My voting record has been all over the map. I voted for Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, Gore, and abstained in the Kerry/Bush#2 race because frankly I never liked Kerry. I've always wished that we didn't have such entrenched political parties and really hope someday we'll see viable third or forth parties. I toyed with voting for Ross Perot, but in the end just felt he was too much of a flake.
After 8 years of Dick Cheney and his puppet Bush, I couldn't be more anti-Republican. However, I can't say I'm a die hard Democrat because even though I voted for him, I'm no big fan of Bill Clinton. I'm glad that Barak Obama has diminished the influence of the Clintons in the Democratic Party.
I'm posting this video mainly because I found it funny.
Buddhists have a particular type of meditation called Tonglen. The idea behind it is to help people by taking into yourself a dark, heavy, negative energy while at the same time breathing out a soft, kind, light energy. I've often wondered about this. I think clearly when we are close to one another there is something (perhaps something biological or some subconscious perceptions) that can create a sense of energy in a room, or place.
However, that sort of begs the question. So, I'll put it out to you. First, is there really a literal energy that we put out? If so, then can we affect it with out actions? My rationalist side wants to say that's silly and akin to a belief in ghosts. However, my experience seems to speak against my rationalist side. So, what do you think?
I believe in treating people with dignity. I'm guilty of not doing that on occasions, but I do repent and try to make amends. I think part of having dignity for people is respecting their beliefs no matter how much I may disagree.
The problem with religion and for that matter irreligion is that the respect for others often goes out the window. I've watched some Protestant/Catholic debates that made me understand how the situation in Northern Ireland came about. I've seen atheists treat people of faith like they are stupid simple minded fools. Here's a classic example:
Webster F. Cook is Catholic. He goes into the Catholic mass at the University of Central Florida Catholic center and goes up to communion. Now Catholics belief that the communion wafer actually becomes the body of Christ once consecrated by the priest. They have loads of rules and rituals regarding the handling of consecrated communion wafers. Webster goes up and gets communion and is supposed to immediately eat the wafer. He doesn't do that. Why he doesn't is unclear. Onc version has him wanting to show the wafer to a non-Catholic friend. (Non-catholics aren't allowed to take communion in a Catholic church.) Another version has him protesting the use of student funds for the on campus Catholic group.
However, the people conducting the ceremony want Webster to follow the rules. So, the grab him trying to get him to consume his wafer. He eventually puts it into his mouth but then takes it out and takes it home and puts it into a plastic bag.
So, Webster is guilty of the first act of indignity. If you're going to go into a Catholic church and take communion, then you should follow their rules. That's just a fundamental respect issue. I don't want anyone coming being invited into my house and then spitting in my face. However, the Catholic church then gets highly undignified. They assaulted Webster and then Webster gets death threats. Suddenly Webster is under some unofficial Catholic fatwa. They view it as Webster kidnapping the body of Christ.
Webster disabuses Catholic communion and they threaten to kill him. How very nice.
Now we need to cue the atheists. PZ Meyers is a noted atheist and professor at the University of Minnesota. He understandably doesn't understand what the big deal is about a cracker. However instead of just calling out the bad behavior of both sides in this mess, he puts out a request for a consecrated communion wafer so he can perform ritual abuse on it. Now, of course, this offends the Catholics again and they issue more death threats this time against PZ Meyers.
I understand why Webster would be upset with being assaulted. I understand why the Catholics would be upset over the communion wafer. I also understand why PZ Meyer would see it as an absurd mess. Now if everyone would just try to understand the other person, then perhaps wafergate won't get somebody killed.
Meanwhile, I hear the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse have entered an appearence in California.
I had this really weird case some time back. I was representing a 16 year old kid caught in a custody battle. The kid had lived with Dad every since the divorce and it appeared that Dad was doing a good job. However, Dad was going through an extremely messy divorce from wife #2 (not the mother of the child).
The same lawyer represented both wife #2 and the mother of my client, which admittedly was odd. The timing of the two cases also appeared highly suspect to me. The issue of the custody case was that Dad was perhaps too permissive of drug (marijuana) and alcohol use. However, I had a sixteen year old client who did not want to move in his last years of high school to another state. I also had to wonder because every since the divorce there had never been any problem with Dad up until his messy divorce. I made it pretty clear to the lawyer for Mom and wife #2 that my impression was that wife #2 was "stirring the pot" and I wasn't very inclined to support moving a 16 year old against their will to another state.
My 16 year old client took a drug test and (as I recall) it was negative. There was nothing to indicate that the kid had a major drug problem. The kid had a pretty good school record and other than the allegations made primarily by wife #2, there didn't appear to be any problem at the home.
The mother of my client eventually decided to dismiss her case. I have no real idea why although I suspect money was an issue. Mom was in Arizona and had to fly out for court. I don't know how much my position on the case influenced the decision by Mom to dismiss.
Well, I see the lawyer for Mom and wife #2 today in court. I don't care for her too much because she just appears manipulative. It turns out my client died of a drug overdose. All I could think was "well, crap." "Did I screw that one up?" "Maybe switching to Mom may have prevented this." Dad supposedly is suicidal. I knew that he loved and was very bonded to his son.
It's tough making decisions that affect people's lives. I'm always mindful that there is a high chance that any decision could lead to harm to the people involved. My general rule is to try very hard to do no harm. The irony is that sometime doing nothing ends up doing harm.
It's possible that forcing a 16 year old to move would not have changed the outcome. It's just the possibility that it could have that is troubling.
True