I was a Poet (but didn't know it)

i2b

i am not the image that I think I see -

nor will i be –

then what is me ? -

not I - not he - not she –

then -

who am i ? -  not why
what do i desire
and to what do i aspire ?

i want to see
and to feel;

to run, to fly

to love

to dance
and to sing.

i want to be free
to do the right thing -

and to be free
to do my own thing -

i want to be
all i can be.

do i want to be me ?

The skeptic

Brig's Maxims

Don't believe everything you see - it's quite possibly an illusion.

Don't believe anything you hear - it might be another's imagination.

Don't believe everything you think - it's quite possibly a delusion.

Don't believe everything you read - it's only ink on paper.

DO believe in what you do - it becomes the truth.

and don't forget:

Everything is relative.
Everything is temporary.
Its all subjuct to interpretation;

and,
It depends.

but remember:
Perception is reality.

"I think, therefore I am." Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
( translated from the Latin "cogito, ergo sum" )

What Next ?

I've come to the conclusion that focusing on current events serves only a transient need. The dynamic nature of world politics renders my articles very quickly irrelevant. The only benefit of retaining the old posts is for the personal satisfaction of saying (to myself) "I told you so." Then followed by a frown or grimace, shaking my head, "too bad no one listens". So I am going to migrate to a focus on philosophical subjects, hopefully of a more enduring nature, though equally irrelevant in the eyes of the majority.

On the international front, the truth is coming out gradually, as it always does. The problem is, most people have a selective memory of even the most recent history; thus opinions tend to represent a "knee-jerk" reaction to an event from a warped perspective; or more likely just a repetition of something heard down at the barbershop or local tavern. Did you ever notice that when somebody makes a statement in an authoritative tone it is usually accepted as fact? In other words, If he talks like a tough guy, he must be right.

The following would surprise some who might have assumed I have a "liberal" bent.

1. I am opposed to withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or even publishing a timetable for such, anytime soon, for essentially the same reasons I was opposed to going to war. From the outset, my position was that the cost was too great for what was at stake. My position is also based on what I heard referred to as the pottery barn principle: "we broke it, now we own it." It would be a terrible injustice to the Iraqi people, and to the rest of the world, if we were to withdraw before the new government and military were cable of keeping the peace. I do believe that since we created the mess, we need to stay there until we can turn things over in a manageable state.

2. I am in favor of re-activating the military draft. I could be persuaded into substituting another type of national service for those who are not able or suited for military service. I believe that mandatory service would be beneficial to the vast majority of conscriptees, providing discipline and instilling a sense of national identity. I also believe that with more at stake, the general populace would be less apt to favor war if other options were available. When deliberating a decision to go to war, each citizen should ask himself "Is it worth [me or a family member] dying for?"

I like to believe that I am a patriot, and a pragmatist. Our nation, as would any, must put our interests first, but in a global context with respect for human dignity.

Why is there air ?

The following is dialog between myself and my son Robert, in response to his blog post whic follows:

A Fairy Tale World
Why, people? Why are you trying to promote the world's best known fairy tale as something more than it is? Let's teach our kids science in schools, and keep the bible-thumping limited to Church and Sunday School. Thanks!

posted by Rob at 10:40 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Comments:
t.h.e. Brig said...
If you propose to have an open mind, you must be open to ALL ideas. You are displaying "contempt prior to investigation". Until you have an understanding of the book which is referred to "the Bible", do not dismiss it as a fairy tale. I have a rudimentary knowledge of the bible, have read parts of it, also many references to and excerpts from. Know that it contains much documented historical data, and is regarded even by non-believers as one of the greatest pieces of literature of all time. The tale of creation in the Book of Genesis takes up approx 1 page, and has many interpretations. The Bible runs over 1000 pages.
I studied portions of the Bible in College(Hobart) as part of my 5 semester "Western Civ" requirement. I also took a course on the history of religion. Understand that the history of religion is inseparable from the history of mankind. No facet of life has had as much influence through the ages.
I have not studied the creationist theories that are being circulated today. Therefore I have no opinion. Thanks for listening. DAD.

3:45 PM
Rob said...
I probably wasn't specific enough in that post. I was referring specifically to the "theory" of Creation and the the recent attempts in some parts of the country to add it to grade-school curricula. If the Bible is ever introduced into our public schools system, it should be considered nothing more than a literary work. I don't think the story of Creation has a place being taught, or even mentioned alongside evolution. If we start allowing that, how long will it be before Creation/Intelligent Design replaces evolution as the primary explanation for our origins?

Intelligent Design presents itself as a more "scientific" way to counter the theory of evolution. I don't know much about it myself, but it's a non-specific, non-demoninational way of saying that we were created, and did not evolve. It seems to focus heavily on the idea that certain recurring patterns in the universe are too complex to have simply evolved over billions of years.

I think these ideas are interesting fodder for discussion, but don't belong in an academic setting, other than as part of a literature course.

5:40 PM
Rob said...
As an additional note, I no longer claim to have an open mind about everything. I'd like be able to say that my mind is open, and that I embrace every idea and every person, but some things that I hear coming from people these days have to be some of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I will not embrace things that I find to be completely absurd.

5:50 PM
t.h.e. Brig said...
Remember that having an open mind doesn't mean that you accept or embrace all ideas, it just means that you do not comletely shut them down. By all means, question everything and take a stand, but be objective. I think that in order for one to have a meaningful opinion it must be an educated opinion.(this is obviously not the way of the majority).
I agree with most of your statements. I think the idea of "intelligent design" has merit. There are many theories and beliefs, [regarding man's beginnings & development] all which will remain forever unproven. Remember that almost every principle pertaining to history is a theory. "Scientific" theories are constantly changing as we discover more. Some principles stand the test of time, but how much time is that? Many of Darwin's postulates are no longer accepted by "the scientific community"; although I believe that the evidence coupled with logic [to support the principle of evolution] is overwhelming. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which blew open Newton's Laws of Motion, is no longer accepted in its entirety. The introduction of these two theories were tremendous breakthroughs in the evolution of scientific theory. What they did was allow more avenues for discovery.

So you see where I'm going.

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein. (many would agree, many would disagree).

Changing of the Guard

The two-party system has flourished in the United States for as long as anyone alive today can remember, for well over a century. Between 1901 and 2005, a Republican has occupied the Office of President for a total of 56 years, and a Democrat for 48 years. Since 1941, It has been an even split at 32 years each. Here is the breakdown.

1901-1913 Republican
1913-1921 Democrat
1921-1933 Republican
1933-1953 Democrat
1953-1961 Republican
1961-1969 Democrat
1969-1977 Republican
1977-1981 Democrat
1981-1993 Republican
1993-2001 Democrat
2001-2005 Republican

The two parties have dominated because each was able to develop and maintain an entrenched power base largely impenetrable by any other political party. Over time, ideologies and voter constituencies have changed, but each party has been able to energize a substantial chunk of the "party faithful" every four years. The pendulum swings one way, then the other. The change-over is usually brought about by a defining event, a culmination of excesses, or dearth. Wars, depressions, recessions, inflation, scandals are a few. To win, the challenging party must convince the electorate that something is wrong, and that they can do better. Election campaigns today are carefully formulated marketing efforts, targeting specific segments of the populace which can tip the balance.

It is interesting to note that the Republicans and Democrats, repectively, have supported widely varying policies over the years, and rarely could one be neatly characterized as being either "conservative" or "liberal". Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator", was the first Republican President. Teddy Roosevelt (also Republican), the "Trust-Buster" and great conservationist, was considered progressive. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, lead us into World War I. Prior to World War II, isolationists had the upper hand in the Republican Party. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the New Deal and the War President. Truman(Democrat) dropped the atomic bomb. Kennedy and Johnson(Democrats) mired us in Vietnam. Although the Democratic "Solid South" was the great bastion of racial segregation for decades, Kennedy and Johnson ushered in racial integration and the social reforms of the "Great Society." Bill Clinton was pro-business: he "grew the economy" and balanced the budget.

Geore W. Bush claims to be a compassionate conservative. Today, instead of the "tax and spend" democratic liberals, we now have the "borrow and spend" Republicans who have created by far the largest budget deficit in history. The Bush administration seems to want to change everything, and spend more money. Is this what one calls conservatism? I think not.

I agree with Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ralph Nader: The Republicans and Democrats are more alike than they are different. They both thrive off the same system which is self-perpetuating.

I don't consider myself a Democratic party faithful, though I don't remember ever voting for a Republican candidate, so I am as close as one gets. I would like to think that I vote for the candidate whose character, record, and platform best represent my ideals. However I am a pragmatist and must consider also his or her electability, leadership potential, experience, and ability to get things done.

The point of this lengthy dissertation is that it will be the Democrat's turn in 2008, if they don't blow it. They must present an electable candidate, a platform, and get out the vote. Assuming that such a candidate is selected and an identifiable platform is presented (these are big IF's), then victory will depend upon persuading and mobilizing the masses, and getting the swing vote.

I do believe that Howard Dean is the right man in the right position (DNC) to do this. The seeds of the next campaign have been sowed and are growing. But we must do a better job of reaching the people than the opposition. We must get the country to open its eyes so we the people can "take back" the country.

Assuming the political landscape remains about the same between now and 2008, I will probably vote Democrat in '08. I am not happy with our current leadership or the direction they our taking our country. So lets get going!

Get off your butt. Speak out. Write. Organize. March. Get involved!

The Post 9-11 World (updated)

Did the World change after Sept 11, 2001, when planes guided by Islamic terrorists demolished the World Trade Center in New York City? Most certainly, the immediate changes in the New York area were obvious: the death and destruction, the disruption of life, the panic and despair of the people, and the devastation in the lives of all the families and friends of the nearly 3000 people who died. Much has been written. The entire nation felt for the dead and afflicted. It was a wake up call for America, the realization that terrorism was real, and that we were not immune to being attacked on our own soil.

But did the world really change? Certainly there was worldwide compassion for the victims and the American people (though not universal). Other than what happened in New York, the world itself did not really change. Terrorism was nothing new, and the majority of the people in the world continued with business as usual. What really changed was the awareness and attitudes of the American people.

Now let’s put things in global perspective.
Of the 6.4 billion people in the world, 280 million live in the United States, comprising 1/23 (4.3%) of the world's population. China's population is approximately 1.35 billion (21% of world), India's is 1.1 Billion. What we used to call the U.S.S.R. has about 290 million, a little more than the U.S.. It is estimated that about 5.2 billion people live in the "less developed" countries and 1.2 billion live in the "more developed" countries. (All of these numbers are estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau). Its a good chance that a substantial number of people, especially those in less developed and remote areas were not even aware of the event, at least not until a much a later date.

Let’s look at some disasters of recent years. Hurricane Mitch (1998) killed 18,000 people in Central America. In Iran, 43,000 died in as a result of a massive earthquake (2003). The recent genocide in the Sudan has resulted in an estimated 70,000 deaths. The Rwanda massacres of 1994 killed 800,000; in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), 200,000 dead. The Tsunami of December 2004 took about 200,000 lives.

During the invasion of Afghanistan (2001-2003), 3500 Afghan civilians lost there lives as well as 8600 combatants. About 150 American Servicemen were killed during the period.

The Iraq War (2003-2005) has left an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 30,000 military dead. Most certainly these people had nothing to do with attacking America. The U.S. has lost over 1500 troops in Iraq, other coalition fatalities total about 200. ( March 24, 2005 ).

I began by suggesting that maybe it was not so much the world that changed, but people's attitudes. Attitudes turned into actions, and now the world has changed. America lives in a new awareness and under new security measures. By virtue of the fact that the United States is the most powerful military, political, and economic force in the world, our policies and actions have changed the world. The world now lives with the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, though this seems to be only the choice of superpowers (who cannot be challenged). This can also be interpreted as the doctrine of "Might makes Right." The rest of the world has had to adapt to our policies and our behavior, which in turn have changed the attitudes and behaviors of other peoples.

I pass no judgment, draw no conclusions. This is only an attempt to look at the bigger picture, and stimulate some questions. What is obvious to the rest of the world is that the U.S. places a much higher value on American lives than on those of other nations. This is natural and understandable, particularly in wartime, but it is nonetheless extremely arrogant and ethno-centric. When such an attitude becomes a the basis for policy and a rationalization for violence, I believe it only serves to perpetuate more of the same.

Are we not all God’s children?

Would we not want to treat others as we would like to be treated?

Peace.