be, it and they are the only things we've got.
You can't deny that if Gore won in 2000 we would be in a very different place right now. Not a perfect place by any stretch, but for sure a better place. Elections, (and votes) do matter. Even if votes themselves are bought and sold, and elections stolen and bargained for, if a few thousand apathetic democratic voters came out to vote in Florida instead of lying on the beach, the "re-count" wouldn't have been needed and the Republican leadership of that state never would have had the opportunity to hand the victory over to Bush.
The beauty of our system is that if the masses stand up and speak it will override the bureaucracy no matter how loud it gets. The secret strategy of republicans and democrats alike is keeping at bay the three headed beast that is the will of the American people. Both parties (and the underwriters of those parties) fear this and therefore subscribe to a strategy of voter suppression, not "get-out-the-vote" as they claim. It is a well known fact that this country is at the bottom of the list when it comes to voter turn-out. (We're ranked 139 of 172 voting countries). The organizations at the top are having their way with our will just by scaring us from voting and making our stomachs churn every time we pull a lever for a politician smeared by the opposition. If we want politicians to do what we want them to, we all have to take responsibility for our collective "will" and vote, individually, and collectively we can drown out the BS and become an actual voice in American politics.
So I suggest that you get off your high horse of "Nobody's good enough for me" and vote. Otherwise score another victory for voter suppression and enjoy watching the endless cycle of deception, pandering and mud-slinging politics go on from now until the end of time."
PL:
Well, okay, Loff56, let me come down off of my "high horse" and tell you that first of all, I did vote in 2000 and 2004 - by NOT voting. I am not going to be blackmailed into a choice by politicos putting up "the worst and the dullest" instead of "the best and the brightest." To me, choosing the "lesser of two evils" is still choosing evil, and in the long run, that will come back to haunt you. Furthermore, the argument that in hindsight, we'd have been better off if Gore got elected in 2000 is flimsy at best, and ignores some very reality-based facts. If Gore had won, he'd have been faced with the same rabid Republican majority in Congress that thwarted Bill Clinton constantly, and Gore showed himself not to have the stomach for that kind of never-ending conflict the way Clinton did. It is very conceivable, since we're engaging in speculation on where the election of Gore would have led, that Barack Obama - a real leader, with intelligence, wisdom, humility and balls - would not be on his way to the presidency if we'd had four years of a Gore presidency deadlocked with the lunatic fringe that was running the Republican Party in 2000. Now, in 2008, we've seen in full view what a modern-day Republican president and Republican congress will do together.
Here's another thing: I saw Al Gore speak at the Democratic Convention last week, and I can tell you this, the Al Gore we know, now - confident, eloquent, forceful - is not the Al Gore we saw in 2000. Giving away that election, which is what he did, seems to have been the best character-building experience he ever had, so again, had he been elected in 2000, we might not have had the person who, as a non-president, won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, maybe now, we're ready to demand more from a Democratic leader than the Kerry's, Dukakis's, Mondales and Gore of 2000 that the Dems have put up.
Finally, Loff56, if I had voted in 2000, it would have been for Ralph Nader.
"So does this mean you are voting this year? As imperfect as our political system is, and as wretched as our politicians can be, it and they are the only things we've got.
You can't deny that if Gore won in 2000 we would be in a very different place right now. Not a perfect place by any stretch, but for sure a better place. Elections, (and votes) do matter. Even if votes themselves are bought and sold, and elections stolen and bargained for, if a few thousand apathetic democratic voters came out to vote in Florida instead of lying on the beach, the "re-count" wouldn't have been needed and the Republican leadership of that state never would have had the opportunity to hand the victory over to Bush.
The beauty of our system is that if the masses stand up and speak it will override the bureaucracy no matter how loud it gets. The secret strategy of republicans and democrats alike is keeping at bay the three headed beast that is the will of the American people. Both parties (and the underwriters of those parties) fear this and therefore subscribe to a strategy of voter suppression, not "get-out-the-vote" as they claim. It is a well known fact that this country is at the bottom of the list when it comes to voter turn-out. (We're ranked 139 of 172 voting countries). The organizations at the top are having their way with our will just by scaring us from voting and making our stomachs churn every time we pull a lever for a politician smeared by the opposition. If we want politicians to do what we want them to, we all have to take responsibility for our collective "will" and vote, individually, and collectively we can drown out the BS and become an actual voice in American politics.
So I suggest that you get off your high horse of "Nobody's good enough for me" and vote. Otherwise score another victory for voter suppression and enjoy watching the endless cycle of deception, pandering and mud-slinging politics go on from now until the end of time."
PL:
Well, okay, Loff56, let me come down off of my "high horse" and tell you that first of all, I did vote in 2000 and 2004 - by NOT voting. I am not going to be blackmailed into a choice by politicos putting up "the worst and the dullest" instead of "the best and the brightest." To me, choosing the "lesser of two evils" is still choosing evil, and in the long run, that will come back to haunt you. Furthermore, the argument that in hindsight, we'd have been better off if Gore got elected in 2000 is flimsy at best, and ignores some very reality-based facts. If Gore had won, he'd have been faced with the same rabid Republican majority in Congress that thwarted Bill Clinton constantly, and Gore showed himself not to have the stomach for that kind of never-ending conflict the way Clinton did. It is very conceivable, since we're engaging in speculation on where the election of Gore would have led, that Barack Obama - a real leader, with intelligence, wisdom, humility and balls - would not be on his way to the presidency if we'd had four years of a Gore presidency deadlocked with the lunatic fringe that was running the Republican Party in 2000. Now, in 2008, we've seen in full view what a modern-day Republican president and Republican congress will do together.
Here's another thing: I saw Al Gore speak at the Democratic Convention last week, and I can tell you this, the Al Gore we know, now - confident, eloquent, forceful - is not the Al Gore we saw in 2000. Giving away that election, which is what he did, seems to have been the best character-building experience he ever had, so again, had he been elected in 2000, we might not have had the person who, as a non-president, won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, maybe now, we're ready to demand more from a Democratic leader than the Kerry's, Dukakis's, Mondales and Gore of 2000 that the Dems have put up.
Finally, Loff56, if I had voted in 2000, it would have been for Ralph Nader.
A No-Brainer Election
Now, let me make this clear - although I have friends who insist that I must have a political philosophy since I'm voting for Barack Obama this year, I don't.
Want proof?
Although I didn't vote for any Republicans over the last three decades, it's true, neither did I vote for any Democrats. That's right - not Mondale, not Dukakis, not Clinton, Gore or Kerry. And it's not because I wasn't paying attention. I was. Closely. And what I saw, on both sides of the political spectrum, right and left, was lies, prevaricating pandering and self-serving manipulation.
Now, it is a fact that the policy positions of the Democrats are generally more intelligent, more forward looking, more holistic, less fear and hate-based, less superstitious, and less primitive than the Republicans, but nonetheless, it is not the policy stances that make for a good leader. It is, after all, character that makes for a good leader, and in that department, while the Republicans have put up men of limited intelligence who ruthlessly seek power for power's sake, the Democrats have put up intellectual, mealy-mouthed men of weak will.
When this election cycle began over a year ago, I did not expect to be inspired to vote. Not at all. I had no favorite candidate. But I listened. As I always do, I paid attention, and not just to the words but to the body language.
John McCain is a frozen, paranoid personality disorder with a hair-trigger temper and a very dull intellect. Sarah Palin has a text-book psychopathic character structure and even less of an intellect.
Barack Obama is what he shows himself to be - an intelligent, eloquent leader who believes in balance and the importance of empowering others by his leadership, and Joe Biden is also what he is in plain view, a humble man of genuine confidence and integrity who's fearless in the deconstruction of his own ego.
This election, for an old soul, is a no-brainer. But we don't live in an old soul country, so... we'll see.
Want proof?
Although I didn't vote for any Republicans over the last three decades, it's true, neither did I vote for any Democrats. That's right - not Mondale, not Dukakis, not Clinton, Gore or Kerry. And it's not because I wasn't paying attention. I was. Closely. And what I saw, on both sides of the political spectrum, right and left, was lies, prevaricating pandering and self-serving manipulation.
Now, it is a fact that the policy positions of the Democrats are generally more intelligent, more forward looking, more holistic, less fear and hate-based, less superstitious, and less primitive than the Republicans, but nonetheless, it is not the policy stances that make for a good leader. It is, after all, character that makes for a good leader, and in that department, while the Republicans have put up men of limited intelligence who ruthlessly seek power for power's sake, the Democrats have put up intellectual, mealy-mouthed men of weak will.
When this election cycle began over a year ago, I did not expect to be inspired to vote. Not at all. I had no favorite candidate. But I listened. As I always do, I paid attention, and not just to the words but to the body language.
John McCain is a frozen, paranoid personality disorder with a hair-trigger temper and a very dull intellect. Sarah Palin has a text-book psychopathic character structure and even less of an intellect.
Barack Obama is what he shows himself to be - an intelligent, eloquent leader who believes in balance and the importance of empowering others by his leadership, and Joe Biden is also what he is in plain view, a humble man of genuine confidence and integrity who's fearless in the deconstruction of his own ego.
This election, for an old soul, is a no-brainer. But we don't live in an old soul country, so... we'll see.
PAPA DON'T PREACH?!
Republican abstinence-only policies have been disastrous for teens across the country. A 2007 study by the Government Accountability Office found no evidence that the Bush administration's abstinence education programs have demonstrated any effectiveness. Could Bristol Palin have benefited from the sex education and contraceptives the GOP seeks to deny to public school students? GO HERE for some "thoughts," and click on the video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
