A Case for Abortion Rights

I grew up in a family that believed strongly in liberal, progressive, feminist values. A woman's right to choose was a given, and it wasn't until my teenage years that I even seriously considered the pro-life argument. So now this is how I now understand the "classic" pro-choice and pro-life arguments:

Classic Pro-Choice: The government has no rights over a woman's body, nor her choice to have children or not to have children. Laws that force women to carry a pregnancy to term are remnants of a male-dominated power structure that serves to marginalize and disempower women. A woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is not only an aspect of her right to privacy and to choose what direction she and her body take in this life, but also a vital step in equalizing the socio-economic playing field that has long tilted towards men over women.

Pro-Life: A human fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and regardless of the socio-economic ramifications, terminating a pregnancy is nothing less than the murder of defenseless, helpless, precious human life. There can be no compromise on this issue, because it is just plain wrong to kill innocent life. As such, anti-abortion laws should be no different than our current laws against homicide.

These two arguments are at a complete crossroads, because neither one addresses the fundamental point that the other is making. The pro-choice camp can't convince the pro-lifers that a fertilized egg isn't human enough to be murdered, and the pro-lifers have no answer for the very real socio-economic ramifications of laws that regulate reproduction.

However, to me both arguments fail to address the fundamental question of freedom of religion. The notion that human life begins at conception is essentially a religious one. There is no scientific basis for considering this moment to be the tipping point into human life, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. A freshly fertilized egg is much more similar to its non-human components (a sperm and an ovum) than it is to a human baby. As such, to equate a zygote with human life is, scientifically speaking, a completely arbitrary definition, and can only be justified on religious grounds.

This is, in and of itself, not a problem. Many beliefs cannot be supported scientifically, but that's okay. It is every American's right to believe whatever they want to believe, especially when it comes to religious doctrine. The problem comes when one group tries to enforce its religious views on another. In this case, it is often a schism within Christiandom, as most of those on the pro-choice side are themselves Christians.

But the pro-life Christians have a point: Even if their beliefs are religiously based, how can the rest of us expect them to be complacent in the face of wanton murder? How can we expect them not to care?

Here is my answer: I don't expect them not to care about the lives that they are trying to protect, I only expect them to have the same respect for others' religious views as they expect us to have for theirs. And the fact of the matter is that the two are not irreconcilable - There is nothing about one's concern for life that inherently forces you to disrespect another's religious beliefs. It is not only possible, but it is also a highly beneficial, vigorous spiritual exercise to care deeply about something and also respect those who don't share your concern.

The only difference between this approach and the one that the most vocal pro-lifers take is that this approach would not allow you to try to enforce your beliefs on someone else. It respects the fact that someone might make a choice that you ardently disagree with. What's more, it sets a precedent that protects your right to make choices that others might equally disagree with.

For instance, how much would a pro-lifer appreciate the government imposing a law that forces all women to abort any pregnancies that occur after two live births? This would certainly help with overpopulation issues, and if we're not in the business of protecting a woman's right to choose her own reproductive destiny, why not do whatever it takes to save our planet from the ravages of over-consumption?

I know it's an absurd concept, but that's the whole point - it is just as absurd to try to force women to have abortions as it is to try to prevent them from doing so. And the reason why such an argument never comes into political discourse is because even those who support abortion rights take the matter so seriously that it would never occur to them to try to force women to have abortions. Those who call the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion" have completely misread the inner emotional character of those who support those who make choices that they would not, themselves, ever make.

And if those on the pro-choice side can be just as respectful as we ask those on the pro-life side to be, then perhaps, someday, we can come to some sort of national concensus on how to tackle this incredibly thorny, nuanced issue.

Support Our Troops - Denounce Torture

I find it ironic that the people who claim to be for a strong military and have friends and family in the armed forces tend to be the ones who are most in favor of the use of torture to get information from terrorists and other state enemies. Here's why it seems so strange to me:

It is a no-brainer that torturing a member of any group will make everyone who is a part of that group very, very angry. (Which is why the US executed Japanese individuals who water-boarded American troops during World War II.) When that group includes people who happen to plan out the mass murder of innocent people, you can be sure that they will retaliate in only the most bloody way possible. They will either target our troops (because they are so conveniently located in such proximate locations as Iraq and Afghanistan), or they will attack an American target, thus forcing us to deal with the situation by putting our troops on the ground in situations that are potentially life-threatening.

It is also a no-brainer that torturing members of terrorist groups will encourage those groups to torture - in retaliation - American soldiers captured in the line of duty.

Those of us who think highly of our troops for putting their lives on the line to protect American lives should return the favor, in whatever small way we can. If our soldiers can intentionally put themselves in harm's way for the sake of our safety, can we not accept the very small amount of risk involved in NOT torturing captured terrorists, as a gesture that would lessen the risk of their being killed or tortured, and that would show our troops that we are doing everything we can to keep them from having to make the very sacrifice that they are so willing to make for us?

Those who insist that we must have torture available as an option seem singularly unaware of how cowardly a position that is, for I am sure that if they did understand they would seriously reconsider it. Torture is nothing more than an extreme form of bullying, and all bullys are, at heart, cowards. It is a cowardly mind that would want to use such heinous techniques to stave off an attack when other, less harsh interrogation tactics are available. And it is someone with a cowardly mind who would speak out of both sides of his mouth, saying on one side that he loves and supports our troops, but out of the other defending a practice that puts those same troops in harm's way for a little bit of a "safe" feeling - and not just a little bit of satisfaction in really giving it to those who hurt us.

This is why the new administration's decision to ban "enhanced interrogation techniques" is not only the most pragmatic decision, but it is also the most ethical, honorable, and moral decision, as well.

On Dominance vs. Principle

With Obama's recent overseas trips and the release of the Bush administration's torture memos, we are once again embroiled in a debate over the effectiveness of brute force versus holding to our principles. I feel that this is an important debate to have, because as a nation and as a species, we need to deal with our history/legacy of violence and domination so that we can finally move into an era where the consensus is that we serve ourselves and others best when we treat everyone with dignity and respect, no matter how hard it might be to do so.

Some claim that the best - or only - way to deal with those who oppose us is with brute force. This can manifest as anything from "the silent treatment" to torture to a nuclear holocaust. The idea here is that in any given situation, there are only two possible outcomes - I get what I want, or I don't get what I want, and if you aren't helping me get what I want, then you are at best irrelevant and at worst an obstacle that must be destroyed.

The irony of this sort of approach is how self-destructive it is. It assumes that some people are so disconnected from us (whether because of race, nationality, religion, or some flaw in their character) that they no longer deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect that we would like to be treated with. But in order to treat people that way, we have to abandon the very thing that actually unites us - our common humanity. As soon as we abandon that, we show our opponents that their worst fears about us are, in fact, correct, which simply validates their belief that treating us with dignity and respect would be a waste of time. As a result, they will feel that their only recourse is to try to win the war of dominance by whatever means possible. When you are as big and strong as the United States is, the only way for anyone else to win that game of dominance is through ideological rigidity, propaganda, and terrorist acts. When that happens, OUR worst fears will be validated, and we will believe that such people have no souls, thus justifying further acts that dehumanize both them and ourselves.

The only way for this to end is for at least one side to stop trying to out-dominate the other, thus cutting short an endless cycle of escalation that can only end in destruction. The history of war, conflict, and misunderstanding between the world's nations and cultures is long and rife with unspeakable suffering, and that makes each side feel incredibly justified in insisting that the other side must swallow their pride first. But as long as both sides are holding out, neither side is doing the one thing it can do to end the conflict, with the only possible result being more conflict.

It is only when we reconnect to our own humanity that we can start to see the humanity in our antagonists, and it is then and only then that we will start to treat each other as we should. The irony again is that once we give up a "me-first" attitude backed up by brute force, we create an environment in which we are more likely to get our true needs met, and eventually, if we all commit to staying the course even when it gets hard and some faction or other inevitably freaks out, everybody wins.

Be a Patriot - Go on a Diet!

In tonight's Presidential news conference, President Obama emphasized over and over that despite claims that large budget deficits amount to "generational theft," we need to make investments in energy, education, and especially health care reform, because that's the only way to break us out of our long-term, structural deficits. If we don't make investments in these areas, our economy will suffer, and that stream of debt will not have any long-term upshot to look forward to.

This got me to thinking: Since such a large share of the federal deficit comes from our Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls, and those shortfalls are the result of Americans continuing to get more fat, less fit, more stressed, and less balanced in their diets, then isn't every choice we make that leads to avoidable health problems the real cause of "generational theft"? Isn't this aspect of government debt just a symptom of the actual crime, which comes out of the American mind-set that someone else should have to pay for the consequences of careless living? That "someone else" is usually the health insurance industry, which includes the government, and by proxy the tax-payers that our children will eventually become.

So if you don't want our children to get stuck with their parents' debt, there is something you can do - start taking better care of your own health. Exercise for a few minutes every day. Make a point of eating fresh fruits and vegetables. Reach out to friends and family when you are stressed. Pick up a hobby that enriches your life. Do anything you can to change the direction your health is going in, and when you are ready, make another change. Then another. Before you know it, you'll not only feel better, but you'll also save your children literally thousands of dollars over the coming years.

Each one of us that makes this choice will reduce the federal deficit a little bit at a time, and eventually, if enough people take this kind of personal responsibility, we won't have to rely on deficit spending just to get through the day.

AIG Bonuses and Short-Term Thinking

There is a old wisdom that has been rising to the surface of American consciousness regarding the economic collapse of last year, which is that our crippled economy is the "long-term consequence of short-term thinking." I must say that I agree whole-heartedly, and I am glad that the notion of long-term investments in our government, our businesses, and our lives finally has fertile ground in which to grow.

Unfortunately, the American fetish for instant gratification is not yet dead-and-buried. Not only do we have those on the Right calling this the "Obama Recession" - after all, he's already had 60 days to fix a problem that was only 30 years in the making! - but we have an American public that is so outraged by the AIG bonuses that the House has already passed a tax bill that is little more than a "smart-bomb" for this small group of individuals - individuals who signed binding agreements with AIG in early 2008, long before any bailouts were even considered.

I understand the outrage, and of course we absolutely must address the kind of reckless, get paid-because-you're-rich-and-entitled mentality that drives these kinds of contract negotiations. However, we must also keep in mind that the reason why our entire economy has tanked is because nobody thought ahead to the unintended consequences of acting on our base desires, and if we now expect our highly-paid financial wizards to start paying attention to the long-term consequences of their actions, we must also hold ourselves to the same standard. We must temper our blood-lust with an eye for the long-term consequences of that righteous anger.

The alternative is to allow ourselves to be consumed by this anger, and thereby screw ourselves just as surely as these AIG "geniuses" have screwed us. Did anyone really think that as we focused our microscope on the inner workings of these bailed-out companies that we wouldn't find more and more examples of the kind of wrong-headed thinking that got us into this mess? Of course the whole thing is jacked, or else we wouldn't have had to bail them out in the first place!

And of course the bail-out itself is completely unfair. No one is denying that we shouldn't have to keep giving money to those who got rich off of bankrupting our economy. But the question is not whether or not it's fair, but whether we care about our ideal of fairness more than we care about our actual well-being.

If we continue with this witch-hunt mentality, we will surely make some major mistakes along the way. Remember in 2002-03, when America was still in shock over 9/11 and we thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq? Six years later we are still paying for that mistake. Yes, we were lied to, but we were so scared and angry we didn't investigate that lie very thoroughly, did we? If we had done our due diligence we would have known that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that Saddam Hussein was actually philosophically opposed to al-Qaeda, and that "preemptive war" is just a euphemism for unprovoked invasion.

In the case of AIG and bonuses, do we really want to go down the road of seizing people's assets just because we're angry? Do we want to make today's two most difficult jobs - President of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury - even harder, at the same time that these two people are working night and day to right the wrongs of those who came before them? Do we want to deny our own responsibility for buying into a system that rewards greed over productivity?

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but if we want our Wall Street execs to think less selfishly, we have to be willing to do the same. If this public outcry forces our government to react for the sole purpose of assuaging our anger and distracts them from focusing on what actually needs to be done, that could extend the recession. And if this recession lasts for even one extra day, that will cost our economy and regular, tax-paying citizens far more than the $165 million being paid out in AIG bonuses. So let's think before we react, and maybe then we won't perpetuate the same kind of short-sighted thinking that was inflicted upon us over all these years.

You Are the Source

There is a fundamental quandary in the pursuit of one's own Liberation, which is that as you become more Free, you can't help but to notice how stuck the world is in its self-inflicted horrors. As you extricate yourself from your own delusions of identity and conditioned fear, the cacophony of the madness and suffering around you becomes deafening in contrast to your own inner silence.

This, I believe, is the cause of the "Bodhisattva vow" (i.e. the promise to be reborn until all beings are liberated) and all spiritual service: As you become more aligned with Truth, you can't help but to express that inner alignment by helping others untangle themselves from their self-induced delusions of ego, and the suffering that inevitably results.

What are those delusions? They all come down to one, fundamental lie, which is this: You lack what you need in life, and you are therefore dependent upon outside forces for your happiness and survival. This is the lie that the ego perpetuates upon You* every moment of Your life; it is a lie that, when believed, separates You from the infinite Source of Being from which we all are born. Once You are separated from Source, it is only too easy to convince You that You need the ego to survive, that You must sacrifice Your integrity to get Your needs met, and that Your whole world would come crashing down if You ever disobeyed the fearful dictates of the voices in Your head.

This pattern is a classic in abuser-abused relationships: The abuser tears down the abused person's self-esteem, isolates her from those who might give her the strength and insight she needs to fight back, and then promises to take care of her - so long as she avoids crossing him (which is impossible because there's always some new offense to rage over). The only remedy to this situation is to stop believing the lies that drain your self-worth, and re-connect to your own inner sense of strength.

The same is true of the relationship between You and Your ego. The bitter truth is that the ego takes away everything it promises to give You. It operates on the principle of contraction - it creates fear, which forces you to contract/disconnect from the object of your fear, which then creates so much suffering that your "best option" is to try to dominate and/or destroy that which you fear. The idea is that if you succeed, then the object of your fear will be gone (or at least under control), and the contraction/suffering goes away. But far more often you will fail, leaving you disconnected and afraid, and even if you succeed, that will only encourage the ego to find something else to dominate or destroy. It's a sad, miserable existence, robbing You of the abiding joy that comes from feeling connected to Source, all in the pursuit of a happiness that is elusive and - at best - transitory.

There is an alternative, though, which is to recognize that You are the Source, You are the answer. Abide in what You are, and everything else takes care of itself. Stay connected to here-and-now, and Your choices will naturally be good ones because you won't be crazed with fear. Start your path to Liberation simply by acknowledging that the ego has You doing crazy things, and that there must be a better way. YOU are that better way, but that You has no identity aside from its own IS-ness, so embracing it will be terribly unsatisfying to Your ego. Be prepared for a struggle as Your ego fights for survival; it cannot live unless it can convince You that You need it, so be prepared for ever-more-convincing tales of what the ego supposedly does for You. Because the ego is a lie, Your best strategy is simply not to believe the lies. This will eventually become easy enough- Truth comes from the Source, and YOU are the Source.


* I capitalize "You" and "Your" at times to emphasize the higher nature of my readers' True Self.

On Ideology vs. Personal Responsibility

Given the unprecedented support our forward-thinking president has, it's hard to miss the sharp contrast given by entrenched opponents to Democrats and liberal values. Still, I am quite proud of my country-men and -women, for despite the focused and consistently negative nay-sayers who squawk so loudly every day, public opinion is still firmly behind our president, a man we elected to solve our problems and who has only just begun to at least try to fulfill his mandate.

This is one of those times in history where the collective consciousness of an entire nation can either choose to evolve, or to remain mentally fuzzy on the reality it is in. For it is not the government that is the problem (as Republicans would have us believe), nor is it free enterprise that is the problem (as Democrats often try to convince us), but it is people who create problems and it is people who choose not to police their own behavior.

Sticking to the notion that "our" system is inherently good and "their" system will lead us all down the road to hell only allows us to ignore the fact that corruption is a personal choice, and we should question those who benefit from the obfuscation. When conservatives behave according to their values, the world benefits; when liberals are open to all views - including "unenlightened" conservative opinions - we are all enriched. When people in government do their jobs conscientiously, we have better, more efficient services and oversight. When people in business treat their customers with honesty and respect, we have a functioning economy that improves everyone's lot in life.

So let's abandon our entrenched positions that demonize liberals, conservatives, rich, and poor. Let's focus on what choices we've each made to contribute to this mess, and what we can do to get ourselves out of it. Let's be constructive, and do this right for once!

Fooling the People

In watching the Republican party continue to implode, I am reminded of an old saying: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

"Fooling the people" is what the GOP has relied on ever since they developed their "Southern Strategy," which culminated in Karl Rove's tactics of playing to the base and dirty attack politics. The problem is, once you push out all oppositional forces through deceptive tactics, and the inevitable consequences of having a dishonest heart crop up, there's no one left for the people to blame but you. Thus, fooling all of the people can only last so long.

Now that Republicans have been relegated to a near-powerless position in Washington, they have a choice - continue with the same old tactics of the past, or forge a new way forward. To me, it looks like the exact same choice that any individual has when his ego has gotten him into trouble - deny responsibility and go deeper into the illusion of happiness-through-dominance, or accept responsibility and be humble enough to learn a new way.

So far, it seems like the majority of GOP power-players have been unable to shake their dependence on the egoic strategies of division, conflation, and obfuscation, while a few of the more forward-thinkers are starting to embrace a more honest and inclusive direction. This gives me hope. While I generally don't agree with the conservative platform, I also don't want a full third of our citizens to feel disempowered, disheartened, and unhappy that their voices aren't being heard, no matter who makes up that one-third of our American pie.

Every single citizen of our country and our planet is a part of our collective soul, and as such we all suffer when they suffer. We are all diminished when anyone's voice is diminished, no matter how unpalatable we find their voice to be. That is why I hope and pray the Republicans can come out of this with a more inclusive heart, and that Democrats can let past battles die and be authentically gracious in their victory.

Stability vs. Change

Living in the San Francisco Bay Area, I get a lot of exposure to Leftist politicos, radicals, anarchists, and wing-nuts. I walk relatively freely between mainstream culture and the very margins of society. What I have noticed is that those on the fringe of society are there for a reason - they either think far ahead for their time, or they are complete crack-pots. (I can only hope that I am not one of the crack-pots!)

One of the primary differences between liberals and conservatives is the relative importance put on tradition versus progress. Conservatives tend to want society to run along traditional norms, while liberals want to break down many of these norms. Both sides believe that their way is the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity for all.

Personally, I believe in throwing out what doesn't work as soon as it stops working. Otherwise, it would be like keeping a VCR on top of your TV despite the fact that it hasn't been functional for 10 or 15 years. Why not throw it out and get a Hi-Def or Blue-Ray DVD player instead?

At the same time, I have to acknowledge that tradition has its place, too. It keeps you connected to your roots, and how can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been? What's more, tradition has a stabilizing influence on society. When so many hippies of the 1960's left "the grid" to live communally on collectively-owned land, what would have happened if the entire country had joined them in their experimental living? It would have been an unmitigated disaster! Most of those communes failed within a few years, mostly because living communally is a lot more work and a lot less satisfying than its participants would have supposed. If the rest of the world had not hummed along without them, continuing to live their "boxy corporate lives," there wouldn't have been a society for these hippies to come back to.

In addition, although there are many hyper-intelligent visionaries on the liberal side of politics, there are also a lot of barely functional psyche-ward cases. For example, Ted Kaczynski. Conservative resistance to change might cause unending frustration for the visionaries, but it also protects us from the potentially destabilizing influence of the wing-nuts.

In the end, the tension between progressive vs. conservative principles is not inherently good or bad. Depending on the players involved and the political climate of the day, on the negative side it can result in either gridlock or wild swings between vastly different political policies; but on the positive side it can give us progress at a pace that matches both what society needs and can easily digest.

To get less of the negative and more of the positive, all sides need to respect each other. We need to work honestly towards the betterment of society, and assume that our political complements are doing the same. Only then will we be able to forge compromises that both move society forward, and keep us grounded in the best of our traditions.

The Trap of Bipartisanship

I am a big fan of cooperative governing. I believe it is the people's right to have a government that actually governs - After all, it is our taxes that pay their salaries.

But unless you live in a dictatorship, leaders don't lead alone. Even authoritarian governments like China's need coalitions to run things effectively. In our two-party system, it is rare for one party to have enough members to rule without challenge, and when it does happen and the party in power is the Democrats, getting a coalition together can still be like trying to herd cats.

Therefore, bipartisanship is absolutely necessary to get things done in this country. The people know that, which is why they elected the most credible bipartisan candidate they could find. The Clinton name is popular among Democrats, but our memories of the Clinton years of partisan bickering are still too fresh to think of Hillary as viably bipartisan. John McCain has a history of working with Democrats even when it annoys others in the GOP, but over the last 8 years he aligned himself with the once-popular Bush and his hard-line tactics, and as a presidential candidate he spiraled down into the most despicable of race-baiting and partisan rhetoric, so he lost the moral authority to claim bipartisanship.

Barak Obama, as a fresh face with a clear vision of an America that is not divided by its "Red" or "Blue" ideology, convinced the American people that he could do bipartisanship (or as he calls it, "post-partisanship") better than anyone else, and now he is in the White House.

There is only one problem: In order for bipartisanship to work, both parties have to want to do it. What's more, if the rubric you've given the country to judge your success is based on how effectively bipartisan you are, then all your opponents have to do to create your failure is what they want to do anyway: oppose you at every turn.

This is, as we've seen, exactly what the Republican strategy is - Set up Obama and Congressional Democrats for failure, and wait to reap the rewards in two to four years.

Fortunately, America seems wise to the ruse. The people recognize that you can't find compromise with those who only want to be in control and have no desire to co-govern from the junior position. According to recent polls, most Americans give Obama high marks for reaching out to Republicans, and they give equally low marks to Republicans on the same topic.

Of equal good fortune is that Obama is on top of this. As he said recently, "I'm an optimist, not a sap." This is the mistake that mean-spirited people make all the time, confusing a bright outlook on life with gullibility and a "kick me" sign on your back.

Only time will tell if Obama is an effective bipartisan player, but if this opening act is any indication, in two years' time the American people will lay any failure of bipartisanship at the feet of those who refused to play along. As such, with any luck by 2010 we will either have a truly bipartisan government, or the obstructionists will lose even their last toe-hold on national power.

Politics and the Evolution of Consciousness

My politics are neither Left nor Right. I was born in 1975, so the incessant clanging of the culture wars had faded to a lingering echo by the time I even knew we had a president. Growing up, I found history to be more informative than the contemporary politics of Washington.

While I believe that democracy is the cutting-edge of political systems, I do not believe that it is the final evolution of human self-governance. Our system is deeply flawed, as evidenced by ecological degradation, unconscionable disparities between rich and poor, the wars we wage, and the concurrent rise of both health care costs and illness. Despite having a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, enormous amounts of political and financial power are still held in the hands of a super-elite minority. Democracy is better than its predecessors, but it is not the end of the road. Not by far.

However, I do not advocate the overthrow of this young democratic movement. The fatal flaw to this system can not be found in its structure, but in its components: human beings. We are the fatal flaw in every political system. If not for human greed and arrogance, monarchies would be a perfectly viable system of government. Monarchs are supposed to protect and serve the people and are given the power they need to do so. This isn't a problem until the power they are given is used inappropriately.

Our system of governance does the same thing that monarchies did - it puts power over vast populations into the hands of a few, so that they might govern us effectively. By converting to a democracy, we made those who govern accountable to the people, rather than constantly conveying the power of one despot to his despotic children, regardless of the wisdom or altruism those children may or may not have.

Unfortunately, while this built-in accountability has diffused some of the worst excesses in government, we clearly still have a top-heavy power structure that exploits the masses. This isn't because the structure is inherently prone to abuse of power, but because the human spirit has not evolved beyond the need to abuse power. How else can we explain the corruption that we see in our elected officials - the people we ourselves chose to be in positions of power!

When George W. Bush was campaigning in 2000, he promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" and to bring a new brand of "compassionate conservatism" to Washington. I never believed him. My own politics aside, I could see that he was a man of politics, power, and ego; it seemed obvious to me (and to anyone who cared to pay attention) that he was completely incurious when it came to good governance, and wanted only to be powerful, to be liked, and to implement his ideology. Yet not only did he get his party's nomination, but over 50 million people voted for him. Four years later, when Bush's popularity was below 50% and John Kerry's best campaign message was "At least I'm not Bush!", President Bush actually won and got more than 62 million votes. He has now left office as perhaps the most hated president since Herbert Hoover.

Out of those 62 million people who voted for Bush after he had four years to show us his mettle, how many do you think blame themselves for the state that this country is in? With a voter turn out of 60.7% in 2004, how many of the 39.3% of eligible voters who didn't vote do you think take responsibility for not using their power to hold him accountable? We have the leaders that we have for a reason, and it comes down to what we value - not what we say we value, but what we actually value.

Things are changing, though. We've just elected our first Black president, one who managed to fend off scurrilous attacks on his character due in no small part to the people being unwilling to be manipulated once again. Willie Horton ads are - hopefully - permanently a thing of the past. Obama's victory, as he reminded us on election night, is not his victory but ours. We overcame our past prejudices, we let go of our need for infantile leaders, we chose not to give into our fears - in other words, collectively we evolved in spirit.

Our continued evolution will be measured in terms of our compassion for others, our increasing inclusiveness, and our ability to choose what is right over what we want or what we fear. As our leaders continue to reflect that evolution back to us, we should be mindful of what we see. When our leaders are blustering, ego-driven, and full of vitriol, we know that we have failed ourselves. When they cooperate with others, act selflessly, show humility, and find common-ground solutions to our nation's problems, we know that the human spirit has evolved into something that we can be proud of.

GOP's Faustian Deal

During the presidential campaign several months back, when the news showed a McCain supporter asking him, "How did we get into this situation?" (i.e. losing ground to Obama and the Democrats) it got me thinking, because it's a really good question: What did the Republicans do to get themselves into the political abyss that they're in?

A good place to start looking is at the fractures that have developed within the GOP. On one side you have the political elite of the party, and on the other you have working-class, conservative Whites. The GOP is often seen as a monolithic entity, but it is actually made up of rich Whites and poor Whites, with a much smaller representation of traditionally-minded non-Whites, as well.

The story of Joe the Plumber illustrates the quirkiness of this alliance. Joe supported McCain, even though he would personally have benefited more from Obama's tax plan. He didn't oppose Obama's plan on the grounds that it would hurt him, but on the ideological grounds that higher taxes for the rich is a dis-incentive to becoming rich.

So Joe the plumber would rather have higher taxes for himself now, on the hopes that someday he can benefit from having more money with fewer taxes later - even though having more taxes now will make it more difficult to become rich later.

Why is this? What line of reasoning could possibly make sense out of this?

We all know that money is power, so what could possibly motivate someone to want those with so much power to have more of it, even at his own expense?

I think part of it has to do with the culture wars. In exchange for this twisted "trickle-down" approach that benefits rich, mostly White people at the expense of poor people of all colors, the GOP elites take on the cultural causes that poor Whites value, such as abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, and mixing Church with State.

But it's hard for me to believe that so many otherwise intelligent people would so willingly allow the rich and powerful to fleece them without getting something more than legislation of culture out of it. There has to be something more.

That "something more," has to do with the promise of power and money. It's a trick that the Chinese used very effectively for hundreds of years - anybody could become a powerful bureaucrat if he could just pass the written test. Whole villages would support their smartest child in the hopes that one day he could pass the test and bring wealth and prosperity to them in the future. In this way, the Chinese big-wigs kept up the appearance of fairness, which prevented revolt, and still got to hold onto vastly disproportionate power while only rarely letting anyone pass this "test". If Joe the Plumber is any indication, that technique is working very well for the GOP - Joe would rather have elected a man with 8 houses and 13 cars, and a wife who can wear $300k-worth of clothes and jewelry than a self-made Black man who would actually GIVE him money sooner rather than later. All on the promise that someday he too can benefit from a tax system that is skewed towards the rich.

And of course this all makes sense, because this isn't about fairness or even practicality. It's all about power. What are the culture wars about? Power. The power to enforce one group's values on everyone else. Take gay marriage as an example: When two same-gendered people decide to marry, who is really affected by that, aside from the gay couple? No one. Two consenting adults cannot hurt themselves or others by marrying each other, yet those on the Right are willing to spend millions of dollars in a terrible economy to intercede and prevent those couples from doing what they want. If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, then choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's fine and no one would condemn you for that. But when you pass laws that prevent others from marrying whom they love, you are enforcing your own religious beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs, and that is about POWER, not being a good Christian. Would it be appropriate for the state to force people into gay relationships for ANY reason? Of course not, because that would be an inappropriate violation of our rights.

So if you believe that it is appropriate to force men and women to marry heterosexually or not marry at all even though they don't share your religious beliefs, you care more about power than you do about anyone involved. And if you care about power that much, then of course you will be happy to buy into a tax scheme and ideology that favors the powerful - so long as you have a chance - one day - to BE one of those powerful people.

Of course, the path to such power in the GOP ideology is much easier for Whites than it is for anyone else. That is why minorities favor Democrats to Republicans so much. Many immigrant populations would favor the GOP for its traditional family values, except for the fact that the GOP is also traditionally anti-immigrant (particularly non-White immigrants), so these groups have no where to go but the Democratic party (or Independent). But for the poor Whites of this nation who feel powerless, the GOP offers a great solution - enforcement of cultural values on everybody now, and the promise of an unfair playing field skewed in their favor should they ever find a way to stop being poor.

So how does this relate to the original question? The GOP has fallen apart, and the reason is because of unrestrained power. What do you think will happen when those who care more about power than they do about their fellow man actually get that power? It is extremely destructive. Things fall apart, and people suffer. All of the ideologies and tactics of such power-hungry folks become suspect, and people become immune to their pleas for more power. A backlash develops, and that is what we witnessed in the electoral rejection of the Republican party.

And THAT is the answer to this one man's short, intelligent question.

Rush Limbaugh's Ego Is Anti-American

Rush Limbaugh has stated unequivocally that he wants Obama to fail. Why? Because, as he says, "...what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?"

Of course, such a statement makes you wonder why Rush thinks George W. Bush and the Congressional Republicans of 1995-2007 were so liberal, but there is an even deeper flaw in his logic:

The only reason why Rush would want Obama to fail - and thereby doom our country to greater deficits and a spiraling economy - is because he doesn't want his own beliefs to be discredited. He would rather be right and watch the country circle the drain than to be proven wrong in the marketplace of ideas, because Obama cannot 'succeed' unless his programs succeed, as well. If liberalism is such a blight on America as he supposes, then Obama's policies can't succeed. However, if they do succeed then Rush would be proved dead wrong in his assertion that liberalism is a dangerous problem.

His is the kind of ideo-logical (rather than simply 'logical') thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, and Rush's inability to see that is a function of his ego, pure and simple. Therefore, it is Rush Limbaugh's ego that is anti-American, and by his own logic it should be deported.

Fortunately we live in a country without 'Thought Police,' so it is up to those of us on the other side of his microphone to recognize the fallacy for what it is, and to move on to something that uplifts us all, not just one man's ego.

What the Obama Inauguration Means to Me

I was one of probably thousands of individuals who sent the Obama Team an essay on the following question: "What does Barak Obama's inauguration mean to you?" 10 winners were selected to attend the inauguration, and while I didn't win, I still think it's a pretty good essay, and a great way to start my "Nathan's Noodles" Blog:


The inauguration of Mr. Barak Obama to the United States Presidency means that over the coming years, I will be faced with a daily challenge to my latent choices of fear over action, drama over partnership, mediocrity over excellence, and selfishness over service.

In this life, we all face challenges that make it difficult to fulfill our vision for a better tomorrow. However, on inauguration day the leader of the free world – and our foremost role model – will be a man who was not challenged by the assumption that he couldn’t be elected, but who instead challenged the validity of that assumption. Rather than accept the limitations that the world would put on him, our President will be a man who chose something different, something better, something more difficult but also far more worthwhile.

Every day of Mr. Obama’s Presidency will be a reminder to me and to all Americans that the world we are born into never limits us, but instead it gives each of us a unique set of choices. This is our greatest freedom – the freedom to choose – and that freedom is paid in the currency of consequence.

In the coming years, as I watch the unlikeliest of Presidents do his job, I will see that the power and prestige that he wields is not an accident of birth or the product of luck, but the consequence of choice. He chose to live a life that is far better than anyone could have imagined for him, and if he can make that choice, what is stopping me from doing the same? Is today’s distraction worth the price of a future I can be proud of? When those who don’t understand my vision obstruct its fulfillment, will I retreat and then blame them for my failure? When I have given all of myself, and still more is needed, will I console myself that I’ve given enough, or will I find a way to dig even deeper?

I will find the answers to these questions in the unassuming, brown eyes of a man who should never have been President but chose to be anyway, and what I will see there is that I hold the power of choice – Only I can choose to be even stronger than my circumstances. For if there is anything to be learned from Mr. Obama’s historic victory, it is that the world we live in is not a monolithic obstacle to our greatest hopes and dreams, but instead it is the sum total of all our choices. If we have the power to choose hatred, division, war, and greed, then we also have the power to choose compassion, unity, peace, and charity. Our individual choices cannot help but to change the world we live in, so that hopefully, someday, all of our fellow human beings across the globe will know the power of their undeniable freedom, their unstoppable power to choose a better tomorrow for themselves, for their children, and for every generation to come.

Mr. Obama won the Presidency by reminding us of the power that each of us has to choose something better, and on January 20th his pledge to serve the American people as President will be a call for all of us to serve our collective vision of a world that is better today than it was yesterday. I will answer that call, and with President Barak Obama as a living example of life’s truest possibilities, I know that I will succeed because his Presidency will be an unavoidable reminder of the consequence of individual choice, and as a result, anything less than my very best is a choice that I can not and will not accept.