I’m glad to hear that inflection in the caller’s voice, the surprise, the aural equivalent of their face lighting up, when I answer ‘Yes’ or whatever response they least expected, that invites them to continue with their spiel. If you’ve never done this work, trust me, rejection wears on you. Even if I ultimately reject, I feel good that I handle it civilly, not cussing anybody out, or slamming down the phone. If I’m not helping somebody make their quota; that’s unfortunate enough, no need to add insult to injury by being nasty.

Lately, I’ve noticed another motivation: I’m helping somebody keep a job. Kudos to any organization for hiring people to do the work, rather than some robocaller gadgetry. Tonight I talked to two people on one call, seemingly in the same room, given the short time that I elapsed before Scott spoke. I’m helping two people keep a job!

It’s the least I can do. There, or worse, but for the grace of God, go any of us.

Unemployment for middle-aged workers like Mr. Blattman is the highest it’s been since data was first collected 60 years ago. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, joblessness is worse for men over 45 (7.7 percent in July) than women the same age (6.9 percent). And while the middle-aged are still more likely to have jobs than younger workers, once people Mr. Blattman’s age are laid off, finding a new job is harder. In 2008, laid-off people over 45 were out of work 22.2 weeks, versus 16.2 weeks for younger workers.

Mr. Blattman used to make over $200k a year. Now? Nada. Zilch. He’s fortunate to have resources that have kept him going so far; not many people do. In Frontline’s Close to Home , a filmmaker spends a day in a hair salon on the Upper East Side listening to tales of woe that include a woman who had to sell a Porsche to pay for her health insurance, (too bad she couldn’t pawn her cheek implants). Still, no matter how far you fall, all outgo and no income is persistently, despressingly stressful. Unemployment benefits are bound to get extended again, but then what? I think there’s got to be some stimulus program to individuals similar to the dole the big banks have been subsisting on. THAT — and all companies who have outsourced Call Center jobs to India should be forced to bring them back stateside or pay some exorbitant amount of money. If you elect to buy a foreign car, rather than one made here, you should have to pay a special tax. Protectionist? Yeah, and? If there are other alternatives to stem the tide of skilled, eager to work, unemployed, homeless American citizens while corporate honchos continue to grow the middle class of developing countries by employing the cheap labor there, I’m eager to hear them.

Some may say I’m a sucker originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on November 9, 20092009-11-09T16:03:34ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Would he feed the hungry? Would he clothe the naked? House the poor? Would he heal the sick? Would he invest in the stock market? Would he pick and choose who we should help and who should be refused aid?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a big part of being a Christian involves the acceptance and earnest practice of the principles taught by the movement’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth; those ideals being love, charity, healing, and forgiveness. The whole divinity, Son of God, salvation aspect of Christianity, while accepted by most Christians, is irrelevant to this essay. This is about what Jesus taught regarding how we should live together compared with what most of his modern disciples preach.
Among the thousands of people railing against every progressive idea coming out of the White House and Congress are a large percentage of self-described Christians. I meet people every day who label themselves Christians and who are worried sick that the Obama administration is conspiring to turn the United States into a socialist nation. If these issues weren’t of such great importance to our collective future it would almost be comical.

Full disclosure: I no longer identify myself as a Christian, primarily because I disagree with what mainstream Christianity has become today – a childish, disingenuous cult of self perpetuating ignorance reflecting little of the core values taught by Jesus Christ. My family attended a Methodist Church when I was a young child, I voluntarily joined a Southern Baptist church as a teenager, and in my late twenties I spent time as a full member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). I am not just another un-churched heretic spewing blasphemy out of ignorance, though some may interpret my views as such. My opinions have evolved over a lifetime of exposure and active searching for Truth.

I’ve got no problem with Jesus or what he taught about how we should treat each other. My disagreement is with the majority of churches claiming to represent Jesus Christ while NOT supporting the ideals the man advocated. Nearly every Christian denomination I’ve ever seen fails miserably, usually in their preaching or acceptance of intolerance, divisiveness, or exclusion on some level.Hypocrisy is unacceptable. Period.

That’s not to say that there aren’t any true Christians left in the  world. To the contrary, there are plenty of them around and I’m fortunate enough to know one or two. True Christians not only understand the meaning of “do unto others” and being their brother’s keeper, but put those ideals into practice in their daily life. They are the light of the world.

What did Jesus say?

No one really knows what Jesus Christ said, we weren’t there so we’ve got to rely on ancient texts, translated, edited, translated again, and edited some more over hundreds of years by men who may or may not have been inspired by the loftiest ideals.

Jesus never forced anyone to give away or sell their belongings, the choice was left to the individual, but he made it clear that the endless pursuit of monetary gain and material possessions was antithetical to his philosophy.

From the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10: 21-25, Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus taught that his followers should strive only to attain enough wealth to meet their basic human needs and he strongly advised that all excess resources be used to help those less fortunate. He never said a rich man couldn’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he did say it would be extremely difficult. The rich worship and serve money; and the love of money is the root of all evil. One cannot serve two masters.

Matthew 4:23 – Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus can be found healing the sick and lame, the rich and the poor, asking nothing in return and often breaking local laws in the process. By example he made it clear that the act of healing should not be incumbent upon one’s ability to pay or their station in life.
Regarding what he taught about caring for the poor – what we would today call public welfare and social services – Jesus said give to the poor but he made no distinction about which poor should be helped and which left to suffer. The parable of the sheep and the goats, found in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, makes it quite clear. Jesus meant that all who have the means should contribute toward the care of the less fortunate among us.

³¹“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. ³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
⁴¹“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
⁴⁴“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
⁴⁵“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
⁴⁶“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Whenever I read this parable, I can’t help thinking about all the people I’ve known who go into purple fits about how this country is supposed to be a Christian nation, yet the second anyone tries to pass a law that would put into practice what Jesus commanded, these same people start yelling about socialism or being taxed to support “lazy bums.” These same people, given half a chance, would be first in line to establish a theocracy in the United States, as long as it fit their own narrow definition of “righteousness.”

Jesus told us to love God and love each other. When you get down to elemental level of truth, those who call themselves Christians are just common liars if they fail to live up to the simple admonition to love one another or fail to support any policy, public or private, that moves our society closer to the more equitable, peaceful, civilized way of living that Jesus sought.
Jesus Christ was a socialist. He advocated compassion toward all people and he was crystal clear about his position on excessive wealth. Do not strive to lay up treasure on Earth, he said, yet capitalism is the economic model most opposed to the principles he advocated. It is the most effective system of wealth hoarding in history, and it rewards greed, selfishness, and deception with unimaginable wealth and power. Those who demand unregulated, unrestricted, unfettered capitalism cannot in good conscience claim to be disciples of Christ.

What Jesus taught and his early followers tried to practice amounted to what we now call socialism. Not only was Jesus a socialist, the entire modern progressive agenda begins with the Sermon on the Mount.
Those who refuse to accept the fact that Jesus Christ was a progressive, a liberal, and a socialist are either in denial of what the Gospels say, or they are hopelessly ignorant; content to be misled by the charlatans whom their tithes support. Study the Gospels and you will have no honest choice except to conclude that Jesus Christ was a radical liberal in his deeds and ideas.

Blind faith in the global capitalist economy, actively working against civil rights for all, and support for wars of aggression can only be called anti-Christ by any rational observer. If Jesus Christ showed up here today I suspect he’d have some pretty strong words and even tougher love for those who’ve co-opted his message of peace, unity, and brotherly love, especially those living like royalty at the top of mega-church franchises and televangelist “ministries.” The money changers back in biblical times got off easy.

Jesus was a socialist, and if you call yourself a Christian, you’d best accept it.

Thurman’s Notebook

Jesus was a Socialist originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on November 1, 20092009-11-02T02:24:04ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Would he feed the hungry? Would he clothe the naked? House the poor? Would he heal the sick? Would he invest in the stock market? Would he pick and choose who we should help and who should be refused aid?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a big part of being a Christian involves the acceptance and earnest practice of the principles taught by the movement’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth; those ideals being love, charity, healing, and forgiveness. The whole divinity, Son of God, salvation aspect of Christianity, while accepted by most Christians, is irrelevant to this essay. This is about what Jesus taught regarding how we should live together compared with what most of his modern disciples preach.

Among the thousands of people railing against every progressive idea coming out of the White House and Congress are a large percentage of self-described Christians. I meet people every day who label themselves Christians and who are worried sick that the Obama administration is conspiring to turn the United States into a socialist nation. If these issues weren’t of such great importance to our collective future it would almost be comical.

Full disclosure: I no longer identify myself as a Christian, primarily because I disagree with what mainstream Christianity has become today – a childish, disingenuous cult of self perpetuating ignorance reflecting little of the core values taught by Jesus Christ. My family attended a Methodist Church when I was a young child, I voluntarily joined a Southern Baptist church as a teenager, and in my late twenties I spent time as a full member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). I am not just another un-churched heretic spewing blasphemy out of ignorance, though some may interpret my views as such. My opinions have evolved over a lifetime of exposure and active searching for Truth.

I’ve got no problem with Jesus or what he taught about how we should treat each other. My disagreement is with the majority of churches claiming to represent Jesus Christ while NOT supporting the ideals the man advocated. Nearly every Christian denomination I’ve ever seen fails miserably, usually in their preaching or acceptance of intolerance, divisiveness, or exclusion on some level. Hypocrisy is unacceptable. Period.

That’s not to say that there aren’t any true Christians left in the world. To the contrary, there are plenty of them around and I’m fortunate enough to know one or two. True Christians not only understand the meaning of “do unto others” and being their brother’s keeper, but put those ideals into practice in their daily life. They are the light of the world.

What did Jesus say?

No one really knows what Jesus Christ said, we weren’t there so we’ve got to rely on ancient texts, translated, edited, translated again, and edited some more over hundreds of years by men who may or may not have been inspired by the loftiest ideals.

Jesus never forced anyone to give away or sell their belongings, the choice was left to the individual, but he made it clear that the endless pursuit of monetary gain and material possessions was antithetical to his philosophy.

From the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10: 21-25, Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus taught that his followers should strive only to attain enough wealth to meet their basic human needs and he strongly advised that all excess resources be used to help those less fortunate. He never said a rich man couldn’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he did say it would be extremely difficult. The rich worship and serve money; and the love of money is the root of all evil. One cannot serve two masters.

Matthew 4:23 – Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus can be found healing the sick and lame, the rich and the poor, asking nothing in return and often breaking local laws in the process. By example he made it clear that the act of healing should not be incumbent upon one’s ability to pay or their station in life.

Regarding what he taught about caring for the poor – what we would today call public welfare and social services – Jesus said give to the poor but he made no distinction about which poor should be helped and which left to suffer. The parable of the sheep and the goats, found in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, makes it quite clear. Jesus meant that all who have the means should contribute toward the care of the less fortunate among us.

³¹“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. ³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
⁴¹“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
⁴⁴“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
⁴⁵“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
⁴⁶“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Whenever I read this parable, I can’t help thinking about all the people I’ve known who go into purple fits about how this country is supposed to be a Christian nation, yet the second anyone tries to pass a law that would put into practice what Jesus commanded, these same people start yelling about socialism or being taxed to support “lazy bums.” These same people, given half a chance, would be first in line to establish a theocracy in the United States, as long as it fit their own narrow definition of “righteousness.”

Jesus told us to love God and love each other. When you get down to elemental level of truth, those who call themselves Christians are just common liars if they fail to live up to the simple admonition to love one another or fail to support any policy, public or private, that moves our society closer to the more equitable, peaceful, civilized way of living that Jesus sought.

Jesus Christ was a socialist. He advocated compassion toward all people and he was crystal clear about his position on excessive wealth. Do not strive to lay up treasure on Earth, he said, yet capitalism is the economic model most opposed to the principles he advocated. It is the most effective system of wealth hoarding in history, and it rewards greed, selfishness, and deception with unimaginable wealth and power. Those who demand unregulated, unrestricted, unfettered capitalism cannot in good conscience claim to be disciples of Christ.

What Jesus taught and his early followers tried to practice amounted to what we now call socialism. Not only was Jesus a socialist, the entire modern progressive agenda begins with the Sermon on the Mount.

Those who refuse to accept the fact that Jesus Christ was a progressive, a liberal, and a socialist are either in denial of what the Gospels say, or they are hopelessly ignorant; content to be misled by the charlatans whom their tithes support. Study the Gospels and you will have no honest choice except to conclude that Jesus Christ was a radical liberal in his deeds and ideas.

Blind faith in the global capitalist economy, actively working against civil rights for all, and support for wars of aggression can only be called anti-Christ by any rational observer. If Jesus Christ showed up here today I suspect he’d have some pretty strong words and even tougher love for those who’ve co-opted his message of peace, unity, and brotherly love, especially those living like royalty at the top of mega-church franchises and televangelist “ministries.” The money changers back in biblical times got off easy.

Jesus was a socialist, and if you call yourself a Christian, you’d best accept it.

Thurman’s Notebook

Jesus was a Socialist originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 31, 20092009-10-31T19:15:44ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

To salvage the environment and reform our economy we must first break the stranglehold that the money mongers have on our government. The first priority for those of us concerned with any kind of economic or environmental reform must be congressional and election reforms. In order accomplish these things we must infiltrate our Congress with representatives who are not beholden to corporate campaign financiers. Then and only then can we move forward with the electoral reforms which would allow all other changes to begin.

School children in the US are taught that we live in a democracy, but not until we reach adulthood do most of us realize the ugly truth: our representative democracy doesn’t represent very many of us at all. Our election process doesn’t allow us to elect people who represent our values and needs. Instead, we are presented with a handful of carefully vetted candidates willing to maintain the status quo of the corporate oligarchy that controls our government and enables their election. The true will of the people, those of us who work to produce the real wealth of this nation has virtually no representation in our government.

In earlier posts I’ve pointed out how a corporate elite controls our government and I’ve made the case for mandatory public financing of all elections before any real reform can take place. I briefly touched on the idea that a diverse non-partisan coalition, raised outside the official two-party machine may be our best and last hope of ever gaining control of our government without another violent, bloody revolution.
If such a coalition could be held together long enough to penetrate both houses of the Congress, lasting reform could be accomplished even if the sitting president refused to play ball. For any such peaceful revolution to make a lasting difference, its prime directive must be the total, unequivocal reform of our congress, both the way it is elected and its composition. All other issues, though of great importance, are secondary to electoral reform.

Read the rest of this fine essay at Thurman James

We Are The Revolution originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 23, 20092009-10-23T22:45:48ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

A dispatch from the Evil Reporter Chick….

85,000.

That’s how many Iraqis died in the war between 2004 and 2008. Iraq’s human
rights ministry released that grim number a week ago.

We keep an exact count of the number of Americans who were killed in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Or the number of British troops and other coalition
members. But no one really counts the civilians. The children. The mothers.
The grandmothers. They remain nameless, numbing numbers in headlines. “42
died in suicide bombing.”

“Outlawed groups through terrorist attacks like explosions, assassinations,
kidnappings or forced displacements created these terrible figures, which
represent a huge challenge for the rule of law and for the Iraqi people,”
the ministry said.

“These figures draw a picture about the impact of terrorism and the
violation of natural life in Iraq,” the ministry said in a draft report on
deaths in Iraq.

But no one really knows how many Iraqis died.

The Iraqi government report was compiled with death certificates issued by
the health ministry. What about all those people who never saw home again.
Or whose families never reported a death out of sheer fear.

I know people who have lost loved ones and kept silent. One death in the
family was enough.

Some Iraqis were killed by AK-47 fire, rockets, mortars, and bombs,
otherwise known as improvised explosive devices. Some were abducted, stabbed
or beheaded. In places like Ramadi, such gruesome acts were carried out in
public places and in broad daylight.

The capital of al-Anbar province was once al-Qaida’s haven and an Iraqi
citizen’s hell on Earth — the neighborhood of Melaab was known as “the
heart of darkness.”

I asked Ramadi residents what life was like before the insurgency was
quelled. They glided their right index finger across their throats. The
insurgents brazenly beheaded people in public and distributed videos of the
executions. Think of what kind of fear an ordinary Iraqi lived through. And
still does.

The headlines these days report fewer incidents of violence.

But one bullet, one bomb — is all it takes.

85,000. originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 20, 20092009-10-21T03:50:27ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

I had initially been pleased that “The Secret” had opened some people to positive thinking but as I saw it  take on a Cultish twist where people started essentially blaming the downtrodden for not having a fat bank account and casting condescending glances as if they alone had the ANSWER.

Then I actually saw the film which begins with of all things, a man in a loin cloth, running away from persecutors because HE HAS THE SECRET! Talk about re-writing History and giving it a radical mastectomy to boot! Everyone should know that it was the Wise Women of old who had the secret and that it was no secret, no big deal just simply understanding that what one believes can indeed create and  give shape to one’s reality.

This is the cornerstone to all magical, mystical  practices. The only secret this New Age Charlatan had was a gift for convincing people that they did not have the secret already and for a price, they could attain it repackaged from the more grass roots pagan style of course and shrink wrapped to dazzle the new Believers.

Today I watched a special on Cults and viewed the carnage of the Jonestown massacre where hundreds of well meaning hopeful people subordinated their will to a mad man who in the end murdered them all. Their story haunted me for many years thereafter.

I thought about the well meaning hopeful people in the sweat lodge and how they trusted this Non Medicine man who clearly had not taken the time or effort to study with a true Native Shaman or this tragedy would never have happened.

Why didn’t any of them stand up and say, “This is too extreme for me, I am not feeling very well!”? Why did these Spiritual Warriors who spent the better part of a week becoming empowered lose their own voice, their own spiritual compass. Was their need to belong, to be cool, to not be spiritually weak or inappropriate so much stronger than their plain common sense?

Maybe they didn’t want to be the only one not drinking the Kool Aid!
Maybe they were so used to a religious model of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” that their shame would be too overwhelming to save their own lives?

Three days of fasting and 120 degree temps for 2 hrs. is going to be hazardous for most people and perhaps no one made sure that the materials of the Lodge were 100% natural and safe with extreme heat, maybe the stones that were heated had some toxic chemicals in them. I am sure that in time the truth of this horror will come to light.

I personally don’t enjoy sweat lodges but there are many who do and have beautiful and powerful experiences when the Lodge is poured by a Shaman or Medicine Woman who has put in years of deep study and learned the Native American ways of the Sweat Lodge.

Some New Agers have a bad habit of cultural appropriation of Native Cultures which is bad enough and totally disrespectful but damn, if you are going to steal it and resell it, at least have the sense and honor to offer something  close to authentic.

What did James A Ray do to make 50 plus intelligent people stop listening to their own bodies which had to be screaming STOP?  Twenty one of this group were hospitalized and two died. How does this man sleep at night? How does he even have the nerve to show his face on TV or to his students the following week. How dare he say that God is testing him. My kind of Deity does not kill people to test their leaders. Mr New Age is starting to sound a little Old Age fire and brimstone to me.

What makes groups of people in the EST Forum feel that their group leader has the right to keep them from going to relieve themselves at appropriate intervals?

As this piece of writing has unfolded, I realize that some of my rage may well have to do with the fact that my dearest friend and ex wife Tara perished in the Amazon jungle while involved with a Shaman’s retreat which albeit authentic, utilized harsh fasting and herbal cleansing programs combined with hallucinogenic plants. I will never know exactly what happened to her in the jungle that night but she died in her sleep with no one by her side to make sure that she was safe.

Many of you know that I am a deeply spiritual woman and a leader in my own right so it is not spirituality that I blame or defame, however, all paths are not safe, all leaders do not have the best interests of their followers at heart and sure as I am alive, if you are “following” someone you really need to look eye to eye with them and make sure that your inner wisdom is not being over ridden by your need to belong. Are you giving your power away? Is someone vampirizing your energy? If so, why are you willing to let this happen? I find it interesting at this time that there is such a fascination with Vampires. Call me old school, but I kind of like the idea of keeping my blood in my body but that’s just me.

Sadly, a third person died from this needless tragedy. Part of the problem is the externalization of the Divine which is the foundation of all Patriarchal and mainstream  religions. This is the big set up for all of us and especially the have-nots who are never represented as being a God head. Therefore what is Divine is other and the Other has all the answers.

It’s one big set up to keep all the isms well in place with a clergy that has the ultimate back up plan with Hell to pay if you stray from the dogma.
As long as people externalize a deity and especially if they worship one that is not like them, they are doomed to drink the Kool Aid at some point and to keep their seats securely at the back of the bus with their own connection to the Divine always just beyond their reach.

There are wonderful and elevating paths one can explore that do not include spending exorbitant amounts of money and giving up your free will. Ideally, if you listen to your own quiet inner voice sans the hype, you will discover just what journeys will give you the wisdom and freedom that you most desire.

People, please don’t be Sheeple and whatever you do, DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID!!

Blessings Flash Silvermoon

* The Wise Woman’s Tarot – http://flashsilvermoon.com *
* What The Animals Tell me -
http://internetvoicesradio.com/Arch-FlashSilvermoon.htm *

For heaven’s sake, don’t drink the kozmic kool aid originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 18, 20092009-10-18T14:34:53ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Jessica’s Law was passed in Florida in 2005 with the intention of reducing the ability of sex offenders to reoffend. The Jessica Lunsford Act was also introduced in 2005 at the federal level but was never enacted. Key provisions of Jessica’s Law in Florida include mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring of adults convicted of “lewd or lascivious acts” against a child under 12 years old. Rape and sexual battery of a child under 12 carries life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Jessica’s Law has been enacted across the nation with just a few states holding out.

The electronic monitoring is especially important. You see, John Couey was actually living at a residence other than the one he reported when he registered as a sex offender. Megan’s Law ensured that sex offenders had to register and Jessica’s Law followed it up to try to plug the holes that were missed. It is Jessica’s Law where you find those definitions of how many feet away from a school a registered sex offender may reside, or ever physically be. The idea is that if we know where these offenders are every moment we can prevent, or at least reduce, the ability of an offender to reoffend.

These “reactionary” laws sound good on paper but are they really worth it? Jessica’s Law in California has contributed to the situation in Antioch, California where Philip Garrido kept Jaycee Dugard for 18 years. Antioch is home to 122 registered sex offenders who have found residence in other cities impossible due to the residential restrictions enacted by Jessica’s Law. At least we know where they are, right?

Let’s take a look at Philip Garrido. He was a registered sex offender. Law enforcement knew where he was. They even visited his home in 2006 that he had children living in his backyard but officers did not bother to go into the home or the backyard to investigate. It’s quite possible that with the supervision demands of 122 offenders that things slip. Recently, we also received news about a group of offenders camping in Georgia because they have no where else to go (Georgia’s law prohibits convicted sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of areas where children gather). Unintended consequence to be sure, but we need to remember that if we force these individuals to far away we will cease to know where they are.

<script src=”http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/us/2009/09/29/nr.sex.offenders.campsite.cnn” type=”text/javascript”></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href=”http://www.cnn.com/video”>CNN Video</a></noscript>

Garrido had previously been convicted of violently kidnapping and raping a woman in Nevada and received a sentence of 50 years, of which he served a mere ten (incidentally, Garrido nearly got away with this one too as the officer who first came upon the scene initially believed Garrido’s assertion that he and his victim were merely lovers in a spat ignoring the woman’s desperate pleas otherwise).

John Couey was also interviewed twice by police during the search for Jessica Lunsford and she was still alive the first time and may have been during the second. Surely, the police positively identified every person they spoke with and would have known that Couey was a sex offender. Is there any way within the law to increase scrutiny of sex offenders in an investigation such as the one that followed Jessica’s disappearance in 2005?

Had Philip Garrido served his entire sentence he would not have been free to abduct Jaycee Dugard. But, again we see a little snapshot of the long-lasting ideas that the lives of women and children are inconsequential. Society frequently cheapens the effects of a sexual assault against a woman. It’s as if they are saying to victims, “well, it didn’t really hurt, did it?” Or even, as Whoopi recently said, “it’s not rape-rape.” I mean come on, why else do you have that hole there, you slut?

Reactionary laws are rarely the answer to our problems and some of these laws may even bring into question Constitutional issues. We need to find a better way to protect our children from sex offenders and I have a few small suggestions:

1. Pay attention to how we talk about sex offenses and especially the victims of these crimes. Really, does anyone else find it ironic that Woody Allen is defending Roman Polanski? Look at all the language surrounding Mackenzie Phillips’ recent revelations.

2. Be specific in our terminology when labeling offenders, allow judges the ability to apply common sense to sentencing (i.e. remove mandatory sentencing guidelines) and use sex offender registries effectively. Wisconsin’s age of consent is 18, there is an abundance of “Romeo & Juliet” sex offenders required to register in that state that do not belong in the same places as Philip Garrido and John Couey. There are more than 500,000 registered sex offenders across our nation, now many of these are “Romeo & Juliet” cases that should come off of the rolls thus relieving the burden on law enforcement (which would actually make our children safer)? Sex offender registries need to be reserved for those most likely to reoffend and the most dangerous. Get the public urinators off the list. Additionally, legislation in many states is unfairly slanted against GLBT people (think about sodomy laws, would consenting adults be guilty in your state?).

3. Most importantly, be a person that your child can talk to. I never told my dad about the abuse I experienced because I was afraid of how he would react. I did tell my mother. She called me a slut. I’m certain that additional children were abused because of my silence. Most abusers are known to the family putting the child in a precarious position. We see the monsters on TV but we need to remember that there are a lot of other monsters that never make it there and they are infinitely more dangerous. Additionally, I believe that if sex offenders are driven underground by increasingly restrictive residence laws they find themselves in an environment like Antioch, CA…where it’s easy to reoffend.

4. I am also a fan of “family” restrooms and nearly have a panic attack any time I wait for my young son to emerge from the men’s room. A repeat offender in my area accosted his last victim in a public restroom. My panicky response is natural but I know that my son is much more likely to be abused by someone we know rather than by some sicko stranger in a public place. In other words, he is much more likely to be abused by someone who is not on that list…

These are not enough but they are a start.

I referenced the following articles and websites for this post:

Jessica’s Law Eyes Sex Offenders
House 1877: Relating to Jessica Lunsford Act
Florida Gets Tough New Child Sex Law
Convicted Child Killer Couey Dies in Prison
Florida Department of Corrections
How Jessica’s Law turned Antioch into a Paedophile Ghetto
Whoopie Goldberg Defends Roman Polanski: ‘It wasn’t rape-rape’
Questions Arise on Monitoring of Sex Offenders
Hysteria Hits Home – Michigan’s Unfair Anti-Sex Laws
A Sad Lesson in ‘Know Thy Neighbour‘

Protecting Children – Jessica’s Law originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 4, 20092009-10-04T17:27:15ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

OK.

He is credited with saving millions from starvation. Not through philanthropy but with science.

He collaborated first with Mexican scientists and then with Indians and Pakistanis on efforts to improve wheat production. High-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties pioneered by Borlaug in the 1960s led to successful increases in food production and earned him the title of father of the agricultural “Green Revolution.”

In my native India, Borlaug’s plant science was considered a godsend at a time when the nation could not match food production rates to a burgeoning population. Green Revolution technology enabled India to go from famine to agricultural self-sufficiency.

For helping alleviate human misery in developing nations, Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. The Statesman newspaper in India hailed him this week as the greatest hunger fighter of all time.

“It is true that the tide of the battle against hunger has changed for the better during the past three years,” he said in his Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway. “But tides have a way of flowing and then ebbing again. We may be at high tide now, but ebb tide could soon set in if we become complacent and relax our efforts. For we are dealing with two opposing forces, the scientific power of food production and the biologic power of human reproduction.”

Some people say the ebb tide has set in. That Borlaug’s science didn’t really work. Millions of people suffer from food shortages.

Borlaug blamed high rates of population growth in defending himself against critics who argued that Borlaug’s science had created more problems than it had solved. Environmentalists said Green Revolution technology relied too much on chemicals and toxic pesticides. Social critics said it hurt small farmers.

But some humanitarian workers still hail him as a saviour.

“No single person has contributed more to relieving world hunger than our friend, the late Norman Borlaug,” said Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World. “Norman was truly the man who fed the world, saving up to a billion people from hunger and starvation.”

Josette Sheeran, the executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme said this: “His total devotion to ending famine and hunger revolutionized food security for millions of people and for many nations.”

Last month, Iowa Sens. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, and Democrat Tom Harkin introduced legislation to designate Borlaug’s birthplace and childhood home near Cresco, Iowa, as a National Historic Site. He was born on a farm there on March 25, 1914.

“Dr. Borlaug and his work to save the lives of hundreds of millions people are historically significant for Iowa,” Grassley said in a press release. “By designating his birthplace and boyhood home a National Historic Site, we’ll be preserving his legacy for years to come and continuing to inspire future generations of scientists and farmers to innovate and lift those mired in poverty.”

Norman Borlaug was one of only five people to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. The other four recipients are Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel, and Mother Teresa.

Maybe now, more people will know his name.

A different sort of revolutionary originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 18, 20092009-09-18T12:46:16ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Please take a moment to help us seize this momentum and end the incredible, un-doable threat these 79 mountain top removal coal extraction permits represent to your some of your country’s most beautiful landscape, The Appalachian Mountains. I love Mountains is at ground zero of the destruction and on the leading edge of the fight to stop coal companies from literally leveling these 79 mountains forever. Forever. Gone. Coal companies have the nerve to show us “clean coal” commercials on television but what they describe as clean coal technology leaves in it’s wake is an ugly, un-usable, dead scar upon the earth?  Please click through the jump and sign the petition and educate yourself about what “clean coal” technology really means at I Love Mountains today, before it’s too late.

Friends of AWOP and friends of the earth, please take action on this one. Those of us who live here, including the people, thank you.

From I love Mountains:

We have great news!

The Obama Administration has heard you! Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed all 79 mountaintop removal permits they were reviewing on temporary reprieve. This represents the biggest step ever taken toward reining in the destruction of the Appalachian Mountains by mountaintop removal coal mining.

The release of a list of 79 permits begins a 14-day countdown in which the EPA regional offices must respond to the EPA headquarters’ recommendations. While we applaud the current decision by the EPA, these permits could still be approved.

The EPA’s announcement is part of a coordination procedure outlined in a “memorandum of understanding” between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Interior to deal with a backlog of permits held up by litigation over the past few years. The EPA has promised a more stringent and transparent review of all mountaintop removal valley fill permit applications, and as of today they have delivered.

The EPA is requesting public comment during these 14 days and we need to send them the message loud and clear to stand firm. No more mountains or communities should be blasted off the map.

However, the EPA is not currently set up to receive these comments, so we will be sending you an alert early next week, providing the tools you need to thank the EPA and to make sure the regional offices keep these mountains and communities safe from mountaintop removal coal mining.

In the mean time, we have set up a new page on iLoveMountains.org where you can see the location and track of the status of the permits pending before the EPA. You can view the permit map and see videos of nearby communities threatened by mountaintop removal at:

http://ilovemountains.org/epa-permit-list/

Just wanted to share the good news – we’ll be back in touch next week.

Have a great weekend!

Matt Wasson
iLoveMountains.org

Seizing the moment to save 79 irreplaceable mountains. Priceless. originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 12, 20092009-09-12T04:01:15ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

One section from the Order reads:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

And the final section states:

The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order.

Sounds a lot like the stalwart support gays and lesbians expected from President Obama once he got in office, doesn’t it?   So far he’s only delivered the political expediency.

But that doesn’t have to keep us from celebrating the 61^st anniversary of Executive Order 9981 or from drawing hope from the parallel between the desegregation of the armed forces and the eventual repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Today – Saturday, September 5, at 1:15 p.m.  ET and again at 10 p.m. – C-SPAN3 will air the first in a series of panels tracing the history of racial discrimination in the United States military, gender discrimination and the ban on openly gay service members.

Presented by the Harry S. Truman Library and the SLDN, this forum, Freedom to Serve – Then and Now, features a keynote address delivered by Juan Williams and a series of thought-provoking talks on the challenges posed by discrimination in the US military, beginning with today’s segment:

Panel 1: The History of Racial Discrimination in the U.S. Military
Major General Vance Coleman, who was commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant in the Field Artillery and served in the Korean War, will discuss his first-hand experience of serving in a segregated Army unit. Oliver Vincent Shields will also join the panel to share his experience of serving as an African American during World War II.  Shields landed at Normandy Beach during D-Day and was selected as one of the 2500 African-American volunteers to serve in the 14th Armored Division (known as the “Liberators”). The panel will explore the core argument against desegregation – military efficiency and unit cohesion would be negatively impacted – and why President Truman chose to take such bold action in issuing an executive order.

Panel II, to be aired on September 12, will feature a talk by Grethe Cammermeyer, the highest ranking service member to be discharged for being gay and the woman whose personal story was told in the 1995 movie Serving in Silence.  During an upcoming AWOP interview with Col. Cammermeyer, she said of this forum, “We were just great!”

That’s good enough for me.  I’ll be watching.

We’ll Have What They’re Having originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 5, 20092009-09-05T04:01:53ZF j, Y.

No related posts.