Clear Skies
I ignored the GWB inauguration extravaganza by turning off my television. It's been really, really nice!
I disagree with the slight majority in this country that pushes an agenda of aggression to win freedom from terror. I'm disheartened that our leaders use the desperate hatred and chaos of September 11, 2001, as the foundation upon which their policies and actions are based. They wage war to win peace. Look again at the previous five words. Can this be true?
Are these prevalent opinions and ideas true?
#1. Pacifism is at best misguided and at worst a threat to security.
What about Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Didn't they both prove that non-violence is stronger than violence. Does war work for the millions of people in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea who have been lumped into an axis of "evil." Aren't they simply trying to survive day to day? Does waging war on these people foster real democracy and choice?
#2. The truth of the "human condition" is violence and aggression.
Isn't the truth of the human condition free will? My observation is that the majority of people choose to love their families, their neighborhoods, their communities and their countries. They choose to live in peace and work toward prosperity. Where does this false view of humanity come from? Is it perpetuated by our entertainment and news media's fixation and profit from anything that is killed, diseased or perverted. What would happen if we simply choose not to support this dark view. What would happen if we turn off the TV if it offends. Or, cancel our newspaper subscription if we can't find enough facts or focus on what's important to us. What if we exercised our freedom of choice when putting things into our mind? Would love prevail or would violence?
#3. Freedom and equality have limits and need restrictions.
Why? I suppose those that accept ideas #1 and #2 may find this idea valid, so there is one answer.
#4. The past and future are more important that the present. (e.g., Bush inauguration speech. ".., At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together.")
Are each of us more secure now that GWB has expanded an already massive bureaucracy that analyzes the past, monitors the present, and plans for the future? For those people trapped in the WTC on September 11, 2001, no bureaucracy saved them. All they had at that moment was their inner strength and their connection to each other. Do you think they gave the US government and terrorism one precious second of thought? Interviews with survivors always reveal that the person thought about his or her "loved ones." They may have felt terror, but the only real thing in their life at that moment was love.
#5. Times are so difficult and confusing, someone else's opinions and feelings are more valid than my own.
If I let myself believe in items 1, 2, 3, and 4, I'd probably believe in #5. Whew! Glad I do not believe in them.
There are many things I know to be true, not because someone in authority or someone I respect has told me about them. The things that are true to me are clearly felt, impersonal, demonstrated by "cause and effect", and present right here and now.
The five ideas above feel false. They are based on fear. They perpetuate the hatred caused by the negative actions of the past and discount the good that came from these actions. My observations lead me to believe that Good + good = more good. Good + bad = Nothing. Bad + bad = more bad.
I guess the only variable in all of these equations is the definition of "good." If one comes from a place of love, the definition of "good" is pretty close to feeling loved. If one comes from a place of fear, then what is the definition of "good?" Is it feeling feared? Hmmmm.
Clearly, feeling loved is preferrable to feeling feared, right? I guess that's the judgment call America is dealing with right now.
