Tuesday, February 27, 2007

That Girl In The Window

“Hey baby, when do you get off work?”….

A 39 yr old Detroit man named Ronald Dotson was sentenced to 18 months to 30 years because he was found in the alley with a couple of mannequins he had dressed up in lingerie.
Ronald has a thing for mannequins and so when he sees one in a window display, he can’t help himself, and he breaks the window and steals the mannequin and takes her away to do whatever nasty things he does with them.
Well, they are not anatomically correct, so I don’t think he can do THAT much really.

He told the judge “I’ve never been able to take care of myself.”

Ahhhhhh. Now I see. I’m thinking that it’s not about the mannequins. It’s about getting off the freezing cold streets of Detroit in the wintertime. For the destitute poor, jail is far preferable to the street when it’s cold and snowing. I suppose he has just found a way to get picked up and put in jail without hurting anyone. He gets a warm room, a bed, a toilet, and shelter from the storm.

I wonder how much of a factor this is in contributing to the overcrowding of our jail systems across the country. California is on the verge of letting thousands of criminals go free simply because they don’t have the facilities to house them, and they were sued when they tried to send the overflow prisoners to Arizona.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Tomb Raiders - The Bones of Jesus

Simcha Jacobovici is an archeologist/TV Director who has been compared to Indiana Jones by those who wish to discredit him. But yet that may be somewhat appropriate considering that his big real-life adventure is about to be released as a documentary film and the movie is produced by none-other than James Cameron, of Titanic fame.
This time though, it’s not about some legendary Shankara Stones, or the Holy Grail, or the Ark of the Covenant. This time, it’s about the actual skeletal remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The ancient city of Jerusalem is literally built on top of thousands of years of burial plots. In 1980, during a boom period of construction, in a part of Jerusalem called East Talpiot, there in the lot beside the home of Tova Bracha, they uncovered an ancient first century tomb. And in the tomb was the ossuary that contained the boxes where family members placed the bones of their deceased loved ones. It is very common to have ossuaries from that period in Jerusalem. But this one is special.
The names on the boxes actually say “Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus”; and “Jose” (a diminutive of Joseph) ” Also, there is a related box with the name “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”.

Obviously, this is highly controversial. There are those who will refuse to believe that the bones of Jesus of Nazareth could ever be found on the Earthly realm, because, since his body was not found in the tomb the soldiers put him after his crucifixion death, they assume that he was bodily, physically taken up to heaven. That’s what they have believed for 2,000 years. They argue that Jesus is a very common name from that period, as is Maria (Mary), and James, and Matthew, and Joseph. They also argue that Jesus' family was probably too poor to have a family grave. Also, they believe that Jesus' mother Mary was buried in Ephesus, near Kusadasi, Turkey.

But there are the others who have done some research and they are equally convinced that this is, in fact, the “Holy Family” of Jesus of Nazareth. For one thing, to them the site seems a perfectly reasonable setting for a family of their stature to inter their deceased within. Also, it somehow seems much more believable to them that the family came and took his body back in the middle of the night from the tomb the soldiers put him in, rather than accept the notion that he rose bodily to Heaven.

Thirdly, there are the names. Yes, they were not uncommon names for the period – but that exact combination is. A father named Joseph, a mother named Mary (Maria), a son named Jesus, brothers named Joseph (or Jose) and James (The Gospel of Mark says these were two of Jesus’ four brothers), - this combination is statistically very unlikely. In fact, a statistician from University of Toronto named Andrey Feuerverger, calculates that the odds are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the original family of Jesus Christ.

Further evidence in favor of this theory is that in recent years, biblical scholars have determined that Mary Magdalene’s real name was “Mariamene”, and that she was Jesus’ wife, and DNA evidence scraped from the bones shows that the bones of Jesus and Mariamene are not related, and yet they were buried together in a family ossuary, implying that they were a married couple. We can probably assume that DNA testing will continue to see if the bones of Jesus' son, Judas, contain similar DNA sequences to both Jesus and Mariamene.

Of course, there will be continued controversy over this, as there always is with subjects that touch upon the ingrained religious beliefs of many people.

I was there in Jerusalem in 1989, and I found it very interesting that the local Jews living there don’t seem to treat the history of Christ with any special reverence. To them, of course, he was a historical figure, but not a God as he is to Christians. As I walked the narrow streets of the Old City of Jerusalem, the tour guide pointed out the exact actual places that are the “Stations of the Cross” denoted in every Catholic Church I had ever been to as a child growing up. I was amazed, when she pointed to the impression of a hand on the wall at one of the stations and said this was the handprint of Jesus when he leaned against the wall for support while carrying his cross. The cement mixture was soft and his hand left a permanent imprint there. I wondered why, if this was true, it was not more publicized within the Christian Church. While I stood there staring incredulously, A few feet away, there was a table with people selling Elvis soaps and Jesus soaps. To them they are both the same thing, a famous figure from the past, whose image can sell cheap merchandise to stupid tourists. Except that Jesus was the local boy. Elvis was someone from far away. Other than serving as a tourism draw for Christians from around the world, Jesus of Nazareth is simply not that important a person to the Jews of Israel.

Imagine if the townspeople of a small rural town in Texas discovered a historical site nearby that was of great religious significance - to Muslims. It would be of similar relevance.

In a completely consistent manner, Tova Brachs shrugs, laughs and wonders if the value of her home will go up since she has such a famous neighbor. She says, “Maybe I can make a fortune selling trinkets to tourists”.

The film documentary “The Jesus Family Tomb”, produced by James Cameron, will be seen on the Discovery Channel in the week of March 7th.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Communism within Companies Within America

Has it ever occurred to you that, although we live in a democratic society with a free enterprise economy, for those of us who work in a large corporation, we actually operate in a communist society, with a communist-centrally planned economy? It's almost as if we are living in a bunch of little communist countries INSIDE one larger democratic free-enterprise country.

Most large corporations have several thousand employees. Some that I've worked in, have many tens of thousands of employees. These companies are like a microcosm of society itself. Like little countries within the larger country.

Within a large corporation, the CEO is like the communist dictator. He sits at the top of the food chain there and he was appointed, rather than voted into office. There was no general election. He did not campaign on a platform. He has all the power in that system. He has ultimate decision-making ability over all projects, over all aspects of the company, and over all the people. He determines what the rules are, and how to enforce them, and what the penalties are for people if they do not obey them. He decides whether or not they go to war with another company. He decides what they produce and how much and how many. He decides how much and when to invest in the supporting infrastructure.

He sets up a top-down hierarchy of control, with those at the top having the most control and those toward the bottom having less control. The lowest level in this hierarchy is the worker level. This is where the production actually happens. They are the citizens in this system.
The citizens of this society have no decision-making capabilities about where they will sit, what kind of workspace, what their phone number will be, who they will work with, etc.

And from an income perspective, working for a corporation, you do not decide how much money you make. The boss and the rules decide. You are paid a fixed salary - just like a communist worker.

In a free-enterprise system, if you own a shoe store and wish to sell shoes to the public, you can decide what kind of shoes to offer and what prices to set for them. You can decide whether to open up your shop in the most expensive location and a large shop with extremely high rents, or you can open it up in a less expensive location and make it a small store. In each case, you decide whether you will sell the articles with the right profit margin and the right volume to justify the expense levels. You decide. It's a business decision, but you have the freedom to guess where and how much and what kind and how big or small, and how much to advertise and where and who to hire and when and how much to pay them, etc. You decide if and when you will take a vacation and how much time you can afford to take off without hurting your business. You have control over your fate and so you will either succeed or fail, but it will be based on the business decisions you made. You take the responsibility, and you live with the consequences, good or bad.

But in a corporate environment, you do not have any of those options as a worker. Only if you are higher up in the management hierarchy do you make those assessments - and then they are not decisions so much as recommendations to a yet higher authority. It is very hierarchical.

Also, the trade-offs for working in this corporate environment are similar to those of working in a communist country. In exchange for surrendering your freedoms and decision-making prerogatives, you receive a guaranteed salary regardless of the profitability of the company. You are given guaranteed vacation days and sick days, and you are provided with medical care, and old age pension, and other basics of life.
And in the opposite case, if you are an independent business owner, you have the trade-off of having to live with the insecurities of a completely unreliable income, and no guarantees, but on the other hand - you get to make all the decisions, that might affect these things.

I find it fascinating that, as a culture, we tend to praise freedom, and free enterprise and a democratic way of life, and we have traditionally felt that communism was evil and bad and inefficient and just doesn't work, and we must fight it everywhere. In fact, for decades, our soldiers fought to the death to prevent us from becoming communist, and to preserve our freedoms - and yet here we are on a daily basis living our lives in a completely communist environment. The free enterprise system is an illusion to those of us inside corporations, or working for the government. Government organizations work the same way, don't they? Large organizations, hierarchical, run by rules, no freedoms or decision-making at the lower levels. Your salary is dictated by the senior levels and by the rules and guidelines. There is no entrepreneurial aspect to your job or deciding your income, etc.

Some might argue that sales positions allow you to make a flexible income based on your own performance, but I think that is a fallacy. You still are hemmed in by the sales compensation plan. You still make what they decide you will make - it's just within a certain pre-defined flexible range is all. For example, you cannot decide that you can make more money if you simply lower the prices of your products and services in order to sell high volumes. Or to increase the prices to sell at a higher margin. You simply can't make those calls. That's another department, other people - and they have their rules and guidelines, and their own limitations.

Now please understand, I am not complaining about the terrible work conditions of working in a corporate environment or anything. It is not terrible at all, in fact. I am merely observing the strange philosophical dichotomy that it represents between Democracy and free-enterprise and Communism noting the facts of what we really have here. Once again - it's all about the trade-offs, isn't it?

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Index of Articles by Val Serrie

Now the list of these articles has grown to 135 and so it’s becoming more difficult to find one you might be looking for just by scrolling down, so from time to time, I will post an index here to allow you to more quickly find something that might interest you. The topics are as widely varied as you might imagine. Remember that you can also click on any picture to enlarge it to see more detail.

Don’t Get Me Started – Val Serrie
135. Corporate Politics - Nasty Tactics
134. America - The "Bad-Guy" Hero Culture
133. An Angel Among Us
132. "Socialized Medicine"?
131. Ancient Technology Secrets
130. What Will Happen In Iraq - What We Need To Do
129. More...More...MORE!! We MUST HAVE MORE!!!!
128. How Polite Are You?
127. Great Songs
126. The Dirty Little Trade Secret
125. The War over Raising The Minimum Wage
124. Revolutionizing The Music Publishing Industry
123. Men or Women - Who Is Smarter?
122. Jay Greenberg - Boy Genius
121. Our Festival Gig
120. What People Believe
119. Getty Ready For The Show
118. The Art of Photography
117. The Secret To Corporate Selling
116. Air Guitar - A Rant
115. Born To Shop
114. Different Types of Intelligence
113. Politicians Should Know History
112. Healthcare is Sick!
111. Does God Exist?
110. Work For A Company? Or Work For Yourself?
109. Performing Live Music - Cover Songs or Original Music?
108. Fake Guitars, Fake iPods, and Other Counterfeits
107. The Libertarian Approach Thought Through
106. The Lost Art of Conversation
105. First Band Performance Getting Closer
104. Steven Colbert - A Brave Comic Wit
103. The Politics of Pretty
102. Do You Have Too Much Stuff?
101. Guilty Pleasures In Movies
100. Real Estate Scams
99. MTV Visits My House
98. Humphrey Bogart - To Have and Have Not
97. The Civil War In Iraq
96. The Freedom Cycle: From Chaos to Dictatorship and Back
95. Life and Leaving The Nest
94. Bringing People Up To Speed
93. Cars: Buying or Leasing? New or Pre-Owned?
92. Mini Concert
91. Hawaii
90. Star Trek Technology Today?
89. Memories of Arizona
88. The Show Party
87. In The Movies
86. It's Raining Aliens - Again??
85. Al DiMeola
84. The Gentle Fog
83. Guitar vs. Piano - A Comparison
82. The Dallas Guitar Festival
81. The Art of Archery
80. The Profound Silence at the Top of The World
79. A Better Democracy, Perhaps?
78. I'm Published!!
77. Money and Couples and Earning a Living
76. Education By Proxy
75. Extended Warranty Scams
74. Is Time Travel Possible?
73. The Cure for Cancer
72. The Obsolescence of College Degrees Over Time
71. A Different Perspective on Immigration
70. Writing Music - My Albums (10 CDs)
69. My Little Recording Studio
68. The Toothpaste Lesson
67. The Legend of 1900
66. Groundhog Day
65. Education, and the Decline of American Civilization
64. My Little Guitar Collection...
63. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Flame"
62. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Thunder"
61. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Cherry Blossom"
60. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Brazil"
59. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Monterrey"
58. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Ivory and Ebony"
57. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Songbird"
56. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Little Donny"
55. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Midnight Storm"
54. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "EJ Frankenstrat"
53. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Quicksilver"
52. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Lady In Red"
51. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Flash Gordon"
50. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "The Jetsons"
49. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Excalibur"
48. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "White Magic"
47. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Lightning"
46. GuitArt - The Guitar Calendar - "Ruby"
45. The Choreography Tree
44. A Flying Car - My Design
43. Christmas Lights - Streets on Fire
42. Truckstop Christmas in 1960
41. The Mystery of How The Pyramids Were Built
40. Naked Art
39. Overcoming Hate
38. Overcoming Terrorism
37. The Tablecloth
36. Yes... But Is It Really "Art"?
35. Dragons - Did they Actually Exist in the Past?
34. Intelligent Design - Supernatural Science?
33. The Ant and the Grasshopper - Canadian Version
32. Where Did The Bible Come From?
31. Creationism vs Intelligent Design vs Evolution + Big Bang Theory
30. Smart Children
29. Stratocasters - Mexican-made vs. American-made
28. The Nature of Magic ...
27. The Grocery Store - A Rant
26. America's Capacity For "Greatness"
25. The Space Program - America's Peak Era
24. iPOD - The Clever Marketing Guys at Apple
23. My Experience About Life and Death and Living Again
22. Thinking Skills to Allow Anyone to Solve Any Problem
21. Drive-in Theaters - An American Tradition
20. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Creator of Sherlock Holmes
19. William Shakespeare
18. Should a President be Qualified for the Job?
17. Picture of Val
16. Creative Music Writing Techniques
15. The Music Industry and the Quality of Music
14. Buying a Telescope
13. Should an Artist Please Themselves, or Please Their Audience?
12. Recording Studio Techniques
11. Where Do We Go From Here?
10. TENJEWBERRYMUDS
09. Happiness
08. You Might Be A Persnickety Fussbudget If…
07. The Dark Side
06. Americans in Prison
05. A Special Kind of Love
04. Artistic Authority
03. The Thief
02. Singer or Model?
01. Weather Modification

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Corporate Politics - Nasty Tactics

Most of us have seen it at least, even if we haven't been immersed in it ourselves. I'm talking about the world of corporate politics. The power trips, the stonewalling, the tactics, the strategies, the character assassinations, the power plays, people taking credit they don’t deserve, and putting the blame for their own mistakes on others instead of themselves. The ruined careers, the wild chances, the phony suck-ups, the brown-nosers. The great pretenders, the hidden budgets, the hidden perks, favoritism, all the saints and sinners.

In every major company, there are always some who are trying to build their own little fiefdoms. And there are those who love to criticize others. There are those who pretend to know things they don’t and there are those who happily assassinate the character of their rivals. There are always people trying to leverage their situation to improve their security, their power, their wealth, their popularity, and their success. There are all kinds of political animals out there.
Over the years, I have seen a lot of different tactics, so that, while I haven’t seen it all yet, I have seen enough to give me a reasonable understanding of the lay of the land.

Here is one example of a subtle trick: I remember one guy that I used to work with. His trick was to walk around and just ask people what they were working on and how things were going. He would do it harmlessly and conversationally, and people thought nothing of a little friendly conversation with “Stanley”. He seemed like a nice guy. But then what he would do is get into a meeting with your mutual, higher boss in your absence and starting talking about your area and reporting on your status, instead of allowing you to report on your own area.
Stanley would offer all the information that the big boss needed so that he didn’t need to talk to you. Then he would gradually assume the role of reporting for your area. The boss would come to ask Stanley about status on your area because he always seemed to know the answers – which seemingly puts him in a position over you. When he would explain things and the big boss would ask why something was the way it was, he would offer to go find out. Then Stanley would come back to you to find out, and before you know it – Stanley is your new de-facto boss, and it’s only a matter of time before it is made official.

But that is not a nasty trick, since all he did was insert himself into the reporting stream between you and your boss. At least he didn’t assassinate your character. But there are plenty of people who will glady do that, and there are plenty of ways to do it.
For example, there is a dirty tactic that I call, “30,000 foot bombing”. This is a form of character assassination that is done high-up, in meetings among people at the higher levels of a company. It might be coffee conversation while milling about waiting for an important quarterly results meeting to start. It’s usually casually said, but in high places. The person who wants to destroy his rival might say any one of the following comments about that rival.

1) “His project is completely out of control”
2) “He is NOT a team player.”
3) “He just doesn’t get it.”
4) “He isn’t able to see the big picture.”
5) “He needs constant supervision.”
6) “Everywhere he goes, he leaves behind a trail of mushroom clouds.”
7) “He runs every business into the ground.”
8 ) “He is just a small-time manager – he has no vision.”
9) “He is a loose cannon.”
10) “For God’s sake – don’t let him talk to the press.”
11) “How he manages to still survive when we’ve lost some perfectly GOOD people, I’ll never know.”
12) "I've tried helping him, but he is beyond help."
13) "I used to think he had a drinking problem, but now, I don't think so. That's just simply the way he is."
14) "He's probably doing the best he can manage."

These comments are deadly bombs and there is no real defense against them. Think about it. These are large-scale crushing accusations, for which the defense would have to be a string of details. But the details are not welcome or discussed in that context - in a meeting with executives. These are one-liner carpet bombs. How do you defend yourself if someone has said your project or your department “is out of control”? The only adequate defense would be to give a detailed status report on your project to show how well you know all your details. But in the executive suite, NO ONE wants to hear the details like that. They deal in high-level generalities. And in those high-level generalities, you cannot defend against these kinds of attacks. So – once the attack is made, it sticks. There is no way to exonerate yourself. All the person who is attacked can do is to attack back in similar fashion.
And so it becomes a battle to the death. But usually, people back away from the fight long before it escalates to that point. They reserve the attacks for the lower level up & comers to keep them from ever entering the rarified air of the executive suite. They sabotage their chances first, and that keeps them from getting to the point where they could potentially launch a counter-offensive.
Occasionally, two of the execs will gang up on a third though. They can decide between them how they will split up the conquered territory ahead of time, and then design a concerted tag-team attack. It’s deadly.

There are so many ways they could accomplish it. They can use any of the comments listed above, and each person reinforces the other. When the CEO is hearing it from two different sources, it no longer seems personal – now it seems like a problem to be dealt with. Each one shows “scars” in their organization from where they had to deal with the target person’s organization.
They may say things such as, "All of our projects are doing very well and tracking according to schedule – EXCEPT of course the ones where we have to engage Ted’s organization. Naturally, we can’t expect to get good traction there. We always have trouble once we engage with his teams. Most of his projects are out of control and behind schedule. They can’t respond in time, and that slows us down. So, to be realistic, any projects where our teams have to interact with his teams, we have to add an automatic schedule slide factor of about 30%. But in all other areas, we’re doing fine!”

They can combine these direct attacks – 30,000 ft bombs – with non-verbal assaults, which are the more subtle weapons that actually work quite quickly to marginalize a person and destroy their credibility.

These include tactics like rolling their eyes every time a certain person speaks in a meeting. Or they make facial expressions that look like a suppressed laugh. As if they are having a hard time not laughing right out loud at him. Or else they refuse to look at him when he speaks. Or talk over him. Or dismiss his results or his findings. Or they work the speaking rotation so the victim speaks last, and then just before the victim speaks, they standup as if to leave the meeting and say, “Well that’s a good update. I think we have some next steps to follow up on… thanks everybody!” And that forces the person to speak up and say he hadn’t spoken yet. That forces everyone to sit down again, so they are all put out.

Then there are situational things they can do. They can go to the big boss and convince him to give them a similar responsibility and then try to marginalize everything the victim does by simply looking at his next targeted activities and doing them first – thus making his work seem late and unnecessary. Or they can trump his data by reporting his results for him before he gets a chance to stand up and deliver them. Or sabotaging the other projects or other systems or people that are upstream from the victim’s project and making him wait for input – and therefore run late. There are a thousand ways to make someone look bad.

Eventually, the victim is discredited, discouraged, and either fired, or he quits on his own – leaving his responsibilities and projects free for the taking by his rivals. It’s a pretty cut-throat world out there.

Monday, February 19, 2007

The "Bad-Guy" Hero Culture.

Currently in the news are stories about how a Judge in Milan Italy is holding over 30 named CIA Agents responsible for kidnapping foreign nationals on Italian soil and taking them to other countries to be tortured and interrogated in our current war efforts. Ironically, we call it the War Against Terror, but we seem to use terror tactics ourselves at times.

Many people are suggesting that the current administration advocates a culture of lawlessness and deception and perhaps even arrogant disdain for the constitution and the law, and so that fosters this kind of behavior, however, this is not the first time we have done this. We, as a country, have done similar things many times in the past, it seems. I imagine that it was also pretty common during the cold war. This stuff wasn't invented in just the last 7 years. Though it does seem a lot more prevalent now than before.

This practice may be a part of why America is not well liked, nor trusted by much of the rest of the world. Agents and others within our government subvert the legal processes of our own constitution as well as everyone else's in order to further their partisan and personal interests. There is corruption, despite the words and beliefs to the contrary. These people probably think they are heros for "getting the job done despite the beaurocrats".

I think the real truth at the very core of this problem is that our culture respects and rewards the rebel/bad boy type. The criminal. The outlaw.

Is it just a coincidence that, in the old days, when the rest of the world admired America and Americans, we had movies where the heros were the good guys? In cowboy movies, they wore white hats, and the bad guys wore black hats. In gangster movies, they were the cops who caught the gangsters. In war movies, they were men of honor and sacrifice, and doing the right thing was the goal. The Lone Ranger, Zorro, Roy Rogers, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Superman, etc. True, they were simplified, mostly one-dimensional roles, but they were good, law-abiding, evil-fighting role models.

But over the past 50 years, that has all changed. Look at music for example. Rap music became popular. Have you listened to the lyrics of Rap music? It would be hard to think of a more racist, anti-social, or violent message. Rock music has taken a turn toward the dark side. Bands and songs about death and evil abound everywhere. There is an entire musical genre called "Death Metal". Just looking through a guitar catalog shows guitars with skulls and spikes that look more like weapons of evil than musical instruments. Some bands wear face masks and the most gruesome, evil-looking makeup you can imagine. Tattoos, body piercings, leather, studs, metal chains, spiked mohawks - even the look is as menacing as humanly possible.
Imagine a person from the 1930's or 1940's seeing these rock bands of today and hearing their music with all the loud screaming about death and dismemberment, and evil, violent messages. Imagine the culture shock for them to go from the America of the 1940's to this. Back then, when they looked forward to this period, they thought of this time as a dream. This would seem a nightmare to them now.

But honestly, I think that the music and fashion/look styles are more representative of where we have gone already, rather than being the cause. To see the real cause, I think we need to look at a more complex, sophisticated image machine. Hollywood. This is where they craft the hero formulas. This is where they use images, music, stories, emotional constructs to build our ideas of who we are and who we want to be and how we should act. This is the factory where mental models are designed and built and therefore where, ultimately, our culture is directed.

In the past 50 years, movies have become more sophisticated, yes, but they have also become far darker and more cynical and jaded. And we, as a culture have gone right along with them.
Now, our stories are all too often about the guy who bucks the system, and goes out and does the big thing. Many times, the big thing is something criminal. We glorify and cheer for Billy The Kid, The James Gang , Bonnie & Clyde, Dirty Harry. Vin Diesel, Kurt Russell, Clint Eastwood, Sly Stallone, Antonio Banderas, and the list goes on and on. It's not only a recent development though. If you think back, even Humphrey Bogart was more often a criminal than otherwise in the roles he took in his movies. And in more recent decades there was Rambo, Cobra, Triple X, Snake Pliskin, Walking Tall, The Marine, Bobby DeNiro, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Heat, Chronicles of Riddick, Unforgiven, etc. The list goes on.

At the very least, our folk heroes seem to be generally rough, shady characters with a checkered past who might be trying to do one right thing for a change. Sometimes, it's not even that. Look at The Godfather, Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, and the Sopranos is one of the most popular shows on TV these days. Gangsters are our heros now. It used to be the guys who CATCH the gangsters that were the heros.

Sure, it's not 100% evil. We occasionally have adventure movies, and we have comedies, and other drama as well. But the overiding trend seems to be the reverse of what it used to be. Fifty or sixty years ago, it seems like most movies praised the good guys and nice people doing good things, and the bad guy heros were in the minority. Film Noir. Now it seems to be the reverse. And when we go dark, we REALLY go dark, now. Think of horror movies of the 1940's and compare them to horror movies of today. They have honed their craft to the point of chilling your spine in every way imaginable. Evil is so much more evil now.

But it's not so much the evil tone and evil images of the movies that is the essential element here. It's how we view a hero. The crafting of the image of what a hero is. Because that shows us a goal. That gives us something to shoot for. A look. A behavior that we can emulate and pattern our own behavior after. We probably don't want to emulate Freddie in Nightmare on Elm Street, or Jason from Friday The 13th movies. But we might try to emulate Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry, or Unforgiven. We might see ourselves as Vin Diesel as Riddick or Triple X, or Kurt Russell as Snake Pliskin, or James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano. The sneering anti-social anti-hero type. The crime boss. The exact types of guys that our heros used to conquer are now our heros and role models. That persona now looks "cool" by modern standards because our perceptions have been modified to first accept that image and then, finally, praise it.

I don't think that there is any evil mastermind sitting in a Hollywood office somewhere rubbing his hand in glee thinking about how he is subverting our entire culture. It is not deliberate. It is simply a bunch of filmakers trying to make money by appealing to what was once a nascent rebel instinct in the average American mind. And they have done it very well.
Hollywood has made a king's fortune selling the 'bad boy' archetype to the American public and installing it permanently into our psyche as the new heroic model.

And so now the people who watched all these movies and absorbed all these behavioral models as role models while they were kids are now grown up and they are the ones that make the decisions to do these kinds of things in real life. They are in the military and in the government. They are in positions of leadership and responsibility in our society. And they have been programmed by Hollywood, to an extent. They don't think about right and wrong anymore - they think about how to expedite their cause. How to get the job done. They probably think of themselves as some tough, hero type just doing what has to be done to make it all work. I imagine many of them probably think of their task as a necessary evil to serve a greater good. It is a completely predictable consequence of the cultural bias over the past 200 years, and the accelerated trends over the past 50 years.

So the general population has been twisted over a half century toward the dark side by this cultural shift, however, most of us are not in a position where it does much damage to other people directly. But the military leaders are a special breed all their own. There is a special mentality of people who are attracted to that kind of role in life and work toward the goal of working in those kinds of positions. It's easy for us to feel morally superior to them, but we have to keep in mind that our morals are not tested like theirs are on a daily basis. We are not tempted by the dark side so much, so often, so deeply. There are some stories about decisions they made in the 40's 50's and 60's that run chills up my spine. Testing aerial drops of chemical and biological weapons on American cities just to watch the dispersion patterns and contagion proliferation speeds and direction, for example. My older co-worker told me some horror stories about decisions he made in Vietnam as a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Marines then. As he explains it, anyone not born in America was easy gun fodder for them. It was no more than paperwork to them. The only reason for NOT killing other friendlies, was to avoid the reports and paperwork later. As people, they meant nothing to them. They were like trees to be cut down to make passage. Sadly, I think he STILL feels that way even today. His moral compass was so far skewed back then, that he still doesn't have an appreciation for people who are not American-born as human beings and deserving of life and human rights.

Consider this one:
Think back to the Manhattan project during World War II. That was a group of about 100 physicists working for Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Their goal was to create the first nuclear bomb.

Dr. Richard Feynman was one of the more prominent scientists on that team. In one of his books, he describes a frightening decision made by the military at the time. Once they had finished the prototype, the scientists explained to the military leaders that the bomb worked so efficiently because it causes a chain reaction in the atmosphere. The air itself actually catches on fire. Take a close look next time you see a mushroom cloud from a nuclear test and you will see those flames up in the air, under the main bloom of the mushroom cloud.
There was a significant portion of the scientists who were trying to warn the military not to conduct the test because they felt that the chain reaction would not stop and instead would continue on and catch ALL the air on fire - with no way to stop the runaway chain reaction. They actually felt that it might possibly burn off all the atmosphere of the entire Earth - thus killing every person and living thing on the planet.

Knowing that this was a distinct possibility - STILL the military leaders decided to go ahead with the test. Dr. Feynman did not say why, but I assume their reasoning was that if they didn't do it, then the Nazis would do it very shortly anyway and so the risk was the same, so they took it upon themselves to risk all life on the planet to prove their project was a success and finish their bomb first. Thus are the ambitions of those kinds of men in those kinds of positions.

Considering these kinds of decisions, by comparison, kidnapping some foreign nationals in one country and shipping them to another country under the political radar for questioning and torture - that is well within the limits of what that kind of mentality is capable of. They can always justify their actions by saying that the other side would do it too if given the opportunity.

Beginning in 1864, the Geneva Conventions were set up as a series of guidelines for conduct in wartime to assume that as military and political leaders waged wars, they would treat prisoners of war with some basic decency. It prohibits things like starving them to death, or torturing them, it outlines how to deal with wounded prisoners, it dictates that certain weapons not be used, such as poison gases, expanding bullets, etc. Basically, the Geneva Conventions define the low end of what is allowed by a decent civilization.

Some of our leaders today do not believe that we need to observe the Geneva Conventions for behavior in wartime anymore, because they say that the enemies we are fighting are not signatories to those agreements. Therefore, they think that they can act in whatever way they want to with the prisoners they capture during this war effort.

A little scary, yes?

Thursday, February 15, 2007

An Angel Among Us

Akiane Kramarik says she remembers her trip through the after life in between her last life and this life. She is also in possession of incredible, remarkable artistic abilities and so she paints. In fact, combining her incredible skill with her memories, she paints beautiful pictures of what she says is Heaven, and even the face of God. Akiane is a 12 year old child prodigy who is the only known child "binary genius" in the world today. I think I personally would call that a "Double Savant". She is talented in both graphic art and in poetry and has already authored two books.

She recently appeared on Oprah Winfrey, Good Morning America, Montel Williams, and in the news on a host of news programs. If you would like to see examples of her artwork and pictures of her try her website here

Strangely, although her parents are atheists, and despite the fact that she is home schooled and so has presumably not been subject to any proselytizing from any religious people, she has developed a strong belief in God.
She is a very beautiful little girl with very spiritual beliefs who simply wants to share her talents and her good will and best highest intentions with everyone in the world. She is an angel among us.

If you go to this youtube site, you will see a CNN video done about her.

It's interesting to read the comments on the youtube site.
There are 8 pages of posts from people arguing whether or not this is really the face of God, whether the visions of heaven are real, or whether Akiane is simply brain-washed, whether CNN brushed past all the other child geniuses they came across in order to find one that claims her abilities come from God and preaches a spiritualist message that is consistent with Christian fundamentalism, because that sells well in this political climate and at this point in America's history when our society's pendulum is swung so far to the right.

The staunch and stubbornly cynical atheists and the wild-eyed religious zealots both get a chance to use this little girl's abilities and the story about them to espouse their doctrine. Some are condescending religious snobs trying to push biblical quotations to proselytize their particular religion, while others are just as adamant in the other direction to show their disdain for those with religious beliefs, and point out their gullibility in accepting Christian teachings. Both sides think the other is completely deluded.

It's amazing to see how people's minds and opinions are so polarized when something like this comes up.

Here is one of the more polite exchanges:
"To everyone who doesn't believe in God: He loves you and he sent his son to die for YOU!! You are forgiven already. If you have never been to church or you do not have proof that God does not exist then Your comments are VAGUE. Please just go to a Christian church this Saturday night or Sunday morning and just sit there with an open mind. It won't hurt you and it's free."

"I went to church all my life 2 times a week and sunday school and everything. Then I took an evolution class, and a historical jesus class. My eyes were really opened. There is a high probability that god does not exist. You should really take both of those classes. It wount hurt you. Just sit there with an open mind. Really."

Here is another polite exchange:
"If a God had created the world, then it would be a great achievement, but it was formed by natural forces, and life evolved to produce the awesome place that we live, and that is truly and astonishingly beautiful."

"Your belief is wrong. God created this Earth and Christ died for our sins. Even yours! You will not see Heaven once Jesus returns for his children unless you witness his Love for you and believe in his glory. "

~~~
Many, of course, are far more polarized, and some are far less polite. Some are bible-thumping evangelicals, some are die-hard atheists, and both are battling it out. I find it interesting that neither side ever seems to be swayed from their beliefs. Some may be polite, but in their their core beliefs, they remain intransigent despite the most energetic efforts of the opposite camp.

Then there are other forums and other discussions about her which are not about the religious implications, but are critical about her art. Specifically, some say it is "flat and has no spark or soul", while others think it is full of life and soul. Some think it is not above the kind of art reserved for black velvet paintings of Elvis and dogs playing poker, while again, others think it should hang in the Louvre. Still others think that while it may not be the very best art being produced in the world, it IS still nevertheless quite remarkable considering that it is coming from an 11 year old. Still others doubt that it even comes from her at all. They note that her mother painted and suggest that her mother has painted these and attributes them to her daughter in order to build a media phenomenon that she might cash in on, and very shrewdly skews it toward God and Jesus in order to capture that strong market in America today. They point out that people have paid as much as $700,000 for a painting of God's face.

And yet, in the middle of the firestorm of opinions raging around her, is this beautiful, sweet, innocent little girl sitting there quietly painting away. The light within her is very clear and bright and pure. I can see that.

I find I don't have to believe or disbelieve the implications of her art. I simply take it in and appreciate it for it's own sake. It is art. And it is beautiful. It is what little girls think of from a little girl's mind and soul. And it is the capturing and honest expression of her own inner light - which is the nature of all good art.

On a similar note, there is another child prodigy painter named Marla Olmstead. Marla paints in a modernistic, textural style (as opposed to the realist style that Akiane paints in). She has been painting since she was 2, and these paintings also sell to collectors around the world for thousands of dollars. Marla is now 4 years old.
Personally, I find it amazing that a tiny girl who has been in the world less time time than my current pair of shoes have been, should be producing such prolific and highly praised art.
Her website is here.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

"Socialized Medicine"??

We were having a short discussion about politics the other day, and one friend made the remark, "Well if Hillary becomes president, then that means we'll have to get used to big government, and socialized medicine."

He spat out the term "socialized medicine" like it was poison. I found that strange. He is over 50 years old and has a bunch of medical things wrong with him - he has both his and his wife's health insurance and each company tries to avoid paying any of their medical bills by hoping the other insurance company will cover it. He and his wife are both seriously ill on an ongoing basis. And they find it difficult to afford their medical costs now. Why in the world would he NOT want the government to provide free health care??

I don't understand something here. What the hell is the problem with government providing healthcare insurance? Why is that called "socialized health care" here? The government provides police services, fire services, school services, park services, military services, water management services, and hundreds of other services. We don't call it "Socialized Fire Services". or "Socialized Police Services" or "Socialized high schools".

Every other civilized country in the world except South Africa provides government supported healthcare insurance. Why would we NOT want that? Why in the world would we PREFER to have private companies trying to diminish the quality of our healthcare by cutting corners to maintain their profit margins? Doctors cannot afford to give certain treatments or procedures or certain drugs, because they cannot afford the optional insurance, or because the patients' insurance doesn't cover them.
For example, my insurance company is one of the biggest, Aetna, and I have their premium PPO plan, and despite the fact that doctors and the AMA recommend that anyone over age 40, should have a colonoscopy every 2 years to prevent against colon cancer, my top-rated health insurance does not permit ANY until age 50, and then only 1 visit per 10 years.

Also, insurance companies will refuse to take a new customer if they have a "pre-existing condition". That means that many people are stuck working in a job or a company that they don't like and for less wages, because they cannot change companies. To change their employer is to cancel the old insurance and apply to the new employer's insurance, and if they or a family member has a long-term illness that is 'pre-existing', then they may not be accepted by the new insurance company. Or the insurance company may decide that they will accept them, but not cover the pre-existing illness treatments. They are, after all, just a business trying to make a profit, and assuming a known liability like that will lose them money. And as a privately owned company, they are under no obligation to lose money just to provide a needed service. So the person is effectively held hostage at that old employer because of their insurance.

In 2005, there were over 2 million bankruptcies across America. Over 1 milllion of them - more than half - were as a direct result of medical costs that exceeded the coverage provided by health care insurance companies. Is this how we WANT it to work for our people?

Also, American companies are disadvantaged by this model. Continental Airlines calculated that last year, they could have saved over $800 million dollars in health care premiums if they simply had a younger workforce. They would have qualified for lower premiums. That would have meant that they could have MADE $400 million in profit instead of LOSING $400 million in losses last year. GM and FORD are claiming that the main reason they are so near bankruptcy in recent years is the fact that they are held down by having to pay ongoing healthcare premiums for all former employees as well as current employees. That is over 1 million people each company. With healthcare insurance havcing risen over 80% in the last 2 years alone - this has been disastrous.

In general, American companies are at a competitive disadvantage because all their foreign competitors don't have these expenses to deal with. Japanese car makers, German Car Makers, French, Italian - in these countries, their governments provide healthcare for their citizens. The employers don't have to. Therefore, the costs of it are not factored into their prices, and therefore they can compete internationally. So, this is not a level playing field for American companies competing with foreign companies. Is this how we WANT it to work for our employers in this country?

Basically then, in our society, we have decided that there are some products and services that are available through private companies and some are provided by government services. Some things, like police, fire, military, schools, park management, water management, etc. we trust to impartial government-run agencies. The others, we have private companies take care of. The deciding factor should be those services which are fundamentally necessary to our society and should not be compromised due to profitability models.

So tell me again, why the government should NOT provide healthcare for the citizens - like all other civilized countries? And explain it real slow so it will make sense....

I think this is just a concept that has been spun in the public mind by the medical industry in order to maintain a status quo system that gives them a huge profit - at the expense of every other aspect of our society. In other words - people have been brainwashed to think that this one service should never be provided by a government agency. They are taught to think that this one particular service represents the difference between a "free" society and a "socialist" society, and, of course, we've all been taught that a socialist society is bad.... It sounds like a clever scheme dreamed up by medical capitalists. How fascinatingly ironic!