Rain Falls

Joke of the day: "A man, horribly crippled and in a wheelchair, started rolling uncontrollably down a street (picture Lombard street in SF). Disheveled and angry, he threw his hands in the air, looked up and shouted 'why me, God? Why me?' over and over again. People saw him and felt sympathy; they began to follow and take up the cry. Soon a big crowd was following, all shouting 'Why me, God? Why me?' ...they came to the bottom of the hill, and found a church. fueled with anger and resentment, they went went into the church, brought the man in the wheelchair to the alter, and in unified chorus rang out 'why me, God? why me?' Suddenly there was a roar of lightning and everyone was disintegrated right on the spot. A deep voice came down from the rafters clearly enunciating the words: 'Because I don't like you!'"

There are alot of levels to this joke. It makes the point that if God really did play favorites, we would probably know. But in truth, rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and it is up to us to see the rain as a blessing or a curse. There is a quote from The Prophet that poetically makes this point: "Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights is worthy of all else from you. And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream."

Who are we to determine who is to receive the blessings we give out? God does not act so. In this world she does not go around smiting evil-doers and blessing do-gooders with aught but the fruits of their own labor. So how can we judge others as worthy or unworthy of our gifts?

Another aspect is whether we see what happens to us as a blessing or a curse. Our culture gives the impression that most people see hardship as curse. But I have come to see it as, in many ways, a blessing. Having the requirement to sacrifice something is an opportunity to build and improve oneself. It is my sense that too much prosperity will disconnect people from the truly important things in life and cloud one's life and mind with useless things.

If it is raining on you, it is your choice to enjoy it or lament it. Personally it seems much better for me and my community if I learn to enjoy the hardships of life.

Love 3: The sweet compulsion of generosity

To continue the blog series I inadvertently started, embracing love, even to the tiny degree I have managed, brings one a vibrant new life. Identifying oneself as primarily a part of something bigger is so incredibly liberating. Acting out of self interest and selfish desires seems hollow now, like a bewitched tree that will only bear rotten fruit. American culture beats utility maximization, money-seeking and selfishness into our heads and claims they will make us happy. Go shopping to make yourself feel better. Eat to get happy. Watch TV to escape the emptiness you feel. Well, these are false logics, I tell you, they are merely a pain killer and fail to address the real cause of our anguish. In fact, it is our faith in these prescriptions and the soul-sucking lifestyle of America that have caused our pain.

Librating ourselves from this pain is surprisingly easy. Generosity springs like a fountain from the embrace of love. Love makes generosity inevitable, a sweet compulsion that brings the gifts of happiness, secruity, strong social bonds with people, and a fulfillment that is so glorious it is hard to describe. Indeed, the life of generosity is the life of happiness. A quote from "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran comes to mind, " And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue; They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space." That quote has been stuck in my mind for over a year, one of those puzzles that my mind runs circles around... and it finally clicked while I was writing this. It is inherently human to give, an inescapable aspect of our nature. You might try to escape the compulsion to give my being selfish, but your reward is always anguish. To try such is like the myrtle in yonder valley not breathing its fragrance, it is contrary to its nature and it would probably suffer from it.

I have started looking for opportunities to give. Not just give from my meager possessions, but give of myself. This mostly manifests itself as helping people. I try to help whenever I am asked. But the gems of the experience are when I can help someone without being asked, through understanding what is going on in their heads and lending a hand. It really makes people feel good.

But many of us flee from this kind of risk. Because it is a risk, to attempt to give as a way of life. There is always the fear of rejection, and the fear that we are missing out on something. Fear of rejection is understandable, many people do not like to accept generosity. But the fear that we are missing out on something is much more insidious. It is akin to the idea of "opportunity cost," and has the nasty habit of eating away at our joy while sowing the seeds of nagging doubt. This fear is the sickened finger of selfishness trying to tear us down, prevent us from embracing love fully. Another great line from The Prophet reads: "Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, thirst that is unquenchable?" Fearing that we will not have something in the future or that we don't have the best of something is a sign of feeling insecure and entitled at the same time. Watch out for this, it has destroyed much good in my life and I would hate to see it happen to you.

A Revolution is Just a Spinning of the Wheel

I mistrust the notion of revolution.  Far too many people put stock in it as an effective way to change society, but even a brief gloss-over of history tells me that it is not particularly effective. Take Russia for example.  They have had several revolutions in the past 200 years both violent and peaceful, yet they still have an authoritarian government, it may be composed of different people, but it is still essentially the same as the Tsar monarchy or the Soviet-style government. China too, several revolutions, still authoritarian.  Then there are countless third world countries that have had revolutions galore, and we can see how well that has worked out for them. We could take the French revolution as the archetype of revolution.  They overthrew an absolute monarch and large, powerful factions such as the Sansculottes pushed for direct democracy.  The core of the intellectual support for the French revolution supported more democracy, and indeed has inspired the rest of the world with its idealism.  Yet they ended up empowering Napoleon in the near absolute power of an Emperor.   If there were to be a revolution in the typical sense in America, I do not believe it would achieve the ends we desire. 

I am reminded of the analysis provided in 1984 about before Oceania's type of government:  there were always revolutions that would overthrow one group of oligarchs and replace them with another group.  Indeed, a republic is designed to institutionalize this process, stabilizing the switching of control and reducing disruption.  It also stabilizes the groups who maintain power, allowing them to entrench themselves more effectively and simply change places with each other every few years.  Kind of scary to think that a republic, what we have now in America, is an institutionalization of the cycle of revolution.  I am not particularly interesting in changing who has the reigns of power, which may be why I am never had a particular interest in working to elect politicians or bothering rich people to do things.

  

True to its definition, revolution is just the spinning of the wheel, you always end up where you started.  Myself, I am not interested in spinning my wheels... what I want to do is change the wheel itself.  History, again, can aid in understanding this.  There have been numerous wheel-changing events in history, among the most prominent are the industrial revolution and the enlightenment.  They both defined the lenses that the world has been seen through since they came about.  What is phenomenal about them is that they were not specifically directed at the power structures themselves, they were simple shifts in our view of the world and how one acts in it.  

I have come across the idea of wheel changing events before; something that happens that changes everything.  For indigenous populations, exposure to western civilization has been wheel-changing, their cultures are disrupted, and they are often forced to abandon their way of life.  Forced in the military sense, or in the generational shift-sense when the next generation has to stop living the way they did to survive.   But, the best description of a wheel-changing event that I have come across yet comes from literature.  The Riverworld series describes how an ancient society accidentally developed an artificial soul generator that automatically bound souls to new sentient beings.  So, this society changed its newborns without even knowing it, and in the space of only a couple generations, all the beings without these souls were gone because of old age.   This is a great metaphor for generational change.  One generation develops something, the next generation is imbued with it and it becomes an indestructible part of our society.

This seems to be the main wheel-changing method that humanity has at its disposal, and it can be boiled down to mass education, motivation, and changes in each of our ways of life.  To change society, you really have to change the way people think and act, because what else is society but the aggregate of all of our thoughts and actions.  

The industrial revolution was a revolution of mind, it shifted the priorities in life more directly toward profit, productivity and self-interest away from the typical human priority of social networking and the reciprocal economy.  It manifested itself in the day to day behavior of people and in their way of life.  It was compelling enough to spread like a plague across the earth, infecting all those it touched.  

I also think that the 60s was a wheel-changing event in opposition to the industrial revolution's, as it prompted people to change their priorities away from profit.  In fact, I believe that the old sds's long-haul strategy of radicalizing (educating) young people was key in the effectiveness of this specific event.  Without a de-centralized yet organized education and motivation effort, wheel-changing events are much harder to produce.  

Without this hard work of changing minds, we will not see success in our movement.  In the eternal words of Monty Python: "Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Too often people on the left focus on the power structures in a society, when we should be focusing on the real power in human society - each other.

Walk the Earth as Humans

Building upon the thinking in my previous post, motivation to profit has started to seem like the crutch on which capitalism leans. In "The Age of Revolution" Hobsbawm talks about how employers during the early stages of the transition to capitalism would complain about the "laziness" of their employees. These people would work enough to make ends meet, and then stop. They were not used to the consistent work of industry, where one needs to be on time and to stay the whole time. Workers were more used to the farm and rural mentality of working whenever, and making your own hours. The combination of lack of motivation to work extra and to stay working annoyed the employers... because it cut their efficiency and profits. And this didn't happen just in urban centers of proto-capitalist economies, it happened in colonies and the outskirts of "civilization" too. It is a stereotype in my mind that British colonial officials would always complain about the laziness of the indigenous people. Anthropology pointed out to me that our civilization stereotypes indigenous societies as lazy and unproductive too.

Once the capitalist motivation of profit took hold in people with authority and power, they sought to use other people as tools to profit, and when these people stubbornly resisted by not conforming to capitalist ideals of a worker. But, as people had become tools to profit in the eyes of business owners and employers, they justified terrible repressions. Material starvation was one tecnique that was used to get more work out of their workers. They cut wages, to force them to work longer, and used the law. When the workers fought back by forming unions, these were attacked by the methods of coercion at the disposal of the powerful. This began the protracted war over labor rights which continues to this day. Another method to motivate people was to place immense obligations on their shoulders, such as military service and debt.

But the most effective method they used was cultural re-education. The early capitalists wanted everyone to think like they did, that profit is what they should seek and self-interest is the primary motivator. After three centuries of capitalistic re-education of society and culture shifting, we can see the success of this approach. Our entire civilization is now based on money as a motivator. It is true, there has been significant resistence to this belief, which is why it is not too surprising how many people still live in poverty. Fear of making ends meet, of feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is an immensely powerful motivator, and it ensures that people continue to buy into the capitalism by selling their labor and conforming to the rules.

Martin Luther King said something like "Humanity has learned to swim in the sea like a fish and fly in the sky like a bird, but we still can't walk the earth like a man." I think to put it more correctly, we forgot how to walk like a person. This analogy is very astute and gets to the heart of the problem. Humans were not meant to live this way, it is physcially and mentally destructive. Placing profit over people corrupts people's souls, and is mentally oppressive to those who think that way. Walking the earth, as MLK implies, would require us to treat people as an end in themselves instead of a tool. Something that I think most lefties dont realize is that capitalism is an oppression on the affleuent and power as well as on the down-trodden and working class. Where the majority of people suffer from material poverty, the rich suffer from a spiritual poverty that I find to be much more oppressive. And by spiritual I don't mean faith in God, or religion, I mean how much fulfillment one gets out of life; how people treat each other and the ramifications that has on their minds; lack of a deeper meaning than materialism; and suffering from a severe disconnection with other people.

Spiritual poverty is generated because people are not meant to live this way. Humans are social creatures and we have certain dispositions toward each other that capitalism disrupts. Generosity, connection, reciprocacy, and the social glue that holds a society together are all hard-wired into our brains, and when capitalism disrupts them it lays a yoke upon the mind of a person. This burden is so heavy it causes us to flee to transient pleasures to dull the pain and try to escape.

In Kentucky, people took care of each other. It is true that poverty took its toll with alcoholism, drugs, alienation and mental illness. But poverty also brings people together, it connects them and can build strong social ties. Lack of material comfort does not seem too harsh if one's family and friends are there, protecting each other. The affluent world I gained a view of at Brown was much worse, in my opinion. In the words of the Union song "Bread and Roses" by Bobbie McGee, "Hearts starve as well as bodies." And I see starvation of the heart to be a common affliction among the rich.

The capitalist motivation meme seems to have taken on a life of its own. It spurrs us into spending our collective time and energy on things that are not important, into things and not into people. Last time I was flying I had a window seat, and as I looked down, I noticed that I could always see something made by people. We have built so much, and yet we don't realize that it is more important to put effort into people. This does give me hope though. If we could push ourselves to do all this, build this entire world in a couple centuries, then we could push ourselves to do anything. Human culture is surprisingly flexible and powerful, we have drifted so far from our nature, and its impact is also quite impressive.

Capitalism (the Game!)

The more I think about capitalism, the more it seems to fit into the "game" category. Except it is perhaps the most complex game out there, and your survival depends on playing it. I think the most game-esque part of capitalism is the stock market, where you watch a bunch of numbers go up and down and you try to make more money based on when you buy and sell. Almost all of the people playing have more than enough money to live comfortably, but they are still focused on raising their own personal score. It is a symptom of a culture that is obsessed with over-accumulation.


Consumerism. That was the answer capitalism developed to answer the problem of the "stationary state." This idea was introduced to me by a book by Eric Hobsbawm titled "The Age of Revolution." As profit is the main motivator in the game of capitalism, if people are not motivated to profit, they will quite soon reach a point where they are quite satisfied with their position in life, and no longer seek to profit.  This is a stationary state, where people no longer seek to profit because they have enough.  I have fallen into such a state, I really have no motivation to make money and my living conditions are pretty good. I am not being a very good consumer, and I could see that the capitalism system would be in deep trouble if most people acted the way I am.  To avoid this pitfall, that would have reduced profits, consumerism evolved.

It actually reminds me of many video games. In Dungeons and Dragons based games like Diablo II and Nethack you walk around killing evil things, getting gold and new equipment. That is all the game is, getting new stuff by killing things... it is almost like gambling, because every time you kill something you have a chance to get something really good. It can be pretty addicting. I wonder how many of you thought I could compare capitalism to Diablo II. In games like Age of Empires II and Starcraft your objective is to conquer your competitor, but to do that, you have to develop an economy where you accumulate resources and assets. If you manage your assests affectively, you win. If not, then you lose. In Thief, you have to steal a certain amount of money. They are all focused on counters... little numbers that tell you how well you are doing. Sounds like the stock market to me.

I was looking at my bank statement the other day and asking myself how much happier I would be if my account was larger. Would I be happier if it were twice as much? How about 100 times as much? What would be the point of having that? What would I do with it? Why are so many people happier when the number on their bank statements are higher? I am still not sure why, which is a failing on my part, failing to understand other people. The only possible explanation I have been able to come up with is that they are approaching it the way I approach games, in that it is fun to test one's skills and see how good one can get. Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but basing a way of life on what amounts to a game is a horrible, HORRIBLE idea. Games were meant as training for real life, not to become real life! It seems that this is another example of goal displacement.

The truth is, the only reason I would be happier if the number on my bank account was bigger would be because it meant I got to give my money away to my friends and family. To help them in whatever way I could figure out.  And once I did that, the number would fall sharply.  I see no other reason why I would want alot of money. Some would respond to that by saying, "oh, but then you wouldn't have to work." But I like work! I would get depressed if I did not have something to do, something to really sink my teeth into. I have done experiments on myself, "Sloth" makes me unhappy. I am quite certain I would just end up giving my money away if I had any extra beyond what I would want to have on hand during an emergency. I don't want to have any more, I do not want that burden. As Kahlil Gibran said in "The Prophet": "The fear of thirst when your well is full is the thirst that is unquenchable."

No, the meaning of my life is not profit, something I am greatly thankful to my parents for imbuing in me. The meaning of life (well, atleast mine) is other people. And I see no other motivator that could bring me as much fulfillment and happiness as that one.

Thoughts on Happiness and The Meaning of Life.

In trying to make up for June when I didn't write any blog posts, I am writing a few in rapid succession to get some ideas out of my head before they slip away.

Our happiness rests in the hands of the community we build around ourselves. We are happy when we feel loved, secure and fulfilled; when we can share our joys and sorrows with others. Money cannot provide any of that, nor can possessions. Yes, they might give the illusion of it sometimes, but those feelings are always fleeting. They come with the initial rush of emotion but soon fall away. Material pleasures are poor substitutes for the joys of community. When material pleasures become someone's main source of fulfillment, their lives have indeed become empty. They jump from pleasure to pleasure trying to stifle the emptiness they feel inside with the sudden rush of pleasure from some new possession. But when this rush fades, they are left with more emptiness, causing them to fly to something new to avoid their own caustic loneliness. Our economic system takes extreme advantage of this impulse, both facilitating the disruption of community to cause emptiness and giving people the impression that they can find fulfillment in their possessions and the accumulation of more of them.

Indeed, other people are the meaning of life. There can be no other, human nature bars it. Those who fail to realize this and prioritize something else over people always pay an emotional price, and often a material price as well. We all rely on other people, whether directly or indirectly, to give our lives meaning.

Ironically, capitalism is founded on this principle, although it is in a rather perverse way. If other people demand something, than you have a reason to make a living supplying it. The CEO who is afflicted with an ambition to accomplish still depends on his employees to fulfill that accomplishment. Investors who are so concerned about increasing the "value" of their stocks depend on other people to believe it is worth something. Plus, the prestige of accomplishments depends entirely on other people thinking what one has done is impressive.

The rat race, possessions, and other such transient pleasures are of no comparison to the truly deep and lasting happiness generated from close personal relationships. Whether they be romantic or friendly, these relationships are what sustain us. They stave off the specter of unhappiness and loneliness, providing a veritable vaccination for depression. This effect is easily observable in people. People around those who they are in love with are always happier. They tend to be sillier and more pleasant to be around as well, less apt to become frustrated or angry. It is an inspiring thing to see.

And so, I have come to the conclusion that other people are the meaning of life. When one realizes the inherent truth of this, it becomes a simple matter to escape the temptation of excessive material consumption. Indeed, material possessions produce more joy when given away than they ever could when kept. The generous life is the happy life. I hope our society learns this crucial lesson soon.

The Importance of Organization

I have talked some on organization alittle before on this blog. But I want to reiterate how important being organized is.
Maybe I should define what I mean by being organized. To be organized is to do the following:

1. Keeping your word. When you say you will do something, do it. This will give you a good reputation and inherently further your goals.
2. Hard work. Cliche as it is, hard work will get things done. And in the world of activism where it feels like not much gets done, this is a crucial attribute.
3. Coordination. Stay in contact with people and coordinate your efforts. Avoid duplicate tasks and work out a system by which everyone can be working toward a goal, and know what they need to do to make sure the whole group gets it done.
4. Community. Help, protect, care for, and love each other. No other facet of being organized will motivate people more than being a part of a strong caring community. It will also provide an unparalleled sense of security that is very hard to find in life.
5. Courage. Acknowledge and accept your fears, but do not let them interfere with your activities. Change takes the courage to fight (ever non-violently) despite the seemingly insurmountable odds. Of course, courage must be partnered with understanding and vision to prevent brave but pointless acts.
6. Understanding. To be organized, we need to understand the cause and effect relationships or our actions, and how our actions will impact different audiences. Understanding other people, and how they think is also crucial. Also, a general understanding of the world is important. Overall, the more knowledge and problem solving skills you can fit into your brain, the better. It is much better to build a sturdy net to catch fish than to try to catch them with your hands.
7. Mass numbers. To truly be organized, you need lots of people working toward a common goal. They do not necessarily have to all be coordinated, but it helps.
8. Planning. Use all of your understanding to plan a campaign to actually reach the goal. Make contingency plans and make sure everyone knows what the plan is.
9. Love. By far the most important. This one encompasses everything we seek to change in the world. It can remake our entire world if we have the courage to embrace it. Love everyone, and only denounce actions. Forgive and give whenever there is the chance.


If we look at corporations, who have a massive amount of power in our society, we see that they are very very well organized. However, they concentrate on only: understanding, hard work, coordination, planning and keeping your word. Because they have mastered these 5 skills, the relatively few people under any given corporations employ have managed to affect the other 6.5 billion people and often not in a good way. However, their lack of concern about mass numbers, community, courage, and love leaves them vulnerable. An organization that embraced the vision of organization I have laid out here would easily out-power them and be able to wield the fiery-sword of influence to truly slay the injustice that wreaks havoc in the hearts of so many.

There is a strength to this outline that may not be obvious at first. It will bring people in by the droves. Having an effective and loving group actively seeking change, one that fulfills its members deep need to care for each other will be an earth-shaking movement that will fundamentally remake civilization. I have tried to outline my view on organizing, that couples the "professionalism" of corporate America with the love, courage and community that I have found to be amazingly effective at motivating and improving people.

I hope to see a movement that embraces all 9 factors, because, I believe, if I do see it, then we will be able to heal the world.

A Glimpse of the Ocean of Hope Through the Oil Slick of Cynacism

Obama won in South Carolina!
I have spent a good amount of time (given my copious amounts of free time due to unemployment) observing the candidates and their campaigns. I have done some research, and I have to say that while Obama had my support from the start, he has only strengthened it. Edwards was also pretty awesome, but he is out of the race now.
Clinton, on the other hand, has always bothered me. It may have to do with the fact that I protested her when she visited Brown because she was to the right of Bush on the war at that time. She was saying we needed to commit more troops. But now she has changed her mind, and unlike Edwards she has not apologized for supporting the Iraq war in the past. That reeks to me of the acrid smell of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. I have heard from friends in the Obama campaign that Clinton is using alot of nasty political tricks, like fake mailers. Clinton's campaign has seemed to be just trying to play the game and win that way. I have no respect for that, nor the use of underhanded politics. I found a webpage that outlines alot of the reasons I dislike Hillary... please refer people to this site: http://2parse.com/?p=210
Piled on top of all this, I recently read "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner. He related the following account. The Clintons ran for the Presidency in 1992 on articulating a new "Politics of Meaning" (the same as the title of another one of Lerner's books). They wanted to make significant change, and had a fairly ambitious agenda. Lerner describes how he was called to the White House to advise them early in 1993. He describes how behind the scenes, they were excessively concerned about poll numbers and what they had support for. Lerner advised them to take a bold stand on issues, that if they made a good argument and appealed to people's moral compass, they would gain the support they need to make those ambitious changes. But, they chose to only do what they thought they had support to do (i.e. not much), to listen to what political consultants said, and abandon their politics of meaning. Especially with health care, Hilary chose to do what was "realistic" instead of taking a bold stand on something she knew was needed. Unfortunately, doing what is realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is like a runner deciding they will only try to run a 6 minute mile when they are actually capable of running a 4 minute mile with alittle more perseverance and courage. When I read this I understood why I could not support Hilary. She is not willing to be a leader and go against poll numbers. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party overall, they do not have the confidence in their own beliefs to take stand based on them nor do they have the courage to do what is right even if it is thought to be unpopular. While I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue, I do wish that the democratic politicians had their level of confidence and courage.

I am ever so thankful that the alternative to Clinton is an inspiring leader. I would hate to have another year when I am just voting for someone because the alternative is worse. I actually WANT to vote for Obama. I WANT to see him in office. He is not afraid to take a stand on issues (although still not as much as I would want), and he is smart. All the debates I have watched have shown the depth of his thinking, and his refusal to dumb it down when he presents it to the public. I feel like Clinton dumbs down her issues and does not believe the American people are smart enough to understand the nuance. Obama's policies, while not perfect, are a huge step in the right direction, and when you look at the details, they are quite different from Clinton's.
I feel that Obama could go farther than what is outlined in his current policies, especially given the way he is able to convey his message. A poorly written book is never read, even if its ideas are phenomenal. An engrossing book, however, will catch one's mind in an un-escapable lust to read it, even if it is void of good ideas. Well, Obama is that rare combination of an engrossing book with good ideas. He articulates his ideas to appeal to people's moral compass instead of their self-interest, which is far FAR more compelling than the typical Democratic party line of appealing to people's self-interest. Great leaders always as you to help others, not to help yourself. It is a far more appealing and engrossing message, and when coupled with good ideas, vision, and courage it will (and has) completely overhaul civilization as we know it.
But I would say the most inspiring thing I have read about Obama is how he treated Richardson during a debate. Richardson spaced out, and did not hear the question. Obama whispered "Katrina" to him. I found this story here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/14329/8255/991/445490
To me, this tells me more about who he is, and his ability to be a leader than anything. Understanding people well enough to instantly sense what is on their mind, and the will to help them if they need it is a treasured combination.
I truly believe that he is running because he thinks he has the chance to do good for people, not out of self-interest or ambition. I can count the number of politicians who seem to possess this treasured outlook, on one hand. I still do not think he will be able to do too much because of the way the government is structured (even Eisenhower couldn't end an infant military-industrial complex). However, if he can manage to employ his movement organizing powers while he is still in office, than I can catch a glimpse of the ocean of hope through the oil slick of cynicism.

I have been writing this post over a few days, and in the course of this my Grandpa has passed away. He was a kind and generous man who placed his family above all else. I am reminded of Exodus Chapter 19-ish, where it is explained that living a mean and selfish life will have ill effects lasting three or four generations in one's family, while living a generous and loving life will see rewards unto the thousandth generation. My Grandpa is a prime example of this, I can see the glow of his love reflected in my family, strengthening and helping us throughout our lives. Thank you Grandpa.

The Left and Religion

For anyone who is wondering why the right has come to dominate politics, i would suggest you read "The Left Hand of God" by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

The main point of his book is that the left is failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the American people. By spiritual needs, I mean people's need to be part of a support community where they are valued for who they are and where they can escape from the often soul-crushing workplace that capitalism has created. Spiritual needs also encompass people's desire to have a meaning in their life, a purpose that they can turn to when they are despairing about the horrors of the world. Unfortunately for the left, the Religious Right has managed to monopolize the political landscape when it comes to appealing to these needs. Of course the left has not helped itself, being anti-religious and demeaning to toward the American public. Having an aversion to religion is destroying the left. And there is no reason for it. Over half the Bible is about poverty and there is no reason why the left should not start appealing to people's moral and religiousness when it comes to fighting for social justice. Religion need not be oppressive, as so many people find it to be. It is just another institution in our society that the left has lost its influence over.
In fact, it seems that the left has been unable to even admit to itself that most of its members are indeed motivated by loving, caring, generosity, and other values that are spiritually based. No, they delude themselves into believing their altruistic and spiritual tendencies exist because they are simply in their own self-interest. I am guilty of this myself, looking for my own self-interest in my altruistic nature. If we put ourselves out there and stopped trying to rationalize our motivations as self-interest, we would probably see a massive upsurge in the left.
I hope one day the left will stop being so anti-religious. Certainly religion has been used to do alot of evil in this world... but so has every other belief system. The left itself has its Stalins and Maos who murdered and corrupted society. But, those atrocities are not representative of the average person who is a member of that belief system. Most people are inherently good, intelligent and human. To assume that one group of people is stupid, evil, or somehow less than equal to oneself is a VERY slippery slope, and will only bring woe and contempt. I always seem to find myself trying to convince people of that. They tell me I am not realistic. Well, I think I am the one who is being realistic. It is unrealistic to think people are not inherently good. For one thing, you will always end up alienating them if you see them that way. On the other hand, if you believe people to be good, then they will often (not always, but often) try to live up to that belief. It is both morally right and practical to see people as inherently good. And, this extend to the institutions they are a part of. Certainly those institutions can be used for ill. But, at their core, there is good. We must search for and embrace that goodness. There is no reason why the left should continue to be anti-religious... it is a stereotyping that has similar negative social consequences to racism and sexism (although currently less severe than those).

I say this with full knowledge that some people may be religious themselves, but find evangelicalism to be offensive. I encourage such individuals to purge those feelings, because if you get to know evangelicals you will find that prejudice against them is socially and personally destructive.

Iowa Caucus Aftermath

The iowa caucus turned out exactly the way I wanted it to. Obama won by a large margin, and Edwards came in second. I hope things go well in New Hampshire. I have a good feeling about this race, I think Obama can go all the way, and I think it is his style of politics that is driving the large democratic turn-out (that and the fact that everyone is upset about the direction Bush has taken the country). But Obama is giving them an outlet for that feeling of frustration, and giving them a meaningful vision that they can believe in. Overall, I am very skeptical of politicians, and their ability to affect change (even well-meaning ones), but Obama has sparked hope in me.
I think part of his appeal is that he addresses what Rabbi Michael Lerner called "the meaning needs." The right has been very adept at appealing to the American people's search for meaning. The religious right has essentially monopolized talking in moral terms and appealing to people's spiritual needs, and the left has been left politically castrated. Atleast, until Obama. His rhetoric and style do appeal to the meaning needs of people. His concentration on hope and unity are very inspiring, and if he can walk the walk as president, I believe he would go down as one of the great presidents. IF he can walk the walk.
Still, it is very inspiring to see an organized and enthusiastic youth movement backing him. WE HAD THE SAME TURNOUT AS SENIORS IN IOWA!!!! How awesome is that. We equalled the numbers of the age group that always has the most turnout. Take that establishment, and chew on it for awhile. The youth are starting to find their political voice, and we will no longer be known as the silent generation. Like our forefathers in the 60s, who were too once know as the silent generation, we are going to stir things up and try to achieve lasting positive change. And Obama could be a huge part of that. It always helps to have a sympathetic person in power.

I am certainly excited to see how the democratic primary will turn out. If Obama receives th nomination, I have no doubt he will win. I have alot of conservative friends who like him enough to vote for him. It is also interesting to see a republican field that resembles the democratic field of 04. There is really no one there that people like. In 2004 I didnt really like anyone but Kucinich. And now so many people are saying they dont like anyone except Ron Paul, the republican equivalent of Kucinich. It is almost like a party will put forward a weak field for elections they do not think they can will. And, of course, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They tend to lose when they put forth a bad field.

It is an exciting time to be politically involved, let me tell you.