AMERICAN DREAMS II

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Before I present statistics and survey results, I want to pause to point out that all polls and surveys are not alike. They’re not taken at the same time, they don’t all ask the same kinds of questions, and they don’t all report their findings in the same format. Still, I think these results bear looking at in light of President O’Bama’s succinct summary of Health Care Reform as “we will help people pay for their insurance.” Unless his help is a 100% subsidy, here are some of those whom it will NOT help:

(There are between 46 million and 86 million uninsured in America, depending on whom you ask.)

The numbers below, my friend, are in MILLIONS
(37,000,000 Live below the poverty line)
12,000,000 Illegal immigrants (or 20,000,000 according to other poles)
7,000,000 Work for minimum wage
15,000,000 Unemployed
9,000,000 In long-term care
31,000,000 Are single parents
34,000,000 Are homeless
----------------
108,000,000 for whom “help” will not be enough

Even if we remove 25% from this (my standard incompetency rate), it leaves almost ONE THIRD of the population who will still be without health care other than emergency services (assuming that those continue). All happening in your town. Work out a way to provide health care to these, or face them across the cantaloupe. Ironically, these are the Americans least likely to vote, revolt, or be published.

But before you say to yourself, “Let them die, then,” remember that the only way polio, smallpox, cholera, and tuberculosis were wiped out in the U.S. was by vaccinating EVERYONE. When vaccines stop, it’s likely these will return with vigor.

Between the 51,000,000 on Medicare or State or Federal Disability and the 2,000,000 in prison, 53,000,000 are already 99% subsidized by the government.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Before I leave this subject, a note to immigrant-hopefuls; The American Dream is not as easy to get as to just work very hard. Yes, there is plenty of food here, but it is, in most cases, not free. That whole one man/one vote myth has been busted. We don’t have enough jobs for our own selves, and there are beautiful homes here, but almost half of Americans can’t afford a nice home. To get citizenship isn’t easy, especially if you can’t read, speak and write English. You may be resented for your heritage/religion/color/values and ability (or inability) to drive. And once you are here, your family becomes just as vulnerable to our crime, divorce rate, and incidence of run-aways as ours are. The pioneer days are gone; your children will want iPods. And if someone offers you a ‘credit’ deal, where you get something now and pay for it later, you might as well know the deck is stacked such that you can never pay it all back. It IS still possible to start poor and get somewhere, but remember that 5% of the people control 95% of the wealth. The other 95% of us are fighting, killing, dying to get that last 5%. And we’re not as lazy or as stupid as you may have heard. You will have to fight hard to make it here, and at the cost of your cultural heritage. Wouldn’t it be easier to improve things where you already are?

I’d like to be clear that I have nothing against immigrants, and in fact respect all races and cultures. And if you get here, we will try to help you. Help just may not be as satisfying as the comfort of your own friends, family, community, culture, language, and home lands.

AMERICAN DREAMS

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION

Being an American, I was brought up to think of the United States as a “Christian” nation. But the country was founded, in fact, by a mixture of people from many countries, some Christian, some agnostic, some atheists, many with very different views and interpretations of the Word Of God (if any). They gathered here, and agreed specifically on one thing only: that the government should emphatically NOT have any say in religious matters, nor should religion have any say in government matters. Yes, an atheist has the right to run for office. And no, one has never needed to be a Christian to be a citizen, or even to be president. Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of its Founding Fathers, said in 1810:

“... [A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

Thomas Paine, another of the Founding Fathers, said, in “The Age of Reason”:

“Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

“Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

“No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

“It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”

George Washington, first U.S. President, said:

“The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.”

And for Benjamin Franklin fans:

“Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity…”

AMERICANS TODAY (Population 305 Million) According to Pew Poll :

76% CHRISTIAN
Evalngelical Protestant 26.3%
Mormon 1.7%
Orthodox .6%
Protestant 18.1%
Catholic 23.9%
Jehovah’s Witness .7%
Other .3%
4% NON-CHRISTIAN
Jewish 1.7%
Muslim .6%
Buddhist .7%
Hindu .4%
Other 1.5%
(According to “Covenant of the Goddess,” 1 million Americans are pagan .3%)
15% NO BELIEF

Christians might want to look a little more closely, as not all Christians are alike. Evangelicals top out the scale at only 26.3%.

So I hope that’s cleared it up, then.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME VIII

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Right at this moment, there are efforts under way to create computers with Artificial Intelligence; face-recognition, voice-recognition, expressive interfaces. The thing that’s a bit disturbing about this is that we don’t even know what “mind” is, and we’re trying to re-create it. Doesn’t that seem just the tiniest bit unwise? I hear computers learn better when they get some rest every day. Am I the only one who finds that a little scary?

I don’t know much about how computers work, but I do have a good idea how we do. Humans have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize already. Our computers become our treasured friends or malevolent enemies dependent on how well they work (which is usually the operator’s fault anyway). Now what happens if our computers become capable of returning our affections and frustrations? Will they kill themselves if you can’t work them? I mean, I assume they have access to their own hard drives…or whatever drives are in use at the time. Will it, like Data, feel bad if it can’t get “the joke?” Will it be okay to leave them alone for a few days while we go to the beach? How will we feel when we need an upgrade? Like we’re loosing a pet? Shouldn’t we be thinking about what we’re creating?

Our record, even in highly-intelligent humans, isn’t that good; they’re sometimes defective in unforeseeable ways. The genius composer can be a social idiot. Not to mention physicists (just kidding, they generally don’t compose).

Programming will become as complex as DNA. We’ll probably need a whole diagnostic lab just to check code. At what point will it make sense to have computers take over making computers, and how will they evolve after that? Thank goodness for Asimov’s three laws – what were they, again? Interesting times.

But the biggest question is, does experiencing emotions equal life? If something is afraid to die, is it murder to kill it? Vegetarians of conscience, I ask you especially, when will a machine become considered alive?

Most horrifying of all is that “tipping point” often portrayed in science fiction, where people begin to elect to have themselves replaced with electronic simulations, whether physical or virtual. I really hope that’s one we don’t have to worry about for now, but who knows? Again, we need to think about where we’re headed.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME VII

STATISTICS, COINCIDENCE, PREDICTIVE MODELLING

Statistics may seem straightforward. It’s just math, right? Well, yes, but…

For example, the number of births today is a statistic. Using this number, planners can take appropriate action in regard to future schooling resources. But statistics can also be deceptive; to say a certain number of people believe in UFOs may be very misleading. First of all, what, exactly, was the question these people answered? “Do you believe there is such a thing as an Unidentified Flying Object?” is quite different from “Do you believe alien spaceships are visiting Earth?” Depending on exactly how the question was phrased, this statistic could lead one to believe that a lot more people believe in aliens visiting our planet than actually do so. When you hear that a certain number of people do something or believe something (a much different case than just counting births), you should lend it no credence until you get to see the survey questions and responses for yourself.

On the other hand, statistics can clarify just how “magical” a coincidence is or is not. The Birthday Paradox (a mathematically-proven principle) states that in any random gathering of just 23 people, there is a fifty-fifty chance that at least two people have the same birthday. So if you’re sitting next to someone and find out you share a birthday, this is not a “magical” coincidence. It’s just an example of probabilities. When you speak to someone at an airport, and it turns out you have an acquaintance in common, this is not as unexpected as one might think. You both live or know people in both the city you’re in and the city where you’re headed. You are of a close enough social match to be speaking to each other. How many acquaintances do you have? How many do they have? It’s not as outlandish as it might first appear that you should have an acquaintance in common. When something seems like an amazing coincidence, it’s usually not as amazing as it might seem.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

First, please accept the my proposition that all work is only 75% successful. That is, that there’s a 25% incompetence rate. It’s only a theory, and you can modify it upwards or downwards if you wish, but the fact is that incompetency and indifference exist, in every undertaking.

The idea that there is a network of superspies, supercomputers and superhuman agencies directing things is, to say the least, a little paranoid. The Occam’s Razor principle is a good one for this issue: “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. How likely is it, for example, that a hobo in a tinfoil hat is being tracked and even having his thoughts influenced by the CIA? Just keeping track of him would require:

To cover 21, 8-hour shifts (in one week) would require at least four full-time people (since each will only work 5 shifts per week), plus another person to cover sick-days, personal-leave, and vacation time. If each is paid $35,000 a year, the budget thus far is $175,000 per year. Now add in the cost of health insurance, office space, communications equipment, computers and office machines, and supplies like paperclips and toilet paper, and vans full of spy equipment. Add a manager to be in charge of the people and an administrative assistant to be in charge of everything else. Let’s say the admin person is only paid $30,000, but the manager makes $50,000. In wages alone we’ve already exceeded a quarter of a million dollars per year. Depending on the location of the office and the level of technology involved, the cost to track one hobo would be at least half a million dollars per year, and could be as much as 10 million. What does this hobo know that could possibly be worth this expense? And if you factor in the idea that not everyone does their job well at all times, how much of the time would they really be paying attention, anyway?

I tend to discount conspiracy theories simply because it seems so unlikely that very rich and powerful men are secretly working in concert, never betraying one another, never revealing their secrets to anyone, ever, without any disagreement, toward some vague goal of making themselves even richer and more powerful. Given the general disagreeableness and incompetence of people in general and rich, powerful people in particular, it just seems unlikely. I think it’s more likely your check got lost in the mail than that someone stole it, yet left all your other mail untouched (as though they had x-ray vision). And (with apologies to all hobos everywhere) I don't think the hobo knows anything the rest of us want to know badly enough to spend a dollar on it.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME VI

GENETICALLY-MODIFIED CROPS (YOU’RE SOAKING IN THEM NOW)

Man has been successfully breeding crops since before the Middle Ages. Lately we’ve been able to modify them more aggressively, by using a virus to carry altered genetic instructions directly into a plant’s genome. When successful, these new traits breed true, and if they’re particularly successful they may replace naturally-evolved crops. This has been going on since 1980, and GM foods have been in the markets since 1990. In the produce section of the store, fruits and vegetables grown through GM techniques are labeled with a sticker containing a five-digit number beginning with ‘8’. However, no such labeling is required on foods which have GM products included in them. For example, if a package of corn chips have used GM corn, no disclosure is required.

There is a difference between GM crops and Irradiated (or Radiated) foods. Irradiated foods have simply been passed near a source of radiation in order to kill the bacteria which causes it to spoil. No radiation remains in the food. If it did, that would be contamination. Contaminated foods are not knowingly sold.

It would appear that American consumers have been unknowingly eating GM products for the last two decades. The alarming thing about it is that very few studies have been done to determine what effects eating GM foods might have on humans. There is some evidence that the altered genes can make changes in our bodies (picture those genetic modifications continuing after their source is eaten). There’s also been very little investigation into how breeding (for instance,) bug-resistant crops might affect the ecology. Doesn’t it seem like this is something the FDA might have looked into before these foods were placed on our shelves?

It could be that GM crops come with their own failsafe. We don’t want insects in our food, and we don’t want them eating food we could be eating instead. But if we make crops that resist them so well that the insects starve to death (or are killed by eating them), the ecosystem may break down to the point where the crops themselves fail.


GLOBAL WARMING

Are we all finally in agreement that the earth is getting warmer? Now that Santa’s North Pole home is experiencing tides and an infestation of underwater life? The Earth herself is a system that is so complex and co-dependent that no one can make accurate predictions at this time. Still, it’s looking like way past time we deal with this cooperatively. That means Green technologies NOW. It means action from EVERYONE, immediately.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME V

GENETICS
CHANGING THE HUMAN GENOME

Is it good or right to tweak the genomes of living things? Actually we’ve been tweaking the genome since the first man chose the prettiest girl with whom to mate. One of the reasons humans have come to dominate the bio-system is because we figured out how to ‘breed’ plants and animals to be more like we want them to be. If it isn’t wrong to put males and females (who may not be interested in each other in that way) together in order to gain descendents that have more meat, are more docile, are more trainable, are better-looking (to us), why is it wrong to do it not in the barnyard but in the lab? And don’t kid yourselves, humans have been bred exactly the same way. By un-natural selection.

Actually, the idea that scientists can change a child’s genome in a predictable way is still pure science fiction. The Genome Project has only just given us our first complete picture of human genetic structure. We don’t know yet (as of the time of this writing, anyway) which genes caused you to have your eye color, type of hair, genetic disease, or a happy disposition. But we’re figuring it out. The controversy on this topic isn’t about what science CAN do, it’s about which science MIGHT be able to do someday. IF we figure out which genes cause inherited diseases, we still may not know what else may be affected if we change them. For instance, maybe science could engineer a perfectly disease-free man by tweaking his genes around – but maybe he wouldn’t be able to reproduce. It’s as if we finally have the alphabet, but haven’t yet written a single word, much less a best-seller. That doesn’t mean these issues aren’t going to come up – they are.

CLONING, STEM CELLS AND ABORTION

Cloning (especially of humans) is touchy subject. Many people don’t seem to understand that if you were to clone a human being, all you would get is the GENE SET OF THE BABY. Exactly what he or she was born with. You could theoretically get a baby Einstein (if his DNA’s available), but his environment and experiences would make him a completely different – new – person. He might look somewhat like the Einstein we knew, but he would have had a completely different life. Perhaps he’d become a rock star obsessed with body-piercings. Or he might not be born at all, because right now cloning has an unacceptable failure rate, not only in the cloning process itself, but in the disabilities it can unintentionally cause. But cloning may get better, as most technologies do, and the issue itself probably won’t go away.

Cloning for the purpose of growing new organs takes us into the area of controversial Stem Cell technology. There are some cells in each of us that are ‘undifferentiated,’ that is, they haven’t made up their minds what to be yet. By removing some of these cells from you, and implanting them in a human egg which has had it’s own DNA removed, and waiting for it to grow (exactly as the first few cells of a new human would grow), it’s theoretically possible that enough cells could be grown to make the organ you are in need of. The organ grown this way wouldn’t be rejected as ‘foreign’ by your body. People needing organ transplants might be able to get them without waiting for someone who is compatible to donate them. The controversy is partly due to the fact that it isn’t even known yet if this can be done successfully, and partly from the fact that once this human "egg" is growing it has the potential to grow into a human being. Perhaps you can see where this is headed. By causing the cells to turn into a heart or a kidney, have we aborted a human life? Of course, it wouldn’t be a ‘natural’ human, having only one set of DNA. It would, in fact, if allowed to develop, be a clone. Again, we’re not there yet, but this issue is another one that won’t go away.

What about the idea of cloning meat? What if we could get all the prime beef we want and no cow had to die? Would this satisfy the vegetarians of conscience? Will we refuse to eat it because it’s ‘unnatural?’ We need to think about where we heading.

I’ve noticed that doctors who perform legal abortions are often attacked, even killed, by religious people but religious people are hardly ever killed by doctors. Abortion is another issue that’s been around at least as long as prostitution, but in our time has become a controversy. Since ancient times, a woman who was raped, too poor to support any more children, was impregnated through prostitution, or was simply unmarried has been not only permitted but helped along to abort the unwanted pregnancy. The methods weren’t always successful (crocodile dung suppositories were popular in Egypt), and often lead to the mother’s death. When medical technology made it possible to abort the unwanted child without harm to the mother, we passed legislation that such an abortion could only be performed if to carry the child to term would endanger the woman’s life. Unfortunately, some have chosen to use it in place of birth control. In some places, legislation allows abortion simply because the mother would be inconvenienced. This is not the fault of the doctors. It’s the fault of the man and woman who conspired in impregnation through negligence, then refused to accept responsibility for it. The powerful urge to mate is part of our human make-up. It’s easier to use birth control than to get people to stop. However, even if we grant that they should have been more careful, now that the deed is done, if she thinks pregnancy is inconvenient, what’s she going to think of 2am feedings, diapers, the cost of schooling, and all the other tasks of parenthood? I wouldn’t want to be that woman’s child. And I’m not willing to take her child into my home to be raised as my own. How can you (and why would you) legislate that a woman must raise a child when she has neither the means nor the desire to do so?

Now that we have a ‘morning after’ pill that can stop a pregnancy if there’s been an ‘accident,’ this becomes simply an issue of education. But interestingly, the Christian church is still offended due to their belief that ‘all life is sacred.’ But if all life is sacred, how can they defend bombing clinics? This idea of ‘sacredness’ doesn’t seem to extend to actual living beings which might be contained in or located near such clinics.

It has been common practice in many cultures in human history to carry a child to term, and if it doesn’t meet the parents’ requirements (for example, if it isn’t perfect, or isn’t a boy), it was simply carried to the nearest wilderness and left to die. Before we had laws about such things, if we knew of someone who wanted a child, and we had an extra, we’d just hand them over.

The reason we originally celebrated a ‘birthday,’ also called a ‘naming-day’ was because children were so likely to die in infancy that we didn’t bother naming them until they’d reached a year or two of age. This idea that a child’s life is sacred (especially unborn children) is new to our species. This is why it’s not covered in our religious ‘codes.’ There’s nothing against abortion in the Bible.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME IV

PLEASE DON’T FEED THE.. http://www.woostercollective.com/humansa.jpg

BEING TESTED BEYOND ONE’S ABILITY TO ENDURE

There’s no doubt that some people can endure some amazing things. But ultimately we’re only flesh and blood, and we do break. Not all of us can endure amazing hardships all the time. That’s where Death comes in. But there are some things worse than death.

MENTAL ILLNESS

The adage “You will not be tested beyond your ability to endure” is often quoted by the religious out of context. The passage is: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

This passage doesn’t say we won’t be tested beyond our ability to endure, it says we won’t be TEMPTED beyond what we can bear. This life has other tests besides the temptation to break the ten commandments. There are some trials the human mind cannot bear, and it breaks. Mental illness is often caused by cruel trauma or extreme tragedy the mind simply can’t cope with. Perhaps the religious would feel a break with sanity is “a way out,” but to be institutionalized or otherwise imprisoned and/or to be unable to care for one’s own basic needs does not seem a very graceful “way out.”

It is worth noting that the mentally-ill may believe that God speaks to them. It is also worth noting that many of the religious claim that God speaks to them, too.

SUICIDE

It is often said of suicides that they should have had more consideration for their friends and families. But the fact that they committed suicide is a very clear message that they felt their friends and families could not or would not help them. When someone commits suicide because death is a better alternative than living, maybe we should ask ourselves what we did to make them think they couldn’t turn to us for help. How did they come to feel to so desperately alone, so completely without hope of any future happiness? To them, it seemed perfectly justified. This doesn’t happen when people feel loved – whether or not you loved them may be irrelevant to whether or not they felt loved. So “Shower the people you love with love” while ye may.

EUTHANASIA

When someone has died after a long illness, it’s common to hear the phrase, “At least the suffering is over,” and as trite as it may sound, that’s saying a lot! When someone we love is reduced by illness or injury to a state of non-awareness, or to a state of perpetual pain and suffering, how can we justify using extraordinary medical means to keep them alive? What is our justification for prolonging their suffering? If one is unconscious, you may think they experience something like dreaming, and wouldn’t that be nice, but what if it’s a nightmare? How long would you want that to go on? Is our own lack of personal courage worth more than their peace and dignity? Euthanasia is another of those ancient pastimes (like prostitution and abortion) which have always taken place, but are simply not spoken of. If one of my loved ones comes to be in this position, I hope I will have the personal courage to let them go, and vice versa.

WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT ENDURING?

We all must end. How much we suffer will not change this outcome. How long we suffer will not change it. How noble we are in the face of it will not it. Nothing we can do will change this outcome. Since there is no clear proof of what happens after death, it would be wrong to justify prolonging life in hope of some future, unknowable, possibly non-existent reward? This person is suffering NOW. In Biblical times it was probably rare for people to linger on in illness for very long (due to secondary infection if nothing else), and this topic simply didn't come up. "Thou Shall Not Kill" has nothing to do with this subject, and was never even dreamt of in Biblical philosophy.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME III

EVOLUTION, THEORY OF

This is one of those cases where science has really dropped the ball. To the layman, “Theory” equates directly with “Idea.” So the “Idea of Evolution” doesn’t seem to merit very serious consideration. But actually, it’s not an idea; it’s proven. Do you think that if Darwin had only been publishing an idea, it would have taken the world by storm? Even in his time, there was proof. So science could start by cleaning up its language; a word doesn’t mean what it says in the dictionary, it means what people think it means. If you’re talking to the non-scientist, they’re not generally that interested in your “ideas.”

Another flaw in the science; the parents, grandparents and preachers of every stripe who are arguing against you probably did not learn evolution in school. Any good layman’s book on evolution will get across the idea that it’s almost impossible for humans to grasp the times involved in the process of evolution, or what sort of “random chance” could possibly have resulted in human beings. The flaw is, you need to educate the adults before you’ll be allowed to educate the children.

I recommend that anyone who wasn’t taught evolution in school try to read a book on it – or pressure one of these “science” channels to do a really good expose. Sir Richard Dawkins (though he is openly atheist) has a gift for explaining things of a scientific nature so that anyone can understand them, and his many books do a good job. Before you continue arguing against it, you should find out exactly what evolution is.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME II

FAITH HEALING

Let’s put “Faith Healing” into two categories; 1) Those that take place in front of a crowd of strangers, and 2) Those which are private.

1) Those that take place in front of a crowd of strangers. Surely it’s understandable that when a ‘healer’ is holding a big service everyone expects there to be a healing. Surely it’s not too far a stretch for the ‘healer’ to be certain there will be a healing which everyone will see; after all, the revenue to pay for his chosen arena, retinue and lifestyle will be generated in direct proportion to how many successful healings there are seen to be. We shouldn’t be surprised when we find out that at least some of these healings have been faked.

2) Those which are private. Some level of belief, either in one’s doctor, one’s medicine, one’s god, or a certain location can have a profound healing effect. This is the stuff stage healers wish they could get on a regular basis; cancerous tumors disappearing, bodily systems regenerating, diseases disappearing, all kinds of miraculous stuff. But in these cases it isn’t the intervention of a healer that worked, it was, as a famous teacher once said, “Your faith [that] has healed you.” This is commonly called The Placebo Effect by scientists. The fact that the word “placebo” is contained in it is in no way meant to imply that the effect isn’t real. It has generated some bad feelings, possibly because we think we’ve been cheated of real medicine. But as long as it worked, why should it matter? It’s been shown that if people don’t believe in their doctor or other healing agent, even the real medicine can fail to do its intended job.

No rights in videos, no profit being made:





You meet a man who says he always tells the truth. He lies. What is there to discuss? He takes the pittance of the widow and spends it on luxury. Any questions?

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME

Ethics are the reason behind the law. Ancient laws were made in support of ancient ethics, and we still keep many of them around. But although mankind hasn’t changed in many ways, there have been many, many changes to our world. It used to be taken for granted that one would earn a living as one’s father did. Can you imagine? It was taken for granted that one would marry. It was taken for granted one would marry someone in your shared race, religion and culture. It was taken for granted that you would produce offspring and they would do exactly the same. These things are no longer supportable. In addressing the ethics of our time, we must consult together to determine what is best for us all. And these are issues that WILL be solved, either by reasoning cooperation or by our silence. How will our present sciences and religions help us know what to do? Today, New Age Spiritualism:

NEW AGE SPIRITUALISM

New Age Spiritualism is not really all that new. Since the 1800s, there’s been a new type of paganism, usually based on the oldest type of animism, that is, belief in “pure ethereal spirit…diffused throughout nature…thought to animate all matter.” Helena Petovna Blavatsky, one of the more famous founders of the doctrine of Theosophy (late 1800s CE), held that “All religions are attempts by the “Spiritual Hierarchy” to help humanity in evolving to greater perfection.” Clearly, this has not happened unless perfection can be equated with technology. But this New Age Mysticism may have provided a much-needed relief to those who were no longer comfortable in the bosom of conventional religion. This “new” or substitute religion has a lot more freedom, imagination, and individual input is more respected. That can make it a very pretty trap.

Listen, anyone can take an “inner journey” of the imagination and become queen of the hedgehogs with a crown of diamonds and with the right cues may even be able to find and sustain healing there (sometimes with the right combination of “offerings” and physical, mental or musical routines). But this experience comes strictly from your self and whomever is talking, drumming, etc. NOT from the “spirit realm.” There is no more evidence of a spirit realm than there is of angels. Spiritualist schemes are so vague and have been discredited so often it's amazing that people still buy into them. But maybe it’s the next step after religion, where you at least begin to explore your own mind – there are some amazing things in our minds. Technology now allows us to see almost “into” the mind (without yet having any idea what “mind” is). It show us that whether we see an actual rose or are asked to remember a rose, exactly the same places in the brain light up. So “who” is it that’s deciding one is real and one is remembered? Whoever or whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to be in the brain, but only in the mind.

Lately some spiritualists are preaching about a “Secret” which can make you wealthy beyond your imagination, so long as you can sustain the intention to gain it. But, the only people I see “imagining themselves to wealth” are those who are selling something.* We don’t live in a paradise, and dreaming is not a “super-power.” Here’s how you get wealth:

1) Inherit it
2) Win it
3) Marry it
4) Steal it
5) Work really hard for a really long time
6) Save more, no unnecessary spending – or fun
*7) Find something you can get cheap and sell high

That’s the Secret.

Bottom line; it's okay to put some thought into your day, but your intentions won't change the laws of physics or the balance of the economy.