Browsed by
Tag: energy

Reorienting into Your Own Path: Belief Self-Torment

Reorienting into Your Own Path: Belief Self-Torment

Comments 2 comments

For a number of reasons, I haven’t posted anything about Jehovah’s Witnesses for a while. There have been some horrible events in the news, and all sorts of doctrinal and organizational changes, but I find myself more interested these days in some of the larger questions. I’ve been trying to write something about that, but nothing I wrote was satisfactory to me. It turns out that I needed a real question for my thoughts on this to spill out. In trying to help ease someone else’s suffering, the words ring true again. Thank you for being the messenger for this lesson! I preserve the questioner’s privacy, but you know who you are. Big hugs.

I seem to be struggling with my relationship with God. I find myself so confused about what to believe. I used to be absolutely convinced that the Bible was Truth. Is this normal for a person in my situation. Any input that you might have would be appreciated.

It is totally normal for you to feel as you do. I do have some thoughts on this in terms of biblical scholarship and the history of the religions of the book(s), but that’s not what will help you most right now because you need first to find your bearings, your balance, and the (for lack of a better phrase) direction of your attunement to God.

Start with what you solidly know and experience for yourself. Be observant and pay attention and even “hold fast to what is fine.” That place where your mind and spirit and soul all connect in gratitude and admiration is where you start. Think of the qualities of the spirit – where do you see caring and forgiveness and love and thoughtfulness and creativity and all those things that you can just feel are *good* things? Let yourself be drawn into that world. Learn from and enjoy the presence of that “energy” in any moment where it happens. Even just noticing it changes you.

Then – and I resisted this one for a long time – think about service. Not big, cosmic service – just little bits of service. Be a little kinder, think of someone else’s feelings, do something nice for someone else, be a listening ear to a friend. Anything that puts your own needs to the side – even for a moment – changes you.

Think of things that you *truly* admire about people you know or have known or have read about or seen. Everyone is complicated, a mix of darkness and light, so you have to think of specific things, how someone made a good decision, how someone manifested an incredible skill, how someone calmed a situation. Those are things that speak to your inner self, to your inner directionality, and they are worth hearing.

For a while, move away from the questions of belief in this or that. That question will always be there for you, but that doesn’t mean you have to address it and be tormented by it right now. Come back to it when you are in a place of spiritual groundedness.

Your body can help you too, and in ways that you might not expect. Sit quietly and relax, listen to yourself breathe. When you are upset, take a few breaths and consciously let it go. Imagine blowing the seeds of an old dandelion into the wind. Self-torment seems to be part of the deal – but you can choose not to do it. Look again at these things when it isn’t self-punishment. Torturing yourself does nothing for you right now except prevent you from insight and focus your energy on everything that would overwhelm you. Love doesn’t want that, and you need to focus on that central thing. Open your heart and listen. Listen.

Try different body positions. Bow your head, raise your arms up to the sky, imagine your feet taking root in the ground, pretend to be blessed by the stars. Your body-imagination is always trying to help you. If you feel comfortable, reach out to the God *above* the God that is caricatured by the witnesses and ask for guidance in love.

Be authentic, be truthful, see beauty, learn when to trust and admire. Start there. In time, the beliefs will sort themselves out. The list of “I believe in this” and “I don’t believe in that” is really not the primary aspect of spiritual understanding. Assume, for a little while, that all the cosmos needs of you is that you pay attention and appreciate whatever you really, truly can. Go a little on that footpath, and see if you get reoriented.

I feel very strongly that each person’s spiritual path is their own, and cannot be regulated or mandated. This is about your own spirit and soul and heart and mind, and nobody else’s. And in that spirit, take what you find useful for you here – and disregard the rest. These are things I’ve learned for myself and from the experiences of others, so they may be very very helpful for you right now. Or not. You are the only you.

Kicking the Habit

Kicking the Habit

Comments 7 comments

Still sick, coughing, shivering, sweating, miserable. One good thing has come out of this, though. I’m sick and tired of feeling sick and tired, and there’s one thing I know I can (and should) do to make things better.

I am quitting my terrible smoking habit.

Potential embarrassment and shame about failure will be a further incentive, so I’m announcing here there and everywhere.

I’ve got a quit date – next Wednesday April 15th. I took my first Chantix pill last night. and it takes about a week to kick in – and my birthday isn’t a bad day to quit. I (really, desperately) hope it helps me get through the initial stages of withdrawal.

I’ve got a list of various warning signs, and another list of helpful tips – and I’m trying to adjust my psychology between now and then. I’m not going to do any nicotine replacement, because for me that would just prolong the misery.

I’ve been thinking seriously about quitting for a while now, but I just haven’t had the will. Everything came together this time, and it feels like a good time to do it.

I want to feel better, have more energy, and get that smell off of me. I want to get my father’s flat hopeless look out of my eyes. I want to be free of this addiction.

I’m also sick of the snarky comments, and the increasing class distinction – although to be honest, that’s just one more stupid reason that I’ve kept smoking, in defiance and rebellion. Well, gotta transcend that too.

John seems a bit apprehensive, as well he should be. The last time I tried this, it didn’t go very well. I know he really wants me to quit, though, and he’ll be very happy to see me do it – once it’s done.

My posts for a bit may just chronicle this particular journey. Maybe it won’t be a big deal. Maybe I’ll be a little crazy. I’m not sure. Even if things are a bit unstable for a couple of weeks, it will be worth it to get to the other side. I’ve got a lot of support for this, and I hope that my family, friends and co-workers will cut me a little slack if I act a little bit uncharacteristically here and there. I’m a little worried about that aspect of things; it’s one of the reasons I’ve put this off. Ideally, I would be shuttled off to some cabin miles from anywhere for the first two weeks, but that’s never going to happen – and waiting for the perfect opportunity to quit has meant that I haven’t quit. There’s never going to be the perfect time.

By Ben’s birthday – one month after mine – he’ll have a totally smoke-free and recovered Mommy wishing him a happy birthday, and she won’t have a lighter handy for the nine candles on his cake.

There is one thing that I truly enjoy about smoking. The controlled breathing of smoke in and out of me always made me feel a bit like a dragon, the keeper of the flame, the mistress of the wind. I’ll miss that more than anything else.

The First Presidential Debate

The First Presidential Debate

Comments 1 comment

I had signed up to rate the debates at “Rate the Debates,” because it was billed as getting a jump on the pundits. I was hoping that this would serve as a pulsepoint. I’m disappointed that the survey was more about the moderator’s performance than the substance of the debate itself.

Overall, I thought both candidates did fairly well. They both got angry, but held their tempers. They both looked a little silly smiling when they were hearing digs aimed at them.

Neither one of them adequately addressed the economic issues, but I guess that’s really for a later debate. As a matter of national security, they covered the basics. I thought some of the discussion about foreign relations was the most interesting part of the debate.

I would have liked to have seen them both actually debate a little more rather than just responding – but Lehrer tried his best to encourage that (and he was a good and fair moderator). It’s a matter of the format, I think.

Oh – and I can’t wait to hear from that old battleaxe Dr. Kissinger. He must be pleased that he’s still so important despite his many crimes.

Here are a few things that made me halt: “wait, hold on a second there, stop the train.”

McCain

1) He kept saying that Barack Obama “just didn’t understand” – didn’t understand how to deal with foreign leaders, didn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, etc. etc. – all with a slightly pitying look and a sorrowful shake of the head. I didn’t count how many times he said or implied it, but this mannerism ran through the whole debate. I can understand how he would try to use the “elder statesman” role to his advantage, but I don’t think this worked. I kept wondering when he was going to complain about those damn kids next door. It didn’t make him look wise, just old. It was pretty clear that Obama did understand – better than McCain in many cases – and I think he was on weak ground with that attempt.

2) He called for the consolidation of regulatory agencies. What, like Homeland Security? Or so that conflicts of interest can become involved in a power monopoly? It’s not enough that the agencies are riddled already?

3) The invocation of a spending freeze was not wise, and the way he described the way he would handle cuts sounded a bit disastrous to me.

4) He called for 45 nuclear power plants. Not good.

5) He noted – twice – that he was not elected “Miss Congeniality” of the Senate. That’s not a good image for him to invoke. Ick.

6) He seemed to think that if we had trained interrogators, they wouldn’t torture. The documentation that I’ve seen about the history of torture techniques during this administration doesn’t suggest to me that training was the only, or the most important, issue.

7) I think he really tried too hard to pull on the heartstrings. It came off as hammy and undermined what I think really might be his authentic feelings on some issues.

Obama

1) He didn’t mention nuclear power in the first set of remarks on energy, but then later he did add “and yes, nuclear power.” Sigh. I just don’t like the dangers of nuclear energy and its byproducts.

2) I thought he made good points about our standing in the world, but I’m not sure about the way he characterized 20th-century vs. 21st-century governments. He could have reframed some of the discourse about why America isn’t trusted within a more robust terminology.

3) I thought that he let too many things “go.” I could see where he needed to focus on the things of core importance, but he was almost too reasonable. I wanted to see some of his fire and air, and he was in water and earth mode.

4) I thought he overemphasized the word “investment.” I agree with the ideas, but it’s not a word anyone wants to hear right now.

5) That whole thing with the bracelet was too much. “I have a bracelet too, and THIS mother said…” I know I’m jaded, but I don’t want to see two grown men talking about military deaths in terms of bracelets. Really, give me a break. I expected that sort of ooze-fest from McCain, but Obama disappointed me on that one.

The whole thing was fascinating, but I hope they both polish up for the next go-round.

Actions of the Day for Progressive Armchair Activists

Actions of the Day for Progressive Armchair Activists

Comments 4 comments

We come in peace (shoot to kill): Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Some actions for my fellow armchair activists. Click on the links for more information and to take action.

America, where have we gone

America, where have we gone

Comments 2 comments

Where have we gone, America?

On Staged “Terrorist” Attacks and Dictatorship

Impeach Now or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy, Paul Craig Roberts, Counterpunch

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran. Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near future.

(thanks to John Gamble)

On Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” July 17, 2007

This order allows the Executive Branch to freeze assets – without evidence, notice, oversight, trial or appeal – in a chain of perceived culpability. Even representative legal services could be interpreted to be a form of support.

The Treasury Secretary has sole discretion to determine who is in violation of this order, in ‘consultation’ with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. That last part is verbiage; Treasury has the power per this order. Even better, the Secretary of Treasury has the explicit authority to delegate this decision to any flunky or flunkies of his choice per Sec. 6. This order applies to all persons within the United States. If Treasury declares that a person is a ‘SIGNIFICANT RISK’ to commit violence in Iraq, or a ‘SIGNIFICANT RISK’ to support violence in Iraq in any way, or to have assisted in any way a person who is a ‘SIGNIFICANT RISK’ to do so, all their assets are to be immediately frozen.

It is a further violation of the order to make a donation to such a person whose assets have been frozen. (I was being literal when I said ’starve’ them. Such a person would have no legal means of acquiring food, clothing, or shelter. They couldn’t buy it with frozen assets, nor accept it as a gift, and stealing is already illegal.)…

Oh, I probably don’t need to mention the obvious, but the lack of due process, lack of evidentiary requirements, and the vagueness surrounding exactly what constitutes a violation make this order a totalitarian dream. And there is no end to the ‘daisy chain’ it creates, either. If you donate money to a person whose assets were frozen because they gave money to a person who was declared to be a ‘significant risk’ to commit or support violence in Iraq, then you are subject to the order, subject to have your assets frozen, and anyone helping you thereafter gets the same treatment. This order is far in excess of the presidential orders from 20+ years ago that were circulated to make us afraid of the government.

(From Shakesville, via Frogs and Ravens)

On Obstruction of Justice and the Expansion of Executive Privilege

No, the documents will not be forthcoming. No, they don’t have to testify. No, they won’t be held in contempt. No, Congress will not be allowed to pursue this matter.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. …

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration’s stance “astonishing.” “That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

The administration’s statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year.

On Bush’s Veto Choices

The White House said that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program which is set to expire Sept. 30. The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan plan “would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million.”

On the Iraq War and Occupation

The Iraq war is lost, Peter Galbraith

The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning — a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes — but by the consequences of defeat.

Constitutionally, Iraq’s central government has almost no power, and the Bush administration is partially to blame for this. When the constitution was being drafted in 2005, the United Nations came up with a series of proposals that would have made for a more workable sharing of power between regions and the central government. The U.S. Embassy stopped the U.N. from presenting these proposals because it hoped for a final document as centralized as (and textually close to) the interim constitution written by the Americans. …

For the most part, Iraq’s leaders are not personally stubborn or uncooperative. They find it impossible to reach agreement on the benchmarks because their constituents don’t agree on any common vision for Iraq. The Shiites voted twice in 2005 for parties that seek to define Iraq as a Shiite state. By their boycotts and votes the Sunni Arabs have almost unanimously rejected the Shiite vision of Iraq’s future, including the new constitution. The Kurds’ envisage an Iraq that does not include them. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, 99 percent of them voted for Kurdish nationalist parties, and in the January 2005 referendum, 98 percent voted for an independent Kurdistan.

But even if Iraq’s politicians could agree to the benchmarks, this wouldn’t end the insurgency or the civil war. Sunni insurgents object to Iraq’s being run by Shiite religious parties, which they see as installed by the Americans, loyal to Iran, and wanting to define Iraq in a way that excludes the Sunnis. Sunni fundamentalists consider the Shiites apostates who deserve death, not power. The Shiites believe that their democratic majority and their historical suffering under the Baathist dictatorship entitle them to rule. They are not inclined to compromise with Sunnis, whom they see as their long-standing oppressors, especially when they believe most Iraqi Sunnis are sympathetic to the suicide bombers that have killed thousands of ordinary Shiites. The differences are fundamental and cannot be papered over by sharing oil revenues, reemploying ex-Baathists, or revising the constitution. The war is not about those things….

In laying out his dark vision of an American failure, Bush never discusses Iran’s domination of Iraq even though this is a far more likely consequence of American defeat than an al-Qaida victory.

On Lack of Accountability for Weakening our Intelligence Network and Outing a CIA Agent

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal. Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband’s criticism of the administration. Bates argued that such efforts (treason?!) are a natural part of the officials’ job duties, and “immune from liability.” Bates dismissed the case against all defendants (Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and said he would not express an opinion on the “constitutional arguments.”

How many CIA operatives and informants are dead or compromised because of this? How much vital intelligence have we missed because of this? Review again the kind of work that Valerie Plame had been doing…

Bates? A Bush appointee, additionally appointed by Chief Justice Roberts in February 2006 to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is currently overseeing the warrantless spying operations.