According to all the statistical analysis of terrorist attacks in the United States since 1970 that I can find, Muslim terrorist attacks account for only seven percent of the attacks. I have to ask why we focus our attention on a group who does very little of the true damage caused by extremism. Extremism, right, or left, is the real problem. Is it because we think they’re easy to identify? Easy for a POTUS to point a finger at and denounce? Or is it because the 93 percent are either home grown, or identify with groups we think are our allies? Perhaps, and I know people will probably take offense to this, it is because they are from a religion we don’t like, and most of the Muslim world sits on a big black pool of our vested self-interest. How long will we use one high profile event to focus people’s attention on the least effective extremists out there, and not devote our resources to combating extremism itself, which is the true enemy of peace, and is generated by our own extremist rhetoric. “We have met the enemy, and they is us.” Sorry, I don’t remember where I stole that one from. My apologies.
What then, is death, I asked myself. If all life was already dying when conceived, it’s obvious that death is not an ending, because all new life is born of dying things, so it is more of a return to where everything already was, as opposed to an end of something. This realization should make the relationship between life and death abundantly clear, but we refuse to see it. Life and death are just descriptive terms we give to a process we don’t fully understand, so, like the human race always does, we describe it in terms that make it understandable to us, given the limitations of our human senses.
This, however, is a great mistake, because the eternal intercourse of life and death are so much greater than the limits of our own lives. This dance, if you will, has been going on since the beginning of the universe, and our feeble senses, even enhanced as they are by our tremendous technology, cannot really see what that beginning was, what the end will be, or if there will even be an end. Science, on the cosmic scale, is, at best, just a wild guess. A wild guess based on our interpretations of what we take in through our five technology enhanced senses.
We can perceive things through means other than the empirical however, and this can save us from our cosmic conundrum, and relieve us of our fears, it just requires our capability to abstract. It is immediately apparent what our life is; the birth, growth, and end of our consciousness as we know it, once we accept its pattern from our realization that death was present at its beginning and is there at its end. This pattern is, of course, a wave. My life, your life, all lives, are waves, similar to the waves that appear in any body of water.
Death, present before the beginning of any life, present after the end of any life, is more akin to an ocean, upon the surface of which waves of life appear, than it is to an antithesis of life. Life and death are not two things: they are one, because neither could exist without the other. Without life, you cannot know what death is, and without death, you could not know life, since we know things in this manifested universe only by knowing their opposite. Before you can completely accept death as an ocean however, you must let go of two misconceptions born of your body: 1) that life is tied to matter, and 2) matter is reality.
And that will be the stuff of Like These Blossoms 3…
A new day has dawned. Thank you so much for your divine beneficence. Please allow us another one tomorrow. Tomorrow’s pizza day. I don’t want to miss that.
Just read an interesting article about the Republican use of the word freedom, which they drape themselves in, even while introducing legislation around the country designed to make peaceful protest unlawful. This is one distinction I can find between the two major parties; and make no mistake, I’m not a registered Democrat. I have never heard of any Democrat introducing such legislation, so what’s up with Republicans? Have they not read the Constitution of the United States? Or are they so cynical that they know such laws would be struck down by even a conservative Supreme Court (it would have no Constitutional basis to uphold them), but it would take time to reach the Supreme Court, and that would in effect still free speech in the short term, making it appear that they have the approval of the majority, simply because the majority cannot legally voice an opinion. These are the actions of totalitarians. If you don’t like that appellation, Republicans, then stop introducing legislation to limit free speech because bystanders might not like it, or it might interfere with business. Lincoln said “of the people, for the people, and by the people,” not, of the business, by the few, or only by us. I find the behavior of this political party to be more and more un-American, so they really need to stop playing the freedom card, because they don’t know, or care, what freedom really means.
Trickle down economics is one of the biggest cons of all time, if not the biggest. It’s a scam, because it is simply an attempt by American Corporations, and the richest two percent of Americans, to pass off all the costs of doing business on to the American taxpayer, because consumers react badly when you pass the costs off directly through price increases. The basic assumption is that if we give tax breaks to the most wealthy individuals, then they will trickle down those benefits throughout the economy by creating jobs for us: the unworthy, smelly little people.
When it comes to business operations, this is making the horse push the cart with his nose. Creating jobs is a cost of doing business, nothing more, not something the wealthy do because they love us all so much. I can prove this through the use of a very simple example, although the people behind this economic theory will claim that my example is too simplistic, but, trust me, that’s part of the con: insisting that you, or I, are just too simple and under-educated to understand the complexities of economics, and that common sense doesn’t apply to modern economics. In that, they are right, common sense has nothing to do with this, because that’s the essence of a good con, getting you to suspend your common sense, and disbelief, so you’ll believe the bullshit.
Let’s say my grandma’s apple pie recipe was so good that no one on Earth could resist it. For years, I served it my family and friends on holidays, and they all insisted that I should sell these pies, because it would be a true moneymaker. After years of cajoling from family and friends, I decided to take the risk and opened my first Mama Rube’s Pie Shop.
Much to my surprise, the business takes off. Everyone in America loves my pies, and soon, I’m working eighteen hours a day just to keep up with demand. I can’t keep up this pace for long, but the money is too good to just walk away. What’s my only recourse? I have to hire workers to help prepare and distribute my pies. I have to pay them wages, because nobody loves me enough to work for free, even my family. I have to pay them decent wages too, because my business’ reputation depends on the quality of my pies, and the service provided by my distributors.
All this, as I’ve said, is a cost of doing business, nothing more, and certainly not some magnanimous activity on my part. It’s the way things worked in American business, at least until the time of Ronald Reagan, and the invention of trickle down economics. Remember, George Bush senior called Reagan’s economic policies, “Voodoo Economics,” when he ran against Reagan and lost, although he later had to accept them in order to win the nomination of fellow Republicans for a second presidential run.
Many took offense to the term trickle down, because it sounded like the intelligent super rich were taking care of us moronic babies, so they spin doctored the name into something more professional sounding: supply side economics. I’ve said for many years now that you can call a skunk a polecat, but it still stinks, and this applies to supply side economics as well; you’re just calling a skunk by a different name.
The basic intent of supply side economics is what it achieves: the accumulation of wealth among the super rich, to satisfy their bloated egos and delusions of godhood. It is not intended, as it’s proponents insist, to stimulate economic growth, that’s just the pablum they feed us to keep us content and happy. Supply side economics can’t stimulate real economic growth for one simple reason: a vibrant economic system is very much a circulatory system and needs the circulation of wealth to endure. In supply side economics, this circulation doesn’t function, because the accumulation of wealth is the object, so any growth is on credit, not real circulation of wealth, which leads us to the endless cycles of boom and bust that characterizes modern economics. Bust for little people that is, because the people at the top are never affected, unless there’s an outright revolution with guns, which is rare. Losing a million dollars on paper is not the equivalent to a family losing their livelihood, home, and children’s future, although supply-siders were quick to try to equate these during the last economic bust, insisting that billionaires were hurting too, and this fabrication led to the most egregious lie in all of American history, “too big to fail.”
Never before in American history was such a concept even suggested, and hopefully it never will be again, because this was literally the crooks picking through the pockets of the dead and dying, searching for valuables, while the police (the federal regulators) stood by, whistled, and looked the other way. There have been many economic crashes throughout American history: the crash of 2008 was the first in which American businesses and banks were protected from its affects by the American taxpayer in the form of bailouts, which, of course, had to be paid back, so that the illusion of fairness could be maintained. The illusion of fairness, because no one bailed out the millions of working Americans whose lives fell into disaster, while the Goldman Sachs boys (the ones who now make up your present president’s cabinet) flew home from the hand out meeting in their corporate jets, celebrating their success.
The reason I bring all this up now is because the angry white people’s movement has bought into all this again through the election of Donald Trump. As previously mentioned, the new Trump administration is filled with Goldman Sachs boys, and they are now in the process of removing all the protections against Wall Street’s penchant for gambling with your future, the future of your children, and the future of your grandchildren.
Somehow, the billionaire’s club has pulled it off again, convincing people that they create jobs only if you reward them for it, or they won’t. Feudalism repackaged, based this time on the divine right of wealth, rather than the divine right of God, because they know you won’t buy that bullshit any more. Unbelievably, modern Americans aren’t any wiser to the con, but more on that later…
… we are all dying. This line, from the movie The Last Samurai, stuck in my mind like the tip of a sword that broke off and couldn’t be removed, forcing me to contemplate an issue that all humans, including myself, try to avoid until the last moment: death.
It suddenly struck me that I was already dying before I was even conceived, because everything and everyone involved in the chain of my creation was already dying as well.
The path is simple; it goes like this:
- The sperm and the egg which created me were already dying when they combined to create me, bringing forth new life.
- My mother and father were already dying when they created the sperm and the egg that created me.
- My father’s and my mother’s parents were already dying when they created the sperms and eggs that created my mother and my father.
- You can follow this path all the way back to the primordial goop if you want to, but it always remains the same. All living things were already dying when they were brought to life.
So, what is death? Contemplate on it for a while, as I am. More on this later, as it becomes more clear…
A little advice, perhaps. I can’t help but feel that you would be doing better as POTUS if you would engage the American public on something other than twitter. Trying to govern a diverse (ew, I said a dirty word to Republicans) population like ours with two sentences a day might not be the best way to go. Constantly referring to all those who oppose your ideas as “the enemy,” or paid political activists isn’t getting you anywhere either. You claim you want to unite us, but your idea of unity is that we should conform to what you think, and believe anything you tell us. That’s not going to gain traction either, except with your loyal fan base. Unity requires compromise, Mr. Trump. Unity requires acceptance of others. For you, that means we must give you a chance. That’s not going to happen until you admit that lots more of us voted against you than voted for you. Acknowledging that you have a problem is the first step toward recovery, they say. Accepting that a majority of us voted against you is your first step in this process. Simply calling everyone who says that a liar is the root of your problem with governing us. Let it go, and you might get somewhere. Hold on to it, and prepare for the consequences in 2018.
…that Republicans, and especially Trump supporters, were so incensed with Hillary Clinton’s use of email that they bought Donald’s “lock her up” BULLSHIT, and made it one of their slogans against her, but now, no one from the Trump camp, or most of the Republican party, has any problems with unsecured email use, or cell phone use by Trump, or his White House staff. I don’t here Trumpers shouting “lock him up!” Where is your anger now, Trump supporters? Gone? Or was it just as phony as you and your values are?
…for your response to President Twitter’s assertion that the free press is the enemy of the American People. It reminds us that many people, military, and non-military, give their lives in defense of our freedom, and in defense of the truth, something this vile man will never quite understand. If nothing else, he reveals himself every day as the enemy of truth based on facts. People often say that freedom isn’t free; the sacrifice of these journalists is more evidence of that fact. We too often forget them, even while we remember others.
We, the people of the United States, would like to apologize for the acts of imaginary terrorism that have been plaguing your shores. You have enough to worry about when there are real terrorist attacks. You don’t need to deal with delusional ones as well. We’re trying to get him and his band of scary-men to shut up, but so far it isn’t working. I hope that hot dog incident in Sweden turned out for the best. You, and your hot dogs, are in our prayers tonight.