more horrible entries (as if y'all read this crap)
10:22 AM 01/25/2007
The Congress and Senate have both killed the minimum wage raise. Something is wrong with those idiots. Democrats and Republicans both suck. They both voted for the Invasion of Iraq. They both almost always vote themselves spectacular payraises for their do-nothing jobs in DC. Meanwhile, the City of New Orleans is still languishing after the Katrina devastation. It's funny that Oprah (Queen O) has done more for New Orleans than the US government. If we took a cut of the Iraq war fund, say six months of it, there would be more than enough money to ensure citizens' access to healthcare and to fund many of the social programs now being cut from the budget. You can try to tell me that the government doesn't intend to be malicious or that its intentions are really beneficial, but its actions don't bear witness to that. In today's America, supposedly concerned with human rights, freedom and potential, it is still more important to spend money (taxed from citizens who really have no choice) on warfare and ways to kill other people, than it is to fund educational or entrepeneurial programs, or even basic social welfare programs. In America, if you hit rock bottom, it doesn't matter what contributions you have made before, nor does it matter if you have faithfully obeyed the law or paid your taxes. None of that matters. The government, funded entirely by taxes from the people, will not even think to catch you on the way down. It is untrustworthy, greedy and narcissistic.
The fact that the minimum wage raise wouldn't get passed was clear to me from the start. I know the rest of you out there would have disagreed with me because now the Democrats have control of the legislature....but I see no difference really. So what if Nancy Pelosi is the majority leader? Or whatever she appears to be? Isn't she the one who presided over San Francisco's gentrification and war against the poor? She's about as trustworthy as a snake-oil salesman. But nevermind all that. The fact of the matter is that these people we elected just don't care about improving life for anyone but their own families and friends. They no longer view their offices as responsibilities to serve the people. Now they see it as a privileged position they rightfully deserve. A stint in the Congress or the Senate is a good way to make friends with powerful people and ensure your own life is thereafter secured. Screw the rest of America. In fact, that should be the new motto of the House.
The fact that there are people who work full-time positions and only clear about 7-8,000 dollars a year is appalling. People often raise the objection that if the federal minimum wage is raised then many small businesses will have to close. Well, in actuality, small businesses make up about 8% of employers who pay minimum wage. 28 states have raised the minimum wage above the federal level, and the economies in those states are prosperous for small businesses. So the idea that raising minimum wage is hurtful for small businesses is absurd and without any supporting facts.
Regardless, my attitude is this one: if a business cannot afford to stay in business by paying their workers a fair living wage which allows said workers some amount of pride and security, then those businesses shouldn't be in business at all, now should they? If they cannot hack it, why should we allow them to cut corners with our social contract? Point blank. Why should we protect businesses who have piss poor management or who don't have the wherewithall to pay employees fair value for their work? If we allow the whole "raising minimum wage will hurt small business" then why not decrease the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour? This same old argument was used back when people fought for 8 hour workdays or for workplace health-safety standards.
If such an supposedly outdated concept as "class warfare" ever comes back to life, it will probably start here in America. Just saying.
Now, onto the stupid 2008 presidential election. Since the mediots have nothing better to do but endless talk about an election just under two years in the future, I think, wtf? May as well get my early three cents in. (It would have been two cents but for inflation. Remember when it was one cent?) We have no clear Republican candidate pool yet. As for the Democrats, it's between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom have no clear agenda beyond feel-good statements that say nothing to what either one of them would actually DO if they became president. But maybe it's to far ahead to tell. The smartest man who could be president is Al Gore. He reads and he is informed about issues, local, national and global. Hillary Clinton? I don't know enough about her as of yet, but she does have some experience that would help if she became president. Barack Obama? He just got elected to the senate. And I have yet to hear anything from that man beyond the feel-good statements about bi-partisanship that is making everyone go gahgah these days. It's not even 2008 yet. So we will see.
2:14 PM 01/25/2007
"If all the harms, fears and sufferings in the world
Arise from self-grasping,
What need have I for such a great evil spirit?"
-Shantideva (Bodhicaryavatara)
12:07 PM 01/26/2007
"Sedated by pleasure and distraction we deny the truth of our existence; but sooner or later we must confront it."
-Mick Brown (from "The Dance of 17 Lives")
10:23 PM 01/28/2007
The path of happiness is an art, so why is this not more fully explored and taught in our education systems? You would think that since education is supposed to prepare people with skills and approaches to be successful in society, happiness would be thought of as more than just a side-effect. Circumstances most certainly can make people happy, but happiness approached as an art and practice can lead to the radical discovery that there is an unconditional happiness that is the foundation for all we experience. Like all things that can be practiced and trained for, happiness does not have to be up to chance. The state of our society and its people shows clearly that we ignore this reality...as trained as we are to seek distractions, pleasures and avoidance of pains...as trained as we are already to think that life is simply gaining comforts and avoiding discomforts. But life, and the happiness that is the foundation, is so much more than just getting what we desire and pushing away what we dislike. This is the point behind Buddhism, albeit explained in a different way from the traditional formulations.
Buddhism is the path of happiness...the path of freedom from suffering. Or transformation of circumstances and emotions into the freedom and bliss of awareness. (For those of you who like the word "transformation.") We look at the mind, at consciousness. There is the focus; where we can see the arising of thoughts, emotions and intentions. The mind and its ultimate or true nature, beyond all of the obscurations that we normally have covering up this nature.
12:09 PM 01/29/2007
What is wrong with many so-called intellectuals and mediot-writers that whenever income disparities are pointed out, they call it envy or jealousy? Now there is some level of comparing and contrasting going on, and perhaps some people are envious. But the basic gist behind showing the accelerating income disparities is to simply raise consciousness. There is something wrong with a company, such as Ford, which decides to cut workers and their pay/benefits whenever times get hard, but still allows salary raises and bonuses for its executives. The claim is that CEOs and other execs are the creative geniuses behind the wealth and are therefore entitled to a larger reward. However, I don't see that execs are engineers or designers or workers on the line or have anything really to do with the actual creation of the products. If we use the "creative" argument, then the engineers who work for companies in research and design should be the wealthiest since it is their ideas and creations that are being created and endlessly sold in multiple copies.
Execs manage people, and some of them even manage the finances. I am not saying they do nothing, but they are a bit over-rated and over-compensated. And in a time when many work more than full time just to try to make ends meet, the over-compensation of execs for what amounts to little more than arranging and attending meetings, or crunching some numbers, is obscene. Adam Smith was the one who spoke of this and called it the "Vile Maxim." ("All for us and none for the rest" to paraphrase it.)
I am not saying that people should be envious of execs and their salaries. But an investigation in why things are they way they are, and how this is justified may bear out some uncomfortable truths about humanity. In reality, human beings seem to always try to get one over on each other. To show a one-up. To be able to compare oneself with another and feel good about being in a better or higher position. In today's society, the best way to do this is to conspicuously consume products and services that most people cannot afford. This attitude of nonsense needs to stop. I don't mind that there are things that only some can afford. What I mind is the attitude, seeing as in reality we are all subject to aging, illness and death and that no matter who we are, what race or ethnicity or religion we are, and no matter how much money we ever have, we will all have to face aging, illness and death. We all suffer and get disatisfied. We are all trapped in this round of birth and death. And fear is the main motivation behind the vast majority of human activity in this day and age. Fear, not love. Fear.
There is the fear of not having enough. The fear that once you get enough, you will lose it. The fear of being unloved, or that once loved, you will lose your beloved. There is fear of dying and not knowing what that entails. There is the fear of illness. The fear of suffering or of growing old. The fear of being afraid itself. This is all suffering. This fear is skillfully exploited in modern advertisements which constantly beguile the world's population with images of products that once acquired can fill in that gaping anxiety of not being good enough for whatever it is one wants to be. We are all afraid. The point of spiritual practice is to admit this. To own up to it. And then we can transform that fear into compassion, because we see how all sentient beings are trapped in this fear. Liberation starts with acknowledging this basic fact of samsara and then working with it...not denying it or crushing it or removing it. But acknowledging it and then understanding why we are afraid.
In Buddhism, this "fear" is because we are grasping. We are attached. The way to transform or become free from fear (freedom from fear is a sentient being's right according to Buddhism) is to start with this and not try to escape it or distract ourselves away from it. We can learn to let go of it. To not be attached to it. This means simply letting go of it. We experience it and feel it, but we let it pass. We don't hold onto it, nor do we try to destroy or deny it. When we are free of attachment, we can take the energy of that fear and turn it around into something of benefit, even if it just means that now we are more empathic towards other beings. We can use this opportunity to open up our narrow fixated minds and learn about reality in ways that have nothing to do with our own ego-reified habits. And we can grow up into Buddhas.