Thursday, February 28, 2008
I need to mark this: Yesterday, William F. Buckley, Jr., one of the people I admired most in this world passed away. An important point for me about Buckley was this: Even many of his political adversaries, people who often hated his positions on issues, recount what a fine person he was and that they genuinely liked him and that he always treated them with dignity and respect.
As I've aged, I've come to understand just how uncommon and priceless that sort of thing is.
May he rest in peace.
As I've aged, I've come to understand just how uncommon and priceless that sort of thing is.
May he rest in peace.
Friday, February 22, 2008
I am not, by natural bent, generous or compassionate. I am selfish to the core. The biggest lesson for me to learn in life is to love without thought of return.
I note clearly here that this does not imply martyrdom. In my training I am taught that it is indeed my own greed, hate and delusion that cause my suffering. I find that to be a verifiable fact of my existance when I am able to bring my mind back to center and find serenity in situations that cause me pain. Time and time again, when I take offense at something, upon further consideration it will become clear that I am clinging to a desire for something from someone. When I am able to stop clinging and let go of the desire, I return to a peaceful place and my world is transformed. When I act out love and compassion after letting go of selfish desires, I experience serenity I would have thought not possible.
And so, it is without a doubt the right thing to do, to show love and compassion to the people in my life in all cases.
I note clearly here that this does not imply martyrdom. In my training I am taught that it is indeed my own greed, hate and delusion that cause my suffering. I find that to be a verifiable fact of my existance when I am able to bring my mind back to center and find serenity in situations that cause me pain. Time and time again, when I take offense at something, upon further consideration it will become clear that I am clinging to a desire for something from someone. When I am able to stop clinging and let go of the desire, I return to a peaceful place and my world is transformed. When I act out love and compassion after letting go of selfish desires, I experience serenity I would have thought not possible.
And so, it is without a doubt the right thing to do, to show love and compassion to the people in my life in all cases.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Conservative Michael Ledeen writes this piece on a meeting in Denmark. Even as I ackownledge difficulties and realities, my hopes for Iraq rise when I read things like this. And at the point that my path of faith has brought me to, I feel today a more tangible compassion and hope for people's well-being and am glad to not be quite as cold as I had been all my life.
My prayers are with these people struggling for reconciliation.
My prayers are with these people struggling for reconciliation.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Two articles, seemingly unrelated at first glance, share a common thread: Liberals cast people as victims in a way the conservatives often don't understand or agree with.
The first piece, by Thomas Sowell, talks about the liberal media "supporting" the troops, but casting them as victims. The point is made directly and convincingly.
The second, a review of Taxi to the Dark Side, by Roger Ebert, makes a statement that had me wondering: The "conversations with the American torturers themselves are the most heartbreaking". I understand the point and sympathize with the young men that thought they were doing their duty and suffered mental trauma as a result, but can that mental trauma really be equated to the brutal torture of a prisoner? I have not seen the film and so am not commenting on the content of it per se, instead commenting on what seems to be the liberal baby-boomers' propensity for rearranging moral values and priorities via victimization. By way of contrast, in all the World War II documentaries I've ever seen, I never heard any Allied soldier say anything remotely like "those poor Japanese prison guards that tortured us" or "those poor Germans that worked at Auschwitz". Who the real victim was was never in doubt. Any mental trauma that the aggressors suffered would be considered secondary if at all.
Additionally, regarding violent behavior in general, there is a theft that goes on that must be acknowledged: The aggressor steals the victim's right of choice. This provides a clear distinction between the two parties involved. Arguments to the effect that various aggressors, for whatever reason, had no choice are sometimes true, but frankly, overused. If one looks at leaders widely thought of as examples of courage and compassion, we find that they made the moral but difficult choice and accepted the consequences. So much of what I detest in the 60's Liberals is that they won't accept any consequence at all for their actions and thus argue that they have no choice in any difficult matter. Two words spring to mind: selfishness and cowardice.
Let me add this: I am, myself, a late baby boomer. Selfishness and cowardice have cost me dearly in my life. To realize this truth about myself is to realize that I am human after all and that I will always fail, again and again. I must treat myself with compassion so that I can go on training so that I can live better and not fall into despair.
And treating myself with compassion is the first step to treating others with compassion.
Especially those who help me train by showing me my own faults.
The first piece, by Thomas Sowell, talks about the liberal media "supporting" the troops, but casting them as victims. The point is made directly and convincingly.
The second, a review of Taxi to the Dark Side, by Roger Ebert, makes a statement that had me wondering: The "conversations with the American torturers themselves are the most heartbreaking". I understand the point and sympathize with the young men that thought they were doing their duty and suffered mental trauma as a result, but can that mental trauma really be equated to the brutal torture of a prisoner? I have not seen the film and so am not commenting on the content of it per se, instead commenting on what seems to be the liberal baby-boomers' propensity for rearranging moral values and priorities via victimization. By way of contrast, in all the World War II documentaries I've ever seen, I never heard any Allied soldier say anything remotely like "those poor Japanese prison guards that tortured us" or "those poor Germans that worked at Auschwitz". Who the real victim was was never in doubt. Any mental trauma that the aggressors suffered would be considered secondary if at all.
Additionally, regarding violent behavior in general, there is a theft that goes on that must be acknowledged: The aggressor steals the victim's right of choice. This provides a clear distinction between the two parties involved. Arguments to the effect that various aggressors, for whatever reason, had no choice are sometimes true, but frankly, overused. If one looks at leaders widely thought of as examples of courage and compassion, we find that they made the moral but difficult choice and accepted the consequences. So much of what I detest in the 60's Liberals is that they won't accept any consequence at all for their actions and thus argue that they have no choice in any difficult matter. Two words spring to mind: selfishness and cowardice.
Let me add this: I am, myself, a late baby boomer. Selfishness and cowardice have cost me dearly in my life. To realize this truth about myself is to realize that I am human after all and that I will always fail, again and again. I must treat myself with compassion so that I can go on training so that I can live better and not fall into despair.
And treating myself with compassion is the first step to treating others with compassion.
Especially those who help me train by showing me my own faults.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
This report from Lebanon is jaw-dropping in its audacity. ". . . outside the natural battlefield. . ."? I read something about the Islamic extremists that went like this: Never has anyone demanded so much from others and expected so little from themselves.
And at the same time, in my practice I am taught—and begin to believe in my heart—this: We all are, at our core, capable of the atrocious things the extremists have done. We either forget it, or don't want to admit it. I, for one, have not wanted to admit it, but in my heart of hearts, I know it's true. So that I don't do those things is why my practice is so important.
And at the same time, in my practice I am taught—and begin to believe in my heart—this: We all are, at our core, capable of the atrocious things the extremists have done. We either forget it, or don't want to admit it. I, for one, have not wanted to admit it, but in my heart of hearts, I know it's true. So that I don't do those things is why my practice is so important.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Archbishop of Canterbury made some comments about Sharia law of late. Does the name Chamberlain ring any bells? Anyone in the West who thinks they want any part of Sharia law should go live in Saudi Arabia a while. I did just that for five years. People like this Archbishop have no idea what they're talking about.
A friend gave me a good laugh when he sent me the following:
Liberalism has been called a mental disorder in some quarters. That label appears appropriate when one considers liberal thinking on several current issues:
* Large profits are obscenely un-American, except when it comes to George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Hollywood stars, and other liberals.
* Driving without a license is illegal, thus illegal aliens should be licensed to avoid breaking the law.
* The earning power of the average American family is in serious decline, but the United States should grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who will work for lower wages and no benefits, thereby driving wages into further decline.
* Killing the sale of port security to United Arab Emrates was necessary to protect home land security, but closing the borders with Mexico would unfairly scapegoat Hispanics.
* Bilingualism is essential in a tolerant, diverse society, except when it comes to requiring Hispanics to speak English. In that case, it becomes racism.
* Conservatives who work to preserve American culture and tradition are hate mongers. But immigrants from other nations/cultures must be encouraged to retain their ''cultural identity'' at all costs.
* Execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual, and barbaric, whereas a woman's right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable.
* Starving an innocent, helpless victim like Terri Schaivo to death is fine, whereas using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is NOT okay.
* Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin nations invade America.
* Discrimination based on race or gender is wrong, except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law and called Affirmative Action.
* Masculinity and all things male are the source of all evil, whereas feminism is liberating and spiritual in nature. Jesus was probably female, if truth be known.
* Freedom of speech must never be repressed, except when ''hurtful'' to any constituency of the Democrat Party.
* Tax cuts are wrong if it means returning money to the people who actually paid taxes, but perfectly fine when sent to those who paid none.
* Christmas, the Holy Bible, and other symbols of Christianity must be quashed so as to offend no one, whereas, Ramadan, the Koran, and symbols of Islam must be heavily promoted in the name of religious tolerance.
* Businesses are oppressive, fascist institutions that must not be allowed to grow too large. On the other hand, big government, when run by Democrats, creates wealth and happiness and is very desirable.
* Military force must never be used, except when absolutely needed to advance interests not vital to the United States, or to obscure a Democrat president's sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.
A friend gave me a good laugh when he sent me the following:
Liberalism has been called a mental disorder in some quarters. That label appears appropriate when one considers liberal thinking on several current issues:
* Large profits are obscenely un-American, except when it comes to George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Hollywood stars, and other liberals.
* Driving without a license is illegal, thus illegal aliens should be licensed to avoid breaking the law.
* The earning power of the average American family is in serious decline, but the United States should grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who will work for lower wages and no benefits, thereby driving wages into further decline.
* Killing the sale of port security to United Arab Emrates was necessary to protect home land security, but closing the borders with Mexico would unfairly scapegoat Hispanics.
* Bilingualism is essential in a tolerant, diverse society, except when it comes to requiring Hispanics to speak English. In that case, it becomes racism.
* Conservatives who work to preserve American culture and tradition are hate mongers. But immigrants from other nations/cultures must be encouraged to retain their ''cultural identity'' at all costs.
* Execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual, and barbaric, whereas a woman's right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable.
* Starving an innocent, helpless victim like Terri Schaivo to death is fine, whereas using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is NOT okay.
* Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin nations invade America.
* Discrimination based on race or gender is wrong, except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law and called Affirmative Action.
* Masculinity and all things male are the source of all evil, whereas feminism is liberating and spiritual in nature. Jesus was probably female, if truth be known.
* Freedom of speech must never be repressed, except when ''hurtful'' to any constituency of the Democrat Party.
* Tax cuts are wrong if it means returning money to the people who actually paid taxes, but perfectly fine when sent to those who paid none.
* Christmas, the Holy Bible, and other symbols of Christianity must be quashed so as to offend no one, whereas, Ramadan, the Koran, and symbols of Islam must be heavily promoted in the name of religious tolerance.
* Businesses are oppressive, fascist institutions that must not be allowed to grow too large. On the other hand, big government, when run by Democrats, creates wealth and happiness and is very desirable.
* Military force must never be used, except when absolutely needed to advance interests not vital to the United States, or to obscure a Democrat president's sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.
Friday, February 08, 2008
I find wading through the nonsense from politicians and pundits tiresome, especially in an election year. Some people feel trustworthy when I read them, some don't. If I had to pick a single one that I trust it would be a tossup between Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson. Both back their arguments with—as far as I can tell—verifiable facts, their reasoning seems direct and sensible and their writing is clear. Both are conservatives and write for National Review Online regularly, as well as other publications. I imagine their equivalents on the liberal side are out there somewhere and I don't know who they are, but would be glad to know and read them.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Finally, to get back at it. . . .
Roger Scruton writes one of the most interesting pieces I've read in a long time, this one about modernist architecture. In the latter part of the article, he mentions Nikos Salingaros who in his writing mentions Christopher Alexander's thoughts on architecture and how people perceive it. It resonates strongly with how ugly modern buildings seem to me. It's worth a look.
Of course the primary elections are on right now, yesterday having been Super Tuesday. Neither major party is united, but undecided. Articles from the Left on The New Republic and from the Right on National Review Online both observe the phenomonon.
Politically, I am conservative—which, by the way, is not a synonym for Republican—on simple grounds: I believe the less government meddling in people's lives, the better, given that certain basics are covered. I make no claim as to magical cures for thorny problems like health care for people with little money, mind you, but I prefer that solutions come from the private sector, not the public. Stated another way, I believe in personal charity over corporate.
I'll offer exactly one opinion on the candiates today:
Consider the spectrum of principled living. Put Jesus and The Buddha at 10. Put Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin at 0. I would put the average person at maybe a 6 or 7. I'd put most politicians around 5 or 4. I'd put Hillary and Bill Clinton at about a 1. The only reason I wouldn't class them fully with Hitler and Stalin is lack of opportunity.
I hope to post more regularly again, but I guess we'll really only know after the fact.
Roger Scruton writes one of the most interesting pieces I've read in a long time, this one about modernist architecture. In the latter part of the article, he mentions Nikos Salingaros who in his writing mentions Christopher Alexander's thoughts on architecture and how people perceive it. It resonates strongly with how ugly modern buildings seem to me. It's worth a look.
Of course the primary elections are on right now, yesterday having been Super Tuesday. Neither major party is united, but undecided. Articles from the Left on The New Republic and from the Right on National Review Online both observe the phenomonon.
Politically, I am conservative—which, by the way, is not a synonym for Republican—on simple grounds: I believe the less government meddling in people's lives, the better, given that certain basics are covered. I make no claim as to magical cures for thorny problems like health care for people with little money, mind you, but I prefer that solutions come from the private sector, not the public. Stated another way, I believe in personal charity over corporate.
I'll offer exactly one opinion on the candiates today:
Consider the spectrum of principled living. Put Jesus and The Buddha at 10. Put Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin at 0. I would put the average person at maybe a 6 or 7. I'd put most politicians around 5 or 4. I'd put Hillary and Bill Clinton at about a 1. The only reason I wouldn't class them fully with Hitler and Stalin is lack of opportunity.
I hope to post more regularly again, but I guess we'll really only know after the fact.
