Howard The Life Coach

Debunking the Myth That Only Private Industry Can Bring Economic Recovery

2011-11-15T15:36:00.000-08:00

Conservatives don't want the government to stimulate the economy because they claim that only private enterprise can create a recovery. When progressives point to the New Deal as a successful way of ending the Great Depression, conservatives claim it didn't really work: it was World War II that ended the depression.

The massive unemployment plight did indeed end when men were drafted into the military. As so many of the men were away fighting a war, women who had never worked outside of the home helped keep American factories going. Worries about keeping or getting a job simply vanished after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

So was it private industry that put the country back on its feet economically? No, it was the government that created jobs by asking private companies to produce whatever was necessary to win the war. Yes, private companies manufactured guns, planes and tanks, but the decisions of what resources to apply when and where were made by the Roosevelt administration.

Were corporations allowed to make profits? Yes, but only within reason. Getting rich from the war was generally condemned as "war profiteering." In 1941, then Senator Harry Truman began to travel from coast to uncover corruption on the part of companies involved in war production. President Roosevelt made sure that the government had the money needed by imposing tax rates of 92 percent on incomes over 100,000 dollars (which would be about 1.2 million in today's monetary value.)

The leadership that guided America through World War II, the country's greatest challenge in history, was not the management of a corporation but a government headed by Roosevelt and then Truman. It was under a democratically elected presidency that victory was achieved. The person holding the country's highest office was not a private individual running a corporation, but an elected official accountable to every citizen of the nation.

In the minds of some it may be acceptable for corporations to rule the U.S. if not the whole world. The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that corporations are "persons" may even make it possible for them to wield such power legally. But these persons, having neither body nor soul, will never have the wisdom demanded of human beings qualified to lead the people of a democracy.

Once the war was over, the American economy, no longer fueled by war production, had to be kept from relapsing into pre-war depression. It was the Truman administration's resolute implementation of the Marshall plan that made it possible for the U.S. to have a prospering post-war economy while helping Europe and Japan rebuild what was destroyed in the war. America with its vast industrial base was able to supply the goods and services Europe and Japan needed to rebuild. With a steady demand for U.S. products, America's economy prospered for decades to come.

Austerity is Wrong: Austerity Is Toxic for the Health of the Economy

2011-11-11T00:11:00.000-08:00

(This is the body of a letter sent to our Congressman, Xavier Becerra. Xavier Becerra is one of the twelve members of the Supercommittee on Deficit Reduction.)

Austerity moves in the United States and other parts of the world are counterproductive to economic recovery. Austerity takes away money from the middle and working classes, as well as from the poor. If you want to stimulate the economy, you don't take money from people who produce, create and consume. When money is taken away from the middle and working classes and from the poor, money is taken away from the productive segment of the public; the economy rather than being stimulated is ground to a halt. A severe depression will result.

Whereas money in the hands of the wealthy for the most part rests in idle holdings and does little, if anything, for the benefit of anyone.

Representatives sincere about the well-being of the American people should realize that the only motive for the implementation of austerity measures on the part of conservatives is to create economic failure, so that the current administration can be blamed and so that they, the conservatives, can assume power during the next election.

Myth is like Math

2011-10-21T12:53:00.000-07:00

Q. How do you define a myth?

A. Basically a myth is a belief system that explains any given process or phenomenon.

Q. What comes to mind are the stories of Greek mythology where phenomena in nature are personified.

A. Yes, God is personified as the ultimate father figure, Zeus, and the Earth is personified as the mother figure, Juno. And there are many others like Aphrodite who embodies sexuality, or Mars who stands for war.

Q. So myth is the means for humans to understand the world. Could one say that myth is an essential element of religion?

A. Yes, it is. But it is not limited to religion. In the Judeo-Christian context, a central belief that can be classified as myth is "Obey the ten commandments and you will be rewarded." In the domain of commerce there are myths like "you cannot go wrong buying real estate", or "in the long run you are always best off investing in the stock market rather than staying in cash."

Q. Don't you think it might be a bit offensive to many religious people to refer to the Ten Commandments as myth?

A. Yes, but only if you use the term myth to imply something is untrue or worthless. No myth is in and of itself true or untrue. Like formulas in math, myths designate abstract elements and their relationships to one another. The truth contained in math may indeed be something untouchable. It is possible to prove the correctness of an algebraic equation within the domain of mathematical relationships. But the question of a formula's validity comes up when applied to situations in the physical world.

Q. I don't quite get it?

A. Take the example of two engaged in a conflict. One has a team of twenty-five lawyers and his opponent has only himself and his partner. According to arithmetic, the one with a team of two has no chance against a team of twenty-five. But while the truth of math that 25 is "more" than 2 is unimpeachable, when the formula is applied to a given reality, the result of the interaction may appear to invalidate the underlying mathematical principle.

Q. But it does not really!

A. You are right. The mathematical statement assumes that any one of the numbers is exactly the same as any other, but when applied to reality each individual unit is in some way different from any other unit.

Q. Okay, that's math. What about myth?

A. Let's stay away from religion for the moment.

Q. Why?

A. Because with religion it is impossible for most people to think analytically. Let's take an example from money and markets. Let's take the myth "you can't go wrong buying real estate in the long run." The myth may be true as long as the reality it is applied to is in an economically stable world, but even here a follower of the myth may fail terribly. An easy example might be that of someone buying an office complex in a tsunami-prone area or within the range of the lava of an exploding volcano.

Q. Okay, what about "the Last Judgment?" Isn't that a myth?

A. Absolutely not if you are a fundamentalist Christian for whom the Bible has one and only one meaning. But you cannot deny that whatever is told as a story is a story, and stories are myth. And when stories are told, people add and subtract whatever they imagine.

Q. You mean like on judgment day when all sinners are being cast into hell where they will burn forever?

A. This is not the time to argue about details, but you have to admit if you ask individuals, each one will see a somewhat different picture. While the myth will have a basic structure, there are as many realities as there are persons. So anyone or no one will know what judgment day will really be like.

Q. But you are not going to deny that there will be a judgment day?

A. Well, if you are a fundamentalist Christian, judgment day is an indisputable truth because this truth comes from God. The myth is not just a myth; it is gospel truth.

Q. Not to be argumentative, isn't it possible for what has been announced as gospel truth not to become reality?

A. It is only impossible if someone's god cannot change his mind. But as the God of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is a living deity and an all-powerful that deity one, He has the capacity to change His mind at any time.

Q. So there might not be a judgment day?

A. There might be or there might not...

Animals, Dervishes and Souls

2011-04-20T17:14:00.000-07:00

From the point of view of empirical science it is as yet impossible to prove or disprove that there is such a thing as a "soul." Assuming that souls do in fact exist, it would be interesting to ask if not just humans but also animals have them. A couple of weeks ago I saw the documentary, "The Cove." One of the main points of the film is that dolphins have the intelligence and sense of ethics equivalent to that of humans, and they deserve the same basic respect as humankind. Is it fair to be dismissive of animals just because they see and act in ways that don't make sense to us humans?

Whether observing animals or humans, one should be careful about rejecting as bizarre any behavior that seems to make no sense. Today I saw a youtube video of whirling dervishes, men who spin around in a circle in order to attain spiritual enlightenment. Isn't it unfair to be dismissive of strange behavior simply because we initially perceive it to be pointless or silly?

I believe it is proper to extend the courtesy of not just panning another's misunderstood ways even if that other is an animal. If, for example, we see a dog chasing its tail, can one be ever so sure that in the universe of that dog his spinning in a circle is not some kind of a spiritual quest? According to principles of karma, someone laughing at a dog chasing its tail may find himself being reborn in another life as a whirling dog...

How Oligarchs Grab What is Yours

2011-03-04T13:46:00.000-08:00

You may use points from this dialog to explain how oligarchs operate and how they become very comfortable enriching themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Q. Times are getting tougher. European Central Bank economists have called for austerity measures around the world. Why?

A. The story goes, because governments around the world are in the red they cannot do what is expected of them: Things like rescues from natural disasters, law enforcement, keeping up the infrastructure, and last but not least, making sure that the poorest of the poor, even though they may not be entitled to shelter, have enough food to survive.

Q. So it would mean that governments, if they want to remain in existence, need to cut services. A sudden stoppage of all the services would be too much of a shock for any given country. If for example, roads would no longer be repaired, laws no longer enforced, fire fighting no longer available etc., even some of the very wealthiest would be unhappy because if a fire went out of control in a middle class area, the fire might spread to the more upscale neighborhood. So, where can governments cut?

A. As perhaps a majority of the wealthy would not want any cuts on any service that might affect them personally--an example might be the elimination of air traffic control because it would effect the flying safety of private jets--the areas that could be cut are the so-called entitlements...

Q. Like what?

A. Anything that would benefit people of middle and lower income. Food stamps and shelters for the very poor, aid to schools and universities, health care, subsidies to Amtrak, infrastructure grants to small and large communities etc.

Q. Are you trying to say that "entitlements" are services that the wealthy think those with less money are not entitled to?

A. Exactly.

Q. Why? What's the philosophy behind that?

A. It is a philosophy that says the wealthy deserve what they get and that they merit their fortune by being "chosen." As evidence that this is so they assume that people with low net worth are simply not worth as much as human beings and therefore are not entitled to "entitlements."

Q. They don't actually say that?

A. No, but they act it. Even though many of the wealthy have never ever produced anything of value, they assume that they have earned all they own.

Q. You are not being clear.

A. Take, for example, executives in the banking sector. They may have made good decisions in their lending or investments benefiting their institution, or they may have made decisions that ran their bank into bankruptcy. At the end of a year they still collect millions in salary and bonuses, simply because they have made arrangements that as corporate officers they will get paid, not for performance, but for the position they have assumed in the corporation.

Q. Who makes the decisions about how much money executives get and how do the decision makers justify giving high compensations to non-performers?

A. It is the board of directors who decides. Board members also get paid without having to perform. As to giving huge bonuses to non-performing executives, they claim it is necessary to pay such high compensations so that they can compete for top level talent with other corporations.

Q. Doesn't sound too logical to me. Why would they want executives with ever higher compensations to run companies into the ground?

A. Because in today's financial world there is money to be made whether the value of a company goes up or down.

Q. This does not make any sense at all.

A. It makes sense when you begin to understand how derivatives work. Derivatives work like insurance policies. If you take out an insurance policy on a house and that house burns down, you break even when the policy pays off. But if you buy several insurance policies on the same house and it burns to the ground, you win by however many policies you have bought. So where your property value was that of one house, you now have a property value of five houses if you bought five policies.

Q. So holders of the right derivatives make out when sectors of the economy collapse?

A. Yup, and they get away with it because people don't know how derivatives work...

How Corporate Cost-Cutting Makes People Invisible

2011-01-26T00:11:00.000-08:00

A Dialog Between Quincy and Arthur

Q. It is January 2011. There is talk about the economy improving because the largest companies in the United States are going to report greater profits. Does that mean that those without jobs will soon be getting back to work?

A. That would be good news, but it is simply not so.

Q. Why not?

A. Because greater profits more often than not mean the company has saved on costs. And what are costs? Perhaps the greatest cost factor generally is the cost of labor. When companies save on the "cost of labor," it simply means they spend less money on salaries and wages. And that means fewer people, both blue and white collar, earning less money.

Q. Yes, it is hard to see how the economy is improving when people have fewer jobs and get paid less. It just does not make sense that when corporations are earning more, people are not better off. Where does the money go that is earned?

A. While some of the earnings translate into dividends for investors, a greater part goes to the top of the company and to its cost-saving base. It is no secret that every year company executives, whether in sectors like banking, insurance or manufacturing give themselves huge sums in salaries and bonuses.

Q. What about that money going to the bottom? Doesn't the staff at the middle and at the bottom also benefit?

A. Well, it depends how you define "staff at the middle and bottom." In a traditional American corporation it meant skilled and unskilled blue collar workers and white collar staff from middle management on down. The salary schedule would be somewhat standardized as the pay at one company would be roughly the same for the same tasks as that of other companies. For a company to remain reasonably profitable, management would strive for reasonable compensation at all levels.

Q. That sounds like everybody would be kept happy, so where is the problem?

A. The problem lies with top management. Ideally, the mission of a business is to serve society through whatever its product or services are while making a profit doing so. In this process small companies are like families, larger companies are like communities ranging from small towns to large cities and so on. Whatever the nature of the community there is a greater or lesser connection between those on top with those at the middle and the bottom. Ideally there is a measure of respect for a person at one level for anyone at any other level.

Q. Looks like you are painting an idyllic picture. So what can go wrong?

A. Communities fail when their members become confused about their priorities. With a business operation two main priorities are contributing to society with products or services on the one hand and earning enough money to keep the business viable. Where decades ago the two elements were somewhat balanced, it is no secret that today making money far outweighs any other priority. So one of the quickest ways for management to increase earnings is to cut as much of the funds going to the middle and lower strata of its workforce.

Q. So how do corporations manage? Wouldn't operations simply break down if most of the workforce were eliminated?

A. Yes, companies cannot survive without a workforce. But at this point in history, an American company can do without an American workforce. At this point you might have guessed how top management keeps operations going without paying the kind of salaries middle and working class Americans are used to.

Q. Well, it's obvious. They simply send the high-paying jobs overseas to China or India, right?

A. That's it--exactly. If you want get your work done cheaper, you outsource. There is nothing easier.

Q. But isn't there an obstacle to laying off practically an entire workforce, how can top management simply get rid of people who have worked loyally for years and years?

A. It is difficult if there is a sense of community within a firm, but there is none. If there is a sense of community, those who have the power to hire and fire hesitate to visit economic disaster upon people they know and feel close to. But with most of today's corporations upper management functions within a gated community, and those who are outside the gates are considered nothing more than a cost factor.

Q. Strange--what does this lead to? What happens when human beings are nothing more than cost factors?

A. There is a major psychological shift. As long as a person is seen as a human being, he or she benefits from a cultural value system: Thou shalt not steal, nor lie , nor above all not kill. But as long as someone is nothing but a cost factor, he can be annihilated quite easily because costs are there to be cut.

Q. So any idea of how many formerly employed humans who were eliminated as "cost factors" there in the U.S.?

A. The official figure is around thirteen million, but it is probably a lot higher because long-term unemployed are no longer part of the statistics.

Q. So what happens to all these people?

A. Some try their very best to get back to work in their area of expertise--if there is nothing where they can apply their skills, they become willing to accept any job whatsoever. If they can't get any kind of job at all, their new economic reality pushes them into becoming invisible.

Q. Hmmm, why invisible?

A. A job or any valid source of income provides dignity. Having neither job nor income brings with it a sense of shame for being seen as someone who cannot function in life. The jobless/incomeless person tends to keep his lack of wherewithal under wraps to avoid embarrassment. More often than not the need to become invisible is met through a life of seclusion.

Q. So what does that mean?

A. Someone whose identity has been annihilated because he was no more than a cost factor that has been cut will have to find a new path in life.

Q. How do you do that? Is there a formula?

A. There is no formula and there is no easy answer. One may look for a clue in two words adopted from the collapse of the Soviet Union: glasnost and perestroika...

How Can We Pull Out of the Recession?

2010-11-25T17:18:00.000-08:00

Q. What is a recession?

A. It is a period in which the middle and working class have less money to spend, and as a result, those who earn money when consumers buy things also earn less. As car dealers sell fewer and fewer cars, they have to let go of sales associates, and the sales associates in turn can't afford to buy furniture, and the furniture stores close causing more layoffs etc. etc.

Q. It sounds like the general public is running out of money. If almost nobody has any money, how can the economy keep going?

A. Well, it can't. People draw on their reserves, and once these are gone more and more activity comes to a halt.

Q. What about the government? Can't the government create jobs?

A. Yes, it can. It can create public works projects.

Q. So why can't the government start more and more projects and get people get back to work so that the recession ends?

A. As long as government infuses more and more money into society, there will be more and more activity. And more activity does mean more jobs. More jobs gives people more money to spend. As more is spent more taxes are collected, and with more tax revenue coming in the government can start even more projects with the result that more people get back on their feet.

Q. But there are those who say it's time to pull back on spending to make the economy healthy. What's wrong with that?

A. A society with a bad economy is like a person who is sick. If someone is sick because he or she is starving or dehydrated, it makes no sense to save on food and water just so his personal budget is balanced. If you need to make debts to keep someone alive, you don't ask whether or not money spent on recovery increases size of the person's debt.

Q. Are you trying to suggest the government should simply print more money and hand it out to the public without any limitations?

A. That is not the way to go. The government has incredible investigative and research capacities. A major part of the money lost in the last two to three years was lost through high risk speculation. Speculation is a form of gambling, and gambling there is always a winner and a loser. Government investigators and researchers need to find out who the winners in the financial contest are, and where they are hiding their money.

Q. This just does not make sense. Can you give me one example of who might be a winner in the market collapse we have just seen?

A. Examples of winners are those who made bets that the housing market would fall. Betting in the financial market place is done through derivatives. A speculator buys bonds or funds that pay off in case of a market fall. Once the market has actually fallen, he quietly picks up his cash. Most people don't know such speculators exist, let alone how they operate. The source of the money lost through gambling is to a great extent money gotten from people who listened to deceptive investment advice. Deception is a first cousin to fraud. Money fraudulently acquired is stolen money, and once stolen goods end up with an even unknowing buyer the goods once found are to be returned to the person they were stolen from.

Q. Are you saying that those who gambled against people's investments are in actuality beneficiaries of stolen goods?

A. Maybe not directly within legal terms. But they are benefiting from the hardships that were bestowed on innocent people. Without fraud and deception, the gamblers betting on a market downturn would have had nothing to gamble with. So the government needs to find creative means to get back that which was stolen.

In Defense of Craigslist

2010-09-15T12:02:00.000-07:00

One of the activists on a website called change. org succeeded to rally enough support to get Craigslist to shut down its adult services section because it "promotes child sex trafficking." Activists are now promoting a movement to prohibit such internet communications altogether. While I agree with a lot of what change. org promotes, I strongly feel its attack on Craigslist for its adult services is wrong because it encourages the suppression of some very basic human rights.

Yes, child abuse, especially child prostitution is wrong, but it is equally wrong to close down a message center where consenting adults seek other consenting adults to join them for sexual pleasure.

The quest for sexual liberation has been a long-fought battle in the history of western society. As late as the 1950s, the Catholic Church succeeded in getting any scene censored in any movie showing two adults being intimate beyond a closed-mouthed brief kiss. Unmarried people could not get an apartment unless they lied about their marital status. Promiscuity was fought so intensely that people who wanted carnal variety had little choice but to become serial husbands and wives with one divorce after another.

It was in the sixties that sexual liberation made its greatest strides reaching its foremost achievement in 1973 with Roe v Wade when a woman was granted the right to decide who entered her body and which embryo would be allowed to stay in her womb. Eventually both women and men would be given the freedom to have sex with partners of their preferred gender.

As for prostitution, it should be a basic right of any adult as to circumstances under which carnal contact is entered. If a woman or a man decides to take cash for having sex with multiple partners or to attach him or herself to a long-term partner for financial advantages, he or she needs to be recognized as having the right to do so.

We know that there is a potential danger in any given human activity. Dating on campuses is good for the social life of young people, but if someone happens to go on a date with a sexual predator he or she may end up being raped. Medicine that heals can be abused if taken in large dosages. Alcoholic drinks can relax many a social function, but most of us know the tragedies that may result from their abuse.

What is the answer for dealing with potential dangers resulting from human pleasurable activities? Should we outlaw dating because it might result in rape or in STDs? Should we make the use of herbal and pharmaceutical substances so difficult that anyone violating the norm for consumption in the slightest risks incarceration at any moment? Should we outlaw the sale of alcohol and close all bars as was done in the 1920s so as to eliminate the evils of intoxication?

As to the wrongness of human trafficking and child abuse, there is enough legislation in place to deal with transgressions in these areas. Our laws outlawing slavery and protecting children from abuse are adequate if enforced sensibly and judiciously. There is no more need to shut down the adult section of Craigslist than there is to close the bars, casinos and brothels of Nevada. As for the internet, there is so little in the way of safeguards of privacy that catching online criminals becomes easier by the minute.

The right to a life of freedom includes the right to enjoy being "sinful," and there may be few wrongs worse than to deprive people of that right.

Why Raising Taxes on the Wealthy Helps Everyone, Including the Rich

2010-07-21T17:14:00.000-07:00

Q. What's the story with tax cuts? Taxes were cut again and again during the Bush II years. The U.S. was supposed to prosper more and more because as taxes were being cut, people would have a lot more money in their pockets. What happened?

A. The tax cuts didn't do much of anything for most people.

Q. Why not?

A. Well, ten percent of the population has seventy-one percent of liquid assets (stocks, bonds and cash holdings). The other ninety percent of the population owns the other twenty-nine percent. But to make it even clearer, assets owned by the lower fifty percent of the population amount to only 2.5 percent of the nation's total. So if you have a general tax cut across the board, the extra money the lower income half of the population gains or loses does not have much of an impact at all.

Q. So what's the message?

A. It does not make sense to tax that lower fifty percent of the population with 2.5 percent of the the total wealth, because practically all of their income is money already in circulation. You need to take the money from the top ten percent.

Q. Why?

A. Although there are investors in the top ten percent whose money is invested in solid companies that produce much needed goods and services, there are also speculators who use other people's hard earned cash to gamble in derivatives.

Q. Do you have any evidence that lowering taxes on the wealthy is bad for the general public's living standards while raising taxes on the rich benefits the whole country?

A. Yes. In the roaring twenties (1918-1929) the top marginal income tax rate (that's the rate paid by the rich) went from 60% on incomes over 100,000 in 1920 down to 25% in 1929. A major part of the money not paid in taxes now went, instead of going to the government, into the hands of speculators who had only one interest: to make more and more money. High risk speculators are gamblers who use the stock market as their casino.

Q. Can you explain?

A. Like gambling, high risk trading in the financial markets becomes an addiction. A gambler at a roulette table experiences the thrill of a winning bet. As the thrill lasts only a short time , a player will put his winnings back on the table, hoping to recapture the exhilaration again and again by doubling and then quadrupling his money etc. This goes on until the player's luck changes and he loses all he has won the last time he doubles his bet.

Q. So the big market crash in 1929 came as thousands of gamblers lost their shirts in the stock market?

A. Yes, and as the gamblers lost everything, they could no longer pay debts owed on houses, businesses and other loans. This set off a domino effect. Banks who had lent money to people who had been able to repay their loans before the crash now had to write off the loans because their borrowers no longer had an income. For so many of the banks and their customers bankruptcy was the only option. People became desperate for money to keep farms producing, to keep businesses going and to get food on the table.

Q. Isn't that an oversimplification? Weren't there those among the wealthy who managed to hang on to their money and property because they were simply better at financial management? Why should they care about reckless gamblers who lost everything? Would there be a risk that the disciplined and wise who have survived the economic collapse might experience losses of their own?

A. Perhaps not at first. But if not stopped, economic decay brings social collapse. Without recovery, cities eventually turn into ghost towns, people die of starvation, communicable diseases begin to ravage the country, and eventually even the wealthiest of the wealthy would be unable to escape ravaging pandemics.

Q. So ultimately, it is to the interest of the wealthy to have a prosperous country with healthy people?

A. Without a doubt.

Q. So how did the country pull out of depression?

A. When businesses, factories and farms no longer had any cash to stay operational, they looked to the government for a rescue. The government, in order to bring society back on its feet, created jobs through public works projects and other means.

Q. So how did the government get the money?

A. In 1932 the government raised the marginal tax rate on $100,000 that had been lowered to 25% back up to 56% and this made it possible to finance a recovery. People got back to work as dams, roads and public buildings were built, and after the end of World War II, ordinary people managed to find prosperity as the government educated returning soldiers through the G.I. bill.

Q. How was it possible to get the money to educate millions of returning soldiers?

A. It was possible because the government imposed a marginal tax rate of 92% on $100,000 in 1945. A rate of 89% in 1946 stayed in place until 1954. Then the rate was lowered gradually until it hovered around 75% through the early 1960s. It was a time during which the U.S. became the greatest industrial power of the world, with the result that not just the rich, but everyone got richer.

---Tax data based on figures provided by the Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

How Can We Pull Out of the Recession?

2010-06-22T18:06:00.000-07:00

Life Is But a Stage

2010-06-13T13:40:00.000-07:00

Life is but a stage, and we are all actors. As actors we assume characters, and as characters we relate to other performers in accordance with the parts we and they play. We may feel love or hate, respect or contempt, or any other emotion toward others as the script demands. To be an effective actor, you need to believe in and then become your own character and relate to others as being real. If the script demands that you detest one of the other persons on the stage you need to do so for the sake of the performance. But the danger is that if you very strongly identify with the character you are playing, you may become the on-stage character off-stage.

Can this create a problem in one's life? Yes, if you forget that you and your fellow actors are only playing parts demanded by the script. If the scenario calls for your character to hate another character in the performance, you need to remember that what takes place on stage is only an act, and that your fellow actors are human beings with their own paths through life.

Is the University of California Afflicted by Morbid Obesity?

2010-03-26T23:34:00.000-07:00

University of California fees continue to increase because the university as a quasi-corporate person is suffering from morbid obesity--more and more money is demanded to nourish fat cells that do little more than add weight to an organism struggling to move into the twenty-first century.

In a discussion with some friends I asked a basic question: Students are protesting in California and elsewhere about sharply increasing tuition they have to pay, but professors and teaching assistants have gotten miniscule pay raises if any at all. Where is the money going? Who gets the money?

You don't need to look far. Mark Yudof, the chancellor of UC gets compensation of $828,000. http://encyclopedia.vbxml.net/Mark_Yudof. Would he be able to function for half as much, let's say around the salary level of $400,000, which is what President Obama gets? What about Kenneth M. Jones, Interim Chief Operating Officer UCSF Medical Center getting a raise of $58,625 to $500,723 in the summer of 2009, and Linda P. B. Katehi appointed as Chancellor, UC Davis at annual salary of $400,000, an increase of 27% percent above that of predecessor Larry N. Vanderhoef? www.upte.org/about/press/2009-07-23.pdf How are those exorbitant salaries and pay hikes being financed with other than with student tuition increases?

Could the money be coming from wealthy alumni giving more to the universities?

Not at this time. Donations to non-profits have taken a downturn since the beginning of the current recession.

Who are the "powers-to-be" that decide to give increases to administrators while students are being squeezed to pay more and more in tuition?

They are the members of the Board of Regents. They are generally wealthy members of the business community and other persons of prosperity

How do they justify compensation increases to those who are already more than adequately paid?

The general reasoning among regents is that administrators "need" to be paid more and more so that they don't leave for other jobs.

Who decides and how is it decided what makes a good administrator?
Higher ranking administrators evaluate both lower ranking ones and candidates wishing to become part of the system.

And what do they look for?

The ones on the higher rungs look for those candidates on the lower rungs who make them feel good about what they are n o t doing.

What are they n o t doing?

They are "not-doing" anything of any value that would improve the mission of an educational institution, to be specific, discovery and learning.

What keeps students and the public from doing anything to limit administrative bodies' taking funds that should be used to educate students?

There are several possible answers. The public is not aware how much of the money is going to waste at the top of educational institutions. If a university is compared to a human being, it needs to be fed. Money is the symbol for the food needed to keep it nourished. In a health-conscious human being calories are used to nourish a healthy mobile body in which exercise keeps muscles toned and the mind alert. But when someone takes in food indiscriminately and then does little more than watch TV, the calories are turned into body fat. Education money that goes into the pockets of overpaid administrators only makes for morbid academic obesity.

Why can't people see this?

Administrators tend to keep their distance. They wear suits and ties and hide in offices and conference rooms where they don't mingle with students and faculty.

What does wearing suits have to do with it?

If someone wears a suit, it is assumed that he is of a higher standing, that he/she is important enough that an appointment is needed to talk to him or her. Those who are higher and less accessible feel themselves to be aristocrats who merit more pay simply because they are part of an "upper class."

--I am aware that a lot more needs to be explored in regard to these issues, so I would greatly welcome any questions and commentary.

We Have to Win in Afghanistan: There is no Choice but to Stop the Taliban "Gendercide"

2010-02-09T12:38:00.000-08:00

The invasion of Iraq under Bush and Blair was and still is an incredibly serious mistake. By contrast I believe it was right to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, but it was a disastrous mistake to allow the situation in the country to deteriorate to the point where the Taliban were able to reassume power.

Why is it so important for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan and win? It is not the threat of the potential loss of an oil or gas pipe line that would be a loss to western economic interests, it is the threat of "Gendercide." A woman forced to wear a burka Taliban style has neither the freedom to be seen, heard, nor to speak to anyone without her owner's permission. She is no longer a human being in the social sense.

Without freedom of movement, a woman is nothing more than a member of the living dead. For Americans to permit the Taliban to make their women into zombies right under the noses of U.S. troops would be to allow the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan to present a model of success for the rest of the underdeveloped world--there is no choice but for the U.S. to win this particular war.

Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining--Even in China.

2010-02-07T15:04:00.000-08:00

This post has been moved to my other blog http://thewryjester.blogspot.com for thematic reasons

The Secret Beneath "the Secret"

2010-02-02T15:50:00.000-08:00

The message in the bestselling book/movie The Secret is that in thinking about the future it pays to stay positive. This involves not only visualizing a bright future, but also seeing whatever there is in the present in a positive light. An underlying principle is that what is held in one's unconscious will manifest itself in reality at some point.

Basically it involves making the right choice of looking at a glass as either half full or half empty. One observer looking at a glass with 50 percent liquid in it will say "Too bad, I only have half of it left--I miss the time when it was full," the other, who knows "the Secret" will say "Great, I already have half of the glass filled." The one with the stance of the glass being half full will be at an emotional advantage simply because a positive outlook is more energizing, making it easier to improve one's situation.

And yet, an emotional advantage may not necessarily produce positive results. First, in maintaining the glass being half full, one needs to say and ask, "Yes, it's full, but full of what?" There is an assumption that the glass contains pure drinking water. Okay if true, if not, optimism can lead to disaster.

Drinking glasses are containers. So what about the advantage of containers being half full in other contexts. A ship in the ocean is an example of a large floating container. What if the ship has sprung a leak and is now half full of sea water. Should we rejoice because the sinking ship is "only" half full or because it is still half empty?

It is obvious that the universal half-full-glass optimism of "the Secret" needs to be carefully examined. All factors, especially relevant laws of nature need to be taken into account. The secret beneath "the Secret" may be that those who place their blind faith in the universe simply accommodating whatever they wish for and visualize may have been basing their optimism on a metaphorical glass half full of clean, clear water which may not turn out to be so clean and clear when transposed into material reality. So should one simply forget about "The Secret?" My answer: Stay optimistic but keep a careful eye on the glass and its content.

Speculating on Chemical Imbalances as a Cause of Depression

2010-01-27T15:25:00.000-08:00

A few days ago a friend of mine asked me my opinion about the connection between clinical depression and chemical imbalances. Here is my very speculative answer:

My understanding of depression is that it always involves a person's mindset as well as chemical configurations within anyone's bio-system. Any given event, let's say good news about a loved one's recovery from an illness on the one hand, or sudden news about a great loss in the stock market will set off thoughts and emotions that will change body chemistry. "Good things happening" place one's physical being into a setting of comfort, and /or excitement, and the world is perceived as a place of joy--the heart beats happily, taste buds and digestion enter a dance of appreciation with the food that is eaten, the mind looks forward to solving problems, and one's muscles are ready for active movement.

"Bad things happening" may at first place one's body into a defensive and alert condition. Personal rejections may bring feelings of disappointment. A series of disappointments may cause body and mind to go into a standby mode, which, if intensified, shuts down activity and ends up causing an individual's body and mind to enter into a state of hibernation that feels like nothing less than clinical depression. Just as the body chemistry of someone in happy circumstances is taken to be "balanced," the body chemistry of someone in dire straits will appear to be "imbalanced."

Having established that life's experiences can push an individual into the chemical imbalance of clinical depression, it would seem that the escape from depression could come either as a result from "lucky events" or from therapy that helps change the depressed person's thinking into happier thoughts that help restore a healthy chemical balance.

And yet, while it may be obvious that a healthy chemical balance may be supported by "good thinking," there is no guarantee that the right kind of mindset will prevail over a bio system falling into depression. It may be possible that someone slides into a state of depression without any obvious triggering events in his/her personal life, but that a chemical imbalance comes about for unknown reasons. It may happen that an individual reaches a state of clinical depression in which no kind of human interaction can restore a healthy chemical balance. Once a state of bio-energetic lock-down is manifest there can no longer be communication because the sufferer will be unable to get the meaning of what is being said.

When words can no longer reach someone who is deeply depressed, other interventions become more attractive. Fifty, sixty years ago, the simple solution was to subject patients to electroshock treatments, which tended to work because the "treatment" involved was so great a trauma to a patient's nervous system that the patient developed coping mechanisms that would restore chemical balance in order to avoid the torture of electroshocks. Somehow a very diabolical approach of inducing the fear of extreme pain worked to jar patients out of their depression.

Keeping in mind the torment the clinically depressed underwent with electroshock therapy, the administration of anti-depressant chemicals is humane by comparison. And yet, there may be better ways. I have been speculating about placing clinically depressed persons on high-speed roller coasters to see if the shock effect of the ride would trigger life affirming survival mechanisms. I am fully aware of the logistical problems of strapping a group of clinically depressed patients into the seats of a ride like the Viper at Six Flags Magic Mountain. Issues of security and liability might be prohibitive to say the least. But there is no reason to lose all hope: With ever greater progress in the development of virtual reality devices not all is lost. It is quite conceivable that with advancing technology the clinically depressed can be jarred back into the joy of life through an exhilarating virtual reality roller coaster ride wearing little more than computerized head gear designed for this purpose.

Judging Tiger Woods

2009-12-18T18:03:00.000-08:00

I have read many a comment in different places that condemns Tiger Woods for his escapades with various women. Sure, looking at the results, his behavior was clearly a mistake. But there is a big trap for onlookers: It is the implicit assumption, "If I were the Tiger, I would not be so stupid as to have fooled around with those women because I am on a higher plane morally." It is a claim that you, with your experiences, would have acted differently. It assumes that had you found yourself in the same situation you would have been able to resist the temptations he yielded to.

You cannot justify making this assumption--chances are that given your life and background you would not have gotten Tiger Woods' success and fame, not just because you were not as gifted, but simply because you are you as a result of your own very different personal history and nature. This being so, it would not ever be possible for you to experience the same reality. Why? The content of any reality is determined by the nature of the individual and the situation s/he faces. If either of these two components is different, another person's reality is not the same as yours. This being so, it is wrong to assume a moral superiority allowing you to judge the star who has fallen from grace.

Understanding the Tiger Woods Scandal

2009-12-16T22:08:00.000-08:00

Why was Tiger selected as a role model for big corporations to advertise their products?

In the first place it was his fame as a winner in a field that seemed to be closed to minorities. That made him newsworthy in and of itself. The media covered him as a new type of champion. And as any product struggles to get more attention than the rest, being associated with a winner, if not "THE WINNER," makes the product appear as a champion by association.

What qualities make a star more valuable as an endorser of product?

First, the better known a star is to the public the more valuable s/he becomes. The simple reason: A star in the eyes of hundreds of millions is a star with greater candlepower than one with just a few millions. The math is simple: the more people become starry- eyed, the greater the number of viewers who want to buy the products associated with the star.

What about controversy? Doesn't it make the star even more interesting?

Yes, as a news item per se--people at the moment pay more attention to Tiger than before, but his usefulness for sponsorships is lessened. Where before the scandal his pristine reputation in all respects made him appear as a total winner, his endorsement is no longer effective with anyone to whom "moral standards" are important. And with the "flawless" reputation lost, many viewers would longer identify themselves with him.

Was it wise for him to give up golf for the moment?

Undoubtedly. Had he stayed, he would have been hounded every time he appeared in public, resulting in an ever greater hunger for paparazzi and tabloid writers to get material on him. It's much less interesting to keep his story in the headlines while he is not around.

Will his scandal do damage to the golfing industry?

Probably little. People who take up golf because of Tiger have done so already, and it is highly unlikely they will lose interest because of a scandal involving the biggest star in the sport. Sports, whether as a participant or a spectator, are habits, and most habits are not easily broken.

What can we conclude from it all?

Stardom is about money. Prizes for the star's performance, product endorsements and the fame that opens doors are the star's rewards. Publicity surrounding him is food for the tabloids who make money by "exposing the star's flaws." There is money to be made when the star gets brighter and stays brighter, and there is money to be made when his light is darkened by scandal.

Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T06:31:00.000-08:00

Woke up super-early this morning realizing how incredibly much I have to be thankful for--big things, little things and what-not-else. The world's film industry is among the many examples. Saw an unbelievably brilliant DVD two nights ago. It is the story of "Bruno", a lesser known member of the Austrian fashion industry. The hero, played by the inimitably talented Sascha Baron Cohen, goes on a global journey in quest of world fame but runs into one flabbergasting obstacle after another. Not wishing to spoil the plot for those who might see the film, I will not go into further detail. Suffice it to say, this is the second time within a little more than a year that Cohen managed to rattle the cage of America's social conventions. If nothing else, he deserves an Oscar as best actor, but I'd be surprised if the academy would have the nerve to step up to the plate.

Obama and the New Kid on the Block Syndrome

2009-11-09T13:44:00.000-08:00

[I posted this article a few weeks ago, but removed it temporarily pending further developments]

It is wonderful that President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and the world may become a better place for it. At the same time, when it comes to domestic reforms that would save the American middle class from extinction Obama appears to be stuck. Why? He may be a victim of the New-Kid-on-the-Block Syndrome.  

I remember that, when Clinton ran for his first term, I was so impressed when he described his background of poverty where, among other things, he had to stop his drunken stepfather from getting violent. In that same talk, I was moved when he said "I'll never forget where I came from." I took it to mean that he would always keep in mind the needs of people who struggled with poverty. But when he was well into his presidency he appeared to have forgotten that promise, as he permitted changes in laws that made it easier for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  

What happened? The Clintons, who started from humble backgrounds, as they increasingly came in contact with the wealthy and powerful came to feel very much at home among those who do not associate with the poor. Once they found themselves to be on the right side of the tracks, they were not at all unhappy to enjoy the satisfaction of being separated from the lesser folk. The rich and powerful now treat them as "friends," and they feel honored. Sharing the sentiments of the wealthy has made the Clintons think and act like the oligarchs with whom they associate, and the interests of old acquaintances from their more humble past have simply become less important.  

In terms of social adaptation Obama has followed the Clintons' footsteps. Also born into humble circumstances, like the Clintons he went to an ivy league university and ended up in the White House. As president and holder of the politically most powerful position in the country, he is now much closer to the corporate chiefs and the wealthy than he is to the progressives who helped him win the election. Where he may have been the new kid on the block with ideas for change when he first took office, he is now one of the good ole boys that include the Wall Street and banking elite.   

From his speeches we know that President Obama still means well; it is very likely that the reforms he once promised are still on his mind, but as he now sees the world through the eyes of his old pragmatic advisors and his new "friends," their priorities have become his: the ugly duckling of earlier days is now the adult swan who soars with his peers.

To Take or not to Take the Swine Flu Shot

2009-10-22T11:32:00.000-07:00

I saw some interesting videos about the swine flu. One from the seventies is especially worth checking out: :
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mh9f_swine-flu-1976-propaganda_webcam I did the math on it: 46 million people were inoculated against the flu and there were 4000 lawsuits by people who contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which means about one in eleven thousand suffered enough to file a lawsuit. The question that's not answered is how many lives might have been saved among those who would have gotten the flu if they had not been given the shots. As always, it's a crap shoot. I once got very sick from a smallpox vaccination, but thank God I'm still around to tell about it.

A little info from the front lines. My daughter who is an attending physician working full-time in a Portland hospital told us she got a swine flue shot a few days ago. The shot takes about three weeks to become effective. According to her a lot more cases are beginning to show up day by day, and you can do a google on "frequency of swine flu cases" to see what the bigger picture is. Two women across the street from us came back early from a road-trip in their RV because one of them had contracted the swine flu. (She's recovering slowly.)

Of course, it always pays to be suspicious as long as somebody somewhere is out to make a buck, and there is money to be made in vaccine sales.

So what's the answer? The better informed you are from as many sources as possible and the more willing you are to do a little detective work, the better the odds you will make the right decision. It goes without saying that staying in good spirits is always conducive to your health. If things are getting you down, get in touch with a life coach.

Logical Support for Homeopathy

2009-09-23T14:27:00.000-07:00

A sudden epiphany: My daughter Brigitte has been struggling with allergies for most of her life, and during a conversation with her I suddenly realized a simple reason why homeopathy is a valid approach to medicine. Allergies can be set off by minute quantities of a given substance, so minute in fact that a food product that was in contact with machinery used to process peanuts can cause a serious reaction for someone allergic to peanuts even after the machinery has been cleaned. Based on this one can reasonably conclude if the trace of an element of a substance can cause harm in someone in instances of allergies, trace elements of substances in homeopathic remedies can promote cures.

Will the Boomers Go Bust?

2009-09-19T22:03:00.000-07:00

What Will Happen When the Baby Boomers Retire?

A retirement avalanche is about to descend. The baby boom began shortly after the end of World War II in 1945 and continued well into the 1950s. Numerically the boomers represent a work force of around 70 million, and those born earliest will be sixty-five in 2010. They are old enough to retire, but will they have the money for a living standard beyond that of the homeless?

The answer is no for most of them. Why not? Their parents for the most part retired in comfort as they could rely on company retirement plans. In those days, whether people worked for large or small companies, employers and employees felt they were part of the same family--employers held the role of ship captains and employees participated as loyal crews.

The picture began to change in the mid-seventies. A new breed of managers took over the leadership of corporations. The new business philosophy was for a company to make greater profits regardless of the means. Where once employees were part of a family engaged in a business venture, they now became nothing more than a cost factor, and costs are there to be cut. Now seen as nothing more than a financial burden, they can be eliminated by shutting down factories where they made a decent living and opening up plants in other countries where slave labor wages are the rule.

If a plant stays open, employees soon get the message that they had better accept cuts in health and pension benefits or lose their jobs. If a union threatens a strike, the employer lets workers walk out. If they don't buckle under, whatever service they provided is outsourced

Simply put, a good part of the baby boomers have by now either lost their jobs and/or retirement benefits, or if they are still working, had their benefits reduced so that they cannot possibly retire at any level above poverty.

Why Did the Baby Boomers Allow Themselves to be Reduced to Cost Factors?

The Cold War had broken out, and the power struggle between the communist authoritarian regimes and the militarily superior regimes of the west brought the world closer and closer to war. War needs anger, greed and hatred to thrive, but an unimaginable turn of events took place. As the east-west conflict heated up and America became increasingly involved in Vietnam, the baby boomers, rather than respond to a patriotic call to arms, answered with a message of love and peace. For a large segment of the population in their twenties and early thirties goals of acquiring wealth and career building were replaced by a quest for a peaceful and harmonious world.

When the Vietnam War was over and most civil rights goals were achieved, the generation that had pushed for change took a rest. This was not true, however, for a minority of boomers who had continued to pursue primarily careers and money. Without the distractions of idealistic goals, the acquisition of wealth for its own sake became fashionable and got increasing support from the media through programs like "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." While the former hippies and war protesters did not necessarily join in the chase after money, they did not do much of anything to stop the greedy from their ever-greater worship of wealth and power. In a setting of general public complacency, it was easy for the power seekers to climb the corporate ladder by squeezing the incomes of all those on the rungs below them. Once they ruled the corporations, they got salaries and bonuses in the millions while others quietly lost their jobs and were too embarrassed to say or do anything about it.

No Work, No Money, No Retirement: Where Can You Go? How Can You Hide?

People are ashamed of being unemployed. Being broke may get you sympathy, but it won't get you respect. Having no retirement income will leave you either homeless or at the mercy of a relative. Civil servants, teachers or the career military are among the few who survive the race to the economic bottom. But those of the baby boomers who are neither wealthy nor part of a retirement system suddenly find themselves as part of a new underclass having to deal with the contempt of those who are better off. They now find themselves as outcasts much like the racial and ethnic minorities and women were before the civil rights movement.

So it becomes an irony of history that the baby boomers who did so much for the rights of the disadvantaged and in addition stopped a war, are now themselves confronted by a reality that they successfully defeated forty years earlier. Without jobs, no longer part of an "active society," they have little choice but to tap resources they have not drawn on since the early seventies. They cannot fail to recognize and face the fact that they can neither find jobs nor retire because the money they earned over their lifetimes is in the pockets of those addicted to power and greed. Considering that they are a generation of courage and innovation, they will through social and political action find ways to get back what has been taken from them. Given that the baby boomers are far better educated than earlier generations, given the fact that in their youth they were never afraid to challenge gratuitous authority, and given the fact that their personalities were developed in the period of greatest creativity, they will find the way to bring about the change needed for survival with dignity.

Letter to a Friend re Gun Confiscation

2009-09-01T09:58:00.000-07:00

Dear D,

Yes, I feel compassion for gun owners. When we had the riots in 92 I drove out to the valley to buy an M1 carbine at a gun shop. They had a seven day waiting period for hand guns, but no waiting period for the M1 because it was considered an antique. Also, I had learned to fire it when I was in the military. A couple of years later it was ripped off when we had a burglary. The cops recovered it some time later, but I never retrieved it because they told me it had been mangled by the burglars.

As to my take on gun ownership, I see both sides of the issue. Guns, like cars, are potentially deadly weapons, and deadly weapons carry with them a grave (no pun intended) responsibility. The problem with car ownership is that cars kill people in accidents, not forgetting that cars can shorten the vehicle owners' life spans because they do not get enough exercise. Similarly, there is a major drawback to gun ownership. While car ownership creates problems by making locomotion all too easy, gun ownership often leads people to solving problems by shooting their opponents rather than calmly communicating with them.

Beyond that, I do consider it a serious problem that the government and big corporations stick their noses into citizens' business to the point where little privacy remains. It is my belief that privacy is a necessary element of freedom.

What's the answer? There needs to be a lot more dialog between those who want to keep guns and those who want to ban them. Underneath it all, I believe most of us want to make this world a better one.

Should We Love Our Greedy Neighbors?

2009-08-04T15:05:00.000-07:00

Let's face it, there are some pretty nasty people out there, and for anyone following a Christian value system it is one's duty to love one's neighbor. Neighbor doesn't just mean the guy next-door but all human beings. As a Unitarian Universalist I admit that I may get into the Christian mode some of the time, but that other times I get into a mode where I want nothing more than to see justice done. This means that a part of me is waiting for that gleeful moment when one of the world's creeps, scum bags or douche bags gets a taste of his or her own medicine. Specifically, it may mean fantasizing about a healthcare CEO going to prison and suffering because he or she gets medical care no better than what other prisoners are getting. Can vengeance taste any sweeter?

It is easy to see people as villainous who become fabulously rich while finding ways to pay less and less of their fair share in taxes as they contribute next to nothing to society. Another good example might be a Wall Street charlatan who made millions gambling away people's retirement money, and who now struts about showing how proud he or she is because he or she lives in a fabulous mansion and drives the most expensive cars. Should one consider this kind of rip-off artist as evil as any thief or bank robber?

Whatever our moral appraisal of the well-heeled rascals may turn out to be, is it right for us to detest them? They may not at all be aware that they are doing wrong. They may believe it is right to take money from a public made up of fools who deserve to be ripped off. Is this kind of rationalization a sign of criminality or of a special kind of insanity? It depends on how you define the crime of theft. It depends a lot on a person's motive. Say somebody steals food or a small amount of money to feed a starving family. Yes it is wrong to steal, but it may be even more wrong to let someone die of starvation. Say someone steals money to buy drugs because he or she cannot bear the pain of withdrawal. Yes, it's wrong but understandable--people have limits as to how much pain they may be able to bear.

But what about multi-million-dollar rascals who pilfer ordinary people's money by means of the schemes and tricks of Wall Street? Are they ripping off the public in order to avoid unbearable pain? Yes and no. The experience of pain is relative: physical pain is undeniably direct. But the pain that the greedy may be trying to avoid is emotional: They avoid the pain of not being able to keep up with the Joneses, who they see as even richer than they. If the avoidance of pain is an emotional psychological affliction, and if the misappropriation of money crosses the boundaries of criminality, does it mean that the thief is an ordinary criminal, or that he or she is the victim of a newly discovered form of criminal insanity?

If multi-million-dollar scoundrels are indeed found to be suffering from a newly recognized form of criminal insanity, it would be very wrong to hate them because it is wrong to detest people who are afflicted with an illness. On the contrary, they deserve our feelings of compassion. But just as with other more commonly recognized forms of criminal insanity, such as killing committed by someone truly delusional, you cannot allow the individual in question to continue his or her misdeeds. Such people need to be stopped and institutionalized until the proper medical authority determines they have overcome their illness. As to the money taken by criminally insane multi-million-dollar rich and super-rich thieves, it should be returned to those that it has been taken from, and once this has happened we should not forget to think of them with the greatest possible compassion. And lest there be any doubt, compassion is a form of love.

Anything Goes for Profit?

2009-07-26T13:03:00.000-07:00

I recommend that after you read my last post about not worrying about putting "healthcare providers" out of business, you check Bill Maher's discussion on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DOWJFiKeZQ

At the Center of the Healthcare Battle

2009-07-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

What's at the basis of the health-care battle? It has become crystal clear that those intoxicated by greed do all they can to get their hands on more money. Universal healthcare means less money for private healthcare providers because a government-run program does not have to support an incredible load of pay going to executives nor does it have to pay out profits to investors. It would mean an extreme threat to corporations that take as much profit as they can by giving as little health care as possible for the fees and premiums they take in.

Healthcare costs have increased because hospitals and health insurance companies that existed to keep people alive and healthy have now became little more than a means of making money for corporate profiteers. When privatizers took over non-profit hospitals and insurance companies, they channeled cash to investors and corporate officers by cutting operating funds to doctors and nurses, eliminating necessary procedures whenever possible, and raising insurance premiums and fees to patients. Money that was used to heal the sick in non-profit systems, was now put into the pockets of corporate executives and profit-hungry investors.

True, non-profits have administrative structures in which those who are higher on the administrative scale get paid more. But for the most part, those on top of the ladder don't get the obscenely high salaries and bonuses customary in the corporate world. Instead, compensation with non-profits is roughly similar to that of the civil service system where those on top primarily get paid in accordance to a scale based on greater expertise and/or more experience. The civil service system is proof that managers who don't get outlandish compensations accomplish far more than those in for-profit corporations. Looking at the overall picture, corporate health-care executive pay is an unnecessary overhead, and eliminating it will benefit the essential components of health care, doctors, nurses, technicians and above all, the patients.

On the Lighter Side

2009-06-23T17:09:00.000-07:00

On the Lighter Side,

Yesterday I got a ride in- and a quick test-drive in an Equinox from Maurice, our good friend and computer consultant for many years. The Equinox is a GM prototype of a hydrogen propelled SUV with mileage standards roughly equivalent to the much lighter Prius, 0 to 60 in nine seconds. We took it for a completely effortless climb up Mt. Washington. But the greatest advantage is that of having zero (and I mean it) pollution in its emission. With the engine running, you check the exhaust: No fumes of any kind, only a few drops of water. Hello, fresh air in the L.A. basin! Check it out at http://gmfuelcell.com

How the Economy Tanked and How It Could Be Saved

2009-06-09T18:25:00.000-07:00

In the Good Old Days

How did the American economy go into a nosedive? In the fifties and sixties it was easy for anyone to get a job, a mortgage and to support a family. Just about anything you could see, hear or touch was made in the U.S.A. Manufacturers, buyers and sellers were American. You could make a living just about anywhere in the country, whether you had a small business, practiced a profession, worked in a factory or as a salesclerk. Whatever was produced in factories could be sold in stores or dealerships and there were plenty of buyers for no-matter-what. As almost everybody's credit was good, business kept up a steady pace. Producers could rely on a steady stream of consumers, and consumers were comfortable living within their means.

Mutual Respect and Loyalty

Going into retirement was no problem. Companies large and small had pension plans. Unions had made sure that the employees of large companies would get decent retirement packages, and smaller companies followed suit because they wanted to be competitive. From large corporations down to local businesses, management knew and appreciated their staff. In general those on top respected and valued the loyalty of those at the middle and lower levels. Workers and white collar staff trusted their supervisors, and they were proud of working for their employers whether their company was GM or a local hardware store.

Dog-Eat-Dog Comes into Fashion

Then, what happened? Even though the country began to be polarized through the Vietnam War by the end of the sixties, basic underlying values of decency were still in place in business, social and political arenas until the late seventies. By then a conservative cloud began to settle over the country. By then a steady drumbeat blaming all social ills on the power of the unions filled the airwaves. A dog-eat-dog philosophy became more and more popular. People on welfare were labeled as parasites. And for the first time since the great depression there was ever-increasing homelessness. Where earlier it was considered against the law for someone to sleep on the streets, getting the sleeper arrested for “vagrancy,” for the homeless to sleep on the streets was now considered unfortunate but inevitable. Food and shelter were once considered a right based on American tradition. Everyone could still be fed because of the food stamp program, but shelter could now only be guaranteed if people managed "to measure up." Those who insisted it was only decent to house the homeless were dismissed as "bleeding-heart liberals.”

Getting Rid of Unions

The dog-eat-dog mode also became prevalent in business and industry. Where previously corporate management would at times be annoyed by the ways of unions, management now fought to destroy unions where they already existed and to snuff out anyone who dared to start unions in places that had none. The annihilation of the air traffic controllers' union by the Reagan administration is a key example of the destruction of a union. Wal-Mart's hostility against the formation of a union presents a perfect example of how a corporation prevents employees from having a collective representation in the first place.

Corporate Raiders Take People's Retirements

But dog-eat-dog behavior became commonplace not only between the haves of the corporate world and the have-nots outside of it, it also became the keynote among corporations in dealing with one another. Before the mid-seventies there were few if any hostile corporate takeovers. Such takeovers were no more acceptable than stealing gardening equipment from a neighbor. Now a company would take control of another simply to get the targeted company's assets, and if an employee of the acquired firm lost his retirement as a result, the loss would be recorded as nothing more than a victory for the bottom line of the raiding company. By any standard of decency, before this time taking people's retirement money would have been considered nothing less than an act of theft. In the gangland of corporate competition, however, it was now considered to be nothing more than well-earned spoils going to a well-deserving victor.

Eliminating Cost Factors

Today, the rich and/or famous have become role models for the population on the whole; anyone wealthy is considered more worthy of respect than anyone less so. In the never-ending quest for their version of “greatness,” the world's greediest stop at nothing. And this is the source of America 's economic decline. In an endless pursuit of money, corporate captains look for ways to cut costs benefiting only themselves, their peers and investors. How? By simply acting as if employees, regardless of how long they have been with the company, are nothing more than expenses, and they feel they are doing the world a service as they eliminate these "cost factors” by sending American workers' jobs and equipment to China, India or the Philippines. Having done so, corporate officers take millions and millions in salaries and bonuses. To add insult to injury these executives are treated like stars by business and investment media.

Building Mansions

What does the monied elite do with the cash they save by laying off American workers and replacing them with quasi-slave labor in China ? If they don't use the money to buy up other companies where the same cycle is repeated, they use it to build themselves ever larger mansions, or they place the money in overseas tax shelters, cheating the American public out of much-needed tax revenues.

Fewer and Fewer Jobs

Now what about the employees who are out of work? A small minority is lucky enough to get new jobs. During the past eight years there have been other “lucky” ones who could survive because they could get home equity loans as long as the real estate market continued to go up and up--until it collapsed. Others kept looking for jobs only to find out there is no work because most other companies are also sending jobs out of the country. The result: Fewer and fewer jobs and fewer and fewer houses bought. The job market collapses, so does the real estate market, and people who were living on borrowed money suddenly find that banks are demanding that they pay up. Without cash reserves they either end up with a foreclosure or a bankruptcy or both.

When the Money Runs Out

How do people manage without an income? Some rely on unemployment benefits until they run out. Then they exhaust their cash savings. Next they empty out their 401k retirement accounts, and when these last reserves are gone they move in with friends or sleep on the couch of close or distant family members as long as they are welcome. And in the end they have no choice but to sleep in cardboard boxes on the streets. Can the government help them out? As long as there are funds, federal, state and local governments can create jobs through programs like public works projects or through the improvement of existing services. But governments lack money because the people who were laid off no longer pay taxes, and without taxes government cannot do anything.

So how do we cope with fewer and fewer people having an income? If anybody could help it would be those on top of the pyramid, the rich and the very rich, including the same corporate chieftains who have given themselves eight figure annual salaries while cutting their employees' jobs.

The Rich Give Advice

But when asked, mighty money-men tell politicians that they shouldn't ask the rich to give up money to put the economy back on its feet. Stop government "giveaways" to the poor, they say. Cut "entitlements" like Medicaid, housing for the poor, subsidized bus service etc. They point out that they, the executive class, succeeded in becoming more prosperous by reducing costs by cutting salaries and benefits of lower ranking staff. Government can do the same! All that is needed is to stop "handouts" to the needy, the losers that lost because they did not "measure up?"

The prosperous may mean well, but as misery spreads and more and more become anonymous and homeless, it becomes impossible to take anything from those who have nothing. Maybe you could save money by stopping the food stamp program or by refusing emergency medical care to the uninsured, but could you get enough of the public to accept increasing numbers of people dying of disease and hunger in the streets?

Can the Rich Do with Less?

True, not all of the prosperous are hard-nosed conservatives--there are some "bleeding-heart liberals" among them-- but most may not want the one workable remedy that could put the economy back on its feet. They don't want to see that the only way to turn the economy around is to tax those who have money. You cannot get taxes from the middle and lower strata. They have been squeezed to the limit. True, as those who have plenty always want more, it may be painful for them to have less. While it may hurt everyone to give up anything at all, is it more painful for one with twenty million a year to give up eighteen than for a family with less than ten thousand to lose the roof over their heads?

After the Fire

But it is an illusion for the wealthy to think that the decline in living standards of the general public will not affect them. Once people have given up health-care, police and fire protection, it is doubtful that the privileged, living in their enclaves, will be spared from the worldwide pandemics, rampant crime waves or merciless fires raging out of control that are likely to occur. Dwellers of enclaves may realize they are still part of the larger community. Imagine yourself as one of those dwellers. Imagine you have a home and a major fire has broken out. When the fire has ceased to burn, you learn that all homes but your own were destroyed. Though you are happy your place was saved, would you enjoy looking at the charred remains of your neighbors' houses?

Immortality?

2009-05-31T14:39:00.000-07:00

Is there such a thing as immortality?

Immortality in the religious sense is a matter of belief and cannot be proven empirically. But what about the stamp left on reality by artists and writers? Those who have become stars in their lifetime or shortly after their death will be remembered through their works and the experience brought forth by the artists' creation will continue to "live" every time anyone listens to a recording, looks at a painting, or reads the writing that was produced during the artist's lifetime. The artist's soul thus survives through his works. So John Lennon lives every time we listen to one of his songs.

How can one make sure to be remembered?

The creation of a memorable product whether it may be a work of art or an invention generally is not the result of the creator's wish to make his mark on history. True creativity does not concern itself with getting recognition whether in the creator's lifetime or in posterity. Creativity lives in the moment--it never concerns itself with "what will they think of my work now or in the future." As for recognition on a grand scale, it will happen or not. More often than not it comes as a result of nothing more than luck. As for recognition and remembrance on a smaller scale, let's say family and friends, they are determined by what chords are struck by what we have produced, and chances are that our control over the impact that we make is limited at best.

So is it worth it being recognized and remembered?

That's a tough one. Yes, as long as one does not worry about it. In fact, caring about being recognized and/or remembered may well be useless if not counterproductive. Even if immortality is achieved, is it real? If so, it would mean that a manifestation of someone's incarnation would continue forever and forever, and it would seem logical that since no one remembers what happened millions of years ago, it seems rather unlikely that anyone living now will be remembered millions of years in the future. If one asks oneself how long one wants to be remembered, one is not really interested in immortality.

Conclusion?

Live in the moment, enjoy the moment and create in the moment. Let this be what matters and consider all that which results to be nothing more than a byproduct of lesser importance.

What Does It Mean to Be Authentic

2009-03-22T19:14:00.000-07:00

We are what we have. Are we what we have? If we have a flashy, expensive sports car, people may see us as materially successful, an exciting risk taker and fun-loving. If we drive a mini-van, there are other expectations: family oriented with kids to drive around. Dressed in a suit? --a professional or perhaps a life insurance salesperson. Living in a mansion? High net worth and enjoying all the privileges that come along with it, such as that of being picky about the very finest restaurants or the ability to travel around the world.

Other people react to us in terms of what we have or appear to have. A girl's interest may perk up when she meets a guy with a sexy sports car. Showing up in a restaurant in an expensive suit may get the waiters to be more careful about the service and to expect a better tip.

Other less tangible things like an impressive resume that may open career doors. Having memberships in exclusive clubs may bring us connections that make it easy to get what we want because we know the "right" people.

So how do the things we have influence us? They put pressure on the way we act. Once admitted to a private club it does not take long to be and act like other members and to be very comfortable acting like the rest. By contrast, if we are visiting a church to please a friend, chances are we will be very cautious about all our movements. What can we conclude? In general, the things we have, whether they are material property or social connections, have an incredible influence on the way we walk through life.

Are we then nothing more than what our possessions have made us become? Is our true, authentic being nothing more than what we own and what we can do with what we own? Strange as it may seem, it may be true for most. In times of economic setbacks people begin to feel they are less when they have less. It explains why some who have lost most of their net worth jump off buildings. They assume that when their money is gone they no longer have value as human beings because money was all they respected and valued.

For those whose identity is nothing more than their economic reality, the loss of property means a loss of heart and soul. But for those who live authentically, the loss of what they have does not spell the end of a meaningful life because they were not just a construct of their possessions but rather an expression of their core being.

A Personal Experience

2009-03-01T12:28:00.000-08:00

The Parable of the Answering Machine

A man woke up one morning and wanted to start his day with making phone calls on his to-do-list. Surprise: No matter who he called, he got nothing more than an answering machine. As he went on his way he made every effort to start conversations, but no matter how hard he tried, he was unable to get beyond the usual "Hello, how are you--I am fine, how are you--Good-bye." He finished the day with an incredible feeling of isolation--Why, oh why can't I have a real response?

That night he awoke from a dream and in that dream, he was at a party. But no matter what he wanted to say, his own words sounded like a generic voice mail message. It was déjà vu – he heard himself saying the same things again and again and again. He thought: Am I nothing more than an answering machine? And are the people talking to me nothing more than voice mails set to an automatic response?

He went back to sleep. When he woke up again, he realized that his was a world of voice mails and answering machines. Everyone he heard and all that was said was prerecorded. It was a livable reality, comfortable, safe and secure as that of cattle grazing in a meadow.

And yet, it was not the peaceful, natural life of cows in a pasture. It was a robotic existence suspended in an electromechanical web of endless recorded messages.

He realized that his life had been little more than that dream, and that it was a dream he was saying good-bye to. He knew that now he was at the beginning of a journey of heart-to-heart, soul-to-soul communication.

Why Life Does Not Begin at Conception

2008-08-25T16:19:00.000-07:00

Why Life Does Not Begin at Conception

Does a sperm have to be alive before it can fertilize an egg? Of course it does. Only live sperms can propel themselves forward to reach an egg. As for the egg, a dead egg cannot be fertilized. So whatever happens, life had already begun before conception.

True enough, when a sperm joins an egg, the combining of two DNA systems form a new entity, which is a plan, a layout for a new human existence. OK, but is this enough to qualify for the definition of a human being? Is a body without a head or a head without brain a human being? Is a humanoid embryonic miniature without a brain already a human being? The seed of a cherry tree once in the ground is not yet a tree because it does not have the components that define a tree. Indeed, in terms of human life a functioning brain is an essential defining element. Where the definition of death used to be the stoppage of the heart, it is now defined as the moment at which brain activity has ceased.

Basically, an embryo in its early stages is nothing more than a fertilized egg. One could claim that the fertilized egg contains the soul of a future hen or rooster, but in order for the soul to get from the great beyond to the here-on-earth, the soul passes through many steps of implantation such as fertilization, growth, hatching etc., and it would be absurd to claim the soul has a “right” to go from one stage to the next. Any acts on the part of human beings that promote or impede growth are part of the greater picture in which it is decided where and how far any given soul might travel.

No one would claim that anyone eating a fertilized egg for breakfast is eating a chicken. Would disposing of an egg that might contain an almost-hatched chicken mean the “killing of a chicken?” Animal rights activists might label the destruction of a chicken embryo murder because an animal's life is terminated. While we might never ever solve the puzzle of what came first, the chicken or the egg, it is generally understood that a chicken is not an egg, nor is an egg a chicken. Similarly, determining when an embryo becomes a real human being is not altogether different from drawing the boundaries between the chicken and the egg, so let us beware of being bludgeoned by the so-called “pro-life” bullies.

How I Got to my Spiritual Perspective

2008-03-24T12:24:00.000-07:00

(This is a long overdue answer to Art Clarke's comment to my post of October 9, 2007.)

It's been a long process in the making. I remember as a child people celebrating Hitler's birthday and celebrating it as a national holiday. I remember one day suddenly hearing everyone celebrating the fact that the Fuehrer, God's representative on earth, being referred to as an s.o.b. who had just gone away. I remember being in awe of the gold ornaments, powerful organ music and great smell of incense during a Catholic high mass. I remember going to confession as a boy in grade school and the priest taking a keen interest in my sexual awakening.

I remember discovering my Jewish ancestry when I turned fourteen. I remember feeling hurt hearing a priest maligning Jews in a sermon. I remember saying good-bye to Catholicism and feeling incredibly liberated by my departure. I remember seeing the world as “absurd” when I became an existentialist. I remember having a new look at the world through psychedelic trips. I remember becoming aware of how often people do harm to others in the name of religion. I remember discovering an incredible calm through Subud exercises.

I remember becoming aware of a greater reality that is deep in one's being as well as in the outer world. I discovered I had found access to a sensory awareness I had not known existed. I found a calling to observe what and why people think and do whatever they do. I came to the realization that people create a divinity they feel is real, and that they lead their lives in accordance with that creation.

More on Coaching

2008-01-08T16:07:00.000-08:00

Often people are stuck in a workplace or in a dysfunctional relationship, or they cannot decide what career path to take. Or there may be other issues such as finance, ones environment or health. Finding ways for a change may not be easy because habits keep one from being open to new experiences or looking for new paths. Having a life/relationship coach at your side makes it easier to see the bigger picture. You begin to see things in yourself or in your world that you have never noticed. You discover your true vision in life. You learn to draw on abilities you may not have known you had, and you learn to shape your inner and outer environment in accordance with your personal values. Your coach is there to help you discover that what looked like a wasteland can become a world of abundance.

What is Life Coaching?

2008-01-08T15:57:00.000-08:00

The term "coaching" is most readily associated with sports. Let's take prizefighting as an example. Becoming a successful prizefighter requires a natural talent which includes an ability to use ones arms for hitting and warding off a challenger's attacks and an ability to “dance” in the ring in such a way as to outmaneuver the other. The coach sees what the boxer's natural talent is. The boxer is then trained to observe what works especially well and what does not, and to exchange losing ways and movements for winning ones.

A life coach, just as a prizefighter's coach, is not his client's therapist or medical doctor. It is the coach's work to make the client better and better at what he is and what he wants to accomplish. The life coach, after finding out what his client needs and wants, helps his client to find and use his own natural talents to become a master in any arena of the “boxing ring of life."

Needless to say, not all are meant to become prizefighters. Many are drawn to be fishermen, gardeners or who-knows-what other calling. Through the coaching process the client finds out whether or not he/she is on the right path in life and then learns how to find fulfillment in his/her chosen direction.

As a life coach, how do I see the world?

2007-10-09T16:09:00.000-07:00

Is There a God? If So, What Is He/She/It?

Most if not all human beings have a view of how the universe is organized. This includes that which happens in the observable world as well as a construct of that which cannot be seen or directly observed.

The worldview of most religions assumes that what is and what happens in “this world” are the result of laws and events of another world that ultimately rules the observable through messengers and prophets as appear in scriptures such as the Old and New Testaments and the Koran. Punishment and reward are given in accordance to the degree that the member of the religious group follows rules. “Good deeds” are rewarded whereas “evil deeds” are punished. As there is a lot of evidence that many “an evil”person has died a natural death without what would be considered adequate punishment according to a given religion, many religions teach that good and evil deeds will be rewarded and punished in an afterlife. It is thus that religions provide a system that fulfills the human need for order and justice.

Is There a “Hand of God” That Intervenes?

To the traditionally religious, God/Allah is the source of inspiration of all that is good and Satan is the source of inspiration of all that is bad. The position of traditional/ fundamentalist religions generally is to condemn, devalue or ignore all that is outside of the given sphere of their influence. Even if someone outside of the major traditions has an inspiration to invent something that benefits all of humanity, it is generally considered to be something that is not from God because blessings are given only to true believers, that is members of the given religion. The rest of the universe is thus seen as having no positive contact with God even though the Devil, God’s subordinate, is everywhere.

Putting aside the claim on the part of major religions that they hold a monopoly on God and their view of the world is the correct one, can one justify anyone’s claim that there is “something out there” that decides what is good and bad, right and wrong on earth and in the visible universe? Is there such a thing as a spiritual entity that observes, judges and intervenes in human affairs?

Confirmed atheists cringe at the very thought of a superior spiritual entity with power and intelligence. They see it only as an attempt to structure another authoritarian god under a new mantle. Is it simply one more try to assume the presence of a being, whose only proof of existence is “faith?” A “leap of faith” can be taken in any direction, whether it means immersion into the peaceful practices of Quakers or the right-wing Christian fundamentalists’ way of the sword. With this consideration, “faith” can justify all or nothing and its value is ultimately determined by human judgment.

What Is “Spiritual?”

Is there such a thing as “spiritual?” The acknowledgment that there is lies in the word inspiration. Inspiration refers to a receiving from a source outside of our normal behavioral pattern. It means something that has as yet not materialized, so it is “spiritual” by default. Inspiration is a process of transforming elements of the unkown into the known. And how is the unknown accessed? Through putting together the jigsaw puzzle of what is already discovered and an intuitive tapping of the as yet undiscovered. And what is the undiscovered? Unknown systems of energy and matter await being discovered by human beings who seek to uncover and comprehend that which is secret and not yet understood. One can make an a priori assumption that the universe is greater than life as it is already known because.it contains both the discovered as well as the as-yet-to-be discovered. And just as there is unknown matter to be found, it stands to reason that it is likely that there are as-yet-hidden energy systems.

Can Humans Connect to a Supreme Being?

So what is the human being’s path of access to that which is greater? Is it permissible to refer to that “which is greater” as God? Freedom of thought permits any and all structures of cognizance. Someone who chooses a god of jealousy and anger as the key to reality will have inpirations in accordance with that key. Someone who chooses a god of love and peace will be inspired in ways that resonate with that belief. And one who holds that whatever it is can never really be known will be inspired in accordance to his agnostic nature.

In terms of organized religion this writer is a Unitarian Universalist and as such takes the right to affirm or deny any theological assertion. As to my convictions regarding the unknown, one may characterize it as an intuitive, mystical agnosticism.

An Insight into Relationships

2007-04-20T10:28:00.000-07:00

What keeps people locked into a bad relationship?

Have you ever broken up with someone with whom you have had an argumentative relationship over a period of time? You feel “thank God, what a relief! I can now live in peace!” And you feel that having left the toxic relationship behind, you are liberated from the pain you were experiencing.

Then some time later you decide to touch base with that same person because you assume that meeting with him/her won’t be a problem. But then there is a surprise: you suddenly find yourself locked into the same patterns of dispute. It is as though no time at all has lapsed, and the same-old, same-old has not changed. What happened?

You need to realize that relationships have their patterns, in which you and your partner exchange cues to which you have an automatic response. Such a cue can be an irritating word or phrase to which your partner responds with a counter-punch, which then becomes a cue for you to do the same, and lo and behold you are back in the same scenario you thought you had gotten out of.

Is there a basic mechanism that drives dysfunctional relationships?

Painful relationships always have a pattern of knee-jerk reactions that do nothing more than keep the participants locked into whatever the pattern is. For example one partner says to the other “You are always contradicting what I say.” The second partner then defends him/herself with a counter-accusation, setting off a never-ending repartee of blame. The funny thing is that each time a battle begins, the two who are in it act as though it were a brand new fight, each one believing that victory is just around the corner. An experienced observer, however, knows that as much as these battles repeated there is never a victory.

Is there a way to escape from the scenario other than leaving the relationship?

Yes, there is. The partners in the relationship know how to play their roles because they have played them again and again, but oddly enough they don’t really know the nature of their script. A good relationship coach will be able to identify the scenario and help clients see what cues they are getting and/or giving and how they are responding. Once the cues have been recognized the client can then work with options for removing or exchanging them and open the door to creative, positive experiences.

How do you do it?

Working with a good life/relationship coach will allow you to see your situation from angles you may not have known existed. Understanding what is happening leads to a new freedom through which you have new choices. If you want to know more, you can contact me at m.hroth465@yahoo.com.

A Digression into Theology

2006-03-17T16:00:00.000-08:00

Whether you have a religious belief or not, here is a question to consider:

What is the logic behind "The Fall"? God is said to love all of his creatures. This means he would love, among others, the tiger, even though the tiger devours other animals including the occasional human being. The tiger is following his nature when he preys on other creatures, and in so doing is not committing a sin. Instead he is being a true tiger worthy of God's love.
God also created the angels, including Lucifer. Being all-knowing, God would not be surprised at any of his creatures' actions, so he would expect Lucifer to become the great tempter of humanity. So just as the tiger fulfills his role in the world by being a true tiger, Satan is living up to God's expectations when he promotes the "downfall of man", and in so doing is worthy of God's love. As with the tiger eating in order to survive, Satan fulfills his mission by taking man's soul to hell. Is the act of one being consuming another for nourishment an expression of the divine order? Is the process of man losing his soul to the devil a manifestation of God's love? If so, is there such a thing as evil?

Still More on Democracy

2006-02-26T16:08:00.000-08:00

Hi,
You mention that companies that belong to the shareholders have some measure of democracy. This of course is democracy among the owners and not among the employees. I guess when I think of democracy in terms of business, I think about it in the workplace, among the employees and not among the owners. The owners will of course have a lot of power over the employees -- whether the owners are shareholders or one or a small handful of individuals. The owners of a business having a say is not such a big deal to me. It's more of a given. But when the employees have a say -- now that's democracy in the world of business that is of interest to me.

-Brigitte

You are right. True democracy at the workplace is set among the employees. The best set-up in my opinion is one in which the employees are also the owners, which does happen in some rare instances. Of course, no matter what the structure, some members, whether or not they are employees or not, will have more power and influence. The greatest assurance for the existence of democracy in the workplace is a deep-rooted democratic value system of mutual respect between managers and managed, and among peers.

-Howard

More on Democracy

2006-02-23T16:03:00.000-08:00

Hi,I am curious, how do you see democracy working in the context of business? I agree that it at the very least bringing elements of democracy into a business structure makes good business sense, but an organization can also easily get bogged down in consensus and also eventually suffer from an inability to make decisions effectively when it is too consensus driven. What do you think?

---It all depends on the type and size of the firm. With large firms the presence of a union (within which there are always votes taken on major issues) provides a welcome checks and balances element. Then there is the issue of ownership: Countries are, theoretically at least, owned by all of its citizens, so a good constitution like that of the U.S. can lay the groundwork for democracy. Large firms, on the other hand, belonging to the shareholders, have some measure of democracy when the shareholders vote in regards to who will manage the company. Of course, in the case of shareholders they are by no means equal: money determines voting power.
The management of a large company has the option of either setting up democratic structures within the framework of the company, e.g. the various departments will each have a voice, or the management can simply dictate policies. It makes better sense to allow as many voices to be heard as possible, as this will enrich the options available to top management. As to how much democracy there can be in a given business will need to be determined by a number of factors, not the least of which is the nature of the business. A law firm, for instance, or an enterprise with equally gifted scientists will have it easier to have a democratic decision-making structure than a complex factory.
A rule of thumb might be: the more democratic elements a business can maintain in its operation without stiffling quick decision making when it is needed, the better it is

Why Democracy?

2006-02-20T16:06:00.000-08:00

Hello Folks,
I am working on a statement, or you might say essay or whatever, that shows why democracy is a better structure than dictatorship in any social organization whether a national government, a business structure, a non-profit organization or even a family. I am also working to show what kinds of policies, actions and attitudes inhibit individual fulfillment necessary for having a democratic society. How can a public that actively participates in governing a country be reduced to being nothing more than obedient followers of a leader? How is the public fooled into accepting policies that bring about its own economic demise and how can the same public be brought to see through the sham? Let me know what ideas you might want to share.
Till later,
Howard