Still, the most likely scenario for a torture prosecution is something like what happened to ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. His own country wouldn't touch him, but an industrious Spanish prosecutor - aided by the work of human rights activists and backed by international opinion - indicted him for torture and war crimes and nearly snared him. If Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld faced a similar indictment from abroad, Americans would be outraged - but not really. The US government would try to head it off, but wouldn't be able to do much. No one would actually go on trial, but the indictees would see their travel options humiliatingly curtailed and go to their graves knowing the phrase "charged with war crimes" will be next to their names in the history books.

His name and household are only mentioned two times... both in 2 Timothy.  1:16 and 4:19.  In the passage above, which is only three verses, there is a wealth and testimony about how a Christian life is to be lived that is overwhelming.  Consider that he ministered the Apostle Paul in the following ways...

"He often refreshed me..."  There are enough people in the world who are critical, cynical, and negative.  Onesiphorus was not one of them.  His presence, words, and ministry were positive... uplifting... encouraging... and refreshing to one of the Lord's servants.

"Was not ashamed of my chains..."  Often when people encounter criticism, negative press, or are in some time of adversity people withdraw from them.  But not Onesiphorus!  My guess is that those chains of Paul were the envy of this man of God.  They didn't scare him.  They didn't cause him trepidation.  He strode into the prison with hopeful expectation of ministering to a great man of God... the Apostle Paul.

"Searched for me earnestly and found me..."  Onesiphorus went the extra mile to find Paul.  He didn't let anything hinder locating the one he wanted to encourage.  That is what friends do.  That's what brothers and sisters do.  That is what Christians do one for another.  That in its self gave Paul comfort.

Then he served the church in Ephesus in some manner that was well known.  Onesiphorus was not one who only served an individual... he was a servant of the church also.  We don't know what he did, but it was significant enough that it was well know within the Christian community.  And here we are 2,000 years later remembering him.  Wow.

There is a great lesson and call for me in the life of Onesiphorus.  There might be something you could grab hold of for the Kingdom.  Meditate on what is written about Oneisphorus in the Scripture.  Ask God if there is a lesson you can apply.

Onesiphorus Ministry.  That has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

Would you 'talk' to a girl who walked around at school with a very large Bible? Would you want to be seen with her?

What if the roles were reversed and it was one of your male friends who was reading a very large Bible in public? What would you do? Would you ignore him?

How comfortable would you be walking across campus with someone who was carrying an enormous Bible?

It's time for a heart check-up! Let us examine our hearts and how we respond to others who seem different from us.

The reason why I think that deep ecology doesn't quite qualify as a philosophy is that it ties philosophical positions to political action directly, and refuses to differentiate between the two. While this is part of what makes it interesting, it also makes it philosophically vulnerable. Because deep ecology was designed as a movement, it has weak philosophical foundations. When asked to defend his value of interconnectedness, for example, Naess falls back on Spinoza's metaphysics. Since Spinoza's metaphysics have a substantial supernatural component, I think they're untenable. I also think that his ideas regarding substance are quasi-mystical at best, and nonsensical at worst. There are a lot of better ways to defend the idea that by endorsing the values of deep ecology, you're also endorsing an idea that will help the progress of the human race in general. We don't need enlightenment or 19th century philosophy to back us up on this point-- 20th and 21st century philosophy can do the job just fine.

For example, consider evolutionary ethics. There are a couple people out there who are trying to blend work in evolutionary psychology on the nature of altruism with traditional systems of ethics. It's important to note that this kind of work is mostly descriptive, and not prescriptive, so it's not the strongest kind of ethics. What it does describe, however, is some basic reasons why ethical action is important to humans as a species. Beyond that, we can take cultural and pragmatic hints and flesh out the sort of ethics we think are important, and they will become important (kind of like hauling yourself up by your bootstraps) just because they are things we value. Our ethics will then become twofold-- one part descriptive and very naturalistic, one part prescriptive and pragmatic. Knowledge of the first will help inform how we want to develop the second, until we can answer the question of how we should act.

With that sort of system, we don't need to rely on a spinozistic metaphysics or the other quasi-mystical principles that Naess is into in order to get to the goals that Naess wants. Since I agree with his goals, but not his foundation, this is just where I want to be. To return to talking about the value of interconnectedness, let's take a critical look at Naess' foundation. He believes in the interconnectedness of beings because of a unity of substance in the world-- since all beings are made out of one kind of substance, we're all connected because of similar qualities. Some beings have a different, sort of divine substance which enables conscious action, and we as humans are also made up of this substance. Because of this, we can improve the overall quality of substance by maximizing the flourishing of all beings. Naess has a very special definition of flourishing that differs only slightly from the idea of utilitarian good, but since they're mostly analogous to one another I won't go into it here.

But we can defend the value of interconnectedness without all that talk about substances by taking a more naturalistic turn. First, we have some biological similarity with other beings. This is closest with other primates, mammals, and then spreads out from there. We are also increasingly concerned with sustainable development, partially because we're starting to realize (as a political whole, hopefully), that our lifestyle depends upon a better stewardship of the resources we use to maintain those lifestyles. As our interests are similar to the interests of some other creatures on the planet, and also tied up within the interests of other non-human beings, it makes sense pragmatically to place more value on how our goods are tied up with the goods of non-humans. If we want better lifestyles for increasing numbers of people, it seems like this is a value that will help us achieve that goal. All of that teleological ethical thinking is valid, and it doesn't rely on Naess' more spaced-out thinking. That is where we should all want to be.

Crazy Janey and her mission man were back in the alley tradin' hands
`long came Wild Billy with his friend G-man all duded up for Saturday night
Well Billy slammed on his coaster brakes and said anybody wanna go on up to Greasy Lake
It's about a mile down on the dark side of route eighty-eight
I got a bottle of rose so let's try it
We'll pick up Hazy Davy and Killer Joe and I'll take you all out to where the gypsy angels go
They're built like light
and they dance like spirits in the night (all night) in the night (all night)
Oh, you don't know what they can do to you
Spirits in the night (all night), in the night (all night)
Stand right up now and let it shoot through you

Well now Wild young Billy was a crazy cat and he shook some dust out of his coonskin cap.
He said, "Trust some of this it'll show you where you're at, or at least it'll help you really feel it"
By the time we made it up to Greasy Lake I had my head out the window and Janey's fingers were in the cake
I think I really dug her `cause I was too loose to fake
I said, "I'm hurt." She said, "Honey let me heal it".
And we danced all night to a soul fairy band
and she kissed me just right like only a lonely angel can
She felt so nice, just as soft as a spirit in the night (all night)
In the night (all night). Janey don't know what she do to you
Like a spirit in the night (all night), in the night (all night)
Stand right up and let her shoot through me.

Now the night was bright and the stars threw light on Billy and Davy
dancin' in the moonlight
They were down near the water in a stone mud fight
Killer Joe gone passed out on the lawn
Well now Hazy Davy got really hurt, he ran into the lake in just his socks and a shirt
Me and Crazy Janey was makin' love in the dirt singin' our birthday songs
Janey said it was time to go
So we closed our eyes and said goodbye to gypsy angel row, felt so right
Together we moved like spirits in the night, all night
Baby don't know what they can do to you
Spirits in the night, all night
Stand right up and let it shoot right through you

Bruce Springsteen

But there is one ambiguous passage in the Gospels in which Jesus MAY have indicated an openess to same-sex covenantal love.  I want to be very cautious here.  I have been told about a Norwegian woman (a Baptist pastor, actually) who completed a Ph.D. in New Testament at the University of Manchester in the U.K.  She investigated this pericope rather thoroughly. But the dissertation has not yet been published and so I have not seen the evidence for her conclusions. So, what follows, is a possibility that bears further investigation--but without that further investigation would be (in Lee's words about how Richard Hays treats Rom. 1 on the other side of this debate) "too thin a reed on which to build a case one way or the other."

In Matthew 19, Jesus condemns divorce (except for porneia, indicating some kind of sexual sin, usually thought to be adultery), using God's created intentions to overturn Mosaic law (which allowed men to seek divorce). The disciples, blown away by the idea that they may have learn conflict resolution with their wives, mutter that it may be better not to marry at all.

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.  For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; others have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.  The one who can accept this word, should do so." Matt. 19:11-12.

Now, traditionally, this passage has been interpreted to mean that Jesus was advocating celibacy, but that is not clear.

• The word "eunuchs" is not really an English translation of the Greek ενουκοι. Rather, it is simply a transliteration. 
• Because of the influence of the KJV, modern English uses the term "eunuch" to mean a castrated male. But did the term have that meaning in the ancient world?
• In the dissertation to which I have referred (but I have seen only a summary, not the evidence),  a broad range of materials is consulted and it seems that "eunuch" had a much wider meaning in the 1st C. Mediterranean world--referring to any male who deviated from the cultural norm of marrying and begetting children. It was even used to refer to men who married and did not beget children. It was also used, I am given to understand, to refer to men who had longterm male lovers--NOT to pederasts or to temple prostitutes, etc.
• Now, traditionally, this passage has been used to endorse celibacy, but the topic under discussion is marriage.
• Jesus says that some are eunuchs (that is, men who do not marry and beget children) because they were made that way by men. These are probably castrated males such as many cultures used for herem guards.
• Jesus says that some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the early church, Origen took this to mean that some should castrate themselves and he did so.  Fortunately, most of the church did not follow this pattern.  Those who would be "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom" have been voluntarily celibate--as apparently Jesus and Paul were. (In light of his belief that Jesus would return any minute, Paul wished all Christians were "as I am"--apparently meaning celibate, but recognized that it took a special gift of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 7:7--a chapter in which Paul also indicates that an acceptable basis for Christian (heterosexual) marriage is to control one's otherwise uncontrollable lust! Nice.)
• Jesus says some eunuchs "were born that way." Is he talking only of males born with some genital defect? Or is referring also to men who do not marry and have children because they were born with desires for their own sex?

Caution: Even if Jesus has people we would call "gay" or "lesbian," those with homosexual orientation, in mind as part of the category of "born eunuchs," the passage does not indicate what Jesus would have them do--except that it is clear that, contrary to his own Jewish culture, he does not order them to marry or condemn them for not marrying.  "Family" takes on broader than biological meaning in Christianity.  But Jesus does not say, "all born eunuchs must remain celibate," either.

Is this a veiled positive word for gay and lesbian Christians?  I don't think it is clear, but I do think it is a possibility worth further investigation.

Let those accept this who can.

Next, I will wind up this series by moving beyond reading of the few texts in Scripture relating to this topic to giving a theological rationale for welcoming and affirming GLBT Christians fully into the life of the church, including blessing same-sex unions analagous to heterosexual marriage.

Please, do NOT show up to anywhere I am not inviting you to/isn't a huge event and try to approach me like it's no big deal. It would not be cool at all.

Now I'm admittedly an open book to an extent. Much of my basic information is public knowledge. I've considered going private many times just thinking about these crazies. Like many women, I take a chance at leaving these doors open.

But hearing about this true story of one man who did this to someone I know got to me a little.  It's now an awkward.. wait, now that they're in my social network are they going to do that to me?

I explained to the person that what they did to the girl was not kosher.  He said he got it, but I don't think he really understands the extremity of it.  I want to quietly step away.. but am stuck.

The last thing that I want when out with a group of my friends is some random stranger coming up to me saying they found out where I was via a social geotagger.  If you're going to be in the area and want to meet me- fine.  Dm me.  Text me.  Ask if it's alright.  Otherwise, assume it's not, unless you are already a friend in real life.

I have only one thing left to say.

I don't just wear heels because they're pretty...

Just shows how McCain has the same ethics as his sweetheart.  The man is not fit to be President or Commander-in-Chief. If Obama had done this to him, he'd by crying bloody murder. And for good reason.

This was reported yesterday from Reuters. And as we know, Obama did indeed travel to the Middle East this weekend:

Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.
The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Josh Marshall points out that there's something very wrong with this:

The Reuters piece hints at it. But if Obama is going to be in Iraq this weekend, this is a major breach on McCain's part. As a knowledgeable insider notes ...
"If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publicly. Even for run-of-the-mill CODELs the military gives guidance like, "Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC." If Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, I can not begin to imagine how much this is complicating the security planning for the trip."

It's known that Obama is leaving on his foreign trip this weekend and the Journal OpEd page this morning said that Obama could arrive in Iraq "as early as this weekend." And with a slew of reporters in tow, it's not exactly highly classified information. But there is a reason definite information about these sorts of trips aren't released in advance.

Hypothetically, maybe McCain was just guessing. But even so it would still be a serious lapse of judgment on his part.

In fact, McCain was furious when the press reported on his son serving in Iraq -- he feared the coverage would make him a target. ]]> http://circleh.wordpress.com/?p=94 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:03:05 +0000 Dale Husband http://circleh.wordpress.com/?p=94 OK, let me get this straight
First the Bush Adminstration attempts to define the prisoners at Gitmo as neither criminal suspects nor as POWs. It should be noted that the former class are forbidden to be tortured under the Bill of Rights, while the second class are prohibited from being tortured under the Geneva Conventions. Then to cover their @$$es further, the Bush Adminstration attempts to reclassify waterboarding, excluding it as a form of torture. 

What is one supposed to conclude from that? You join the points together and thus conclude that waterboarding, and other forms of torture, are probably being done at Gitmo. And do you not think that's why those prisoners were sent to Gitmo in the first place, to try to prevent the public from seeing what was about to take place there? Even German or Japanese POWs during World War II were never sent to Gitmo. 

If such nonsense was ever done to American citizens by any other government, we'd all be howling in protest about it. But we are Americans who were so hurt by 9-11, so we can do whatever we want to anyone we please. We are special! We are better than all other peoples! We can't trust THEM to live their own lives out without us looking constantly over their shoulders to make sure they do things OUR way. All because a few extremists nuts rammed a few planes into a few buildings, we go ballistic and throw due process out the window and put ourselves in a perpetual state of "war". Remember, war is good for business too.

Of course, that doesn't absolutely PROVE that torture and other human rights violations have taken place at Gitmo. But when the police have probable cause that a criminal suspect has committed a crime, even if it wasn't done openly, they are duty bound to arrest the suspect. Likewise, we Americans are duty bound by our allegiance to the US Constitution to end the detaining of the prisoners at Gitmo and investigate those who detained them. No one should be above the law!

Five state police detectives wanted to seize Kimball Public Library's public access computers as they frantically searched for a 12-year-old girl, acting on a tip that she sometimes used the terminals.

Flint demanded a search warrant, touching off a confrontation that pitted the privacy rights of library patrons against the rights of police on official business.

"It's one of the most difficult situations a library can face," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director of intellectual freedom issues for the American Library Association.

[snip]

"What I observed when I came in were a bunch of very tall men encircling a very small woman," said the library's director, Amy Grasmick, who held fast to the need for a warrant after coming to the rescue of the 4-foot-10 Flint.

Library records and patron privacy have been hot topics since the passage of the U.S. Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Library advocates have accused the government of using the anti-terrorism law to find out — without proper judicial oversight or after-the-fact reviews — what people research in libraries.

But the investigation of Brooke Bennett's disappearance wasn't a Patriot Act case.

"We had to balance out the fact that we had information that we thought was true that Brooke Bennett used those computers to communicate on her MySpace account," said Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police. "We had to balance that out with protecting the civil liberties of everybody else, and this was not an easy decision to make."

What's the big deal?

Flint was firm in her confrontation with the police.

"The lead detective said to me that they need to take the public computers and I said 'OK, show me your warrant and that will be that,'" said Flint, 56. "He did say he didn't need any paper. I said 'You do.' He said 'I'm just trying to save a 12-year-old girl,' and I told him 'Show me the paper.'"

Cybersecurity expert Fred H. Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, said the librarians acted appropriately.

"If you've told all your patrons 'We won't hand over your records unless we're ordered to by a court,' and then you turn them over voluntarily, you're liable for anything that goes wrong," he said.

A new Vermont law that requires libraries to demand court orders in such situations took effect July 1, but it wasn't in place that June day. The library's policy was to require one.

The librarians did agree to shut down the computers so no one could tamper with them, which had been a concern to police.

Once in police hands, how broadly could police dig into the computer hard drives without violating the privacy of other library patrons?

Baker wouldn't discuss what information was gleaned from the computers or what state police did with information about other people, except to say the scope of the warrant was restricted to the missing girl investigation.

"The idea that they took all the computers, it's like data mining," said Caldwell-Stone. "Now, all of a sudden, since you used that computer, your information is exposed to law enforcement and can be used in ways that (it) wasn't intended.'"

Хороший рассказ. И тон/стиль/динамика выбраны точно.

Мешает только некоторая невнятность термина "наивность". Наивность - это качество бессознательное. Может существовать до первой встречи с уродливой действительностью. Когда же ситуация многократно повторяется по идентичному сценарию о наивности говорить, по-моему, не приходится.

Тут могут возникнуть несколько обьяснений (как угодно много, на самом деле; ваши предположения приветствуются)

-* самое простое (и хочется надеяться, не подходящее к случаю) - повтор обьясняется банальной необучаемостью. Вчера только прочитала у одного поразительно самодовольного персонажа - girls only respond to a repetitious pep talk- see comment#1. "If she doesn't respond to either type..., she's a lost cause, unmarriageable in any society."

-* сознательно декларируемый принцип этики отношений. Ладонь, открытая рукопожатию. Принятие риска. Отказ от банального "ведения счёта в битве полов". Неприятие самой идеи такой битвы. Надежда, что своим примером избавишь человека от тины мелочности, расчётов и низких инстинктов. Добросовестная лояльность. Коротко говоря - благородство.

-* стихийное христианство. Подставь щеку; убогие духом войдут в царствие Твоё; не пострадаешь - не спасёшься, милость к падшим и прочее. Впрочем, последнее не совсем из той оперы.

-*элементарная живучесть. Короткая память, помноженная на упрямство. То, что в англ. ёмко называется bounce. Ванька-встанька: меня ударили, я упаду, поплачу, - глядь, снова здорово. Готов к труду. Но отнюдь не к обороне, в данном случае. Кстати, в пользу этого варианта говорит "бездонный взгляд". Бездонность эта может ведь быть признаком фанатизма...

-*многократно описаный мазохистсткий цикл. Поведенческая модель жертвы. Поиски, иногда бессознательные, такого типа мужчины, который наиболее вероятно будет обижать; мил  весь спектр:  от словесных оскорблений до рукоприкладства. Даже провоцирование такого поведения партнёра. Юродивое наслаждение унижением: мне плюют в лицо, а я выше этого - я вас прощаю. Эта модель была предметом недавнего разговора с собеседником онлайн, так что пришлось почитать немного на тему. Оказалось - довольно распространённое явление.

Частица Клары в нас

Заключена подчас

А вот какая ближе именно мне - по-моему, понятно.

Check out Miss Model Behavior's blog for her little July 17 post on promoters, fromoters, and nomoters. Great insight into the social world of an in-demand NYC model. Must read for guys looking to raise their standards in entourage game.

Thanks for Christian for directing me to it. You can also find it linked in his article. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Christian consistently dates (LTRs), charms, and maintains as orbiters and friends hotter women than anyone else I know of in the industry. Soon I'm going to be announcing a new, revolutionary program he's offering.

Now to the main course.

Being Genuine: Miss High Class and The Sexy Ass Poster Girl

This is the lead up to a Lay Report of a cute Japanese girl SNL. It all happened on the same night.

INTERACTION #1
At the start of Saturday night, Adam spotted two hot girls all dolled up in perfectly form-fitting designer clothes and carrying that air of high status. He said, “Those two are the hottest girls in this club. I see no reason why you can’t have them in the palm of your hands by the end of the night. But first win over the venue. Then you’ll have them.” Clear enough. That was my challenge. And I wanted to give Adam’s “extreme social proof game” a fair try.

For the first hour or so, I talked to every group in the bar, including the all guy groups.

Here’s what I did.

1. I asked, “Hey, y’all having a good time, tonight?” (got this money line from Sebastian). Here’s a TIP: Never ask a group an open-ended question like, “How are you doing tonight?” Ask groups yes-or-no questions. It makes it much easier for them to give you compliance.
2. They usually responded enthusiastically, “Yeah, yeah.”
3. Then I said either, “Cool! I just got into town from Beijing and I’m soo loving being back in TO.” Or, “Cool! I love this roof top patio. It’s awesome being able to see the night sky and… imagining what the stars would look like if you could actually see them.”
4. Then, I asked, “What brings you guys out tonight?”
5. If they responded enthusiastically and genuinely, I’d riff off that. If they weren’t so friendly, which happened a couple of times, I said, “Cool. Have a nice night,” and moved to the next group.
6. When they responded well, I said, “Haha. Hey, my name’s David. What’s your name?” And then we went around the circle introducing ourselves.
7. Then I got them talking again and, without saying goodbye, rolled off to open the group next to us, which is stronger. Or, I said, “Hey, I’m gonna spread the love. Maybe I’ll see ya later!” which is a little weaker, but also fine.

This whole interaction takes less than 30 seconds. If you are constantly “in set,” then in 10 minutes, you will have opened 20 groups. Assuming the average group is 3 people, you’ll have introduced yourself to 60 people in 10 minutes. 60 people now know your name!

I’m pretty bad with names, and I remembered only about 10% of the names, but Adam said that it was no problem. He calls everyone, “Love,” “Babe,” “Sweetie,” or whatever nickname. I started doing the same, and it was fine, most of the time.

Of course, I wasn’t constantly in set. I also chatted with wings and stayed in some groups too long. But overall, after about a half hour, I indeed had introduced myself to over 20 people.

Talk about short sets! But that’s the key to working a room. Keep moving.

After about 30-45 minutes, I was tired of the short sets and picked a couple of groups to make my base group. I got back in with them and had longer conversations.

At about the 1.5 hour mark, I noticed that the original two girls Adam had called out as the “hottest girls in the club” were still by the bar. So I made my way over.

I opened the adjacent group, which consisted in 2 guys and a cute girl. The alpha male took a liking to me, and we vibed on his profession, which was a hair stylist at a fancy salon in the suburbs. He was cool and fun to talk to. I even got some free hair styling advice.

I then transitioned to the target group, which was now one alpha guy and the two girls. Good thing that Adam had noticed the alpha guy earlier and pointed him out as a friend of the two girls, so I had already opened him at the start of the night.

I forcibly put my hand on Alpha Guy’s shoulder and said, “Hey, man, you having a good night tonight?”

He was friendly enough, and I faced and talked to him solely for a couple of minutes. The girls were just standing there watching and when I turned to face them, they introduced themselves. Bingo.

Unfortunately, I think I rolled off of Alpha Guy too fast, and he knew right then what I was up to. Ah well. I had waited over an hour to talk to these girls, and the build up probably made me lose my patience.

I quickly vibed with the girl who was giving me the most eye contact and who was constantly smiling. I’ll call her HBHighClass.

We got basic rapport. She asked where I was from. I told her about how I had lived in China and was now visiting friends and family in Toronto. We talked about my upcoming move to Singapore and my plans to visit NYC. We vibed about NYC and traveling around the world.

She shared with me about her recent trips to the Greek islands and Cuba.

She asked me what I did. I opted not to go for the Indiana Jones grounding story since, just going by appearances, she looked like the high maintenance type who probably doesn’t have much experience trekking through mountain ranges in Asia.

I went instead with the lifestyle consulting route.

HBHighClass: So what do you do?
The Asian Rake: I’m in lifestyle consulting.
HBHighClass: What does your consulting work involve?
The Asian Rake: Well, I coach people with their social skills… Have you seen the movie “Hitch”?

She was fascinated. We vibed about social psychology and relationships for quite a long time.

I let it slip that I was a university professor. She wanted to know more about what I teach. And we vibed about love, happiness, and the meaning of life.

We talked about her job as a marketing executive for a 5-star hospitality management company.

I noticed that she had matched her shoes, purse, earrings, and necklace with her black and white dress. She said she usually wears a lot more color.

I told her I thought she’d look great in a Pucci dress with lots of red and orange. Here’s where things got out of control.

I began to put on airs, acting more high class than I was. I was bluffing. And I was going to get called out soon.

The Asian Rake: “I said Pucci, not Gucci. Every time I say Pucci, people think I’m saying Gucci.”

HBHighClass: “Yes, I know Pucci. I bought one of their scarves last season. It’s my favorite scarf.”

Alpha Guy had been standing nearby for a while, and at this he turned in: “What are you talking about?”

HBHighClass: “We’re talking about Pucci.”

Alpha Guy: “You mean Gucci?”

HBHighClass and I shared a little laugh. I said: “You see what I mean.”

HBHighClass said to Alpha Guy: “No, no. Pucci is another designer.”

The Asian Rake: “Pucci is most well known for making prints of bold, vibrant swirls of color.” Here’s the truth, though. I really didn’t know much about Pucci beyond this. I was talking well outside my expertise.

Alpha Guy: “Oh, I don’t know much about clothes. I only know Gucci. I’ve never heard of Pucci.” He gave a goofy smile. He said this in a breezy manner that conveyed that he was perfectly comfortable with his lack of knowledge of Pucci. He didn’t need to put on airs. He was happy with himself.

Yet at the time, I thought I had just AMOGged him.

In retrospect, I think it would have been best if I had stopped here, contact closed, and moved on. But I raised the stakes.

Alpha Guy wandered off, being unable to contribute much to the conversation.

HBHighClass and I moved on to discuss Prada’s new line with their elegant take on the mandarin collar. She was very impressed, especially since I didn’t appear to be gay.

At one point, she reached behind me to the bar (I was already locked in against the bar) to grab her bottle of water.

I teased her for drinking water at the club. And then I saw that she wasn’t drinking Evian. I’m a big fan of Evian water. I really think it’s smoother and tastes better than the other, cheaper brands of bottled water. But this attempt at putting on airs totally backfired.

HBHighClass, looking at me skeptically: “Uh, actually Fiji Water is about three times more expensive than Evian.”

That threw me for a loop. Who knew that that cheap-looking bottle was actually more expensive than Evian? I didn’t. I started getting into bottled waters while living in China, and I don’t recall seeing Fiji Water there. (Note: Now that I’ve checked, I’ve found that Fiji Water is only slightly more expensive than Evian.)

Now there are so many better ways I could’ve handled this. I could’ve questioned whether being more expensive implied being better tasting. I could’ve owned up to my ignorance, laughed it off, and changed the subject (threadcut). I could’ve remarked that they must not have Fiji Water in China. I could’ve joked about how Fiji Water was the most expensive when Fijians themselves make so little on average and that Fijians probably can’t even afford to drink their own water! Any of those would’ve been fine.

Instead, I amplified the negative thread by challenging her, grabbing the bottle out of her hand to examine the nutritional contents listed on the label.

She grabbed the bottle back and looked at the nutritional contents herself. It was friendly enough but the dynamic had already shifted.

LESSON: Being GENUINE and authentic is always better than pretending to be someone you’re not or putting on airs. I was pretending to know a lot about fancy water. I really don’t know much at all. I had just recently converted to Evian. But after pulling off the Pucci bluff, I got arrogant and pretended to be of a higher socio-economic class than I really was. I hadn’t done my homework on the bottled water scene, and I shouldn’t have pretended to know more than I actually did.

The rest of the interaction was fine. I contact-closed her, and as far as the external goals go, I did fine.

But more importantly, I learned an important lesson: Be proud of who you are and where you are at now in life. You can strive to improve yourself, as everyone should. But realize that the living is in the striving, not in the goal. Be GENUINE, authentic, and honest about your limits. It’s emotionally healthy, as well as very attractive.

INTERACTION #2
It was now around 1:30am. I had spent at least two hours working my way up to HBHighClass. I used Adam’s strategy of working the room and winning over the venue.

Geez, it sure takes patience to run this kind of game. I was very lucky that HBHighClass stuck around for a few hours and didn’t bounce to another venue before I got to her. In Toronto, the exorbitant cover charges and door lines are long enough to deter extensive club hopping. In Beijing, this just isn’t the case. We usually visit 3-4 venues in one night back in China. In this way, we’re able to have a lot more girls to choose from.

Being an introvert by nature, I was quite tired from all the excessive socializing. Introducing myself to 30+ people in a couple of hours just to talk to the one hot girl really enervated me. I needed to recharge.

Luckily, the ground floor of the club featured a chill lounge and small Asian-themed bar. We were on the upstairs rooftop patio, which was much more tropical and a lot more crowded than the downstairs bar.

So I went downstairs to sit at the bar (they still had a few stools left there) and zone out for a few minutes. I had passed the bar a few times on the way to the downstairs restroom and had already noticed a really sexy Asian bartender.

Yes, Asian. You know me. I couldn’t resist ;-)

It was already a little past 1:30 am. There wasn’t much time left. I was sober enough to remember that Toronto bars close at 2. I couldn’t dick around with the 2-hour “win over the venue” strategy.

I dropped the gloves. I decided to play my own game, the way I like it.

Genuine Game: The Way of the Rake. Come from a positive, healthy place, and then just be playfully honest :-)

I took the one empty stool at the bar and ordered a Manhattan with a “little bit ‘a love.” (Credit: Alex Chase) HBBartender got my order but was also busy with three other orders. So I laid back and let her work.

(Btw, the guys who were there should recognize which one she is in this picture.)

Soon, she was free, and I made eye contact and motioned her to come over.

The Asian Rake: “Hey, you know, I’m still sitting here because I think you are the cutest bartender in here.”

HBBartender gave me a huge smile and tapped my hand with her index finger: “Oh, thank you! You’re so sweet.”

And then she started to walk away towards the cash register as if she had to enter some figures on it. I could tell it was that flirtatious “I’m so proud of myself” walk. I just made her night ;-)

The Asian Rake, with a sly smile: “You know, I don’t bite. You can touch me with two fingers next time.”

HBBartender looked back and smiled and gave me strong eye contact.

The Asian Rake: “So you’re a cute one. But what else do you have going for you? Name three things that would make me want to get to know you.” I first heard this line from Neil Strauss.

HBBartender stopped working and turned to face me completely: “Well, I’m really into sales.”

Hmm, this is not what I usually hear when I ask this question. Still, I should reward the effort.

The Asian Rake, nodding my head approvingly: “Hmm, sales, eh? Why sales?”

And then she went into how she was working another full-time job in online sales, and how she wanted to move into real-estate sales.

I mentioned some of my friends in real-estate, and we chatted about real estate in China versus the US. She was asking me for advice on the US scene. I told her (having learned the lesson above) that I really didn’t know much about the scene myself, but that I could refer her to my friends who do. She was excited about that.

Right around then, a tall male co-worker joined her at the bar and started inputting data into the register. HBBartender turned to help her co-worker. They then started taking inventory of the bar, writing down how much was left of the big bottles in the glass fridges.

In between her work, she asked me questions about myself, talking with me as if we were in her kitchen while she was cooking and talking to me at the same time. We talked about where I've traveled, etc. The male co-worker was super nice and joined in on the conversation, too.

I could tell they were going to start closing out the cash register soon, which I knew would take up all their concentration since you want to be very careful when you’re doing that.

So after she we chatted about investing in real estate in Asia, I said, “You probably need to get back to work soon. But it’d be cool to catch a lunch or something some time.”

HBBartender: “Yeah, for sure.”

And then we traded digits.

I hung around the bar until they closed, chatting with a student on Adam’s bootcamp.

She sent me a link to her site a week later. She’s a professional bikini, lingerie, and centerfold model. As per my policy on LRs, I won’t reveal her identity, though I'm tempted to do it. She’s a real sweetie. You’ll just have to take my word on it ;-)

To be continued...

Happy playin', The Asian Rake.

Problem resolution can occur anywhere from the mouth of the river to its point of origin. But the farther downstream one goes, the more resources one needs to throw at blocking or redirecting the flow, and the flow may not redirect to where it is wanted to go.  It may overflow, leave some areas dyr, and it may cause unintended consequences and damages.

If you successfully find the point of origin and cap it, you can effectively and permanently stop the water flow or redirect it under total control, thereby eliminating or at least effectively minimizing unintended consequences, damage and harm.

That analogy is useful to me, and it's how I've developed my views toward systems, organizations, policy and project management.

It is the analogy I've been using while developing my views on an effective Constitutional restoration. Today, The Nation posted a thoughtful column which includes an agenda which, in my view, comes very close to getting to the point of origin of the problem. If this agenda is demanded of candidates and government officials (elected and appointed) at all levels, we may have a real chance at righting the USS Titanic.

Citizen action:Voters in Brattleboro and Marlboro, Vermont this spring approved a measure that instructs police to arrest President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," should they venture into those precincts.

All these developments suggest approaches that might be used to hold Bush Administration war criminals accountable. Establishing accountability for US war crimes in the Iraq war era is the sine qua non for initiating a new era on different principles. Here are nine reasons why we must not let bygones be bygones:

1. World peace cannot be achieved without human rights and accountability.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals, "The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Moving in that direction will be impossible unless such responsibility applies to the statesmen of the world's most powerful countries, and above all the world's sole superpower. US support for the war crimes charges like those just brought by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir will represent little more than hypocrisy if US Presidents are not held to the same standard.

2. The rule of law is central to our democracy.

Most Americans believe that even the highest officials are bound by law. If we send mentally-disabled juveniles to prison as adults, but let government officials who authorize torture and launch illegal wars go scot-free, we destroy the very basis of the rule of law.

3. We must not allow precedents to be set that promote war crimes.

Executive action unchallenged by Congress changes the way our law is interpreted. According to Robert Borosage, writing for Huffington Post, "If Bush's extreme assertions of power are not challenged by the Congress, they end up not simply creating new law, they could end up rewriting the Constitution itself."

4. We must restore the principles of democracy to our government.

The claim that the President, as commander-in-chief, can exercise the unlimited powers of a king or dictator strikes at the very heart of our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, we, as citizens, would "submit ourselves to rules only if under rules." Countries like Chile can attest that the restoration of democracy and the rule of law requires more than voting a new party into office--it requires a rejection of impunity for the criminal acts of government officials.

5. We must forestall an imperialist resurgence.

When they are out of office, the advocates of imperial expansion and global domination have proven brilliant at lying in wait to undermine and destroy their opponents.

They did it to destroy the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They'll do it again to an Obama Administration unless their machinations are exposed and discredited first.

6. We must have national consensus on the real reasons for the Bush Administration's failures.

Republicans are preparing to dominate future decades of American politics by blaming the failure of the Iraq war on those who "sent a signal" that the US would not "stay the course" whatever the cost. Establishing the real reasons for the failure of the US in Iraq--the criminal and anti-democratic character of the war--is the necessary condition for defeating that effort.

7. We must restore America's damaged reputation abroad.

The world has watched as the United States--the self-proclaimed steward of democracy--has systematically broken the letter and spirit of its Constitution, violated international treaties, and ignored basic moral tenets of humanity. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora recently pointed out to the Senate Armed Services Committee, our nation's "policy of cruelty" has violated our "overarching foreign policy interests and our national security." To establish international legitimacy, we must demonstrate that we are capable of holding our leaders to account.

8. We must lay the basis for major change in US foreign policy.

Real security in the era of global warming and nuclear proliferation must be based on international cooperation. But genuine cooperation requires that the US entirely repudiate the course of the past eight years. The American people must understand why international cooperation rather than pursuit of global domination is necessary to their own security. And other countries must be convinced that we really mean it.

9. We must deter future US war crimes.

The specter of more war crimes haunts our future. Rumors continue to circulate about an American or American-backed Israeli attack on Iran. A recently introduced House resolutionpromoted by AIPAC "demands" that the President initiate what is effectively a blockade against Iran--an act seen by some as tantamount to a declaration of war. Nothing could provide a greater deterrent to such future war crimes than establishing accountability for those of the past.

Holding war criminals accountable will require placing the long-term well-being of our country and the world ahead of short-term political advantage. As Rep. Wexler put it, "We owe it to the American people and history to pursue the wrongdoing of this Administration whether or not it helps us politically or in the next election. Our actions will properly define the Bush Administration in the eyes of history and that is the true test."

To oversimplify, my argument is somewhat like this — Eliezer tells this tale:

Someone says to you: "My miracle snake oil can rid you of lung cancer in just three weeks." You reply: "Didn't a clinical study show this claim to be untrue?" The one returns: "This notion of 'truth' is quite naive; what do you mean by 'true'?"

And i say: i can't really conceive anyone that, spoken like this, would answer anything except: "My notion of 'truth' might be naive but you are still not getting my money for your whatever-it-is-oil!"

If you didn't read the Simple Truth article, let me present an abstract. It is all a farcical fable. A shepherd "invents" a system of using pebbles on a bucket to count his sheep to help management, and his method gets gossiped as a "magic bucket". Then a sophisticate snob called Mark appears to see what's the magic. They begin arguing, and Mark ends up saying that the bucket can't work (despite seeing it working), because everything is subjective. After that, he transforms into a litcrit caricature, dropping all sort of ridiculous arguments. Finally, a guy named (not so unbiasedly) Darwin comes, proposes that if Mark sustains that everything is belief then he should really believe to be able to fly and jump off of a cliff.

Eliezer (and he's definitely not the first to try to sell me this one) is arguing that despite being intellectually indefensible, we can still "use" the idea of truth "naively" without problems. Even without complicated, elaborate, detailed, complete "definitions of truth", the basic idea is still useful. What is true is, and that's that.

Unhappily, every time in his fable that a credible argument against — well, against whatever it is that he defends, i'll call it realism here for short, and the opposition relativism — anytime a valuable argument against realism is posed, by Mark, it is posed as a mere caricature of the original arguments, completely out of their contexts and over-expanded. It's just eristik's first stratagem.

Mark is just a caricature. When, for example, he says:

Look, you're taking the wrong attitude by treating my statements as hypotheses, and carefully deriving their consequences. You need to think of them as fully general excuses, which I apply when anyone says something I don't like. It's not so much a model of how the universe works, as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

he is not exactly saying what relativists actually defend, he is saying what realists prejudicedly think they should defend. Eliezer is saying: to defend that there is no truth should lead you to defend such stupidity. But why so?

Imagine that the whole universe was a simple dualistic ensemble of one brain and one TV-screen. The TV would be the matterless subjective non-true phenomena of the brain-subject. Nothing that the subject sees or feels is "real" or "true", it is just something in a screen. But even then, why should this subject be unable to observe correlations between different stimuli on the screen? For example, if every time a saber-tooth tiger appears on the screen he also feels a bite on the feet. Or every time he sees a green mushroom he feels better. Why couldn't he learn to run from the tiger and run towards the mushroom?

In our case, why should Mark not fear jumping from the cliff even if he believed that the cliff was a belief? If everything in the universe is belief, that should definitely mean that beliefs can hurt!

When you put aside all the flowering language and so called "unbiased" methodology of the realists, what you find is that they are giving — for free, mind you — giving to truth a whole lot of properties that they simply cannot prove truth to have — or for that matter disprove, or even discuss their motives for so believing.

The obvious example is effectiveness. Case in point, the shepherd's truth is more powerful than Mark's relativism, so Mark dies. Mark's is (supposedly) forced to jump from a cliff because his beliefs "do not work".

Nevertheless, for example, Aristotelian physics did work on his time, and in day-to-day life it actually works much better than Newtonian mechanics! Almost nothing we experience directly obeys, for example, inertia, and i certainly do not feel other people's gravity.

I know that the discrepancies were explained — but i also know that in Galileo's time this very same "simple truth" argument was used against the now established "scientific" idea of heliocentrism. (For anyone interested in this debate, i heartily recommend Feyerabend's Against Method. Really. It's simply wonderful.)

The development of our opinions and understandings happens through a delicate process, in which we compare our experiences and seek new meaningful ones, but in no part of this process we do need truth.

For example, the Shepherd did not first thought "hey, there is truth!" and after proceeded to devising his pebble-and-bucket counting system. He invented the system, and he could see how it worked, and the idea of "truth" only passed through his head when questioned by Mark.

To suppose that he had a "naive idea of truth" that enabled him to do mathematics is completely stupid (or, if you prefer, Occam-vulnerable).  The shepherd didn't think about truth. First you invent maths and then you question whether or not it is truth. How could it be the other way around?

Again, realists are making donations to truth: that everything that is obvious has to be truth. But the sun obviously revolves around the earth, which is obviously not moving. Nevertheless, those claims are simply mistaken.

I can't figure out where does it come from, this conviction that a complicated notion of truth exists in exclusion of the naive one. I do not think that anyone who ever exposed the idea that "there is no truth" would really object to (as an example) saying that "today is truly Friday" or that "5 is the true result of the sum of 2 and 3". No one is arguing against the word, or against simple, basic, commonplace statements or notions. Nor am i arguing that we can't ever accept anything for obvious.

When i say there is no truth i do not imply that we should stop using mathematics. I do not propose acting as every one of our experiences was only an transient hallucination. Why should we? What is the connection?

If some business can be solved by simple counting, use counting. But there are quite some issues in my own life that are way beyond counting. Interpersonal relationships can't be dealt with in a purely "factual" basis. Politics can't be decided (let alone understood) on purely objective considerations. Hell, i am trying to rent an apartment and even this can't be decided by the simple figure in my bank account — they need all kinds of proof that i intend to pay, even if i have the money, and this is subjective and therefore basically undecidable.

Realists accuse relativists of bad academicism — of not being honest about their intellectual endeavors. Specifically, they accuse the "there is no truth" slogan of being an excuse for not accepting theories that do not fit with the relativist's own convictions.

And it is beyond obvious that relativism CAN be used this way. But so can realism. Religion, for one, has been using this truth business for 2 thousand years now — "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6). Even Umberto Eco had to admit that Derrida is much better than his followers.

Now serious relativists only like different idea-evaluation procedures. They think that truth-evaluation is real cool, but there are other evaluations that are even cooler. We can, and indeed we do, use lots more. If we didn't we would be reduced to simplistic problems.

Sometimes it is enough to check whether or not something is "true". For example, when we need to know if there are pebbles in the bucket. This is so simple that we can just go there and look. The situation is so simple, in fact, that a crude binary taxonomy of ideas [TRUE|FALSE] actually makes us work faster. In other situations, we need "otherness revealing methods". It depends.

As the bottom line, i guess if you can't really point with your finger at a discrepancy, then the argument in fact involves so much interpretation that the simple recourse to "naive truth" is not guarantee enough. If you can't rephrase your "request for truth" in terms so obvious that the relativist cannot evade, than the subject at hand is more complex than simple truth-evaluations can handle. I do not mean the relativist is right, mind you, i only mean the problem is hairy. Let me give an example.

In an architecture master's thesis presentation the graduating student had as a central argument that the street vendors would distribute themselves spontaneously. An anthropologist in the examination committee said this was not the case, that they usually did distribute according to family patterns. Nevertheless, the student not only got his degree, he had high marks.

This seems a BAD thing™, doesn't it? (And the example was given by a realist). But do the family structures really concern architecture? It might even be that the student would benefit from knowing it, but on the other hand maybe his designs are just good, despite his "research" being "untrue" and therefore completely invalid. What i mean is, a big enough ensemble of street sellers is so complicated that any account of their distribution will be full of interpretations, ones that we can't simply go and check.

It is like the "magic bucket ritual" involved trowing a pebble for each "beautiful" sheep — that simply wouldn't work. Who is to say that the one-eyed brown sheep is not beautiful? But on the other hand, there are times we simply can't avoid interpretation. We simply can't expect (for example) that the beauty of the candidates will not have an effect in their campaign. The world is messy.

I think anyone defending a non-naive idea of truth really thinks the naive one is, well, naive, but OK. I do not feel like tricking naive-realists into jumping off of a cliff.

Now there is another idea of truth. One that asks: what makes you so certain? And asking this question is productive in many situations, as i doubt Eliezer would dispute. Why can't both ideas co-exist? I really do not know.

To assume that the "naive notion of truth" is a good enough basis for all of our world-understanding is a bet. So is believing that there is no truth. But, somehow, i do really think the realists are not on the safe side.

I went to bed tonight reading a novel by Colin Dexter.  He wrote that as a man grew older, the sights, the sound of the natural world grew even more important.   Life would be ever more impoverished if the birds quit singing.  His citation about birds could just as well apply to newspapers.  

“You holy Art when all my hope is shaken,

And through life’s raging tempest I am drawn,

You make my heart with warmest love to waken,

As if into a better world reborn.” 

(From An Die Musik, translated by Basil Swift)   

Victor Frankl wrote a book about his own experience in Germany in the period of World War II.  He was a psychiatrist.  In his book Man's Search for Meaning, he talked about his dilemma trying to save his life masterpiece that he was creating as he himself was taken to the concentration camp.  I never finished reading his book, but early on he called the question, “What would you save?”  Or what was the most important thing that you have been taught, that you wanted the next generation to have? 

Teachers probably have given this some thought when they elected a career in teaching.  But Frankl really called the question, “What are you doing about the thing worth saving?”  

A young man hangs himself at his home and a local photographer is passing by when family members find the body. The photos show the distraught family members and the face of the hanged victim. The partially cut rope still looming over scene in the background. The horror. The grief. The calls to the Almighty. And finally the resignation and acceptance of the truth that the son is not only dead, but that he has taken his own life.

The next day the photos appear on a local blog. The family is horrified, but the blog owner refuses to remove the photos. They are news he says, and news is the business of his blog.

Each of us who sits at an editor's desk whether in our bedroom at 3 in the morning or professionally in an office, makes decisions every day about what stories will be covered and in what depth.

The editors of the Nation News did not show the photos, but did a story. We chose to show a photo that is probably the least controversial of the lot.

David Crichlow at CaribPix.Net decided to publish an entire series of photos. That is his choice, and aside from certain photos where society has a wider interest in prohibiting their distribution (ie: child pornography), the choice should be up to Mr. Chichlow.

We are sorry for Helen Foster and the family and friends of her son Shawn Foster. No doubt Mr. Crichlow feels sorry for them also. No doubt at all about that.

But Mr. Crichlow is in the news business - and no matter at what level or how large or professional his organisation is, he has a right to determine what he will publish.

CaribPix.Net - Barbados Death Photos

The Nation - Mum: Take Them Off

Photo credit for above (grieving family member with covered body): CaribPix.Net

The photo is copyright David M. Crichlow. We have used a portion of the photo under the fair-use doctrine as it is the centre of discussion.

I think this is a brilliant question. In the Metta Sutra, there is a stanza:

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness ....

Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.

Who are "the wise", if not the Buddha(s)?

"What would the Buddha do?" - It's a good question to ask.

A wonderful blessing of having Islam as my religion is the fact that I have clear guidelines set out in front of me on what is allowed and what is not.  These guidelines are detailed in fatwaa's.  In these guidelines there is everything from the Muslim's belief to how to do business in Islam.  In Islam the Muslim businessman and woman are - or should be- honest, fair in trade and the transactions beneficial for both parties with mutual consent.  With this blog my intentions are to delve into these issues evaluating them and promoting various Muslim business with a few in particular:

Discount Promotions R Us, TnT Islamic Books and SurvivorsAreUs.com

I plan on discussing specific examples of errancy in  both the holy scriptures of different religions as well as the widely available and oft quoted material used by many atheists.

Lastly I will touch on the philosophical roots behind different religious and atheistic ideas including; secular morals, the origin of ethics, the nature of goodness, the nature of thought and of existence.

New post coming soon!

-Mantred

Net Worth Real Estate Stocks Mutual Funds Interest

Equity ETF’s Bonds Tax-Deferred Capital Gains

OPM Leveraging Business Owner Entrepreneur Corporation

Assets Asset Protection Wills Living Trusts Insurance (types of)

Wealth Building Legacy Estate Home Ownership Financial Freedom

Morals Ethics Values Voting Freedom

Constitution Rights Congress Senate Elected Officials

Polling Place Voter Registration Inspiration Education Motivation

Respect Dignity Integrity Patience Spirituality

History Arts Culture Diversity Recognition

Success Failure Honor Diligence Perseverance

Esteem Pride FICO Score Credit Report Mortgage

Resources

ING/Sharebuilder.com
www.sharebuilder.com

Money
www.money.com

Wall Street Journal
www.wsj.com

Investopedia
www.investopedia.com

Choose To Save
www.choosetosave.org

Wikipedia
www.wikipedia.com

Forbes
www.forbes.com

(PLEASE PASS THIS ON)

A better community can burst forth if we spread this information to those in need. We can ALL live better if we have the proper tools (knowledge/education) to make better decisions and avoid (as much as possible) those things that prevent us from being our best. In addition, we can have a better opportunity to live our lives the way we would like and have a better quality of life in the process. I would like YOUR help in making this dream come true, not just for my family, but for YOU and YOUR family/families as well. That… is my dream. A dream not shared is a dream not worth having.

Yours in LIFE and SUCCESS,

Joseph R. Mays

It is going to take a commander like John McCain to get us out of it.

I've been a Democrat since the Reagan years in the 80's.  I wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President.  Imbeciles in the Democratic Party had something else in mind, though.  And look what they have done.  They conveniently dispensed with the candidate 18,000,000 people (to round it off) wanted.  Now it seems we have two choices left.

I'm voting for John McCain.  This wasn't his war, but he will damn well know how to get us out of it, and he will damn well know what to do for all of the people who are now Veterans of this war.  John McCain is a war hero.

He was also a prisoner of war.  He understands the military because that has been his whole life.

My whole life has been as a pacifist.  I'm not for war, any war.  Even after 9/11 I watched in horror as I saw what we were about to do.  Well, guess what?  The new President has to clean up the mess that the old President got us into.  The new President has a hell of a lot on his plate.  It's almost as if he will need eyes in the back of his head and on both sides right now.  We have a tanking economy.  We have a war.  We have people living on the streets in cities everywhere.  We have global climate change.  We have food shortages right here.

It's looking like 1930, revisited.  Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

This is a time when we need to focus on our own Nationalism.  First.

People are not investing in American infrastructure.  Money they have earned here goes "home" elsewhere in the world to help their poor families.  In the meantime, every day another Corporation finds some cheap way to lay off more American workers.  Our roads, levees, bridges, schools, all the things that we take for granted that were built post WWII are beginning to crumble.

Nobody has given thought to that.  As the global warming causes more flooding in the heartland, which it will -- as the global warming causes more Katrinas here, which it will, just like all over the world, we need to pull our focus back to ourselves.  HERE.  Because this is OUR COUNTRY.

Right now, there are veterans living in homeless shelters, or on the streets.  These are human beings.  These are Americans.  Right now soldiers overseas are committing suicide.  Could this be because they see no end, no plan, no leadership?  I don't know.  But I do know this, after having read McCain's book "Faith of my Fathers" -- he is going to put the BEST team in place to solve the mess we are in.  He knows how.

You would ask, but Valentine, you are a Democrat, how could you?

Because the problems right now call for the Biggest Leader we have ever had since the 1930's in this country.  Every time I look at the Guardian in the web and see Mt. Rushmore, I think about American Presidents past.  We need one of those big ones right now.  Hillary Clinton was that, and she had Bill Clinton behind her.  John McCain is that, as well.  He isn't a dandy heading over to Europe to pose for photo ops in front of the Brandenburg Gate, that Germany was kind enough to remind him he didn't deserve in the first place.

We need to place our focus on ourselves, and those kids who are fighting.  McCain will know what to do.  Somebody has to.  We cannot take the insanity of the last eight years, the final capper being what is being snuck through as a last act in terms of birth control.  If you weren't a feminist, I'd consider becoming one pretty soon.  Look at Hillary Clinton!  You Democratic Women I voted in in California should be ashamed of yourselves right now.  Ashamed.  You are less than zero, for what you have done to this political party.  You might have supported Hillary Clinton when you had the chance, but no.  Now look, and look at the only candidate we had who really did care about women.  Well, like the trooper she is, she's fighting for us, like she always has.

John McCain is like Hillary Clinton to me.  In fact, he is considered a Democrat in many circles, because of his ideas.  He's even friends with Hillary Clinton.  They are both Americans who have given their lives over to service for this country.  Their WHOLE LIVES.

Take a look at this comment from the wire this morning, and see how a NON-LEADER speaks:

"...The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters before leaving the United States that he was looking forward during his trip, which will also take him to Iraq, to seeing the situation on the ground.

"I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what ... their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing..."

Are you getting a sense of something missing?  Well I am.  Now that the DNC has been imbecilic enough to take Hillary away as they have, there is NO OTHER CHOICE than to vote for McCain.  NONE.  Like I said, I am an anti-war Pacifist since I was little and Vietnam was the war du jour.

We need a leader who can clean up this mess we are in.  That's John McCain, unless by some slim chance Hillary can be put back where she belongs by the DNC.

In the meantime, you can listen to McCain's speech about what he thinks is necessary overseas right now.

If a Pacifist like myself -- who the Republicans call a "moonbat" believes in McCain?

If a Green Democrat like me has left the Democratic Party, for McCain, perhaps you should listen to what a LEADER sounds like in a Fireside Chat.  He's a Roosevelt, just like Teddy Roosevelt was.  Fearless.  Strong and Heroic.  Brave, Smart, and ready to take over our broken, shattered post 9/11 country.

If for some reason the DNC doesn't put Hillary back?  I know John McCain likes her and knows how great she is.  He'll find a special place for her, and people like Colin Powell.  I just feel that, and hope it with all my heart.  I am so scared for our country right now.  We have got to turn so many things around, we need the experts to come to the fore.

Here is the link to John McCain's page, where you can hear him speak about this war.

And here is what Hillary Clinton is doing right as we speak.  She is the finest Democrat I have known in my lifetime.  THE FINEST.  She is a shining example of what FEMINISM looks like, for women.

McCain mentioned something called "Unity of Command" in his speech.  I think that is what we need at the helm in Washington right now.  Unity of commanding LEADERS.  We need to do just what McCain is saying, and that is why I keep repeating his words verbatim here:

"REFORM, PROSPERITY, PEACE"

Ethics, a set of moral principles governing proper conduct for a group or individual.

In the book, three central characters, a small law firm, a large corporation, and a politician, must confront their inner ethics as well as those set by society.  One stands by her ethics and loses much to help the less fortunate. Another purposefully manipulates the set of rules governing his profession for personal gain, and in return harms many.  The third closes his eyes to the violations and wrongdoing, pretending that if he really does not know the details, then it really isn't wrong.

Each of us has professional ethics that we must abide by and uphold.  What are our personal ethics?  What is the code by which we live? And possibly more importantly, at what price, if any, would we be willing to turn a blind eye to an ethical violation.

I would love to believe that we would all uphold our moral standards regardless of what hardship might follow, however, being an observer of mankind I know better.  Popular television shows like The Apprentice, Survivor, and others seemingly encourage deceit, manipulation, an a lowering of our ethics.  Those who are able to find ethical loopholes on these shows are rewarded.  This bothers me.

Please give some thought to the questions I raised.  As many of you know I always encourage the use of a journal.  Write in it.  Ask yourself if you can be bought? Do you have a price?  More importantly write down your creed.  What are the moral standards you believe in, support, teach, and live by?  Reflect on these often. Add to them. Discover which ones you follow well, and the ones that perhaps need some reinforcing. If you find yourself justifying some poor decisions or rationalizing why you did something that you know you should not have, simply realign yourself.  Say aloud if needed, "I shouldn't have done that.  That was wrong."  Better yet, actively fix it.  I have always greatly admired those who are able to admit their mistakes and attempt to repair the damage.  Now that is character!

As Alexander Hamilton put it, "Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything."

Good luck.

---Kelly

(Kelly Croy is an inspirational speaker, author, and performing artist.  Visit our website to invite Kelly to perform at your next event.)

Regarding the Mind-

In a true display of a picture being worth a thousand words, Medgadget explains a sensory illusion by means of an optical illusion, explaining how the mind causes it by the manner it integrates sensory input in general.  Very cool!

The New York Times has an vivid, eye opening report on PTSD and the horrors of war, as they tell the heartbreaking tale of private Dwyer.

At Neuroscientifically Challenged, Marc Dingman ponders the implications of a study showing that the more human the appearance of a robot, the more likely we are to ascribe human intentions to it.

Regarding the Soul-

In a post for the looking aiming square at the  the silver lining record books, Dr. Bob and the Doctor is in sings the virtues of hypocrisy, in a manner without hypocrisy or guile.  Insightful.

In a second post that moves somewhat along the same vein, Bruce Webster of Adventures in Mormonism shares a wonderfully insightful and artful comic strip anwering common criticisms of specific faith and commitment.

Now that I have defended hypocrisy and commitment to a specific faith, here is an excellent post to balance things out.  At  On Faith , by Rabbi  Brad Hirschfield explaining the problem with the perjorative terms we use to describe beliefs we find strange while simply changing our tone for our own spiritual outlook.

Shahrazad has stunning and beautiful poem she shares with us about the wonder of creation and the prayer of a Muslim, stating  "A Red Rose is my Mecca.".

Regarding the Body-

NPR reports a new discovery that H Pylori, the stomach bacteria responsible for ulcers, has some good in the body as well.  It turns out people with the bug have less asthma.  My, My medicine is getting more complex all the time.  I can't keep the good bugs and the bad ones straight anymore.

In the amazing medical gadgetry department, Medgadget presents the Pill Cam, a pill sized camera that has been used to identify and diagnose Crohn's disease, an inflammatory bowel disorder.  Who ever new a pills eye view of the gullet could be so useful.

At Radiology Picture of the Day, a fascinating (to me, anyway) picture of an MRI showing appendicitis in pregnancy, showing just how the appendix migrates to where doctor's don't expect it to make room for a bun in the oven.

or All the above-

At Revolution Health, Dr. Val and the voice of reason has an amazing story about the a 90 year old retired pediatrician who remains very devoted to his patients.  As he described how he openly prays for his patients, I was struck by how he is truly the product of a bygone era.

At Musings of a Distractible Mind, Dr. Rob ponders the human appetite for self destruction, embodied in its extreme by Lesch-Nyhan syndrome in a very thought provoking post.

Dr.Deb has here finger on the pulse of the latest technology for Autistic spectrum disorders, built on the idea that what they really need is a hug, as she describes a pressure vest designed to increase touch senory input, or self stimulation and calm patients with difficulty integrating their sensations.

In the spirit of abhorrent breaches of ethics and privacy that I oppose body, mind, and soul, here is a report at GNIF BrainBlooger describing the politics behind selling physicians prescribing habits to pharmaceutical companies.  Write your congressman today, this needs to end.

and just becacause I liked it-

Dr. Rob at Musings of a Distractible Mind was on a roll this week.  Here is a hilarious post looking at the absurdity of the insurance industry and the lengths they go to find the perfect code.  If only their dedication to their actual customers and general health care quality was this complete.

The Clinical Cases and Images Blog bids a fond farewell to the world's oldest blogger, Olive Riley of Sydney, Australia, who passed away at 108.  She truly exemplified the motto, you are never too old to pick up a new hobby,

Here is an amazing performance by a group of high school kids calling themselves the Wrong Trousers, playing what I guess is now a classic oldie, from my childhood (Am I really that old?), "Video killed the Radio Star" and playing it 90s style old school, unplugged.  I more than LIKED it, this is simply brilliant!

That concludes the offerings for this week.  Tune in next time for all the stuff I wish I'd have written, pictured, videoed or whatever.  In the mean time, I'll get to writing my own stuff I wish I had written and at the very least my wishes may be fulfilled.

In the nineteenth century, British author and theologian Cardinal John Henry Newman defined  liberal education in a series of lectures which he later published under the title The Idea of a University.  In this work, he made the case that the knowledge acquired through the study of liberal arts is valuable in itself.  By "valuable in itself" he meant that education need not have an "instrumental" value; that is, it need not be designed to enable the student to perform any particular task or to help the graduate earn money in a particular profession.   Rather liberal arts education was meant to develop the mind and character of the student.  He said that in this way knowledge could be its own end.

At the time he was writing, anybody who thought about education assumed that only certain people were intellectually suited to get a university education.   It was also assumed that university graduates would be the  intellectual leaders of society.  In England, that meant that--–as a rule---class and social position determined which citizens would be able to get a university degree.  But intelligence, made apparent in early schooling, enabled other boys to attend a university. 

To a large extent higher education in the United States until mid-twentieth century resembled that in England.  It was generally assumed that a college education was not for everybody.  And who attended a college or university in the United States was determined largely by social and  economic standing.  But the intellectually gifted often found a way to get a university education.

The liberal arts curriculum was considered an integral part of a college education at the time. Before the 1960's, virtually all American college students took a set of courses known as liberal arts during their freshman and sophomore years.  These courses drawn from the arts and sciences were meant to acquaint students with a wide range of subjects: science, mathematics, literature, history, art, music, philosophy, and physical development.  Only during the junior and senior years did students concentrate in a major––a subject that prepared them to enter a profession.  

The thinking behind this curriculum was that anyone claiming to have a college degree ought to be conversant in more issues than just those associated with a single profession.  College graduates were expected to become the intellectual leaders of society, and their education was meant to be more than just preparation for a specific career.  In those days, a liberal arts degree was often, in itself, enough to get a person into a career.  It was not unusual at that time to find a person who majored in history or literature or philosophy in an executive position in a corporation. 

In the United States in the 1960's two factors undermined college liberal arts and the belief in knowledge for the sake of knowledge.  First, the Sputnik scare caused heavy funding for college education, and, second, political activism increased on college campuses.  The first greatly increased the number of students on campuses, and the second tended to erode control of the curriculum by faculty.

Just the increased number of students assured that more of them would object to the wide variety of subjects required by the liberal arts curriculum.  Many of the students were out of sympathy with certain goals of liberal arts—for example, the study and appreciation of Western Civilization.   Others were minimally qualified to take rigorous academic courses.  These students demanded "more relevant" courses---- that is, subjects that made graduates more narrowly employable or subjects that were more easily seen to impact on the here and now. 

At the same time, political activism interfered with the discipline needed to pursue serious study. It also tended to put a political spin on subjects being taught.  College administrators were caught up in the frenzy of the moment too.  They were interested in soothing the unhappiness of students and avoiding disruptions like sit-ins at the administration building.  They began to insist that the faculty revise the curriculum accordingly.  

In more recent years, under the pressure of specialization, administrators at colleges have become business people, not educators.  Whereas college presidents used to be educators themselves--- people who were promoted up from the teaching faculty—nowadays they more likely hold degrees in college administration and to have never taught academic courses.  They commonly believe that colleges are businesses and that students should be treated like customers, bearing in mind that the "customer is always right."   That is why grade inflation is a common problem even in prestigious  colleges and universities in the country where most students get As and Bs for average work.  

The results are evident.  It is not just that politicians educated in recent times are mendacious and licentious.  People have been that way down through history.   It's that they have no shame and are unrepentant when they are caught lying or being lascivious.  And voters have come to expect and thus to accept that kind of behavior in national leaders.    Often corporate executives are so obsessed with "the bottom line" that they ignore moral and ethical issues when conducting business.

The study of literature, history, and philosophy raises enduring questions of morality and ethics.  It calls on students to think critically about the normative questions in philosophy, "What is the good life?" and "How should people treat each other?"  The trend away from liberal arts in education has been unfortunate for the nation because every citizen in a democracy should be prepared to think beyond the present moment and beyond purely personal interests.  Perhaps it is too much to expect that every citizen have a college degree and be liberally educated in the way that Newman describes.  But civics and issues of morality and ethics should be a part of education from the lowest grades.