MARC GINSBURG'S DAILY VIRAL POLITICAL VIDEO #6

Love

Love is like boiling water. When we fall in it, we get burned. But when we put effort and healthy ingredients into it, we get nourished.

The Day The World Almost Came To An End....And Still Might...But Doesn't Have To

As raging winds of a massive storm that is currently sweeping across a great part of the United States howl outside my window shortly after the solstice earlier at 6:10 AM Eastern, the time that people believe the ancient Mayans predicted the world to come to an end, three hours before 20 children and 6 adults are remembered in a “sacred” moment commemorating a moment that was anything but sacred one week ago, it is clear that something in our world is way out of whack and that maybe there is something to this prediction that eludes literal interpretation yet stands up to meaningful reflection. That the symptoms of climate change are real is something no one, especially anyone over 20, such as myself, who remembers very different weather patterns in my earlier life, can deny, whether or not they attribute it to something external to the causes humans have made or directly related to them. That more children are killing other children, as well as themselves, is a fact that is a glaring reality. That our system of government has debilitated to the point of, practically speaking, falling apart altogether, as the very ideologically divided members of it seem unable to work out a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff” is another undeniable reality, whether you attribute it to the enormity of the size of the money pouring into the people who get elected to its offices long before they actually get elected, or to the size of the government itself.

If any reality has made itself screamingly apparent on this day, December 21, 2012, it is that out entire planet is terribly unbalanced in a way that goes deeper and larger than any of these individual phenomena. Any thinking person cannot help but question the thinking that led our civilization to this point we're at now and wonder if indeed we are, if not having created, taking part helplessly in our own demise. For every disease that we've eradicated, a new one has taken its place. The hardships of survival on the plains of life before oil, gas, steam and electricity have been replaced by the hardships of survival in the dizzying fast paced life job-killing automation, split-second news cycles and a social environment that is enslaved to a technological forum we barely comprehend. It does indeed seem as though we've gotten nowhere and that our progress has really been circular, leading us right back to where we started from, or—worse—off the edge of that looming cliff of no return.

I think it is entirely possible that the world may be coming to an end and that today can perhaps be said to be the day all the factors that have already been happening have led it to the point of no return, or at least the day we've epiphanically become aware of that fact. However, I also believe we really don't know if it's the end, a new beginning, or simply a turning point, this day that is already an annual turning point when winter begins, the roughest season, yet the day starts to get longer, the day, as put by an author for the PBS series nature, “when the light has won over the darkness”. Or, as another person once said, because it is we ourselves who have created the mess, we therefore have the power to fix it. Yes, it is true that it is easier for us to destroy than to create, to make war than to make peace. But that does not make it impossible.

We have always been an experimenter. We've tried different ways to make our lives better. That is the better part of us. But we've forgotten that there is a worse part of our makeup too, and that worse part is the part that makes us forget about itself. Hubrically, we pride ourselves on our accomplishments—great accomplishments indeed—while losing the humility to remember that they are but works in progress. The founders of the United States said, “In order to form a more perfect union...”, in the preamble to our Constitution. They understood that perfection is an illusion and that we can only become more perfect than we were yesterday and hopefully reflect on the new progress we've made, tweak that and search for an even better, more perfect way to unite and accomplish something great. Perhaps we're brought back full round in circle when we lose both our perspective and our humility.

Therefore I think the solution is not in going back to the way we did things before nor in just keeping on doing things the way we are now. We need to both respect the wisdom of our elders, our forbears while priding ourselves on the achievements of our own generation, but mostly to work together with our children to find the balance we've so desperately lost, not avoiding them and thereby leaving them to copy our own shortsightedness and go down that slippery maze from which they may or may not find the way out, but to unite. The preamble to our Constitution contains the word “union” after the word “more perfect”. We need to come together with a new understanding of what the word “union” really means. We have become afraid of losing ourselves and our freedom in uniting, something that has been the bedrock of our progress in the past. But “union” does not mean the merging of different people into one homogenous, unitary group of individuals, but instead a dynamic association of people, each with his or her own distinct nature and personality, all bringing something to the group effort to move our species and our planet forward along a plane of new understanding. I think more than ever now is the time when the happiness of each of us is dependent on the ability of all of us to work together instead of at cross-purposes with each other in order to solve the problems that confront us and, through our association, naturally come to feel that we are important, we mean something to each other and that having is far less important than sharing, the essential ingredient of love, and that therefore, we also have the ability to share with and be responsible for our planet and all life on it, not merely for their but for all of our sustained growth and living, and that we can reverse this maddening course we have been setting ourselves on by thinking only of what we can get from it as we draw heavy upon its offerings while returning nothing back, but instead can offer back by living lightly and with a smile.

Most of all, what is needed is the restoration of optimism, the belief that nothing is too hard or too impossible for us to overcome. Unfortunately, while toward the end of the 19^th century, it seemed that America abounded with people who thought that nothing was unachievable, nowadays, the voices of people resound with hopelessness, with the ironclad belief that the good things “will never happen” and that we really are way beyond the point of no return. This majority of people really believe they have no power and have resigned themselves to it. It is heart-wrenching to know that 200 years ago, people who had far less political power than these Americans do today, believed they had more and actually did something to change their reality, while those today contribute to worsening the problem by believing they can do nothing and therefore doing nothing. So if you want to know where your worst enemy is and where to start helping this world turn around, look no further. It is within you that the answer and the solution lies. So let's start now. “Il nous faut cultiver notre jardin”.

DAILY GUIDANCE: 21st October

DAILY GUIDANCE: 21st October: ALL sorts of things happen on the road to achieving kosen-rufu. Fellow members may pass away, having fulfilled their mission in this lifeti...

I've been a lifelong firm believer in people's rights over the rights of the few and the powerful. In democracy over free market monopoly. As such, I never once in my life voted for a Republican. I didn't always agree with every Democrat I voted for but I have always been deathly afraid of a Republican victory, for that would always mean the negation of the assurance and protection of every one of America's citizens, not just the few who can afford to buy it, and history has proven my fears well founded with every Republican victory. For that reason, I agree with everything that is being said by President Obama and his supporters in this election campaign. However, since this campaign is about reaching the hearts of people who do not see things the way I do, the repetition of the same lines that I have heard spoken by every supporter and by the President is sounding weak and ineffective in combating the stronger message, however deceptive, of the President's Republican opposition. It is clear that we and the President need to come at this in a totally different way. What needs to be established clearly, irregardless of how fast or slow the recovery is proceeding, is the basic difference in the underlying principles by which these two men and these two parties have governed and intend to. Assuring that all Americans have a basic safety net to protect their lives should never be something up for negotiation. This is a basic right that the founders of this nation regarded as an implicit right of all human beings, not even just Americans. We do not throw people out to fend for themselves, especially at critical times like this, when the provision or lack of this basic safety net is the difference between life and death for so many. It is a monstrous human atrocity to view America as a gambling style casino as the Republicans with their unregulated market economy do. And Mitt Romney, in his long career both in the private and public sectors, has shown himself to be no exception to this basic monstrous approach. The America we Democrats have always believed in is one where all Americans come together to ensure that every American has his or her basic needs met. These include the right not to go hungry, the right not to be homeless, and the right to have full and affordable access to health. These are not entitlements. These are basic human rights. To put them on the table as entitlements, as Governor Romney's running mate has, in keeping the American people hostage for the last two years since he's been Chairman of the Budge Committee, is absolutely indefensible. And there is nothing Mitt Romney can say to mitigate or deny the strong statement he made in selecting someone who would do that as his running mate, no matter how carefully crafted and convincing his arguments are. Because facts, unlike people, don't lie. It is clear that, faced with the deficit and the prospect of the fiscal cliff, while my Party has called for revenue increases simply to strengthen and protect this safety net for all Americans, Governor Romney's Party has called tax decreases, something equally at fault in reducing the deficit, for people who don't need them. Study after study has shown clearly that the rich have not gotten any poorer since the recession hit in 2008. So it is clear that they are in a position, unlike the rest of Americans, to step up to the plate and bring back America. Many of them, in fact, have supported our policies to enable them to do so. But the Republicans, under Paul Ryan, have held this team spirit hostage to what cannot be called anything other than sheer selfishness on the part of some to horde money rather than grow the economy, as Mitt Romney claims that somehow his magic wand of deregulation which is dismantling of the safety net will bring about. No person of conscience can accept this state of affairs. The rich have the freedom to invest their money in hiring people and putting them back to work, in investing in creative entrepreneurs to partner with them to find new enterprises that will result in the hiring and training of millions of Americans. The green economy, which Mitt Romney and his Republican friends have consistently opposed, is one very lucrative opportunity to get Americans back to work again. Now I have no problem with billionaires investing in our economy on their own. But the current state of bearish fear of our economic future is driving them to hold onto their money, as has been proven to be the case in the past when our economy was not in robust shape. And at these times, it was government, led by Democrats, that stepped in and given our economy the jump-start it so desperately needed. Do I believe in a government-led economy? Absolutely not. These claims of the President being a socialist are beyond ridiculous seeing how far to the center he has moved and how cooperative he has been with those with a more conservative and laissez-faire viewpoint. And just take a look at Americans' collective wealth today and it is clear that his policies have resulted in anything but a massive redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. So I don't know what kind of fantasy world these accusers live in but what is frightening is that enough people of reputation have taken them even the least bit seriously. President Obama's last opponent in 2008 even brought up this ridiculous claim. No, the President has never believed in such an economic or political model. But abandoning the responsibility of government in favor of the free market, besides depriving Americans of their role as citizens in being a part of their government, is very dangerous. The market is the place for business to be conducted, not for people to govern and to protect their lives and their rights. To give it over to the most powerful in this Darwinian fashion is to abandon the very thing that separates us as humans from the animals. But the Democratic Party has never advocated the other extreme, that of a government-run economy. No. Our position has always been a partnership of government and business. In good times, business has always led. But when we hit bad times, it is the job of the government to step up, one, to ensure the safety net is in place, and two, to boost, to jump-start the economy so that it can be thriving again. And we have only to look at history to see that the Democratic approach has always, in the long run, been the more lucrative and effective way to grow the economy. This occurred in our biggest crisis, the Great Depression, which itself was the result of an unregulated market. Did the economy come back right away, as soon as President Roosevelt took office? Absolutely not. But I think it's noteworthy that unemployment was at 16%. Not 7.8 but 16%, in 1936. Yet the American people reelected President Roosevelt in one of the most massive landslides in American history. They knew there were no magic fixes to get us out of what was then a much bigger mess than any of us have known in our lifetime. But they knew that continuing to back the government pumped slow growth was the only way to go at that perilous time and they knew more than anything that, as delightful as the roaring 20's may have been when it seemed everyone was becoming a millionaire overnight, that was not the time to go back to the policies that existed then. And as a result, the American economy grew at its most sustained rate. Did it enjoy the greatest peak upward? That's not the issue. We knew peaks in the 1870's with the industrial boom and in the 1990's with the dot.com boom. But those are not what sustains an economy in the long run. No. An economy is sustained and people don't have to worry about their basic needs being met when government steps up to the plate and does its part. And history is shown that at such dire times, even those who can afford to step up to the plate to help the economy, usually won't because they see no short-term gain in it for them. It is for that reason that government must flex its muscle and itself collect the revenue to invest back into the economy, while making sure that all people's basic needs are met. And no matter what Mitt Romney tells you, his words and actions have not shown him to be on the side of history and on the side of the American people, no matter how sweet and tempting they sound. I would be wary of what hasn't been shown to work in the long run because the philosophy of turning our economy into a crap-shoot with a winner-take-all philosophy won't merely be kicking this can down the road and inviting bubble after bubble to collapse and then we're back in this mess.... No, it's kicking the can back in the other direction.

Five (5) lessons about the way we treat people from a friend

This is not my composition but was passed to me by a friend.
Marc

Five (5) lessons about the way we treat people

1 - First Important Lesson - Cleaning Lady.





During my second month of college, our professor

Gave us a pop quiz. I was a conscientious student





And had breezed through the questions until I read

The last one:


"What is the first name of the woman who cleans the school?"

Surely this was some kind of joke. I had seen the

Cleaning woman several times. She was tall,

Dark-haired and in her 50's, but how would I know her name?



I handed in my paper, leaving the last question

Blank. Just before class ended, one student asked if

The last question would count toward our quiz grade.



"Absolutely, " said the professor.... "In your careers,

You will meet many people. All are significant.. They

Deserve your attention and care, even if all you do

Is smile and say "hello.."



I've never forgotten that lesson.. I also learned her

Name was Dorothy.



2. - Second Important Lesson - Pickup in the Rain



One night, at 11:30 p.m., an older African American

Woman was standing on the side of an Alabama highway

Trying to endure a lashing rain storm. Her car had

Broken down and she desperately needed a ride.

Soaking wet, she decided to flag down the next car.

A young white man stopped to help her, generally

Unheard of in those conflict-filled 1960's. The man

Took her to safety, helped her get assistance and

Put her into a taxicab.



She seemed to be in a big hurry, but wrote down his

Address and thanked him. Seven days went by and a

Knock came on the man's door. To his surprise, a

Giant console color TV was delivered to his home. A

Special note was attached.



It read:

"Thank you so much for assisting me on the highway

The other night. The rain drenched not only my

Clothes, but also my spirits. Then you came along.

Because of you, I was able to make it to my dying

Husband's' bedside just before he passed away... God

Bless you for helping me and unselfishly serving

Others."



Sincerely,

Mrs. Nat King Cole.



3 - Third Important Lesson - Always remember those

Who serve.



In the days when an ice cream sundae cost much less,

A 10-year-old boy entered a hotel coffee shop and

Sat at a table. A waitress put a glass of water in

Front of him.



"How much is an ice cream sundae?" he asked.

"Fifty cents," replied the waitress.



The little boy pulled his hand out of his pocket and

Studied the coins in it.



"Well, how much is a plain dish of ice cream?" he inquired.



By now more people were waiting for a table and the

Waitress was growing impatient..



"Thirty-five cents," she brusquely replied.



The little boy again counted his coins.



"I'll have the plain ice cream," he said.



The waitress brought the ice cream, put the bill on

The table and walked away The boy finished the ice

Cream, paid the cashier and left.. When the waitress

Came back, she began to cry as she wiped down the

Table. There, placed neatly beside the empty dish,

Were two nickels and five pennies..



You see, he couldn't have the sundae, because he had

To have enough left to leave her a tip.



4 - Fourth Important Lesson. - The obstacle in Our Path.



In ancient times, a King had a boulder placed on a

Roadway. Then he hid himself and watched to see if

Anyone would remove the huge rock. Some of the

King's' wealthiest merchants and courtiers came by

And simply walked around it.. Many loudly blamed the

King for not keeping the roads clear, but none did

Anything about getting the stone out of the way..



Then a peasant came along carrying a load of

Vegetables. Upon approaching the boulder, the

peasant laid down his burden and tried to move the

stone to the side of the road. After much pushing

and straining, he finally succeeded.. After the

peasant picked up his load of vegetables, he noticed

a purse lying in the road where the boulder had

been. The purse contained many gold coins and a note

from the King indicating that the gold was for the

person who removed the boulder from the roadway. The

peasant learned what many of us never understand!



Every obstacle presents an opportunity to improve

our condition.



5 - Fifth Important Lesson - Giving When it Counts...



Many years ago, when I worked as a volunteer at a

hospital, I got to know a little girl named Liz who

was suffering from a rare & serious disease. Her only

chance of recovery appeared to be a blood

transfusion from her 5-year old brother, who had

miraculously survived the same disease and had

developed the antibodies needed to combat the

illness.. The doctor explained the situation to her

little brother, and asked the little boy if he would

be willing to give his blood to his sister.



I saw him hesitate for only a moment before taking a

deep breath and saying, "Yes I'll do it if it will save

her." As the transfusion progressed, he lay in bed

next to his sister and smiled, as we all did, seeing

the color returning to her cheek. Then his face

grew pale and his smile faded...



He looked up at the doctor and asked with a

trembling voice, "Will I start to die right away".



Being young, the little boy had misunderstood the

doctor; he thought he was going to have to give his

sister all of his blood in order to save her.

On Arianna Huffington's Glenn Beck Goes After Me, But Forgets His Show Is on Video and Lies About Things He quote Never, Never unquote SaidArianna, al

Arianna, although I admit I did not see the actual video, Beck's inflammatory phrase, “They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!”, although he obviously falls badly on his face in denying his saying it, falls under the generally accepted parameters of acceptability with regard to great leeway of interpretation. That means that while he used this exact phrase, he can argue that he didn't literally mean “slaughtered” as in physically murdered but meant it rhetorically as in a manner of speaking, implying that the Obama administration and the Democrat's planned policies and legislation would make life so miserable for Americans that it could be taken in the same way as the phrase, “You're killing me!” Obviously, for one thing, his denial seems to refer to the exact phrasing you quote, Arianna, and therefore he cannot have this battle. (On top of that, he's on the side that generally ropes us into a strict constructionist approach, so the idea that he would want to escape the literal meaning of these words is obviously far-fetched and therefore would make him want to deny its use altogether). He therefore loses this tiff on the grounds that his denial is of the literal meaning, not its interpretation. Were he that intelligent (as to argue for the symbolic meaning), he'd win the day with intelligent people. But they are not in his audience and they are diminishing increasingly as a force that seems to threaten either economically or politically, as they once did, sadly. Therefore, while in oratorical and rhetorical realms, Arianna is the clear winner, in the actual realm of where people are at, especially numbers-wise, its clearly a draw, with the state of American politics today seeming to pull to the right, suggesting that he might even win this one just on that basis, since Fox viewers will rah-rah-rah their hosts the same way the conservatives of my youth during the Vietnam War used to say “My country [is right whether it's] right or wrong.” Stubbornness and persistence, then as now, particularly as exemplified by the character of President Nixon, won and wins the day over reason, logic and moral persuasion. A similar phenomenon seemed to be at work the other day in a dispute between View cohost Joy Behar and Rush Limbaugh. On his show the other day, he played a clip of his being introduced on the Miss America pageant, in which Ms. Behar claimed that he was booed. On the clip, the sound of loud and enthusiastic cheering is definitely heard, which he claims disproves Behar's statement, however, there is a lower noise significant enough to be heard that does indeed sound like booing, even as played on Limbaugh's talk radio show. Limbaugh's intelligence seems as developed as Beck's because what gives away the booing is his playing of the two guests being introduced before him, in which you hear much less enthusiastic cheering, and then plays his clip, in which you definitely hear thunderous applause and enthusiasm for Limbaugh, but there is definitely a bass sound totally missing from the other two applauses. The show aired yesterday, 2/2/10, the same day that Arianna's article appears if you want to check it out yourself. It sounds very similar to a Red Sox-Yankees game, particularly one played in Fenway Park, or to be more seasonable, like a Super Bowl, where fans of both teams descend on the stadium which is always in a neutral city. Now if Behar had said he was only booed, then Limbaugh would win this round. But Behar did not use the word “only”, even in Limbaugh's own disclaimer. Hence, Behar carries the day on this one. Again, the presence of a growing number of Americans who love emotion-based reasoning and detest thinking as a member of a jury, Limbaugh might seize this one as Beck may have seized his victory from the jaws of defeat, the way “all's 'fair' in...war”.

What is more significant here in terms of Beck's remarks is less whether he did or didn't say what he did, but rather that his words, which he clearly did say, like much of his ongoing diatribe, are incendiary, and, if nothing else, function the same way yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater causes people to be hurt and was once overruled by the High Court (a Court oh, so, so different from the present Roberts one) as unprotected by the First Amendment, in that they actually cause people to be lead to the exact fate he is accusing the Obama administration and the Democrats of causing. To still clearly a majority of Americans who are not convinced and converted by the likes his him and Limbaugh, the danger of Beck's and Limbaugh's overuse of this incendiary language is their becoming diluted and less effective in inspiring fear in people, like “the boy who cried wolf”. And for those who argue, “No they are actually quite effective because they are the most popular talk show hosts”, my response is, “So what? Most people don't listen to or watch talk shows. They're surfing the net! Arianna probably has lots more fans than they do.” But getting back to the dilution of this overly used incendiary language, here's the down side, which is actually a great danger. That is, the more watered down such inflammatory references to killing become, the more lightly life and death are taken by people who do join such a camp. Such people, numbed to the pain and hurt (as well exemplified in your quote, Arianna of Stuart Burguiere's comment “What suffering?”) of other people, will not think twice about doing something violent and dangerous to counteract the stated and perceived threat (in this case, the “slaughter”) will inevitably foster a dangerously zealous patriotism and religiosity and, in the process, many American citizens will turn into killers almost as callous as Al Qaeda's worst. For that alone, Beck needs to be brought to task publicly as one who is metaphorically shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. For this reason, Arianna, your making it an issue is a necessary first step because obviously refutation of such incendiary speech that occludes and masks its lethal danger is something that cannot be overstated. And regarding my own seeming paranoia and conspiracy theory, there's a truism in life that you become and you create what you perceive and your prism of the outer world becomes the world you create to yourself and, through others who are likemindedly inspired by you, a real change in the outer, objective world. Hence, in my presenting a vision of a world gone dangerous with much to fear from events that do not necessarily foreclude such, presenting the logical consequences of someone who puts such a drastic vision out there. It is not the vision of extremist violence and apocalypse that is inherently paranoic but rather the departure from reason and consistency of thinking that allows a different type of motive to create such a vision in the first place.