The invocation by Pastor Rick Warren: magnificent.
The poem by Elizabeth Alexander: I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a poem so much. It was just perfect.
President Obama's address: All that I hoped for. The "let's get down to business" and "we are rooted in morals and virtue" tone was just splendid and much needed.
The benediction by Rev. Lowery: what can I say how beautiful his words were? The right man at the right place to witness for the people and God.
The Internetz zey were clogged so I just got the glimpses but I am listening on CNN on my radio.
Congratulations to the nation for a wondrous deed.
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Case study: Understanding America
I believe that no one can effectively understand, love or govern any part of the United States of America unless one has read one specific poem, "Prairie" by Carl Sandburg (my favorite poet).
You know how in science fiction books and fantasy novels sometimes the hero discovers something like an instant learning helmet, where he or she puts it on and they suddenly have a lot of knowledge and wisdom put directly into his or her brain?
"Prairie" accomplishes the same thing. It explains the land of America, the people of America, God, time, destiny, hopes, reality, joy, the economy and peace of mind. One also cannot truly understand the environment or being "green" without reading and studying this poem.
Carl Sandburg was hardly wearing rose colored glasses, so even cynics can have total confidence in his vision. He saw the horrors of service in World War I, and has antiwar and Socialist credentials! But he also believed in God, and admired Abraham Lincoln above all men, spending years in study of him.
Follow this link and study this poem, allowing yourself to really feel section by section what he is transmitting, and you will have an instant transfusion of understanding American. Print it out and read it a few times, at leisure, over these next few days.
"Put on your instant learning and wisdom helmet" here:
http://www.bartleby.com/134/1.html
You know how in science fiction books and fantasy novels sometimes the hero discovers something like an instant learning helmet, where he or she puts it on and they suddenly have a lot of knowledge and wisdom put directly into his or her brain?
"Prairie" accomplishes the same thing. It explains the land of America, the people of America, God, time, destiny, hopes, reality, joy, the economy and peace of mind. One also cannot truly understand the environment or being "green" without reading and studying this poem.
Carl Sandburg was hardly wearing rose colored glasses, so even cynics can have total confidence in his vision. He saw the horrors of service in World War I, and has antiwar and Socialist credentials! But he also believed in God, and admired Abraham Lincoln above all men, spending years in study of him.
Follow this link and study this poem, allowing yourself to really feel section by section what he is transmitting, and you will have an instant transfusion of understanding American. Print it out and read it a few times, at leisure, over these next few days.
"Put on your instant learning and wisdom helmet" here:
http://www.bartleby.com/134/1.html
Friday, November 21, 2008
Cultural diplomacy: Case study, Libya
I'm impressed. Read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gadhafis-Son.html
snip
This week's events -- including an unprecedented phone call between Bush and Moammar Gadhafi -- capped a halting, five-year rapprochement between the two countries that began in 2003 when the Libyan leader renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The process gained traction in August when the U.S. and Libya agreed on the compensation deal.
The younger Gadhafi, who also met with human rights and environmental groups, said his main message was: ''We are good people, and nice. We'll make business. We'll invest, and we have friends here in the states and we have a new chapter in the relations.''
He said Libya's new sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment fund with almost $100 billion, ''wants to invest here in America'' despite the current financial crisis.
I'm not going to write a long tutorial on cultural diplomacy, and instead point this topic out to my readers to do whatever behind the scenes background reading that you like about Libya-USA relationships. However, I want to make some points that genuine diplomats should always keep in mind that they can learn from this success.
1) If both sides have a genuine desire to resolve differences, even the most impossible situation can be resolved, often with a success that never could have been anticipated.
If you think that there is incredible misery weighing down the Israel-Palestinian problem, with decades of horror on both sides that damage diplomatic good intentions, let me assure you, especially you younger readers, that the situation between Libya and the USA seemed just as doomed to never overcoming the past. With time and determination on both sides, incredibly we have reached this unforeseen good outcome.
So never "write off" the possibility of genuine cultural diplomacy brokering a shining break through in even the worse of situations.
2) Regardless of provocations, while it is allowable to make forceful responses to situations, never attempt to corner the other party so that they have no dignity.
As rough as the conflict was between Libya and the USA a healthy respect for each other was maintained throughout. This was, in part, because the main conflict between Libya and the USA took place years before a kind of personally demeaning "taunting" has become part of both the official governmental and political discourse and the public "talk radio" and other circuits. Again, contrast that with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where both sides have used language seeking to mock and strip the dignity of their "opponent." Thus no genuine diplomacy results.
3) Set timetables for actions and stick to them, but let the process of normalization run a natural course of time.
Genuine diplomacy recognizes that two things take place. One is the negotiation and completion of specific actions. The other is allowing all parties to adjust (even to the point of the next generation coming of age and participating) at a pace that is natural to human nature and as a response to new perspective gained from each specific action step.
Once again, compare this to the Israel-Palestinian problem. It has become a ridiculous knot that cannot be untied because people refuse to set timetables for actions and stick to them, and allow normalization to, like a river "flow alongside." The Israelis in particular do not understand that one changes mindset on both sides alongside the honorable carrying out of specific diplomatic tasks and agreements. You can think of it like this, it is like the Israelis say, "Well, we will like and understand you only if you sign these agreements." If the Libya-USA relationship had followed the terrible example in the Middle East, we would not be reading the sincere words of mutual relationship and amiability on both sides that we see in this news article today.
Here is another analogy. If you are offered a job in a company, what if you said before you accepted the job "Well, before I agree, I want a guarantee that every company employee will like me when they meet me, and they will never do anything wrong against me." How likely is that? (Even Jesus certainly did not have that happen, hmm?) If one ties what one thinks of the other party and, further, refuses all natural forms of relationship building to develop until one or the other agreement is signed, that is damming up the natural development of genuine relationship, just as the employee who won't sign on without unreasonable conditions being met first. Thus Israel will not follow UN mandates because they envision first receiving some sort of emotional guarantee of the future, and as a result, they dam up that exact flow of goodwill (or at least fearsome respect) that they desire to have from the Palestinians and the Islamic countries that support them.
The Libya-USA relationship progress demonstrates that hard decisions and agreements on specific actions must be made and carried out, while then, alongside, the natural development of mutual understanding and progress in respect, and even liking, are allowed to develop without conditions.
Congratulations to all who have been involved in reaching the success of the Libya-USA relationship and one that I hope will only improve and benefit both sides (and not just for the investment money, ha). I hope that our future Secretary of State will follow these suggestions ;-)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gadhafis-Son.html
snip
This week's events -- including an unprecedented phone call between Bush and Moammar Gadhafi -- capped a halting, five-year rapprochement between the two countries that began in 2003 when the Libyan leader renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The process gained traction in August when the U.S. and Libya agreed on the compensation deal.
The younger Gadhafi, who also met with human rights and environmental groups, said his main message was: ''We are good people, and nice. We'll make business. We'll invest, and we have friends here in the states and we have a new chapter in the relations.''
He said Libya's new sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment fund with almost $100 billion, ''wants to invest here in America'' despite the current financial crisis.
I'm not going to write a long tutorial on cultural diplomacy, and instead point this topic out to my readers to do whatever behind the scenes background reading that you like about Libya-USA relationships. However, I want to make some points that genuine diplomats should always keep in mind that they can learn from this success.
1) If both sides have a genuine desire to resolve differences, even the most impossible situation can be resolved, often with a success that never could have been anticipated.
If you think that there is incredible misery weighing down the Israel-Palestinian problem, with decades of horror on both sides that damage diplomatic good intentions, let me assure you, especially you younger readers, that the situation between Libya and the USA seemed just as doomed to never overcoming the past. With time and determination on both sides, incredibly we have reached this unforeseen good outcome.
So never "write off" the possibility of genuine cultural diplomacy brokering a shining break through in even the worse of situations.
2) Regardless of provocations, while it is allowable to make forceful responses to situations, never attempt to corner the other party so that they have no dignity.
As rough as the conflict was between Libya and the USA a healthy respect for each other was maintained throughout. This was, in part, because the main conflict between Libya and the USA took place years before a kind of personally demeaning "taunting" has become part of both the official governmental and political discourse and the public "talk radio" and other circuits. Again, contrast that with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where both sides have used language seeking to mock and strip the dignity of their "opponent." Thus no genuine diplomacy results.
3) Set timetables for actions and stick to them, but let the process of normalization run a natural course of time.
Genuine diplomacy recognizes that two things take place. One is the negotiation and completion of specific actions. The other is allowing all parties to adjust (even to the point of the next generation coming of age and participating) at a pace that is natural to human nature and as a response to new perspective gained from each specific action step.
Once again, compare this to the Israel-Palestinian problem. It has become a ridiculous knot that cannot be untied because people refuse to set timetables for actions and stick to them, and allow normalization to, like a river "flow alongside." The Israelis in particular do not understand that one changes mindset on both sides alongside the honorable carrying out of specific diplomatic tasks and agreements. You can think of it like this, it is like the Israelis say, "Well, we will like and understand you only if you sign these agreements." If the Libya-USA relationship had followed the terrible example in the Middle East, we would not be reading the sincere words of mutual relationship and amiability on both sides that we see in this news article today.
Here is another analogy. If you are offered a job in a company, what if you said before you accepted the job "Well, before I agree, I want a guarantee that every company employee will like me when they meet me, and they will never do anything wrong against me." How likely is that? (Even Jesus certainly did not have that happen, hmm?) If one ties what one thinks of the other party and, further, refuses all natural forms of relationship building to develop until one or the other agreement is signed, that is damming up the natural development of genuine relationship, just as the employee who won't sign on without unreasonable conditions being met first. Thus Israel will not follow UN mandates because they envision first receiving some sort of emotional guarantee of the future, and as a result, they dam up that exact flow of goodwill (or at least fearsome respect) that they desire to have from the Palestinians and the Islamic countries that support them.
The Libya-USA relationship progress demonstrates that hard decisions and agreements on specific actions must be made and carried out, while then, alongside, the natural development of mutual understanding and progress in respect, and even liking, are allowed to develop without conditions.
Congratulations to all who have been involved in reaching the success of the Libya-USA relationship and one that I hope will only improve and benefit both sides (and not just for the investment money, ha). I hope that our future Secretary of State will follow these suggestions ;-)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Agree with Russian editorial about Mexico
I totally agree with this editorial, where the writer wonders why the USA obsesses about Russian relationship with its neighbors while seeming not to care about the near total collapse of Mexico to the drug cartels and the spillage into the USA.
I have wondered this myself for many, many years.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1226508937
I have wondered this myself for many, many years.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1226508937
Thursday, October 9, 2008
My thoughts about USA space agency NASA
I believe that the US should cut the budget of NASA and confine them to three projects (for which they will get full funding to ensure safety and effectiveness): Investment in the space station, Rocketry and other infrastructure for "return to the moon" exploration, and research into effective means to protect the earth from possible asteroid threats. I do not believe that space flight to Mars and either manned or unmanned exploration of any other planets should be funded, period. Here is why.
I defended the space program through the 1960's and 1970's, when many who focus on the social and humanitarian needs of the poor and disenfranchised on earth questioned "why spend the money on space?" I agreed with the necessity for space exploration for all the usual reasons (knowledge, technology advances, security and competition among other countries).
However, some very bizarre decisions in the 1980's through now have made me realize that there is an unsavory agenda behind the bloated expenditures. The first thing I could not understand is how the space shuttle could be so poorly and unsafely designed, which resulted, as we all know, in the loss of lives in two space shuttles. I could not understand why it was "made to look like a plane" and fly "piggy back," when that was so dangerous and unwise from even a novice's understanding of engineering.
Further, I could not understand why moon exploration was dropped like a hot potato and an almost obsessive interest in Mars took over, with repeated scouring of that planet with probes that both worked and did not. There was also an unscientific and biased obsession with "seeing if life is possible on Mars." Why were techniques for living on the moon not being explored, which is within reach? Why the obsession about "life on Mars?" Even the press releases by NASA, who tried to sound scientific, could not hide a rather strange occult tone to them.
Finally I realized that the NASA program was under the influence of Scientology believers. Why? Because Scientologists believe that Mars is some sort of recycling station where "reincarnated aliens spirits" are plugged into earthlings when they die. I wish I was joking but I'm not. So I have every reason to believe that Scientologists have used their behind the scene influence to push for Mars exploration, hoping to find evidence of their loony "beliefs." As a result the space shuttle was some sort of childhood science fiction design fantasy, the moon exploration was dumped (obviously, because science fiction was the motivation, not genuine science), the space station had repeated problems due to diversion of attention toward looking for "Thetans on Mars," and we've had decades now of pouring money into Mars. For what? Total bullshit. Even Bush has been persuaded to advocate funding for more Mars, Mars, Mars.
Someone in Congress, please put a stake through the heart of the Mars programs and make NASA focus on their three mandates, as listed above. In this time of financial crisis this Mars insanity is the last thing we need. There are no Thetans or anything else on Mars.
While thinking about this earlier today I sent a quick thought to God, wishing that he'd supernova Mars and blow it to smithereens, using whatever method he would use. People are too freaking wicked and stupid to even have the delight of seeing the red light of Mars, looking like a star, shine above. I'd happily do without it and think it would be an instructive punishment to humans and their idolatrous wickedness.
I know God probably will not do it. Why? Because he knows humans and their weakness better than anyone. If Mars blew up it would just fuel the psychos' "conspiracy theories." "Ah ha, we were getting close to finding the Thetan lube job station," they would figure, while continuing to gouge money and brain cells out of anyone stupid enough to believe them.
God did, actually, share a thought with me. At the End of Times when the bodies of the just are risen and restored, and there is the new world and the new Jerusalem, there will be no stars or planets in the sky, nothing in the firmament. This is because humans have ruined the beauty of the features of space by idolizing and worshipping them. God will never put that particular temptation in front of humans again. It's sad to think that humans have to ruin everything that is good for everyone.
So Senators and House of Representatives, cut that NASA budget and force them to stick to those three priorities. In this financial crisis the last thing we need is to continue to feed a fat occult pig. I think that is something that both atheists and pious believers in God can agree on.
I defended the space program through the 1960's and 1970's, when many who focus on the social and humanitarian needs of the poor and disenfranchised on earth questioned "why spend the money on space?" I agreed with the necessity for space exploration for all the usual reasons (knowledge, technology advances, security and competition among other countries).
However, some very bizarre decisions in the 1980's through now have made me realize that there is an unsavory agenda behind the bloated expenditures. The first thing I could not understand is how the space shuttle could be so poorly and unsafely designed, which resulted, as we all know, in the loss of lives in two space shuttles. I could not understand why it was "made to look like a plane" and fly "piggy back," when that was so dangerous and unwise from even a novice's understanding of engineering.
Further, I could not understand why moon exploration was dropped like a hot potato and an almost obsessive interest in Mars took over, with repeated scouring of that planet with probes that both worked and did not. There was also an unscientific and biased obsession with "seeing if life is possible on Mars." Why were techniques for living on the moon not being explored, which is within reach? Why the obsession about "life on Mars?" Even the press releases by NASA, who tried to sound scientific, could not hide a rather strange occult tone to them.
Finally I realized that the NASA program was under the influence of Scientology believers. Why? Because Scientologists believe that Mars is some sort of recycling station where "reincarnated aliens spirits" are plugged into earthlings when they die. I wish I was joking but I'm not. So I have every reason to believe that Scientologists have used their behind the scene influence to push for Mars exploration, hoping to find evidence of their loony "beliefs." As a result the space shuttle was some sort of childhood science fiction design fantasy, the moon exploration was dumped (obviously, because science fiction was the motivation, not genuine science), the space station had repeated problems due to diversion of attention toward looking for "Thetans on Mars," and we've had decades now of pouring money into Mars. For what? Total bullshit. Even Bush has been persuaded to advocate funding for more Mars, Mars, Mars.
Someone in Congress, please put a stake through the heart of the Mars programs and make NASA focus on their three mandates, as listed above. In this time of financial crisis this Mars insanity is the last thing we need. There are no Thetans or anything else on Mars.
While thinking about this earlier today I sent a quick thought to God, wishing that he'd supernova Mars and blow it to smithereens, using whatever method he would use. People are too freaking wicked and stupid to even have the delight of seeing the red light of Mars, looking like a star, shine above. I'd happily do without it and think it would be an instructive punishment to humans and their idolatrous wickedness.
I know God probably will not do it. Why? Because he knows humans and their weakness better than anyone. If Mars blew up it would just fuel the psychos' "conspiracy theories." "Ah ha, we were getting close to finding the Thetan lube job station," they would figure, while continuing to gouge money and brain cells out of anyone stupid enough to believe them.
God did, actually, share a thought with me. At the End of Times when the bodies of the just are risen and restored, and there is the new world and the new Jerusalem, there will be no stars or planets in the sky, nothing in the firmament. This is because humans have ruined the beauty of the features of space by idolizing and worshipping them. God will never put that particular temptation in front of humans again. It's sad to think that humans have to ruin everything that is good for everyone.
So Senators and House of Representatives, cut that NASA budget and force them to stick to those three priorities. In this financial crisis the last thing we need is to continue to feed a fat occult pig. I think that is something that both atheists and pious believers in God can agree on.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Homeland security denies priest green card
He is an Irish priest who has ministered for years in a poor, rural area of South Dakota and the US government has denied him a green card, despite Senator Thune's request for intercession.
In a nutshell, this shows how messed up are the priorities of this government. Only the mendacity of it surprises me. I feel so bad for the parishioners who know they are blessed to have had such a quality priest guide their flock.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802933.htm
In a nutshell, this shows how messed up are the priorities of this government. Only the mendacity of it surprises me. I feel so bad for the parishioners who know they are blessed to have had such a quality priest guide their flock.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802933.htm
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Why is USA pressuring Saudi oil production?
The USA has had thirty years to develop nuclear power and abandoned it due to liberal pressure and conservative weakness. The USA has oil resources but shrill voices on both sides are unable to find agreement on reasonable and environmentally clean increase in drilling. The USA has abundant coal but seems unable to commit to understanding what percentage of our energy should come from clean and safe processing of coal. Hydrogen and water, of course, have always been essentially "free" yet research in those areas are very late in starting. And of course elitist environmentalists view "green technology" as first and foremost the way to limit freedoms of other people and to line their own pockets with "green" and I don't mean vegetation. The USA has a lot of nerve to pressure Saudi to increase production of the ONE treasure that they have from God, which they must steward for their own people's needs into the future and not to enable the USA who has an abundance of resources and yet is so ungrateful to God and so handicapped in their ability to be wise stewards.
Friday, February 29, 2008
What founders meant by "natural born"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
snip
The problem arises from a phrase in the Constitution setting out who is eligible to be president. Article II, which also specifies that a person must be at least 35 years old, says "No person except a natural born Citizen" can be president.
Sen. McCain is undoubtedly a citizen. He was born on Aug. 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone, and Congress has specifically provided that anyone born there of U.S. parents, as he was, is a citizen. Indeed, the general rule is that anyone born of U.S. parents outside the United States is a citizen.
But is John McCain a natural born citizen? The Constitution does not define the term further, and legal scholars say the notes of the Constitution's drafters shed little light on what they meant. It seems clear only that the founders wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country. But the term "natural born citizen," many scholars say, was not in common use at the time the Constitution was written.
***
*Rolls eyes.* I know everyone thinks they are an expert in ancient history yet do not have a crumb of perspective about the period in which they have an opinion, so let me help. The reason the founders coined the "not in common use" phrase of "natural born citizen" is that at that time they came from countries that had monarchies. When you have monarchies you also have the problem of "pretenders to the throne." These are people who pop up and claim to be heirs, just to do a power grab. Now the founders were creating a democratic republic, not a monarchy, but they were intelligent and alert to lessons learned under monarchies. They put in this phrase to prevent the production by a foreign country of an "American" in order to make a power grab for the presidency. Thus the use of the word "natural." A "natural born citizen" is a citizen who just happened to be born American, whether on American soil or not. The opposite of that, in the founders' minds, would be an American who was born to be contrived as eligible for being president as a plan or power grab. Thus if England, for example, enticed two Americans to produce a child for the sole purpose of entering that child into elections in the United States, that child would be viewed as in violation of the "natural born citizen" clause. Obviously this does not apply to John McCain or most citizens today. A little intelligent thought, people, that would be soooooo helpful.
snip
The problem arises from a phrase in the Constitution setting out who is eligible to be president. Article II, which also specifies that a person must be at least 35 years old, says "No person except a natural born Citizen" can be president.
Sen. McCain is undoubtedly a citizen. He was born on Aug. 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone, and Congress has specifically provided that anyone born there of U.S. parents, as he was, is a citizen. Indeed, the general rule is that anyone born of U.S. parents outside the United States is a citizen.
But is John McCain a natural born citizen? The Constitution does not define the term further, and legal scholars say the notes of the Constitution's drafters shed little light on what they meant. It seems clear only that the founders wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country. But the term "natural born citizen," many scholars say, was not in common use at the time the Constitution was written.
***
*Rolls eyes.* I know everyone thinks they are an expert in ancient history yet do not have a crumb of perspective about the period in which they have an opinion, so let me help. The reason the founders coined the "not in common use" phrase of "natural born citizen" is that at that time they came from countries that had monarchies. When you have monarchies you also have the problem of "pretenders to the throne." These are people who pop up and claim to be heirs, just to do a power grab. Now the founders were creating a democratic republic, not a monarchy, but they were intelligent and alert to lessons learned under monarchies. They put in this phrase to prevent the production by a foreign country of an "American" in order to make a power grab for the presidency. Thus the use of the word "natural." A "natural born citizen" is a citizen who just happened to be born American, whether on American soil or not. The opposite of that, in the founders' minds, would be an American who was born to be contrived as eligible for being president as a plan or power grab. Thus if England, for example, enticed two Americans to produce a child for the sole purpose of entering that child into elections in the United States, that child would be viewed as in violation of the "natural born citizen" clause. Obviously this does not apply to John McCain or most citizens today. A little intelligent thought, people, that would be soooooo helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
