MY WORK ... MY PASSION

• Certified Transpersonal Hypnotherapist ; Past experiences: Dream Analysis /10 Years Experience •Psychotherapist / Use of Gestalt, Jungian, Zen, Reality and Energy Therapies /10 Years Experience •EMDR • Men and Their Journey: the neuroscience of the male brain, and the implications in sexuality, education and relationship • Women: Their Transformation and Empowerment ATOD (Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs) / 21 years experience •Ordained Interfaith Minister & Official Celebrant • Social Justice Advocate • Child and Human Rights Advocate • Spiritual Guide and Intuitive • Certified Reiki Practitioner • Mediation / Conflict Resolution • “Intentional Love” Parenting Strategy Groups • Parenting Workshops • Coaching for parents of Indigo, Crystal, and Rainbow Children • International Training: Israel & England • Critical Incident Stress Debriefing • Post-911 and Post-Katrina volunteer

MSW - UNC Chapel Hill

BSW - UNC Greensboro


With immense love I wish Happy Birthday to my three grandchildren!

May 22: Brannock

May 30: Brinkley

June 12: Brogan

All three have birthdays in the same 22 days of the year ....what a busy time for the family!

"An Unending Love"

This blog and video is devoted and dedicated to my precious daughter Jennifer, my grand daughters Brogan and Brinkley, and my grand son Brannock. They are hearts of my heart. Our connection through many lives..... is utterly infinite.




The Definition of Genius

"THRIVE"

https://youtu.be/Lr-RoQ24lLg

"ONLY LOVE PREVAILS" ...."I've loved you for a thousand years; I'll love you for a thousand more....."


As we are in the winter of our lives, I dedicate this to Andrew, Dr. John J.C. Jr. and Gary W., MD, (who has gone on before us). My love and admiration is unfathomable for each of you..........and what you have brought into this world.....so profoundly to me.
The metaphors are rich and provocative; we're in them now. This world is indeed disappearing, and the richest eternal world awaits us!
The intensity, as was in each of the three of us, is in yellow!
In my heart forever.........

Slowly the truth is loading
I'm weighted down with love
Snow lying deep and even
Strung out and dreaming of
Night falling on the city
Quite something to behold
Don't it just look so pretty
This disappearing world

We're threading hope like fire

Down through the desperate blood
Down through the trailing wire
Into the leafless wood

Night falling on the city
Quite something to behold
Don't it just look so pretty
This disappearing world
This disappearing world


I'll be sticking right there with it
I'll be by y
our side
Sailing like a silver bullet
Hit 'em 'tween the eyes
Through the smoke and rising water
Cross the great divide
Baby till it all feels right

Night falling on the city
Sparkling red and gold
Don't it just look so pretty
This disappearing world
This
disappearing world
This disappearing world
This disappearing world


TECHNOLOGY..........

In “Conversations with God”, by Neale Donald Walsch, there is a warning I think of. I refer to it as the Atlantis passage, and I've quoted it a few times before." As I have said, this isn't the first time your civilization has been at this brink,"

God tells Walsch. "I want to repeat this, because it is vital that you hear this. Once before on your planet, the technology you developed was far greater than your ability to use it responsibly. You are approaching the same point in human history again. It is vitally important that you understand this. Your present technology is threatening to outstrip your ability to use it wisely. Your society is on the verge of becoming a product of your technology rather than your technology being a product of your society. When a society becomes a product of its own technology, it destroys itself."

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Unwisdom of Elites by Paul Krugman

OP-ED COLUMNIST



The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the 1930s. Meanwhile, Europe’s single currency is coming apart at the seams. How did it all go so wrong?



Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.
So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.
The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.
Let me focus mainly on what happened in the United States, then say a few words about Europe.
These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?
The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.
So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn’t the man in the street.
President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party’s ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.
Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.
Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that’s who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.
So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America’s deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis.
Needless to say, that’s not what you hear from European policy makers. The official story in Europe these days is that governments of troubled nations catered too much to the masses, promising too much to voters while collecting too little in taxes. And that is, to be fair, a reasonably accurate story for Greece. But it’s not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.
The real story of Europe’s crisis is that leaders created a single currency, the euro, without creating the institutions that were needed to cope with booms and busts within the euro zone. And the drive for a single European currency was the ultimate top-down project, an elite vision imposed on highly reluctant voters.
Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public?
One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn’t be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn’t be giving lectures on responsible government.
But the larger answer, I’d argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.


Marc Gold travels Asia paying it forward through little acts of kindness

Marc Gold travels Asia paying it forward through little acts of kindness

Study: US Quietly Paid Families For Vaccine-Linked Autism Cases « CBS Los Angeles

Study: US Quietly Paid Families For Vaccine-Linked Autism Cases « CBS Los Angeles

Monday, May 16, 2011

Mother's Day with the Dalai Lama

5/10/2011 11:46:03 AM

Dalai-Lama2With an impressive entourage of Tibetan monks, a Nobel Peace Prize, and the respect of millions around the world, it’s strange to remember that His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama was once just a kid at his mother’s side. But in his May 8 address “Peace through Inner Peace” at the University of Minnesota—which happened to coincide with Mother’s Day—he fondly invoked her memory. His Holiness shared stories of riding on his mother’s shoulders and mischievously “steering” by tugging her hair to the right or left, pouting if she didn’t obey.
He also gave her credit for shaping his compassionate nature. “My warm-heartedness originally came from my mother,” he said, an easy grin bringing the thousands of attendees in close. His Holiness went on to speculate that those who receive maximum affection from their mothers as children have much greater inner peace in their adult lives. (If it was Father’s Day, I like to think he would have included you, too, dads.)

According the Dalai Lama’s website, he was just two years old when he was recognized as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, partly because he was able to indentify the personal belongings of the previous Dalai Lama, exclaiming “It’s mine! It’s mine!” when presented with each. He began his monastic education and study of revelatory inner peace at the age of six.

Over the past week, I’ve been talking about peace with my own young children. Since the death of Osama bin Laden, we’ve driven past flocks of protestors holding up signs promoting nonviolence. Through my elementary explanations, four-year-old Abe has learned that peace means being gentle friends, and little brother Asher has learned that holding up two fingers in a “V” gets cheers from protest sign–holders. It’s a start.

In his Mother’s Day speech, the Dalai Lama taught listeners that respect, compassion, and nonviolence are key starting points for achieving peace. “Mentally, physically, emotionally, we are the same,” he said, no matter your religious background. He also advised that we should focus on secularism when discussing moral issues. “Secular doesn’t mean disrespect for religion,” he explained, “but respect for all religions—including non-believers.”

His Holiness took a few questions after his talk, and one came from a nine-year-old who asked, “If you could completely solve one problem, what would it be?” The Dalai Lama, with his amused, trademark chuckle, had a simple answer: “I don’t know.” What he knew without a doubt was that solving the world’s problems and achieving peace requires the cooperation of us all.

As for the mothers the Dalai Lama acknowledged, we can strive to embrace compassion and teach the warm-heartedness that might make our own kids pick up the quest for peace and say, “It’s mine.”
Image by IMs BILDARKIVlicensed under Creative Commons.
 

Is American Higher Ed Screwed? Conservatives Try to Privatize College As Tuition Soars | Economy | AlterNet

Is American Higher Ed Screwed? Conservatives Try to Privatize College As Tuition Soars | Economy | AlterNet

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Big Pharma

A pertinent video from YouTube:

Dollars for Doctors How Industry Money Reaches Physicians

http://www.propublica.org/series/dollars-for-docs

Med Schools Flunk at Keeping Faculty Off Pharma Speaking Circuit

http://www.propublica.org/article/medical-schools-policies-on-faculty-and-drug-company-speaking-circuit

Big Pharma & Cancer: IS There A Cure?

From Zimbio.com   Written by skins on Sep-30-07 2:13pm

I'm going to take a break from my 9/11 articles here for a moment to discuss something that's been on my mind for a few days. Cancer. I know this is a touchy subject because a lot of you have had relatives succumb to the disease or know someone who's life has been affected by it, but what I have to say is just my opinion. Remember that...

Is it possible that there is already a medical cure for cancer and that the pharmaceutical companies and governments of the world are keeping it from us? I believe that it is quite possible.

Cancer is multi-billion dollar a year INDUSTRY for pharmaceutical companies and the purpose of an industry is to drive revenue. And why not? For the government, pharmaceutical companies contribute over $100,000,000 (that's one hundred million dollars) a year in campaign funds. If there was a cure, it is in 
everyone's best interests to keep the sick--sick, in order to continue driving revenue into the business that in turn funds government campaigns. Do you really think the Global Elitists really care about how many lives they are destroying? No, they don't. All they are interested in is control and if they can keep us sick, they are at the advantage. Cancer kills more Americans and Canadians per year than World War 2 did. They are not interested in sharing a cure with the world, they are just interested in TREATMENT.

The World Health Organization says that 80% of Cancer is environmentally caused yet instead of putting the money towards prevention, it goes towards treatment. In an article in the New York Times on 7/12/05, it states that a new wave of drugs were being released that could extend a persons life by a few months. The cost is $100,000/year per patient. Therefore, even just 100 patients equals $10,000,000 in revenue. That's a staggering amount of money that will go to government campaign funding and more Cancer treatment.

So as you can see, Cancer is a very lucrative business for everyone involved. The more treatments they can come up with, the more money they can generate by keeping you alive longer so you can pay for them, which in turn keeps government campaigns funded and generates more revenue for the Cancer industry to come up with more treatments. It's really a vicious circle and they prey on our emotions to keep us line, so we will not only pay for treatments, but also we will give generously to donation campaigns.

It's no surprise that there is a direct 
correlation between medical breakthroughs and campaign drives. I saw 2 young girls the other day at the subway on my way to work holding their little donation boxes, asking people to donate money to help find a cure. After a little digging I found that just a couple of months ago there were some articles published that had to deal with a new medical breakthrough in Cancer treatment. There's that word again, treatment. Those girls should not have been saying, "Help us find a cure," they should have been shouting, "Help us find a treatment, suckers."

And yes, we are suckers. We buy into the lie that there couldn't possibly be a cure for this disease. Even though the first recorded case of Cancer was in 1500b.c., in ancient Egypt. It was recorded on papyrus and documented 8 cases of tumors 
occurring on the breast. You mean to tell me that in 3500 years, scientists haven't been able to find a cure? What are we paying these people for?

I'm not trying to make light of the situation here, I just think it's a very good possibility, based on all the time the pharmaceutical companies and the governments spend in bed, that a cure for this disease has already been found and is hidden. I'm not looking for a conspiracy here, I'm just looking at the facts and the facts tell me that Cancer is big business and anyone that owns a business never wants it to fail or go bankrupt.

Would you?

Study Details Scope of Big Pharma's Crimes

DAVID CALLAHAN

AuthorPublic Citizen recently released the most authoritative study yet conducted on the stunning scope ofillegal activity by pharmaceutical companies. The study -- done by Sammy Almashat, Charles Preston, Timothy Waterman, and Sidney Wolfe -- looked at federal and state government settlements with these companies going back to 1991. It found that a total of "165 civil and/or criminal settlements of $1 million or more were made between the government and pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2010, with settlement amounts totaling $19.81 billion."
The data presented in the report is fascinating, and must reading for anyone interested in the chronic abuses of Big Pharma. But maybe the most important points of the study come in its conclusion:
Clearly, the continuing increase in violations by pharmaceutical companies despite such large financial settlements is an indication that the current system oenforcement is not working. The lack of criminal prosecution that would result injailing of company executives has been cited as a major reason for the continuing large-scale fraud, in addition to the fact that current settlement payouts may not be a sufficient deterrent. For example, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have paid out a combined total of $7.44 billion in financial penalties overthe past 20 years. These two companies made a combined $16.5 billion in global net profits in one year alone. Thus, these financial penalties, although increasing, remain a very small fraction of company net profits and therefore do not provide a sufficient deterrent against further violations. Increased punishments may be needed, such as significantly larger financial penalties and, if appropriate, felony prosecution—including jail—for company executives engaging in criminal behavior. . . .
This more aggressive level of enforcement would be based on applying thedoctrine,” a legal precedent that holds top corporate executives liable for illegal conduct within their company, even if they didn’t know about or participate in it. The main purpose of employing this standard is to force companies to “…implement measures that will prevent [these] violations in the first instanceparticularly in cases where public safety is at risk. In addition to the prospect of jail time for individual executives, a felony conviction could result in their companies becoming ineligible for reimbursement from federal and state healthprograms, a critical source of pharmaceutical company revenues.
Holding actual individuals responsible is the usual response to crime sprees, except when those sprees are orchestrated by corporate executives. Until that changes, America's white collar crime epidemic will continue.

Big Pharma's Shameful Secret - Bloomberg News

Although this is a report from 2005, nothing has changed.  In fact the corruption in the pharmaceuticals industry has morphed into a much larger entity.


Most Clinical Trials Stopped Early for "perceived" benefit later turned out false - JAMA
Thu, 3 Nov 2005
A six part Special Report by Bloomberg News reveals that "Every year, drug companies spend $14 billion to test experimental substances on humans. Across the U.S., the centers that do the testing--and the regulators who watch them--allow scores of human test subjects to be injured or killed."
Big Pharma's Shameful Secret-- http://www.bloomberg.com/specialreport/ provides corroborating evidence to support our consistent criticism over the years about corrupt clinical trial practices and a dysfunctional system that protects itself while sacrificing both the integrity of research findings and the safey of human subjects--whether they are patients or healthy volunteers. See, for example, "dirty dozen" corrupt research review practices: http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/armymeddept.php
The Bloomberg Special Report: is a massive indictment of the pharmaceutical industry and its corrupt practices which would not be possible without the complicity of the stakeholders in government and academia. This report is an indictment of those who profit from the exploitation of desperate, poor, and disenfranchised people--immigrants, children, homeless people, and others who are used and abused as guinea pigs.
Drug Industry Human Testing Masks Death, Injury, Compliant FDA:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aspHJ_sFen1s&refer=home#
War Hero's Death at Houston Clinic Follows Years of FDA Neglect:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport&sid=aAC1o70dkzcI&refer=news#
North Carolina Artist Hobbled After Doctor Suggested Drug Test:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport&sid=aGp_iOhE1Mo4&refer=news#
Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren't Warned:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport&sid=a13F_Mo6vzAs&refer=news#
Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport&sid=agPpkV1bu7OU&refer=news#
Miami Test Center Lures Poor Immigrants as Human Guinea Pigs:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport&sid=amgWGeDrNJtg&refer=news#
Company CEOs of 15 pharma companies refused to be interviewed.
The report also lays bare the utterly dysfunctional IRB gatekeeping system whose inherent conflicts of interest only members of the IRB community fail to recognize.
Indeed, Dr. Greg Koski, former head of OHRP, the federal agency that is supposed to oversee federally funded clinical trials, and the IRB system, now acknowledges: "It's not really a 'few bad apples' problem. We need to create a system that grows better apples."
The Bloomberg report focuses on commercial IRBs and their rubber stamping approval--i.e., service for pay. To illustrate but one example: Angela Bowen, who runs Western IRB, the largest commercial IRB in the country, oversaw clinical trials "for which doctors were criminally charged and jailed for lying to the FDA and endangering the lives of trial participants."
But no actiion was taken against Western. Owen told Bloomberg reporters that she "didn't see human safety issues in those trials."
This Special Report also takes a critical look at the FDA and its colossal failure to protect human subjects of clinical trials. Dr. Joanne Rhoads, director of FDA's Scientific Investigations acknowledges FDA's inability to monitor clinical trials for safety: "You cannot rely on the inspection process to get quality into the system. I know many people find this not OK, but that's just the truth."
Dr. Michael Hensley, a pediatrician who was an FDA investigator (1977-1982) says the agency "has become less active in clinical trial oversight in recent years....The folks at the FDA stopped enforcing the rules several years ago. The FDA's backbone has been Jell-O."
However, the Bloomberg Report suffers from one major flaw--which is the illusion that academic IRBs are more reputable and reliable in ensuring the safety of human subjects than those not affiliated with academia. This illusion has been woven into the Report by several disingenuous academics who have themselves actively supported efforts of the research industrial complex--a tight and secretive partnership of stakeholers comprising pharma-government-and academia--to circumvent existing federal regulatory safeguards for human subjects.
For example, the Report cites academics who supported efforts aimed at redefining "consent" and "assent" to research by a minor. Assent is essentially an uniformed agreement by a child to do what grown ups tell him / her. Academics in public office and on government advisory committees supported efforts to circumvent parental authority and parental responsibility-- in order to facilitate research. Parental responsibility is to protect children from participation in research which in their judgement is not the children's best interest.
But academic research stakeholders rationalized as follows: "as we understandably increase the extent to which needed research is conducted on vulnerable populations, such as children, it may well be necessary to redefine our notions of consent and assent for purposes of recruiting subjects." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2000) 28:330-331 See:http://www.ahrp.org/children/RiskBearingChildren.php and Testimony submitted to OHRP (2001)http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/sharavCassidyOHRP.php
It can be argued that academic based IRBs deserve no less condemnation than do commercial IRBs--perhaps even more. Academic affiliations have been used to mislead the public into a false sense of trust. A case in point is the the government sponsored, multi-million dollar ARDS experiment that was conducted at academic based institutions belonging to the ARDS Network. In this controversial experiment 861 critically ill patients with acute lung injury were exposed to unjustifiable risks of death. The experiment violated the patients' fundamental human right to informed consent; as well as just about every federal research safeguard, resulting in preventable human casualties.
Thus, academia--which is under the influence of does not confer higher ethical standards in clinical trials-
USA Today reports (below) that an analysis by Dr. Victor Montori (Mayo Clinic) of 143 published randomized clinical trials that "were stopped early," whose investigators reported in joournal articles that the trials were stopped because "the treatment looked so effective"-- turned out NOT to be effective: "Unfortunately, what looks too good to be true often is".

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

By cgull8m
Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.
Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.


This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies.


Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?


In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.


The side effect of this is it also reactivates a process called apoptosis. You see, mitochondria contain an all-too-important self-destruct button that can't be pressed in cancer cells. Without it, tumors grow larger as cells refuse to be extinguished. Fully functioning mitochondria, thanks to DCA, can once again die.


With glycolysis turned off, the body produces less lactic acid, so the bad tissue around cancer cells doesn't break down and seed new tumors.


Pharmaceutical companies are not investing in this research because DCA method cannot be patented, without a patent they can’t make money, like they are doing now with their AIDS Patent. Since the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be done in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and can develop an effective drug for curing cancer.


You can access the original research for this cancer here.


This article wants to raise awareness for this study, hope some independent companies and small startup will pick up this idea and produce these drugs, because the big companies won’t touch it for a long time.

Friday, May 13, 2011

What Non-Christians Want Christians To Hear

Posted October 23, 2010 by John Shore in AtheistsChristianity.

  

2010-03-10-scream.jpgBy way of researching a book of mine (I’m OK – You’re Not: The Message We’re Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop), I posted a notice on Craigslist sites all over the country asking non-Christians to send me any short, personal statement they would like Christians to read.
“Specifically,” I wrote, “I’d like to hear how you feel about being on the receiving end of the efforts of Christian evangelicals to convert you.” (To that I added, “I want to be very clear that this is not a Christian-bashing book; it’s coming from a place that only means well for everyone. Thanks.”)
Within three days, I had in my inbox over 300 emails from non-Christians across the country. Reading them was one of the more depressing experiences of my life. I had expected it to be a message of anger, but if you boiled down to one the overall sentiment most often expressed in the nonbelievers’ statements, it would be this: Why do Christians hate us so much?
Below is a pretty random sample of the statements non-Christians sent me. If you’re a Christian, they make for a mighty saddening read. Or they certainly should, anyway.
“The main thing that baffles and angers me about Christians is how they can understand so little about human nature that when, in their fervor to convert another person, they tell that person (as they inevitably do, in one way or another), ‘You’re bad, and wrong, and evil,’ they actually expect that person to agree with them. It pretty much guarantees that virtually the only people Christians can ever realistically hope to convert are those with tragically low self-esteem.”– E.S., Denver
“I feel that Christians have got it all wrong; it seems to me that they’ve created the very thing Jesus was against: Separatism.”– T. O., Denver
“I am often distressed at the way some Christians take as a given that Christians and Christianity define goodness. Many of we non-Christians make a practice of doing good; we, too, have a well-developed ethical system, and are devoted to making the world a better place. Christians hardly have a monopoly on what’s right, or good, or just.”– C.R., Seattle
“Christians seem to have lost their focus on Jesus’ core message: ‘Love the Lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.’”– R.M., Tacoma, WA
“I have no problem whatsoever with God or Jesus – only Christians. It’s been my experience that most Christians are belligerent, disdainful and pushy.” — D.B., Atlanta
“Whenever I’m approached by an evangelist – by a Christian missionary – I know I’m up against someone so obsessed and narrowly focused that it will do me absolutely no good to try and explain or share my own value system. I never want to be rude to them, of course, but never have any idea how to respond to their attempts to convert me; in short order, I inevitably find myself simply feeling embarrassed–first for them, and then for us both. I’m always grateful when such encounters conclude.”– K.C., Fresno, CA.
“I don’t know whether or not most of the Christians I come across think they’re acting and being like Jesus was – but if they do, they need to go back to their Bibles, and take a closer look at Jesus.” — L.B., Phoenix
“I grew up Jewish in a Southern Baptist town, where I was constantly being told that I killed Christ, ate Christian babies, and was going to hell. So I learned early that many Christians have – or sure seem to have – no love in their hearts at all. It also seems so odd to me that Christians think that if I don’t accept their message my ears and heart are closed, because it seems to me like they have excessively closed ears and hearts to anyone else’s spiritual message and experience. They seem to have no sense of the many ways in which God reaches out to everyone. As far as I’ve ever known, Christians are narrow in their sense of God, fairly fascistic in their thinking, and extremely egotistical in thinking God only approves of them.”– B.P., Houston
“I wish Christians would resist their aggressive impulses to morph others into Christians. Didn’t Jesus preach that we should all love one another?”– M.G., Shoreline, WA
“I’m frequently approached by Christians of many denominations who ask whether I’ve accepted Christ as my savior. When I have the patience, I politely tell them that I’m Jewish. This only makes them more aggressive; they then treat me like some poor lost waif in need of their particular brand of salvation. They almost act like salespeople working on commission: If they can save my soul, then they’re one rung closer to heaven. It’s demeaning. I always remain polite, but encounters like these only show disrespect and sometimes outright intolerance for my beliefs and my culture. In Judaism, we do not seek to convert people. That is because we accept that there are many paths to God, and believe that no one religion can lay sole claim to the truth or to God’s favor. Each person is free to find his or her own way. To Christians I would say: Practice your religion as you wish. There is no need to try and influence others. If your religion is a true one, people will come to it on their own.”– M.S., Honolulu
“When did it become that being a Christian meant being an intolerant, hateful bigot? I grew up learning the positive message of Christ: Do well and treat others with respect, and your reward will be in heaven. Somehow, for a seemingly large group of Christians, that notion has gone lost: It has turned into the thunders and lights of the wrath of God, and into condemning everyone who disagrees with them to burning in the flames of hell. Somehow, present-day Christians forgot about turning the other cheek, abandoned the notion of treating others like they would like to be treated themselves; they’ve become bent on preaching, judging, and selfishly attempting to save the souls of others by condemning them. What happen to love? To tolerance? To respect?”–S.P., Nashville
“There are about a million things I’d like to say to Christians, but here’s the first few that come to mind: Please respect my right to be the person I’ve chosen to become. Worship, pray and praise your God all you want–but please leave me, and my laws, and my city, and my school alone. Stop trying to make me, or my children, worship your god. Why do we all have to be Christians? Respect my beliefs; I guarantee they’re every bit as strong as yours. Mostly, please respect my free will. Let me choose if I want to marry someone of my own sex. Let me choose if I want to have an abortion or not. Let me choose to go to hell if that’s where you believe I’m going. I can honestly say that I’d rather go to hell than live the hypocritical life I see so many Christians living.”– D.B., Seattle
“I had a friend who was, as they say, reborn. During my breaks from college she invited me to her church, and I did go a couple of times. In a matter of a month, at least ten people at her church told me that I was going to hell. The ironic thing is that I do believe in God; I’ve just never found a church where I felt at ease. However, in their eyes, I was nothing but a sinner who needed to be saved. I stopped going to that church (which in the past four years has grown from a small to a mega-church), but in time, through my friend, have seen some of these people again. None of them ever fails to treat me exactly as they did four years ago. All I can say is this: Constantly telling someone they’re going to hell is not a good way to convert them.”– A.S., Chicago
“I am a former ‘born again’ Christian. It’s been my personal experience that Christians treat the poor poorly–much like the Pharisees did in the parable of the old woman with the two coins. I found the church to be political to a fault, and its individual members all too happy to judge and look down on others. As a Christian, my own fervor to witness was beyond healthy. My friends would come to me to vent and express emotions, and all I would do is preach to them. I was of no real comfort to them. I never tried to see anything from their perspective.”– J.S.W, Philadelphia
“Once Christians know I’m gay, the conversion talk usually stops. Instead, I become this sympathetic character who apparently isn’t worthy of the gift of Christ. From my childhood in a Baptist church, I recall the ‘loathe the sin, love the sinner’ talk, but as an adult I can’t say I’ve often found Christians practicing that attitude. Deep down, I’m always relieved to avoid disturbing “conversion” conversations with Christians; discussing one’s most intimate thoughts and personal beliefs isn’t something I enjoy doing with random strangers. But at the same time, I feel as though Christians make a value judgment about my soul on the spot, simply because I am gay. I don’t pretend to know the worth of a soul, nor the coming gifts to those who convert the masses, but I would guess converting the sinful homosexuals would merit a few brownie points. But I get the feeling that most Christians don’t think we’re worth the hassle.”– R.M., Houston
“Religion always seemed too personal for me to take advice about it from people I don’t know.”– D.P., Denver

Ron Paul Shows Racist Colors In Washington Hearing

FEBRUARY 9, 2011

This is not the first time I have posted on the truly ugly side of Congressman Ron Paul.  That Ron Paul is a despicable racist is without question.  That Paul is now allowed to showcase that racism from a leadership position in the Republican House of Representatives is maddening.
Ron Paul is chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve.  Anyone who has listened to Paul speak for five minutes about the Fed knows he should be on medication.  When you mention the Federal Reserve one can see the ‘black helicopters’ start to fly in the head of Ron Paul.
The problem is that Ron Paul has a problem with anything that is black.
Stick with me.
At one point, when Paul opened up the hearing to questions from committee members, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South, an organization that has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “neo-Confederate” hate group advocating for Southern secession.
Clay then rattled off a list of some of DiLorenzo’s articles, including “More Lies about the Civil War,” “In Defense of Sedition,” and “The First Dictator-President,” which examines “how Lincoln’s myth has corrupted America.”
“After reviewing your work and the so-called methods you employ, I still cannot understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment crisis, but I do know that I have no questions for you,” Clay concluded.
 The reason a racist was called to testify is because there was a racist chairing the committee.   The League of the South called slavery “God-ordained” and described segregation as necessary to the racial “integrity”. 
There was no reason that DiLorenzo should have been at the congressional hearing to speak about job creation and the unemployment rate.  He claims to be an economist but instead is best known for his life’s work of rewriting the history of the Civil War and Lincoln’s role in it.  DiLorenzo was at the hearing to make a point about the volume of hate that we can come to expect with the vile Ron Paul in charge of this subcommittee.
Question is how will the GOP, who hopes to court more of the black vote, deal with the in-your-face racism of Ron Paul?

Angry White Man (Ron Paul) | The New Republic

Angry White Man | The New Republic

The Hubris And Hypocrisy Of Newt Gingrich


Considering that he’s looking more and more likely to run for President in 2012, John Richardson’s Esquire profile of Newt Gingrich is a must read, but the headline grabbing parts are likely to be the excerpts from the interview with Gingrich’s second wife Marianne:
Early in May, she went out to Ohio for her mother’s birthday. A day and a half went by and Newt didn’t return her calls, which was strange. They always talked every day, often ten times a day, so she was frantic by the time he called to say he needed to talk to her.
“About what?”
He wanted to talk in person, he said.
“I said, ‘No, we need to talk now.’ ”
He went quiet.
“There’s somebody else, isn’t there?”
She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?
She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. ” ‘I can’t handle a Jaguar right now.’ He said that many times. ‘All I want is a Chevrolet.’ ”
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”
“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
That’s a form of arrogance that strikes me as being rather dangerous in one who seeks great power.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

"Forgiveness and Western Guilt" by Will Wlizlo

5/3/2011 

first-things-may-2011“We still value forgiveness, but we are very confused about it,” writes Wilfred M. McClay for the intellectual Christian-monthly First Things, “and in our confusion we may have produced a situation in which forgiveness has in fact very nearly lost its moral weight as well as its moral meaning and been translated into an act of random kindness whose chief value lies in the sense of release it brings us.”
McClay sees Western society to be in a state of moral crisis (when isn’t it?), an era in which traditional conceptions of guilt, forgiveness, and personal mores have been detached from psychological experience by the acceleration of science and technology, a devaluation of Christian life, and the advent of modernity. For one, forgiveness, by McClay’s reckoning, is too swiftly and carelessly meted out:
We live in an age in which being nonjudgmental in our dealings with others is increasingly viewed as part and parcel of being a civilized person, the only truly generous and humane stance. But without the exercise of moral judgment there can be no meaningful forgiveness, as surely as there cannot be mercy without a prior commitment to justice, or charity without a prior respect for private property.
Globalization and Western prosperity have also changed the landscape of our collective guilt in two notable, contradictory ways. Noting the ease with which we can gauge the suffering of members in the global community, “the range of our potential moral responsibility, and therefore of our potential guilt,” McClay writes, “expands to literally infinite proportions.” And after Sigmund Freud laid the groundwork for the Self-Help-Industrial-Complex, we adopted a more “influential therapeutic view that the experience of guilt does not involve any genuine moral issues but rather the interplay of psychic forces that do not relate to anything morally consequential.” Shameless Westerners, he contends, have been morally abstracted from a meaningful understanding of guilt, and have embraced a cheapened sense of forgiveness in response.
This is just the topsoil of McClay’s lengthy argument. His full essay—which also touches on victimhood, sin, and innocence—is worth diving into.


Rape of women in DR Congo 'tops 1000 a day' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Rape of women in DR Congo 'tops 1000 a day' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

"there were no words, but images flooded every cell in her being ...4 and a half decades!"

"there were no words, but images flooded every cell in her being ...4 and a half decades!"