THAT (REAL) OLD TIME RELIGION
Chorus:
Give me that Old Time Religion,
Give me that Old Time Religion,
Give me that Old Time Religion ...
It's good enough for me!
We will worship Aphrodite,
'Though she's kind of wild and flighty -
We will see her in her 'nighty
And that's good enough for me!
We'll sing praises to Apollo;
Where the Sun God leads we'll follow
('Though his head's a little hollow) -
He's good enough for me!
With the aid of my athame
I can throw a "double-whammy"
(And can slice and dice salami!)
So it's good enough for me.
It was good enough for Buddha,
As a god he kinda cute-a,
And he comes in brass or pewta'
So he's good enough for me!
We all worshipped Dionysus
'Till we ran into a crisis -
The bar had raised its prices;
That's not good enough for me.
We will worship like the Druids
And drink strange, fermented fluids
And run naked through the woods
'Cause that's good enough for me!
We will go and sing "Hosanna"
To our good ol' pal, Gotamma.
He will never flim or flam ya',
And that's good enough for me!
We will finally pray to Jesus
From our sins we hope he frees us
Eternal life he guarantees us
And that's good enough for me!
It was good enough for Isis,
'Cause she comes through in a crisis
And she's never raised her prices
So she's good enough for me.
There are some that call it folly
When we worship Mother Kali.
She may not be very jolly
But she's good enough for me.
Shall we sing in praise of Loki,
Though he left poor Midgard smokey?
Oh, his sense of humor's hokey,
But he's good enough for me.
It was good enough for Loki,
The old Norse god of chaos,
Which is why this verse doesn't rhyme,
But it's good enough for me!
Montezuma liked to start out
Rites by carrying a part out
That would really tear your heart out,
But it's good enough for me!
It was good enough for Odin
Though the tremblin' got forbodin'
Then the giants finally strode in,
But it's good enough for me.
There's that lusty old Priapus -
He's just itching to unwrap us.
(He'd do more to us than tap us
And that's good enough for me!)
Shall we sing a verse for Thor,
Though he leaves the maidens sore?
They always come back for more,
So he's good enough for me!
It was good enough for Venus,
Of the Gods she is the meanest
And she bit me on my ... elbow
But she's good enough for me!
There are those who practice Voodoo,
There are those who practice Voodoo,
I know I do, I hope you do -
It's good enough for me.
We will go to worship Zeus
Though his morals are quite loose
He gave Leda quite a goose
And he's good enough for me!
(see entire lyrics)
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Aphrodite
Friday, March 11, 2011
Shirin Ebadi - Another Voice for Peace and Social Justice
Shirin Ebadi was born on June 21, 1947 in Hamedan in central-western Iran approximately 180 miles from Tehran. Her father, Mohammad Ali Khan was born into a wealthy land-owning family and his father had been a colonel in the military during the last days of the Qajar Dynasty - the Qajars were a Turkmen tribe. She has two sisters and one brother.
In terms of an historic perspective, Agha Mohammad Khan, the leader of the Qajars, unified present day Iran in 1794 by eliminating all of his enemies. Ebadi’s father, Mohammad Ali Ebadi, was the head of Hamedan’s Registry Office at the time of Ebadi’s birth. He had written several books in his field and was a known lecturer. He was chosen to be the Deputy Minister of Agriculture under the Shah; as a consequence of this promotion, the family moved to Tehran. Ebadi was one years old at the time. Ebadi’s parents were married in 1941 in a traditional Iranian ceremony. Her mother, Minu was a devoted wife and mother; she was beset however, with mental and medical problems – she showed the symptoms of paranoia and suffered from asthma. Her father passed away in 1993.
Ebadi was educated at the Firuzhkuhi primary school and went on to Anoshiravn Dadgar and Reza Shah Kabir secondary schools. Ultimately she received her law degree from the University of Tehran in 1968. In March of 1969 she began her career as a trial judge. In addition, she held a number of positions in the Justice Department, and in 1975 became the President of Bench 24 in Tehran City Court. It is interesting to note that she was the first woman in Iranian history to have served as a judge.
Ebadi and her family lived through the Islamic Revolution that culminated in 1979 in the formation of a state governed by Sharia Law. The transition to this revolutionary leadership had a profound effect upon her, her family and her career. As a consequence of the changes invoked by the new authority, she was ultimately dismissed from her judgeship and offered a position as a clerk on account of the fact that she is a woman. She refused to countenance this change and applied for early retirement and was granted this option. Not to be easily dissuaded, she submitted an application to practice law; she was initially turned down until 1992 when she finally succeeded in obtaining a law license.
Recognizing the harsh injustices that became apparent following the Islamic Revolution, Ebadi refused to be quiet. Since her personal life in particular and the role of women in Iran in general had been so seriously impacted by the imposition of Sharia Law, it would, therefore, be germane to examine the events that led up to this profound political and cultural revolution.
In the early twentieth century, the government of Iran was experiencing the onslaught of modernization that was exerting its effects throughout the world. Britain and Russia had considerable influence; although, they did not colonize the country. In 1905, violent student protests led to the formation of the first Majlis – National Assembly - and in 1906 this body met to create a Constitution. The Shah died and the new king promulgated the Supplementary Fundamental Law. This law and the document that was the product of deliberations of the Majlis became the essence of the Iranian Constitution. Fearful that the newly constituted Majlis would accrue too much power, the Russians invaded the country, and dissolved the Majlis. Although the constitution and parliament survived, their powers were significantly curtailed.
At the beginning of World War I, the Iranian economy was in disastrous condition. As a result, by 1921 Reza Khan entered Tehran with troops, took control of the military, and by 1923 he became its Prime Minister. As a consequence, the Shah from the Qajar Dynasty abdicated and Reza Khan named himself Shah and created the Pahlavi Dynasty. During his reign, many progressive reforms were instituted and he even banned the veil worn by traditionalist women. These changes were welcomed by what constituted the middle and upper classes. To many, however, these changes were met with severe disapproval; they were viewed as incompatible with the teachings of the Koran.
World War II brought into play new political forces. The British and Russians occupied Iran, for they needed oil to sustain the war effort. As a consequence, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate in 1941, and he was replaced by his son, Mohammad Reza, who was found to be more maleable in the eyes of the occupiers. The British needed access to the vast oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and needed a local ruler that they could more effectively control. Although the young Shah had the support of the rich landowners and clerics, he proved to be a weak ruler.
In 1949, Mohammed Mosadegh formed the National Front Party (NFP) with the intended objective of living up to the 1906 constitution. He became involved in the ambitious and controversial goal of nationalizing the oil industry. At that time the British company, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was making more money from oil than the Iranian government. Under popular pressure, the Shah appointed Mosadegh as Prime Minister. In response, the British removed its technicians and attempted to impose a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil. The British also attempted to take its position to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The court, however, found in favor of Iran. Mosadegh’s power and influence continued to grow. He reduced the term of the National Assembly to two years and ultimately removed the legislative body. These events made the government of the United States, under the leadership of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, very uneasy, especially in the midst of the Cold War.
In 1953 Mosadegh was overthrown and replaced by the Shah, whose former power was reinstated. It was later discovered that The CIA was deeply involved in the plot to unseat Mosadegh in an operation referred to as Ajax. Mosadegh was deemed to be a threat on account of his leftist political leanings. The Anglo-Iranian oil company had been expelled from the country some nine months earlier. According to Kermit Roosevelt in his book entitled, Countercoup: the Struggle for the Control of Iran (this book was deemed so “dangerous” that McGraw Hill was persuaded by British Petroleum to recall all the books from the book stores), Anglo-Iranian oil proposed the overthrow of the Iranian Premier. Initially, Mosadegh fled the country and was later put under house arrest until his death. Ebadi was a young girl attending grade school when these momentous events unfolded.
In 1963, the Shah announced the so-called “White Revolution.” His intention was to speed the transition of an essentially agrarian society to an industrial base. The changes that he imposed deeply disturbed the conservative clerics. Among these changes, women were given the right to vote. The minimal age for legal marriage for women rose to 18 and the divorce laws were liberalized. Many women from upper and middle-class backgrounds subsequently entered the workforce.
Ruhollah Khomeini, a conservative cleric, was so distraught and angered by these changes that he organized an uprising against the White Revolution. The Shah, responding to this threat, had Khomeini expelled from the country and sent to Najaf, Iraq. This happened on the same year as Mosadegh’s death. At that time Mosadegh was beloved by his countrymen and anti-American sentiment was deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of the population.
The Shah continued to pursue a policy of accelerated development and growth; in cities such as Tehran; development proceeded at a fevered pace. Traditionalists were deeply troubled by these changes, fearing that Western values were being imposed upon them. The clerics were angered by these events, for they felt that their power and influence were being eroded.
In January, 1978 President Jimmy Carter visited Iran, and was shown on television drinking champagne with the Shah. This seemingly innocuous event, sent shockwaves throughout the nation, for it was the first time a Muslim leader was seen drinking alcohol on television; the drinking of alcohol is forbidden under Islam. In response, angry protestors marched on the shrine in the holy city of Qom; the government sent in the military and protestors were killed. As a consequence, the pent-up frustrations of many Iranians were released and an open struggle between the clerics and the Shah began. All of this came to a bloody climax when the government sent tanks to quell the demonstrations at Zhaleh Square in Tehran; as a result, 600 protestors were killed. This day became known as Black Friday. At the behest of the Shah, Saddam Hussein expelled Khomeini from Iraq; he took refuge in France. From there, he directed the opposition. Facing overwhelming opposition from the people of Iran, the Shah finally fled Iran on January 16, 1979. And on February 1, 1979, Khomeini left his wife behind and flew to Tehran. When he touched down on Iranian soil, he was greeted by millions of supporters. He immediately appointed Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the provisional government, and on March 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran came to fruition. After 2500 years, the Iranian monarchy had been abolished – a remarkable and historic event. Khomeini went on to create the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, and its members began the process of the setup a new government. When the newly created constitution was presented to the Council of Experts – dominated by Shia clergy – they were not happy with the essentially secular nature of the document and proceeded to make it more Islamic. Ultimately, under Khomeini’s guiding hand, a new doctrine was formulated, Velayat-e-Faqih – rule by jurisprudence. This essentially gave Khomeini more power than the Shah ever had.
As an Iranian lawyer, human rights activist and founder of Centre for the Defense of Human Rights in Iran, Ebadi wrote several books and had many articles published in Iranian journals. She became involved in many troubling cases as the defense attorney. Among them, she represented the families Dariush and Parvaneh Foruhar) and Ezzat Ebrahiminejad, who were killed during the attack on the university dormitory by a serial killer. She also took on a large number of child abuse cases. As a result of these experiences, she helped to found a children’s rights organization.
She also represented the mother of Mrs. Zahra Kazemi, a photojournalist killed in Iran. According to Ebadi, involvement in such high-profile cases radically changed her perspective and she became actively engaged in the human rights movement. She wrote an article for Iran-e Farda in which she decried the way Iranian law treats women. This article became wildly popular and the authorities found her to be a threat and wanted to silence her. In the defense of one case in particular, she was sent off to prison. She was eventually released.
On October 10, 2003, Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize In 2009, Ebadi's award was allegedly confiscated by the Iranian authorities; this allegation was later denied by the Iranian government. If true, she would be the first person in the history of the Nobel Prize whose award has been forcibly seized by state authorities.
The following is an excerpt from her Nobel Prize Acceptance speech; it provides some insight into her character and unwavering support of peace and social justice.
“Today coincides with the 55th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; a declaration which begins with the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, as the guarantor of freedom, justice and peace. And it promises a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of expression and opinion, and be safeguarded and protected against fear and poverty.
“Unfortunately, however, this year's report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), as in the previous years, spells out the rise of a disaster which distances mankind from the idealistic world of the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2002, almost 1.2 billion human beings lived in glaring poverty, earning less than one dollar a day. Over 50 countries were caught up in war or natural disasters. AIDS has so far claimed the lives of 22 million individuals, and turned 13 million children into orphans.
“At the same time, in the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 57/219, of 18 December 2002, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1456, of 20 January 2003, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2003/68, of 25 April 2003, set out to underline that all states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism must comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights and humanitarian law. However, regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms, special bodies and extraordinary courts, which make fair adjudication difficult and at times impossible, have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism.”
Ebadi has lived in exile in Canada since June 2009 due to the disturbing increase in persecution of Iranian citizens who are critical of the current regime. The story of the life of Sharin Ebadi to date is an extraordinary one; she exemplifies the influence an individual can exert when driven to shed light on injustice and demand meaningful change.
In terms of an historic perspective, Agha Mohammad Khan, the leader of the Qajars, unified present day Iran in 1794 by eliminating all of his enemies. Ebadi’s father, Mohammad Ali Ebadi, was the head of Hamedan’s Registry Office at the time of Ebadi’s birth. He had written several books in his field and was a known lecturer. He was chosen to be the Deputy Minister of Agriculture under the Shah; as a consequence of this promotion, the family moved to Tehran. Ebadi was one years old at the time. Ebadi’s parents were married in 1941 in a traditional Iranian ceremony. Her mother, Minu was a devoted wife and mother; she was beset however, with mental and medical problems – she showed the symptoms of paranoia and suffered from asthma. Her father passed away in 1993.
Ebadi was educated at the Firuzhkuhi primary school and went on to Anoshiravn Dadgar and Reza Shah Kabir secondary schools. Ultimately she received her law degree from the University of Tehran in 1968. In March of 1969 she began her career as a trial judge. In addition, she held a number of positions in the Justice Department, and in 1975 became the President of Bench 24 in Tehran City Court. It is interesting to note that she was the first woman in Iranian history to have served as a judge.
Ebadi and her family lived through the Islamic Revolution that culminated in 1979 in the formation of a state governed by Sharia Law. The transition to this revolutionary leadership had a profound effect upon her, her family and her career. As a consequence of the changes invoked by the new authority, she was ultimately dismissed from her judgeship and offered a position as a clerk on account of the fact that she is a woman. She refused to countenance this change and applied for early retirement and was granted this option. Not to be easily dissuaded, she submitted an application to practice law; she was initially turned down until 1992 when she finally succeeded in obtaining a law license.
Recognizing the harsh injustices that became apparent following the Islamic Revolution, Ebadi refused to be quiet. Since her personal life in particular and the role of women in Iran in general had been so seriously impacted by the imposition of Sharia Law, it would, therefore, be germane to examine the events that led up to this profound political and cultural revolution.
In the early twentieth century, the government of Iran was experiencing the onslaught of modernization that was exerting its effects throughout the world. Britain and Russia had considerable influence; although, they did not colonize the country. In 1905, violent student protests led to the formation of the first Majlis – National Assembly - and in 1906 this body met to create a Constitution. The Shah died and the new king promulgated the Supplementary Fundamental Law. This law and the document that was the product of deliberations of the Majlis became the essence of the Iranian Constitution. Fearful that the newly constituted Majlis would accrue too much power, the Russians invaded the country, and dissolved the Majlis. Although the constitution and parliament survived, their powers were significantly curtailed.
At the beginning of World War I, the Iranian economy was in disastrous condition. As a result, by 1921 Reza Khan entered Tehran with troops, took control of the military, and by 1923 he became its Prime Minister. As a consequence, the Shah from the Qajar Dynasty abdicated and Reza Khan named himself Shah and created the Pahlavi Dynasty. During his reign, many progressive reforms were instituted and he even banned the veil worn by traditionalist women. These changes were welcomed by what constituted the middle and upper classes. To many, however, these changes were met with severe disapproval; they were viewed as incompatible with the teachings of the Koran.
World War II brought into play new political forces. The British and Russians occupied Iran, for they needed oil to sustain the war effort. As a consequence, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate in 1941, and he was replaced by his son, Mohammad Reza, who was found to be more maleable in the eyes of the occupiers. The British needed access to the vast oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and needed a local ruler that they could more effectively control. Although the young Shah had the support of the rich landowners and clerics, he proved to be a weak ruler.
In 1949, Mohammed Mosadegh formed the National Front Party (NFP) with the intended objective of living up to the 1906 constitution. He became involved in the ambitious and controversial goal of nationalizing the oil industry. At that time the British company, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was making more money from oil than the Iranian government. Under popular pressure, the Shah appointed Mosadegh as Prime Minister. In response, the British removed its technicians and attempted to impose a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil. The British also attempted to take its position to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The court, however, found in favor of Iran. Mosadegh’s power and influence continued to grow. He reduced the term of the National Assembly to two years and ultimately removed the legislative body. These events made the government of the United States, under the leadership of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, very uneasy, especially in the midst of the Cold War.
In 1953 Mosadegh was overthrown and replaced by the Shah, whose former power was reinstated. It was later discovered that The CIA was deeply involved in the plot to unseat Mosadegh in an operation referred to as Ajax. Mosadegh was deemed to be a threat on account of his leftist political leanings. The Anglo-Iranian oil company had been expelled from the country some nine months earlier. According to Kermit Roosevelt in his book entitled, Countercoup: the Struggle for the Control of Iran (this book was deemed so “dangerous” that McGraw Hill was persuaded by British Petroleum to recall all the books from the book stores), Anglo-Iranian oil proposed the overthrow of the Iranian Premier. Initially, Mosadegh fled the country and was later put under house arrest until his death. Ebadi was a young girl attending grade school when these momentous events unfolded.
In 1963, the Shah announced the so-called “White Revolution.” His intention was to speed the transition of an essentially agrarian society to an industrial base. The changes that he imposed deeply disturbed the conservative clerics. Among these changes, women were given the right to vote. The minimal age for legal marriage for women rose to 18 and the divorce laws were liberalized. Many women from upper and middle-class backgrounds subsequently entered the workforce.
Ruhollah Khomeini, a conservative cleric, was so distraught and angered by these changes that he organized an uprising against the White Revolution. The Shah, responding to this threat, had Khomeini expelled from the country and sent to Najaf, Iraq. This happened on the same year as Mosadegh’s death. At that time Mosadegh was beloved by his countrymen and anti-American sentiment was deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of the population.
The Shah continued to pursue a policy of accelerated development and growth; in cities such as Tehran; development proceeded at a fevered pace. Traditionalists were deeply troubled by these changes, fearing that Western values were being imposed upon them. The clerics were angered by these events, for they felt that their power and influence were being eroded.
In January, 1978 President Jimmy Carter visited Iran, and was shown on television drinking champagne with the Shah. This seemingly innocuous event, sent shockwaves throughout the nation, for it was the first time a Muslim leader was seen drinking alcohol on television; the drinking of alcohol is forbidden under Islam. In response, angry protestors marched on the shrine in the holy city of Qom; the government sent in the military and protestors were killed. As a consequence, the pent-up frustrations of many Iranians were released and an open struggle between the clerics and the Shah began. All of this came to a bloody climax when the government sent tanks to quell the demonstrations at Zhaleh Square in Tehran; as a result, 600 protestors were killed. This day became known as Black Friday. At the behest of the Shah, Saddam Hussein expelled Khomeini from Iraq; he took refuge in France. From there, he directed the opposition. Facing overwhelming opposition from the people of Iran, the Shah finally fled Iran on January 16, 1979. And on February 1, 1979, Khomeini left his wife behind and flew to Tehran. When he touched down on Iranian soil, he was greeted by millions of supporters. He immediately appointed Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the provisional government, and on March 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran came to fruition. After 2500 years, the Iranian monarchy had been abolished – a remarkable and historic event. Khomeini went on to create the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, and its members began the process of the setup a new government. When the newly created constitution was presented to the Council of Experts – dominated by Shia clergy – they were not happy with the essentially secular nature of the document and proceeded to make it more Islamic. Ultimately, under Khomeini’s guiding hand, a new doctrine was formulated, Velayat-e-Faqih – rule by jurisprudence. This essentially gave Khomeini more power than the Shah ever had.
As an Iranian lawyer, human rights activist and founder of Centre for the Defense of Human Rights in Iran, Ebadi wrote several books and had many articles published in Iranian journals. She became involved in many troubling cases as the defense attorney. Among them, she represented the families Dariush and Parvaneh Foruhar) and Ezzat Ebrahiminejad, who were killed during the attack on the university dormitory by a serial killer. She also took on a large number of child abuse cases. As a result of these experiences, she helped to found a children’s rights organization.
She also represented the mother of Mrs. Zahra Kazemi, a photojournalist killed in Iran. According to Ebadi, involvement in such high-profile cases radically changed her perspective and she became actively engaged in the human rights movement. She wrote an article for Iran-e Farda in which she decried the way Iranian law treats women. This article became wildly popular and the authorities found her to be a threat and wanted to silence her. In the defense of one case in particular, she was sent off to prison. She was eventually released.
On October 10, 2003, Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize In 2009, Ebadi's award was allegedly confiscated by the Iranian authorities; this allegation was later denied by the Iranian government. If true, she would be the first person in the history of the Nobel Prize whose award has been forcibly seized by state authorities.
The following is an excerpt from her Nobel Prize Acceptance speech; it provides some insight into her character and unwavering support of peace and social justice.
“Today coincides with the 55th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; a declaration which begins with the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, as the guarantor of freedom, justice and peace. And it promises a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of expression and opinion, and be safeguarded and protected against fear and poverty.
“Unfortunately, however, this year's report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), as in the previous years, spells out the rise of a disaster which distances mankind from the idealistic world of the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2002, almost 1.2 billion human beings lived in glaring poverty, earning less than one dollar a day. Over 50 countries were caught up in war or natural disasters. AIDS has so far claimed the lives of 22 million individuals, and turned 13 million children into orphans.
“At the same time, in the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 57/219, of 18 December 2002, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1456, of 20 January 2003, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2003/68, of 25 April 2003, set out to underline that all states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism must comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights and humanitarian law. However, regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms, special bodies and extraordinary courts, which make fair adjudication difficult and at times impossible, have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism.”
Ebadi has lived in exile in Canada since June 2009 due to the disturbing increase in persecution of Iranian citizens who are critical of the current regime. The story of the life of Sharin Ebadi to date is an extraordinary one; she exemplifies the influence an individual can exert when driven to shed light on injustice and demand meaningful change.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
the hero
Have you ever wondered...
why there are no more heroes?
It's because in today's world...
all men and women are heroes.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Quantum Activist
Quantum physics in the form of its famous observer effect (how an observation transforms quantum possibilities into actual experiences in the observer’s consciousness) is forcing us into a paradigm shift away from the primacy-of-matter to a new paradigm: the Primacy of Consciousness. Quantum Activism is the idea of changing ourselves and our societies in accordance with the transformative and revolutionary message of quantum physics. This change is taking its cue from the emergence of a new paradigm within science; the paradigm of a consciousness based reality as articulated by Quantum Physics.
So what are the transformative messages of quantum physics? First, consciousness is the ground of all being, and all objects of our experience (sensing, thinking, feeling, and intuition) are quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from.
Second, if we choose from what is known, that is to say, what is conditioned in us from prior experiences, we are choosing from our ego-consciousness. But if we choose what is unknown, what is unmanifest in our prior experiences, we are choosing from what spiritual traditions call God-consciousness (in scientific language we call it quantum consciousness). Choosing from God-consciousness requires quantum leaps (movement from point A to point B without going through intermediate steps), nonlocality (signalless communication), and tangled hierarchy (causal relationships of circularity)
The third message of quantum physics is the evolution of consciousness, and it is taking us toward a greater and greater capacity for processing the meaning of our lives and the world around us. The immediate future of evolution is promising to take us from our current preoccupation with the rational mind to an intuitive mind that values the archetypes; such as Good, Beauty, Truth, Justice, and Love, and gives us the ability to process the meaning of our lives through these archetypes.
So the goal of the quantum activist is to explore quantum possibilities and manifest these archetypes—Good, Beauty, Truth, Justice, and Love—in his or her life as intimately and as expressly as one can, and in doing so to help transform the world. The means a quantum activist uses to achieve this goal are threefold—right thinking, right living, and right livelihood.
Right thinking consists of understanding the paradigm shift from a user’s point of view and helping others in our environment to do so. Right living consists of walking the talk, manifesting our understanding in how we live, and becoming guiding examples for the inspiration of others. As such it takes a lot of quantum leaps, openness to being in the nonlocality of God consciousness which informs the doing of the ego’s day to day activities;, and the desire to change hierarchical relationships into tangled ones. Right livelihood consists of earning our living in a way that is congruent with our modes of thinking and living and helping our entire society to achieve this congruence.
It is exciting you say, but is that enough to motivate me? I will tell you my fundamental understanding: if you are reading this column you are already motivated. You know what? Consciousness is already pressuring you to join its evolutionary movement.
So what do we do now? We become Quantum Activists of course!
A Thought Dream
There is so much needless suffering in this pathetic world that humans have created for themselves. There is a boundless wealth of imagination, ingenuity, intelligence, generosity and potential that is bound up in the lives of billions of humans whose lives are unnecessarily cut short or bastardized by poverty, disease, conflict, war and scarcity – all of which that are wholly preventable. In response to this madness, this is my wish list -
If that cumulative potential were only released; if war was only made obsolete; if the untold wealth diverted to weapons and instruments of death was only redirected to human progress, what a different world we would have. If those who have been taught to look upwards for salvation to some essentially unreachable deity would only look around themselves for answeres, what a different world we would have. If only all of us would find peace within ourselves and reflect on the well spring of our own behavior, what a different world we would have. If only humanity would speak the world love and truly mean it and accept the implications of this kind of surrender, what a different world we would have. If only the wealthy among us would understand the emptiness of greed, prejudice and mindless acquisition, what a different world we would have. If only true-believers would remove the blinders that obstruct their minds and see the beauty inherent in diversity, the universality and interdependence of all of life, what a different world we would have. This is my fondest desire.
If that cumulative potential were only released; if war was only made obsolete; if the untold wealth diverted to weapons and instruments of death was only redirected to human progress, what a different world we would have. If those who have been taught to look upwards for salvation to some essentially unreachable deity would only look around themselves for answeres, what a different world we would have. If only all of us would find peace within ourselves and reflect on the well spring of our own behavior, what a different world we would have. If only humanity would speak the world love and truly mean it and accept the implications of this kind of surrender, what a different world we would have. If only the wealthy among us would understand the emptiness of greed, prejudice and mindless acquisition, what a different world we would have. If only true-believers would remove the blinders that obstruct their minds and see the beauty inherent in diversity, the universality and interdependence of all of life, what a different world we would have. This is my fondest desire.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
kiss your mother
It's International Woman's Day,
go kiss your mother, your wife,
your sister, your daughter,
for they are the givers of life.
follow your bliss
Joseph John Campbell (March 26, 1904 – October 30, 1987) was an American mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work is vast, covering many aspects of the human experience. His philosophy is often summarized by his phrase: "Follow your bliss."(read more)
watch "the power of myth with joseph campbell and bill moyers"
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
get the truth out
The Real US National Security Budget:
The Figure No One Wants You to See
Tuesday 01 March 2011 by: Christopher Hellman
What if you went to a restaurant and found it rather pricey? Still, you ordered your meal and, when done, picked up the check only to discover that it was almost twice the menu price.
Welcome to the world of the real U.S. national security budget. Normally, in media accounts, you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That already gets you into a startling price range -- close to $700 billion for 2012 -- but that’s barely more than half of it. If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year.
Take that in for a moment. It’s true; you won’t find that figure in your daily newspaper or on your nightly newscast, but it’s no misprint. It may even be an underestimate. In any case, it’s the real thing when it comes to your tax dollars. The simplest way to grasp just how Americans could pay such a staggering amount annually for “security” is to go through what we know about the U.S. national security budget, step by step, and add it all up.
So, here we go. Buckle your seat belt: it’s going to be a bumpy ride. (add it all up)
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Superstitious behavior
 |
| In the rainforest you're eaten for adultery |
Apparently the American public believes in superstitions that are no less primitive than those of natives living in the rainforest or suicide bombers of radical Islamic sects. Members of a Midwest Baptist church claim that U.S. service men are dying overseas “..in divine retribution for American decadence and tolerance of homosexuality.” Now, I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court defending their right to free speech. What bothers me is when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. goes on to imply that their beliefs represent those of American society. According to Roberts: “The content of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large regarding the moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, and the fate of our nation.” In addition, he says their beliefs “reflect matters of public import” [link]. Now if I’m to believe what I’m hearing from the highest-ranking justice in the land, then Americans are indeed a superstitious group of people. “Thank God for IEDs ..Thank God for dead soldiers” .. (!?) Forget federal funding for schools. No amount of education in the world is going to counter that type of savage thinking.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Extraterrestrial adaptation
 |
| Robert Sapolsky |
If an alien creature invaded earth by entering the brain of human beings, hijacking their nervous system and driving them to engage in high-risk ventures sure to lower their chances of survival .. you’d think some of us might notice something. Yet something disturbingly like this may be happening without notice. When mice get infected with toxoplasmosis, an alien bacterium, the toxoplasmum goes dormant inside the amygdala of their brain and reduces their fear of cats [link]. Cats eat the reckless mice and ingest the toxoplasmas where they wind up in the intestine mingling with others of their kind. Toxoplasmas reproduce sexually only in the gut of the cat, so suppressing the fear response in rats and mice is a sure way of gaining entrance into the cat intestine. Neuro-practitioners call this ‘adaptation by behavioral manipulation’ [link]. A parasite learns to manipulate host behaviors that enhance their own chances of survival. In other words, these alien bacteria learn to perform brain surgery in order to get rides to wild parties where they can exchange DNA and procreate!
Apparently these clever little creatures have found their way into people too. Nearly one third of all humans have dormant toxoplasmas sleeping inside their amygdala. Since people are pretty high up in the food chain ..the only real threat comes from themselves (or perhaps an unsuspecting bear or mountain lion). Chances are, infected individuals will start acting recklessly and wind up getting killed in a car accident involving excessive speed. So they only appear in the traffic section of the paper, or the actuarial tables of an insurance company. Otherwise, symptoms appear close enough to schizophrenia that they wind up in a psychiatric population and are never heard from again. I think I would call this a successful alien predation.
Manimals
Man has killed his brothers...
since the beginning of time...
man profits from war...
man has fished out the oceans...
all the big fish in the oceans are gone...
man ate them...
man is polluting the air...
man is dimming the sun...
man cuts down all the trees...
man poisons his rivers...
man uses the ocean as his toilet...
man shits where he eats...
man sprays poisons on his food...
man lies, cheats and steals...
man rapes, maims and traumatizes...
man is greedy and selfish...
man is weak and flawed and ignorant...
man enslaves himself into economic bondage...
man enriches himself on the backs of others...
man should let the women run the world...
man would benefit from her mother nature...
man is a beast.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Bob Hope
Bob Hope, KBE, KCSG, KSS (born Leslie Townes Hope; May 29, 1903 – July 27, 2003) was an British-born American comedian and actor who appeared in vaudeville, on Broadway, and in radio, television and movies. He was also noted for his work with the US Armed Forces and his numerous USO shows entertaining American military personnel. Throughout his career, he was honored for his humanitarian work. In 1996, the U.S. Congress honored Bob Hope by declaring him the "first and only honorary veteran of the U.S. armed forces." Bob Hope appeared in or hosted 199 known USO shows.
Hope became one of Paramount's biggest stars, and would remain with the studio through the 1950s. Hope's regular appearances in Hollywood films and radio made him one of the best known entertainers in North America, and at the height of his career he was also making a large income from live concert performances.
As a movie star, he was best known for My Favorite Brunette and the highly successful "Road" movies in which he starred with Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour. Hope had seen Lamour as a nightclub singer in New York, and invited her to work on his USO tours. Lamour is said to have arrived for filming prepared with her lines, only to be baffled by completely re-written scripts from Hope's writers without studio permission. Hope and Lamour were lifelong friends, and she is the actress most associated with his film career. Other female co-stars included Paulette Goddard, Lucille Ball, Jane Russell, and Hedy Lamarr.
Hope was host of the Academy Awards ceremony 18 times between 1939 and 1977. His feigned lust for an Academy Award became part of his act. In one scene from Road to Morocco he erupted in a frenzy, shouting about his imminent death from exposure. Bing Crosby reminds him that rescue is just minutes away, and a disappointed Hope complains that Crosby has spoiled his best scene, and thus his chance for an Academy Award. Also, in The Road to Bali, when Crosby finds Humphrey Bogart's Oscar for The African Queen, Hope grabs it, saying "Give me that. You've got one." Although Hope was never nominated for an Oscar for his performances (Bing Crosby won the Best Actor for Going My Way in 1944), the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences honored him with four honorary awards, and in 1960, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. While introducing the 1968 telecast, he quipped, "Welcome to the Academy Awards, or, as it's known at my house, Passover." (read more)
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Role of Government
The nation is currently politically polarized. The essence of this schism is the perceived role of government. The Democrats have as their central thesis the idea that government needs to be directly involved in meeting the material needs of all of its citizens; while, the Republicans take the position that government's primary function is the security of its people and should not be involved in any other aspect of the lives of its people.
The theoretical divide between the parties is immense; however, in practical terms there is not much difference between them in that the leadership of both parties is wholly dependent upon the financial largesse provided by special interests that, for the most part, represent the wealthy, i.e. the corporate class.
The current ideas regarding the role of government are for this reason terribly flawed. They do not work, for neither viewpoint is grounded upon the unerring commitment to ethical and moral principles. This is the core of the dilemma not only within the borders of the United States, but also in human societies in general. It is the mindless pursuit of national self interest, geopolitical-inspired policies, empire building and a blind and a myopic view of national sovereignty that has led to exorbitant military budgets, the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction and ultimately war. It is militarism that thwarts and often negates human progress; it is the unbounded use of violence to achieve selfish ends that undermines our collective humanity.
I propose a radically different reason d'être for government. In my mind, the motivating force in government needs to be the global eradication of all the inequities that thwart human progress. Billions of the world's people are suffering needlessly from abject poverty, preventable diseases, avoidable hunger, environmental degradation and political oppression. It is completely unacceptable that the fate of so many human beings is dependent upon their place of origin. These inequities are especially aggravated by the siphoning off of so much of the global wealth towards military expenditures, corporate welfare and by the apparent insensitivity of the affluent class to the plight of the world's people including those who live within their own countries.
There is no real reason why humans cannot collectively create a better world for their own species and, likewise, accommodate and sustain the wondrous diversity of life on the planet. We are in desperate need of a new paradigm to frame human existence. Currently, so much of public policy throughout the world is driven by crazed and, often times, delusional thinking. There is, however, a definite path towards collective sanity.
The primary incentive for change is the unavoidable reality that if the global status quo remains intact, the future for humanity is particularly grim. Short term thinking and analysis especially from the sole perspective of profit and loss has already shown itself to be inadequate and disastrous. At this juncture, it seems quite obvious that beneficial change will be in the hands of future generations. There are numerous signs that a significant proportion of the younger generation has become acutely aware of the fragility of the environment and the severe plight of those less fortunate. They have many tools available to them in terms of information about the world they live in provided by the Internet and they are highly connected with each other globally through the wonder of what is referred to as "social networking." Significant and lasting change is, by its nature, cumbersome and slow, for it must work its way through the hearts and minds of the population. As we have seen on numerous occasions, reform imposed from above is not necessarily the best approach.
There is a deep-seated and persistent hunger that manifests itself globally; this hunger is for a more equitable, just, peaceful and saner world. There are many communities throughout the planet that are working towards this goal in innumerable ways. These organizations are clearly growing in size and number and they are becoming more and more interconnected. If this trend continues, it offers significant hope for meaningful change, for it may ultimately expand the idea of family beyond the rigid boundaries of genetic affiliation to encompass all of humanity.
The theoretical divide between the parties is immense; however, in practical terms there is not much difference between them in that the leadership of both parties is wholly dependent upon the financial largesse provided by special interests that, for the most part, represent the wealthy, i.e. the corporate class.
The current ideas regarding the role of government are for this reason terribly flawed. They do not work, for neither viewpoint is grounded upon the unerring commitment to ethical and moral principles. This is the core of the dilemma not only within the borders of the United States, but also in human societies in general. It is the mindless pursuit of national self interest, geopolitical-inspired policies, empire building and a blind and a myopic view of national sovereignty that has led to exorbitant military budgets, the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction and ultimately war. It is militarism that thwarts and often negates human progress; it is the unbounded use of violence to achieve selfish ends that undermines our collective humanity.
I propose a radically different reason d'être for government. In my mind, the motivating force in government needs to be the global eradication of all the inequities that thwart human progress. Billions of the world's people are suffering needlessly from abject poverty, preventable diseases, avoidable hunger, environmental degradation and political oppression. It is completely unacceptable that the fate of so many human beings is dependent upon their place of origin. These inequities are especially aggravated by the siphoning off of so much of the global wealth towards military expenditures, corporate welfare and by the apparent insensitivity of the affluent class to the plight of the world's people including those who live within their own countries.
There is no real reason why humans cannot collectively create a better world for their own species and, likewise, accommodate and sustain the wondrous diversity of life on the planet. We are in desperate need of a new paradigm to frame human existence. Currently, so much of public policy throughout the world is driven by crazed and, often times, delusional thinking. There is, however, a definite path towards collective sanity.
The primary incentive for change is the unavoidable reality that if the global status quo remains intact, the future for humanity is particularly grim. Short term thinking and analysis especially from the sole perspective of profit and loss has already shown itself to be inadequate and disastrous. At this juncture, it seems quite obvious that beneficial change will be in the hands of future generations. There are numerous signs that a significant proportion of the younger generation has become acutely aware of the fragility of the environment and the severe plight of those less fortunate. They have many tools available to them in terms of information about the world they live in provided by the Internet and they are highly connected with each other globally through the wonder of what is referred to as "social networking." Significant and lasting change is, by its nature, cumbersome and slow, for it must work its way through the hearts and minds of the population. As we have seen on numerous occasions, reform imposed from above is not necessarily the best approach.
There is a deep-seated and persistent hunger that manifests itself globally; this hunger is for a more equitable, just, peaceful and saner world. There are many communities throughout the planet that are working towards this goal in innumerable ways. These organizations are clearly growing in size and number and they are becoming more and more interconnected. If this trend continues, it offers significant hope for meaningful change, for it may ultimately expand the idea of family beyond the rigid boundaries of genetic affiliation to encompass all of humanity.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
what do you know ?
i know nothing...
sometimes...
i think i know something...
but then i realize...
there is no way to know.
(hint)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)