If We Could Go Back In Time

I woke early this morning from a dream, and could not fall back asleep. In the dream I had somehow gone back in time. I found myself in an alternate reality - perhaps a parallel dimension for those of you who are science fiction fans and understand such things.

In any event, I realized that I had gone back in time. I told a few people about this. They were amazed when I was able to guess their names. I explained that I had met them before, and that I knew quite a bit about them.

The power of knowing what was to come was a bit intoxicating. I had opportunities to change so much in my life. The dream gave me options to change most, if not all of the most important things in my life today. For a few moments I had delusions of grandeur.

When I encountered a work colleague in a different way than I had in the real world, the gravity of the situation hit me. The friendly meeting that I had known would never take place, and from the first moment in this reality I knew that the relationship would forever be different than I had known it. I had an opportunity to have the upper hand, but at once realized that was not my desire.

I thought long and hard about my first thoughts to change so much in my life. I realized that I was were I am today because of every decision that I have made up until this point. With very few exceptions, I found that my decisions were made upon my values, my principles, my hopes, and my dreams. I came to the conclusion that I needed to tread very carefully in this new world, or I might end up with a whole slew of unplanned consequences.

Then I woke up. It wasn't the "wake up and roll over" sort of waking. I was fully alert, and full of energy. I thought about the dream.

While the dream of going back and changing the past might seem enchanting, it is truly a "grass is always greener on the other side" scenario. The pleasant reality is that the power to change tomorrow lies not in yesterday, but today. If we want things to be different tomorrow, we need only plant the proper seeds to enable that change today. We should not dwell on yesterday. We should examine yesterday only long enough to identify those things that brought us into places we now find unacceptable. As soon as we identify the behavior(s) to be avoided, we should firmly plant ourselves in the present moment. It is the present moment that we breath in. Only in the present moment are we agents of change. Only in the present moment do we have choice.

Some people spend all of their "present moments" dwelling on the past and fretting over things that didn't turn out the way they wanted them to. Such people will not find happiness until they release their judgments about past events and awaken into the moment of their current breath and the freedom to act that it brings.

Some people spend all of their "present moments" dreaming about the future and how great things will be in some later time. Such people will not find happiness until they stop planning and start planting. The future will only be different than the past, if in this present moment you choose to act in a way that will generate the change you want to see.

I am writing this as much for myself as I am writing this for you. The God of my heart knows that I am not perfect. Seeing a path out of the woods is truly different than walking that path. I have walked this path, and I have walked in circles in deep dark thickets. If I can shine some light on good soil, I am blessed. No one is perfect, yet the best of us don't stop seeking. I believe the "key" is in the moment we call "now".

At the risk of being a little "wordy"...

While the notion of perfection is only a construct of the mind, and cannot be reached in the physical world, the moderated drive towards that divine principle transforms the present moment.

Don't forget to breathe! Breathe deep like an unbound smile.

Sincerely,

Metajunkie

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?

Everyone should be familiar with they saying "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back". I assume that most of us have felt that, at some time or another, this is how are lives are operating. But are they? Is this phrase a reality or an ill conceived mantra?

While not a catchy a phrase, I argue here that a more accurate and possibly mentally healthier phrase would be: "One Step Forward, and I can see my next two steps more clearly now." Or perhaps, "One step at a time", is a short and sweet recognition of reality.

Certainly, after we take a step forward on any adventure or undertaking the next steps become more clear. And, as our idea moves from the unseen into our physical reality, additional constraints that were not imagined may appear. But when they do, is this really two steps back? I don't think so. In fact, I think many of us are too quick to proclaim disheartening things. Some of these phrases seem to pop out of our mouths before we even take a moment to think about what we are about to say.

Before blindly pronouncing negative comments into your life, I urge you to take a good look at your current circumstances. Are your words in alignment with your idea of what your reality should be? If everything that came out of your mouth was like a wish from a genie, would you better guard what you say? The road may be longer than it first appeared, but you have none the less started the journey and have one step behind you.

It may seem like just a foolish game with words, but what we think and what we say impact our realities. This fact has been taught by many of the great wisdom teachings of the world. Some say that ultimately it is thought that shapes our physical reality from the quantum field into our Newtonian space. For others this is pure fantasy. As with most things, the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle ground. It is clear enough that everyone isn't magically popping things into and out of existence with every whim. Yet, too, I have seen perpetually miserable people reinforcing their current state of affairs, as well as positive-thinkers perpetuating prosperity. If we all have the ability to create with our thoughts and words, perhaps there is some sort of averaging effect.

Even many of the self-proclaimed realists understand that there is something to all of this. Many successful athletes, for example, meditate on, or visualize winning. If our ideas are only in our heads and have no bearing on the physical reality that surounds us, why would such individuals choose to spend time in meditation that could otherwise go towards physical training or some other physically necessary pursuit?

We can see the Judeo-Christian emphasis on the power of the words we speak in The Book of Proverbs:

"From the fruitage of a man's mouth his belly will be satisfied; he will be satisfied even with the produce of his lips.

Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and he that is loving it will eat its fruitage." (Proverbs 18:20-21)

In the above quotes from Proverbs, we see that there is some power ascribed to a man's words. If the writers of this Proverb aren't talking about words coming forth from one's mouth, I'm not sure what else they could be talking about. While some scriptures can be argued to have different meanings, this one seems to be pretty cut and dry, even if puzzling to the uninitiated.

If we are willing to concede the similarity of something being in your heart to being on or in your mind, we could also look at Jesus' assertion in the Gospel of Matthew for a notion of the alignment of thought and spoken word:

"...For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34)

But, in the twelfth chapter of Matthew, Jesus is saying more than just what is in your heart will come out of your mouth. You need to read the whole chapter, but at least the verses that follow 30. To paraphrase, and try to sum up Jesus' teaching here we have to read and re-read these sections to piece it all together.

Jesus says that "the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven." He then goes on to provide an example regarding the difference between speaking a word against the Son of man and speaking against the holy spirit, the former being forgiven, and the latter - not so much.

What exactly is the spirit? What is the holy spirit? I've been "educated" in what these things are - but from a tradition of "because I said so", not from scripture. If God is a personal God, and The Holy Spirit is a part of God, then it too must be of some sort of personal nature.

Let us continue to try and piece this all together. Jesus also says in this part of Matthew that we can either "make the tree and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten." That sounds like free will. But then he says, "Offspring of vipers, how can YOU speak good things, when YOU are wicked?" Now, that sounds like pre-determination. But the core of the message seems to be: "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." I don't think the message has as much to do with free will versus predestination, as much as it is about what we speak about, we bring about. There does seem to be a choice here though. Each of us has a choice regarding the tree that Jesus speaks of, and its fruit. Somehow, this all has to do with what we say and what we do.

"I tell you that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgement Day; for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:36)

It would seem that we can get away with saying an awful lot of things, yet speaking against the holy spirit is unforgivable. There must be a good reason for this. I was taught to fear God, and out of this fear there came a "respect". This seemed to all be based upon the Law of God. But, Jesus makes no bones about breaking "the Law". In fact Chapter 12 starts with an account him defending his disciples for plucking and eating heads of grain on the sabbath. So, I don't think that Jesus is telling us we had better not speak against the Holy Spirit because he said so, or that it is a new law. There must be some practical reason for it.

He is saying blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. He is telling us that we can make a tree and its fruit good. He is telling us that what is in our hearts we will speak. Then he says, "The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things." So this isn't just about what we are saying (although it is all clearly connected), it is also about the things we are sending out into the world. What is in our hearts, and what we are speaking, becomes real in the things we send out of us into this world. So, it would seem that Jesus is saying that what we speak about, we bring about.

Approximately five-hundred years before Jesus came to Earth, the Buddha gave us Four Noble Truths, and an Eight-Fold Path to lead to enlightenment and the end of suffering. I personally find many similarities between what I've learned Jesus has said, and what the Buddha proclaimed. I have also seen perversions in the form of Religions both by so called Christians and so called Buddhists. No one is perfect, including your's truly. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for perfection. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't work towards a greater understanding of the seen and unseen.

Very briefly, the Four Noble Truths can be summarized as:

1. To the unenlightened mind, the experience of life is characterized by discontent.
2. Dissatisfaction with life arises from desiring to have what cannot be had, or desiring to avoid what cannot be avoided.
3. Because causes always generate results, and effects always follow causes, it is possible to overcome the discontented life orientation.
4. The way to overcome dissatisfaction with life is to follow The Eight-fold Path.

The Eight-fold Path can be briefly outlined as follows:

1. Proper View
2. Proper Thought
3. Proper Speech
4. Proper Action
5. Proper Livelihood
6. Proper Effort
7. Proper Mindfulness
8. Proper Concentration

Each of these items could be entire chapters in a book, if not entire books in and of themselves. But you should notice that we can see what some refer to as "the three secrets" in the eight-fold path. The three secrets are the alignment of your "thoughts", "words", and "deeds" to effectuate the change you want to see in the world.

All of this talk about the power of thoughts and words may seem trivial to some of you. The idea that what you are saying can impact your existence and your happiness may be more than you are willing to consider at this stage in your life. But I offer for your consideration the man who starts out only having one beer a day, until one day he finds that a good portion of his life has passed him by in an alcoholic haze. I offer for your consideration the little girl who wanted to learn to dance, but put off dance lessons one day at a time until one day she found herself an old woman who never learned to dance. The thoughts each of these individuals had, set the stage for the play that became their lives.

Our lives are created by us - moment by moment. In all of those moments we are thinking. In some of those moments we are pronouncing words. In others we are performing actions. All of these accumulated moments can be witnessed as our current state of being. Are you where you want to be? Are you able to consciously respond to the events in your life (i.e. responsible), or are you seemingly at the whim of the world? How many thoughts contradict your desires? How many spoken words proclaim the truth that is yours?

What do you think? What do you say?

Happy Holidays!

God: who owns the trademark?

Quite a few different groups use the term GOD as a pointer to that entity which is ultimately beyond our ken. Atheists have certainly benefitted from the consolidation of all the world's deities into a simple three letter word. Imagine how much more cumbersome the phrase, "I don't believe in God", would become if not for our sparse nomenclature regarding the super-unknown.

While there is common ground between the different religions of the world, the variances have been punctuated by less than cordial discourse and even bloodshed. Surely this points to a debate over who's God is really God. Will the real God please stand up?

Perhaps if we had a more accepted set of terms, we would be able to come together on more points. While this seems an unlikely occurrence, I feel strongly that the idea should be written.

Such a discourse would fill at least one book. And, since you didn't surf to this weblog to read a book, I'll keep my comments as brief as I can (today).

In this short post, I'd like to begin to take a look at what keeps people out of the "God Camp". By this, I mean to convey the notion that there are those who say they don't believe in God, when actually they just have a different notion of God from what they may have heard others say or perhaps what they were taught.

I'd like to start with the assertion that no one owns the trademark on God. Although, I have seen a trucking company that owns the trademark (I believe) of "G.O.D.". That is a separate issue. If in your mind you have a notion of something that is beyond our understanding or ability to measure, and this thing embodies intelligence and impacts or has impacted our world - I believe you have the right to call that God, if you want. (note: this is a very quick and off the cuff definition. It may in fact be too rigid or not encompass enough.)

You might decide to call the thing you speak of as "Goontee Gabba Hey Hey" (or simply "Hey Hey" for short), but it doesn't matter. If you speak about him/her/it long enough, others will label your mind creation God.

As a self-proclaimed atheist in my teens and early twenties, I can say that the decision to not believe in God takes a toll socially. It even has political and economic ramifications. For example, to stay true to my belief as a radical teen-ager I considered boycotting the US Dollar because of the words "In God We Trust". Thankfully (or unfortunately) the desire for 7-11 Big Gulps won that inner conflict. Even deeper within our framework we see the overall premise of our "natural rights" as stemming from God. If one has zero belief in God, where do one's rights stem from? If your rights stem from society, and a "social contract", then society can take them away from you. If your rights stem from God, only God can take them away. That is a pretty powerful belief.

Although living as an atheist for some years, the reality was I had been caught in a war of words. I did believe in "something". I just didn't know what that something was. I knew it wasn't a grey bearded man sitting on a cloud using the earth as his private Sim City (a computer game). Because my idea didn't match up with what I had been taught God was, I backed off. I chose to go into a personal place of rebellion against the word: God.

Some might wish I had stayed there. But instead I continued to learn and observe the differences I mentioned earlier all around the world. I saw that while there was conflict, no one was outright saying they had a trademark on God. As it turned out, at least from my perspective, most people didn't really know much about what their "something" was. It seemed to me, suddenly, that I too had a right to God, if I wanted it.

So, in conclusion, I'd like to assert that you don't have to be a member of any particular club or suicide bombing radical faction in order to believe in God. You can start your own club or radical faction - or you can be completely solitary in your beliefs. I think we are meant to share things with others, but that is my view. I think that is how we grow. I heard a preacher say once that God put our tear ducts in our eyes, so that we could look one another in the eyes when we cry. In this way we could share our pain and sorrow, and through the sharing heal each other. He asserted that if it was supposed to be a personal, secretive, or solitary thing, God would have put our tear ducts in our arm-pits.

The literal image of those words makes me think of that grey-bearded man sitting on his cloud, this time with a Mr. Potato Head (a DIY doll). While I don't agree with that image, I do agree with the message. In the end, isn't that what it is all about?

The Health Care Bill and our U.S. Constitution

As I noted recently, I received my pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the mail from the Heritage Foundation. I have it here with me as I write this post. If you don't already have yours, you can get it free from The Heritage Foundation.

Today's news was bombarded with reports about the House of Representatives' narrow (220-215) passage of the Health Care Bill, and the battle that lies ahead in the Senate.

It seems, however, that the debate over which Health Care Bill should be adopted may be a bit premature. Try as I did, I couldn't find anywhere within the United States Constitution that actually gives our National Government the power or authority to "overhaul" healthcare.

As you may or may not know, our Constitution is very clear about what the Government can and cannot do. Because our Founders were intelligent students of History, they knew that if left unchecked, the government would grow in power to the point of turning into something other than the Republic that it was created to be. In order to form a union of sovereign States which would be resilient against tyrants, our founders enumerated the things the national government could do. To make it perfectly clear, they listed the things the government could do, and reserved all other rights to the States.

Interestingly, governing the Health Care Industry is not an "enumerated" power of the government. Therefore, such power is, and should be, reserved for the States to decided if, how, when, and why they might impose regulations on Health Care within their own limits.

Now, some might argue that there is a part of the Constitution that is a "catch all" phrase. I'm talking about the well known "General Welfare" clause, which has been more misused than a three-dollar bill. While it has been used as a popular argument to expand the role of government, it is simply not an accurate interpretation of that portion of the Constitution.

The clear fact is that there is no hidden reservoir of power within the Constitution. All of the Powers were clearly listed in black and white, so there would be no need to wonder what was meant. In fact, the only people who choose to make "alternative" interpretations, are those who are trying to mis-quote and mis-use the Constitution for their own benefit. We've seen this sort of thing happen with the Bible as well. Some folks are very quick to ignore clear facts when they get in the way of their self-serving rogue interpretations.

This makes perfect sense, so if I've confused anyone, let me give you an example. For those of you following along with your handy pocket Constitution, I'm on page 19. Lets take a look at the beginning of Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution where the Congress if given the power to tax:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

We can simplify this even more, to help us focus. The simple logical statement that we want to look at here is:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States..."

First, let us be clear that this enumerated power is the power to tax. It is not the power to provide for the general welfare. It is, in fact, the power to lay and collect taxes. All that follows the power to tax are high level examples of what the intended taxes are to be used for. If we interpret this clause to mean that the government can do anything it wants as long as it believes or can state that it is in the general welfare of the country, then we really don't need the rest of the Constitution. We could stop right here.

However, what we have next is not the end of Congress' enumerated "super power", but the next of a series of named powers to follow the power to tax. Our Founding Fathers clearly list everything that Congress has the power to do. And, all of these other enumerated powers are in fact for the general Welfare of the United States.

Thomas Jefferson had an important rule of interpretation that, if you will allow me to paraphrase, went like this: If any interpretation of any one part of the Constitution would in effect negate the need for rest of the document, that interpretation is incorrect.

Why would the framers enumerate that congress has the power to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish naturalization rules, coin money, establish post offices, declare war, etc. - if the "general Welfare" clause already covered everything? They wouldn't.

The fact is that for several generations the average American citizen has been asleep at the helm. We are responsible for ensuring that our liberties don't get taken away. Brick by brick we lay a foundation wall. Step by step we walk farther down a dark path. It is time to wake up and take responsibility for what is happening right now. There is still time to return to our core values, but we must act.

It seems sometimes people who are in power promote public apathy through over-complication of topics. If any one issue is so complex that it makes your head swim, you just might decide this isn't worth dealing with.

You could pick up a pen and paper and write a letter to your representatives informing them of your awakening to their unconstitutional shenanigans, but you will probably just grab the remote and a bag of chips. You could head out to the next Tea Party, but you'll probably just head for the couch and the safety of simple sound-bytes that obscure the true simplicity of Constitutionality. I hope you prove me wrong. I have hope that you do care.

You and I must act, if we hope to pass on a stronger Republic to the next generation. Blind delegation, ignorance, and apathy have gotten us to where we stand. The easy path is fraught with hand-outs and dependence. But the path to restore our liberty demands Independence and responsible action. Engage!

Pocket Constitution

I got my Pocket Constitution in the mail yesterday!

Thank you Heritage Foundation!

Now I can be prepared for the tough questions about what is Constitutional, and what is not. This pocket Constitution will no doubt prove useful when dispelling the demons of ignorance.

This pocket Constitution is rumored to act against socialists and fascists like a cross to a vampire.

Our liberties are being eroded because of public ignorance and apathy. Don't be a part of the problem, get yourself a free pocket Constitution today. Ummm - then read it! ;)

If you don't educate yourself and do something about eroding liberties, you'll have no one to blame but yourself. And, since I'm doing everything I can to increase awareness and vote in representatives that vow to uphold the constitution, I'll blame you too. ;)

If more people had pocket constitutions in the NY 23rd Congressional District, we might have been saved from spoiling our long standing tradition of not voting for Democrats. These days, Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. We can no longer blindly vote for the party of our choice. We can no longer allow vocal opposition for or against the latest "issue" to force our hands to vote one way or the other. We need to evaluate our representatives and executive leaders based upon their willingness to adhere to the rules established in our Constitution. Every year, it seems, the Executive branch is taking more and more authority away from the Legislative Branch. We need strong legislative representatives who will stand up to such advances. We need to restore our currency to its former glory by removing the men, women, and institutions that uphold our current fiat monetary system.

I hope you support Ron Paul's effort to Audit the Federal Reserve. This will be the first step in taking back our country. Let's return to the ways of responsibility and accountability that allowed us to achieve all that we have. Please sign the petition, and help spread the word by checking out the social networking links at the bottom of the page.

Politics and Labels - New York's Fighting 23rd

Here in the 23rd US Congressional District of New York, we have an interesting race for our representative in The House.

It seems, in order to try and shake things up, Obama has appointed our would-have-been nine-term-incumbent Republican representative, John McHugh to the post of secretary of the Army. While I didn't get to speak with Mr. McHugh, his staffers and I were becoming fast friends through my phone calls and letters regarding the "Cap and Tax" and "Audit the Fed" bills.

Somehow, the Republican party was in the process of running a candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who was in favor of the stimulus package, among other less than conservative positions. As a member of the Campaign for Liberty, and a local coordinator, I've been trying to help educate everyone I can about our Constitution, and just how far we have strayed from its roots. It seems I wasn't the only one (thankfully). Scozzafava dropped out of the race this past weekend, and decided to show her true colors by backing the running Democrat.

Doug Hoffman, a local conservative received the Republican blessing and the race is on. Not a particularly eloquent speaker, Hoffman's big line is "Vote row D, for Doug". He is a CPA who decided to run for office, because he cares about conservative values. He looks pretty lame on television, but I don't care. I'm not voting for a movie star - I want someone who is going to vote for auditing the Federal Reserve. I want someone who is going to vote to end our attempted police occupation of the world. I want someone who will help put an end to fiat money. I want someone who is going to return us to the values and checks and balances established within our Constitution. I hope Dough Hoffman will be that man. He's getting my vote today.

Perhaps more interesting than the race for office, is the way that the well-funded media news organizations are characterizing this whole thing. If I were to believe CNN, for example, it would seem that Sara Palin and Rush Limbaugh chose Doug Hoffman from on-high, because there is "no room for moderates" in the Republican party. While those two demagogues did push this story on to the national stage, they actually have little to do with the grass-roots organizations moving throughout all of Upstate New York. So, it would seem these major news stations are attacking Hoffman's candidacy through trying to discredit the Republican Party for being radical extremists.

Another attack on Doug Hoffman's candidacy comes as a criticism being made about his place of residency. Although Mr. Hoffman grew up in the 23rd Congressional District, and has several business offices currently in the 23rd, he doesn't actually live in the 23rd today. Why not? Because he was "gerrymandered" out of it some time ago. Most of the news organizations I've heard report on this, leave that fact out. They are just saying, "he doesn't even live in the 23rd District". Sometimes, what they fail to report is more important than what they do report. Doug Hoffman is an Upstate New York Business Man. I can think of no better representative who will have what it takes to help restore our Upstate economy.

I have only lived in the 23rd Congressional District for just under a year now; but as I understand it, we haven't had a Democrat as a representative since the times of our Revolutionary War. I hope we continue our conservative voting tendencies, and I pray that we continue to spread the word about sound money and Constitutional ideals. I'm voting for Doug Hoffman today, and if you are a neighbor of mine, I encourage you to do the same.

Ken Walling

US Congress Owned by the Military Industrial Complex

In a Wall Street Journal news article published today, titled "Defense Firms Gird for Fight to Find Profits", it was reported that, "the Pentagon doesn't want more C-17 transport jets, which Boeing has produced for years, though Congress is pushing to keep on buying them".

If this doesn't show the relationship between the large defense businesses and our chosen representatives, I don't know what does. It is clear that Congress takes its queue on what to buy from the providers of defense goods, rather than the Pentagon. Who would know what we need to operate our current defense strategy more than the Pentagon?

I can't wait to hear all of your thoughts on this one. But, if you are going to tell me that this is not surprising, then I hope you will either enlighten me on why this is either a good thing, or how we can try and take back our government.

It would seem that as long as various defense related businesses are employing large numbers of Americans all around the country, that it is going to be a hard sell to get any representative to stand up to them. Even though the Pentagon doesn't want more C-17 Globemaster III aircrafts, there are jobs attached to the creation of those planes. If stopping their production is going to cause the loss of tens of thousands more jobs in this already troubled economy - who among those who refused to let other private sector businesses fail will stand up and say enough is enough?

With war being such a big business in our country, how can we ever hope to bring about peace? It seems clear to me that the only way to overcome this bellatorious-cancer is to create more jobs that yield higher pay than those offered by the war-machine. So, get your thinking caps on. Ready? Go!

New England Man Charged in Terror Plot

Today the Wall Street Journal reported that a dual US-Egyptian citizen was charged in a terror plot that did not unfold because of the groups inability to obtain automatic weapons.

Our society seems to brandish a heavy axe called despair. Anyone who dares to suggest change, must place their head on the chopping block, and survive the popular opinion that things are all beyond our ability to change them for the better.

It is this belief that peaceful means are useless which perpetuates violence as a means to a political end. At the same time, our US system was designed to be change-resistant; because, too much change, too quickly, leads to an unstable government.

Have we in fact found our way into a tyranny? Is any real change impossible through peaceful means? Tarek Mehanna, a graduate from a pharmacy-school; and, the man charged in the above mentioned terrorist plot must have thought so.

What do you think?

Google AdSense Account Disabled

Cross-posted from our cyber-jutsu blog...

Some of you may have noticed that the cyber-justsu dojo walls seem a little bare. The Google Advertisements are missing.

Google has disabled our AdSense account.

In an email, they have asserted that our "AdSense account has posed a significant risk to [their] AdWords advertisers".

This would appear to happen frequently enough, that they have a FAQ established to provide more information.

From the FAQ:

"Because we have a need to protect our proprietary detection system, we're unable to provide our publishers with any information about their account activity, including any web pages, users, or third-party services that may have been involved.

As you may know, Google treats invalid click activity very seriously, analyzing all clicks and impressions to determine whether they fit a pattern of use that may artificially drive up an advertiser's costs or a publisher's earnings. If we determine that an AdSense account may pose a risk to our AdWords advertisers, we may disable that account to protect our advertisers' interests.

Lastly, please note that as outlined in our Terms and Conditions, Google will use its sole discretion when determining instances of invalid click activity."

So, we really have no idea why our account was disabled. If any of our readers have been randomly or blindly clicking on advertisements, you have not helped us. In fact, you may have shut down what might have been a great source of passive income for our blogs.

We have petitioned google to reinstate our account. If that happens, I encourage you all to only click on advertisements which are of interest to you. Don't be afraid to click on advertisements, that is why they are there - but please refrain from just clicking because you know it is generating revenue for us.

I don't usually cross-post between these blogs - but I will put this message on all of the blogs.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Sensei Metajunkie

Escaping Reality... Burn the Witches!

With Halloween almost upon us, i thought I'd write a little bit about a virtual witch-hunt that has been going on for generations, with each new generation identifying the next witch to tie to the stake.

I have heard many people talk down to others for a perceived notion that they are "escaping reality". The judgement would seem to be that the escapist is engaging in something that is harmful or unnatural. Such a judgement also carries with it the implied belief that the judge is free of such behavior. It would seem, however, that what is termed escapism by one person, is relaxation and stress compensation for another. In deed, some of the largest escapist-witch-hunters I have had the displeasure to meet, have been some of the most tightly wound individuals one would ever hope to meet, and/or self-deceived hypocrites.

I do not mean to imply that anyone should avoid responsibility, or refuse to be held accountable by their community. The virtues of personal accountability cannot be stressed enough in this time of bail-outs, bankruptcies, and foreclosures. So, when I speak of "escaping reality", I do not mean avoiding responsibility. While the avoidance of responsibility must be shed as we transform from child to adult, the ability to escape reality would seem to be an essential part of a happy life.

I wonder why it is that we all seek to escape reality from time to time. I know there are those among you who just read that last sentence and said, "Speak for yourself. I don't escape reality." I hope we can first all agree that we have at some point in our lives sought solace in constructs of the mind. I will argue that we all, you included, escape reality on a daily basis; and, that it is not only a good thing, but necessary for our happiness. For those of you who are stubbornly thinking that you are not a part of this reality escaping demographic, lets look at some examples.

Lets start with perhaps one of the most basic of all human experiences: Day Dreaming. We have all had day dreams, just as we have all dreamed in our sleep. Both would seem to be hard-wired into the consciousness of our being. Anyone who has seen a cat or dog twitching in their sleep might also be able to confirm that it would seem to be present in those creatures as well. I'm starting with this example, because I want to show that the escape of reality, or the experience of alternate realities is natural.

For those of you who think that you do not dream, that simply isn't the case. The reality is that you may not recall your dreams upon waking, but rest assured, you did dream last night. If you didn't, there is actually a serious problem. For example, alcoholics who perpetually drink themselves to sleep every night never enter the dream state. When such a person tries to stop drinking the dreams return with a vengeance, often causing them to go back to the bottle. There is a gap between the conscious mind and what has been called the sub-concious mind. I personally think the term "sub-concious" is a misnomer that would be better termed "super-concious"; but, I'll continue to use the standard terms for sake of clarity.

In the morning, when we recall our dreams, information is crossing the gap between the conscious mind and sub-concious. The more we cross that bridge, the stronger it becomes. The stronger a person's bridge between their conscious and sub-concious mind, the greater their imagination would seem to be.

Some people have a more exercised imagination than others. It would stand to argue that such people's dreams and day-dreams might be more elaborate than those of another who for one reason or another shut down the bridge between the conscious and sub-conscious mind. Yet, we are all still craving the escape. If this were not so, most of the entertainment industry simply would not exist.

Before we dive head on into blessing "escapism", let me throw out the standard disclaimer. Anything in excess has the capacity to destroy us. Taken to an extreme, we have seen that even water consumption can cause death. If even too much water can kill us - I think it is worth taking a look at the notion of moderation. While we are at it, we should also have the capacity to see how insane it would be to outlaw or regulate how much water a person could purchase on the open market. Yet, if there were a rash of water-overdose deaths, would we scream for regulation? Why is the idea of regulating water consumption so ridiculous? I would argue the notion is silly only because everyone also needs water to survive. Because we are united in the reality that it is a vital part of life. But is escaping that reality any less a real need?

So, what's your poison? Have you ever read a novel or short story? Isn't that escaping from reality for the time you spend in the author's imagination? That author's ability to imagine is no doubt greater than yours - or you would put the book down and go back to day-dreaming.

What about movies? There is a huge industry in America that owes its existence to the imaginations of the many people who come together to bring us a two-hour escape from reality. In fact, we have seen that during the last few recessions that we have had, that the movie industry has not suffered as other industries have. If this isn't proof of the need to escape, I don't know what is.

What about television? From the daytime soap opera to the evening situational comedy, the television is packed full of escapes of all sizes shapes and colors. When we tune into our favorite show, we leave behind the bills, and the unpleasantness of a long commute or the pressures of business. In short, we escape.

Now we come to the digital experience. For many who haven't embraced the technologies responsible for video games, this sort of "escapism" might seem silly, or extreme, or a waste of time. However, it is no different from any of the above escapes, in that it provides a momentary cease fire between the conscious mind and the real world. Where it does differ is in its ability to truly engage the "escapist".

In my youth, I recall reading a few 'create your own adventure' books. In these books the reader would be given a choice. For example, "If you choose to fight the dragon, turn to page 72. If you choose to run away, turn to page 90." I could be wrong, but I don't think they ever really caught on. Allowing the participant to determine the plot of a story they would help unfold became the purview of the video game. Video games have mastered the art of bringing the participant into the imaginary world they create, and this has pushed the envelope.

If video games pushed the envelope, online video games tore it wide open. A community experience has always been a part of our more successful escape strategies. For example, watching a movie in a theatre full of people provides a very different experience than watching the same movie on a DVD at home. I would argue that this is not only because of the size of the viewing screen and sound system. The fact that others are there with you helps to reinforce the experience. In a similar fashion, reading a novel which is on the best sellers list provides a quasi-communal experience. While the act of reading is solitary, the knowledge that you are one of a million other people who has read this particular book invites you into a sort of virtual community.

Enter the online virtual community. On MySpace, or Facebook you can actually sign up to be a member of a group that has read the same book as you, or enjoyed the same movie or artist. In the online world, you can surround yourself with people who like the things you like, and believe the things you believe. You can banish those who are too different. So, it would seem that even the act of participating in an online community, as such, would in a way be an escape.

Of course the actual depth of the online escape goes far beyond that. What the video game did for the short story or novel in terms of enabling the participant to interact with the imaginary world, services like orkut, myspace, facebook, and others have done in terms of interacting with others who want to enjoy the same escape.

I recently joined facebook. I added a few friends and thought, "this is OK - nothing special really". I had a hard time understanding why the same people I had been trying to get to email me for years were suddenly easily accessible via their virtual wall (for the uninitiated, the facebook 'wall' is basically a virtual bulletin board). Then I decided to use facebook as a way to help build an online community. To this end, I started inviting many people that I didn't know to become friends with me on facebook. Suddenly, the game, this new online escape, changed. I was flooded with micro-posts about requests to help in various games, virtual gifts and gift requests, and more invitations to grow my "friend" list even further. All of the facebook games promote this sort of interactivity - it is almost unavoidable. As it turns out, with a large group of virtual facebook friends, the experience is transformed into one of hyper-interaction. There is always someone on doing something in some game. It is as steady as the rotation of our planet.

In the end, who doesn't want to feel successful, fearless, powerful, and loved? While these online games don't provide a physical reality of any of this (except for the people making money from them) - they do provide a very real escape. And since all of these notions about our well being are our own mental constructs, who's to say that these forms of escape aren't more real than virtual? Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go drain someone's blood in Vampire Wars. ;)

LOL - no really I'm LOL

For the uninitiated, text communications via the Internet and cell phone text messaging may be daunting at first. Humans tend to use abbreviations every chance they get. So, in online chat and elsewhere we end up with terms like LOL, for "laughing out loud", and AFK, for "Away from keyboard", etc.

A strange thing has happened though. Now that we are able to actually talk over the internet via VOIP (voice over IP), the strangeness became apparent. It seems we have bred a new generation of users who pronounce all of these abbreviations, where possible. They have in fact taken the abbreviation and turned it into a new word.

Recently, I was in a live voice-chat with some people, and someone kept making this strange sound. Without any aparent emotion, he kept saying "lol" and/or "lolz" after other people stated something of interest.

Eventually I caught on to what he was doing. "Are you pronouncing 'el oh el'?" I asked him. There was a longer than usual delay in the conversation as he paused to consider my question. Then he said "yea" and proceeded to laugh out loud.

So, it seems from this and the liberal use of the letters LOL everywhere I look in cyberspace, that when people are typing LOL, they aren't actually "laughing out loud" anymore. It is now being used more to acknowledge that something was amusing or of interest.

But fear not, dear reader - If you chat with me and see those blessed three letters in combination, I will have, in reality, "laughed out loud" ... or at least let out a quick chuckle. I am taking a hard line position on this one. If no happy audible emotion has bubbled forth from my body, you won't catch me throwing around the LOL carelessly.

If everyone was laughing as much as they are typing LOL - we would probably be on our way toward world peace.

To all of you unrighteous LOLerz out there - knock it off ;) My gift to you all is an alternative that you can post liberally without regard : nod or NOD or nodz

What does that mean? It means that you are nodding your head in agreement - which is really how you have been treating my beloved LOL.

LOL

Actually that was a small chuckle... maybe I should have used something new... CKL :)

Morality in a Digital World

How is our digital world shaping or changing the morality of our society? I suppose before I can ask that question, I would have to ask: is our digital world changing our mores?

I think it is. First, lets look at something not directly linked to the subject at hand. Lets look at, and think about marketing in general. We know that the amount of money a person or organization spends on marketing is directly linked to their success with other people. Whether you are selling soda pop or a National Healthcare System, the more money you spend to get your product or idea in front of the people you are trying to convince, the better. Why is this?

It would seem that our brains tend to accept things they are exposed to frequently and/or repeatedly which do not induce pain. While consuming potato chips on the proverbial couch, and consuming advertising sound bites simultaneously, we in fact set ourselves up to more readily appreciate the things we are being shown. Have you ever found that the song you decided was garbage, the first time you heard it, you started tapping your foot to after hearing it a few more times? Maybe it isn't so bad after all. Having Heard it on your favorite radio station another ten times, you might have been caught singing it at the top of your drunken lungs at the local gin mill.

On the other hand, have you ever found yourself watching the television, while eating or drinking something, when something you don't care for strongly crosses the air-waves to your eyes? Do you remember putting down your drink, or your handful of chips from your mouth? I have. In a moment of political disgust, I have stopped consuming - usually to bark something obscene at the cable pumping junk into my mind.

You might say I stopped only to bellow like a barbarian at the television; but, I argue here that I stopped, firstly because I subconsciously did not want to enjoy my treats while consuming visual or auditory unpleasantness. And, then I bellowed like a barbarian. But the first thing was to stop the mixture of pleasure and pain. Give me one or the other - but don't confuse the reptilian part of my brain.

Meanwhile - back at our conversation about morality in the digital world...

I wonder what percentage of Americans took pornographic photos of themselves when the only means of developing their photos was to have an outsider develop them on their behalf. I wonder how that percentage has changed now that people can use a digital camera to do the same without anyone else being involved. Viewing them on a personal computer can also be done in relative privacy. Sharing them with others who share and share alike - this too would seem easier, perhaps "safer" than ever before.

I wonder what the massive amount of pornographic material available on the Internet has done to "advertise" a belief that it is acceptable. When I was a child there was a very small number of TV networks. Those TV networks played a big part in forming, or at least informing and reinforcing our societal values. Some will say that those same networks are changing to no longer uphold the same values that were once prized. This would seem to be the case. In the networks defense, and in an attempt to broaden the depth of this conversation, I will say that there was and continues to be new pressures that must be taken into account. The market landscape is changing.

One of these pressures, the first may have been the explosion of channels and content that came with the invention and commercialization of Cable Television. Let us quickly fast forward from that time to today. Today, we have something more vast than most of us can actually imagine. We have massive multimedia on demand by and large without censorship via the Internet. Everyone in the world with an Internet connection is potentially their own producer and distributor of "rich" multi-media content, for better or worse.

If a society can be based upon acceptable norms within a community of like-minded individuals, then it would seem that the Internet is giving birth to numerous societies of varying moral difference. What one group would find unthinkable, another embraces. Providing a minimal amount of anonymity, or at least the illusion of anonymity, two or more people who might have never crossed paths if they lived, say, in the 1950's, can find each other at the speed of fiber-optic light today.

More and more, the details of our personal lives are finding their way onto the Internet for consumption and judgement by people all around the world. Sometimes those details are in the form of text posted in chat channels and blogs like this one. So, certainly the development of online communities cannot be villainized wholesale. ;)

Just as surely, the more a person's morality, or lack of morality, is reinforced by their society (whether that is a physical society, a society subscribed to by mail order, or an online society) the bolder they will become in allowing others to see who they really are.

The Information Age is only just dawning. Will we tear each other apart as we come to find out that members of our neighborhood, village, or town seem alien to us? Or, will we be able to accept the differences of others and find solace in the fact that we know we can remove them from our "friends list"? After all, most work places discourage or forbid really getting to know anyone you work with through written or unspoken policies of "forbidden topics" such as religion, sex, and politics. The US Military says: "Don't ask, don't tell." The message is clear.

Do your work and go home - where you can go online and talk about how strange everyone else in the world is in the safety of your group chat room or Google Wave. The strangest thing of all this, to me, is that we spend more time at work than we do anywhere else in a waking state. What a strange life it would be, if I was only really myself with people I've never even met in the physical world.

Blog Action Day Topic: Climate Change

15 October, Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change

There have been people on both sides of the Climate Change issue claiming that the other side is just plain wrong. It is difficult to know who to trust.

I think the only thing that everyone agrees on is that the climate is changing. Everything changes. Change is the natural state of things. If anyone disagrees, and thinks the climate is not changing, please let me know - I'm willing to listen.

So - if we can all agree that the climate is changing, the next question is: How and why is it changing? Well, I guess that is two questions.

Let's take them one at at time. How is the climate changing? Most say the climate is warming. This is a global phenomenon. Based upon the Summer I just experienced, my personal empirical evidence cannot support a global warming trend. But, I can say we had a very wet Summer in New York, this season past. I have acquaintances in Europe who have insisted that we are lucky to be warming, because otherwise we would already be slipping into another ice-age. Yet we see evidence of large quantities of ice melting - and poor polar bears swimming for their lives. From a polar bear's perspective, this warming trend would seem less than ideal.

The second part of the question - they "why" part - is fueling many a flame war in cyberspace (for those still new to this sort of jargon - I mean people are screaming ugly things at one another via online means). Some argue that this warming trend is natural, and we cannot contribute to it significantly enough, one way or the other, for us to care about our actions. Others insist that this warming trend is in fact a man-made phenomenon which our industrial societies are directly responsible for. In the middle, there are various opinions using the arguments of each side of the debate as a smorgasbord to fill their opinion plates.

How much of what you believe about this issue is convenient for you? Regardless of the truth - let's assume there is a truth for a moment, and put that on the side. Let us assume for a moment that your opinion is not based on the truth, but actually based upon a personal need. What would that need be? Let me give a few examples.

You could believe what you do about the issue of climate change because you have a need to feel the joy of being a part of something, such as a political party. Perhaps your personal identity is intertwined with a group that you see as a symbol of strength in you life. Certainly, your identity is more important to you than whether a polar bear has to walk or swim to work every day.

Maybe you believe what you do about the issue of climate change because you fear something. If you believe that we are responsible for global warming, perhaps you believe that because you are afraid of acknowledging that there is nothing we can do, and a great multitude of us will be doomed. Or, perhaps you believe that we have nothing to do with global warming because you fear that if you acknowledge that our actions are causing the problem, your standard of living will change. Certainly, your fears are more important to you than whether or not some tribe in Africa's water supply has dried up and they have started killing their neighbors for water.

Maybe you care about the truth. Maybe that is actually what is important to you. Perhaps, you care about the truth because you have a need to be right. You don't actually care about the polar bear, or the Africans, or the ice-caps; but, the ability to lord the truth over your neighbor rules your ego.

As for me - to be perfectly honest. I don't know. I don't know who to trust, because it seems there are gains attached to the "truth". I see politicians who want to convince me that all of this is the fault of our way of living. I'm watching them put more and more legislation together to remove more and more of my liberties. For example, the Cap and Trade bill (aka Cap and Tax) actually has provisions in it for the government to send inspectors into our homes to check on the types of light-bulbs, water-heaters, toilets, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. All in the name of forcing us to "retrofit" our houses with "government-approved" versions of these appliances. There is no way the government would be able to pass such a law, and assume such power, if humans were not responsible for this global warming trend. However, this bill has already passed the House, and is in the Senate right now.

On the other side, we have those who clearly profit from a belief that we are in no way responsible for global warming. Corporations can save untold amounts of money through relaxed environmental regulations. Some will argue, that those who put forth the argument that global warming is a myth - or at least that we are not responsible for it, are profiting directly from such Industrial entities whose profits go up when regulations go down.

When people have something to gain - be it an internal function of who they are or who their ego thinks they are - or an overt power play for control by organizations both governmental and commercial, how can we be sure that the "truth" we are buying into is actual reality and not just a convenience? I don't think it is a coincidence that we have a traditional order of the values of Life, Liberty, and Property (or the pursuit of happiness if you prefer). I think that short list is in a proper priority level. However, the growing complexity of our society makes it difficult to see what should be plain truths.

This Blog about ideas

We can think about things, and talk about things, and blog about things - but things are beyond our control until we act upon them. Even then, a man or woman cannot hold back the force of a tsunami. However, most things in life do not come at us with the force of a tsunami.

If we prepare ourselves for the decisions that will no doubt be thrust upon us by the reality of the world, we can be ready to act consistently in our lives. Only through consistent action can we have a say in what our individual futures will be.

One way to assist this consistency is to align our thoughts, words, and deeds. Those are the three-secrets. That is the beginning techniques for mastering one's own life. Before we can apply those techniques we have to know what we want.

This question of what we want can be examined through many different lenses. One way I propose is to look at the values you cherish the most.

What values do you cherish?

What other way might you propose that we examine what a person wants? What matters most in life?

In the end, I hope that our discussions are more than just written ideas. I hope that they translate into actions for each of us - so that we might bring more of the things we want into the world.

I look forward to your participation. If you have any questions, please let me know.