History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

For the most part, to understand the Conflict you must begin with the Old Testament book, Deuteronomy. It gives us insight into why Israelites consider that land (ie. present-day Israel) to be their historic land. In summary: the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, then they marched out of Egypt and into ‘Israel’. This was a war-filled period of time, but in the end the Jews won their wars against the various peoples that lived there 3000 years ago, and took control of the land.

The next part of understanding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict comes from the New Testament, where we see that the Romans have taken control of that same land.

And then for a couple of thousand years, the land changed hands several times due to the warring nature of humans.

Finally, in the late 1800’s, the ‘modern’ phase of today’s conflict begins. The Jews, who were living throughout Europe in different locations, began to develop a mission to re-settle their ‘historic homeland’. It sounds reasonable, except that that land was also the historic homeland of many many other cultures.

And then hitler shows up (no capital ‘H’ for him … he’s a dick-head), and he does what he did to the Jews of Europe.

After WWII the world feels sorry for the Jews. I presume that at this point everybody is probably in agreement regarding the Jews.

But then: 1947. The UN decides to console the Jews of Europe by assuredly giving them the thing that they have been wanting for fifty years, namely, their ‘historic homeland’. Sounds like a nice gesture by the civilized world in the wake of the hell that the Jews suffered during the war. But in order to provide this kind gift to the Jewish people, the residents of that land had to be removed. They are the Palestineans.

Think about this for about an hour, and then continue reading.

That’s right: the Palestinaens had to pay the price for hitler’s evil … how do you think the Palestineans felt … they were just farming their land, and then the UN says: ‘you got to move’.

And to make matters worse, the UN/US supported this newly-created nation of Israel by funding them monetarily and militarily, and all the sudden the Jews have the military power to close off the Palestineans from the outside world.

Not surprisingly, the Palestinians were mad. And so were their Muslim brothers. Hence all the f’d-up insanity that we live with today.


Justifying Lynching

It has really been a phenomenal 4 years. Over and over again the republicans/FOX Country/conservatives have relentlessly blamed Obama for everything, and when there was nothing to blame him for, they created a mountain out of some irrelevant mole hill and then blamed him for that. But their real guilt comes in their guise to justify the blame.


A Solution to the Gay Marriage Question

In America our fundamental spousal construct is the marriage. The problem is that marriage is a religious concept, not a civil concept. And because our Civil State has adopted a Religious Ceremony as its fundamental spousal construct, other spousal-wannabe’s are running into hurdles.

The solution: remove Marriage as the fundamental spousal construct, and replace it with the Civil Union.

This opens the door for many types of Civil Unions.

Indeed, “marriage” is actually a type of a Civil Union itself, owned, operated, and defined by the churches (going back to the BC religions I think).

Other possible types of Civil Unions:

  • the las-vegas-elvis Civil Union
  • the bungee-jumping Civil Union
  • the captain-of-a-ship Civil Union
  • the gay Civil Union
  • the human-mannequin Civil Union

Think about each of these: each is questionable in light of religious doctrines, but yet most are acceptable in our civil environment.

County-by-county democracy should be the mechanism that decides what types are -or are not- recognized by the government for purposes of … what is the purpose of registering our marriages with the government?

The C’s accuse me of being an A

There seem to be 3 different arguments in regards to the gun issue:

A – get rid of all guns (I have never actually heard anyone say this)
B – regulate guns (the ‘how to’ is up for debate)
C – sell guns like bubble gum: anytime, anywhere, anybody

The C’s are accusing everybody else of being an A.

Upstate South Carolina to be annexed back to Catawba Indians

A re-patriation effort has begun on behalf of the Catawba Indians by the United Nations. The Catawba Indians ceded their land in 1840 to South Carolina in a contested treaty that has never been validated by the United States.

The UN proposes the new territory to become the newest internationally recognized independent state and to be called Catawbistan. The tentative plan currently has the support of the UN Security Council. The re-claimed territory will return nearly all of the Catawba’s original national land back to the Catawba tribe.

most of the original Catawba territory will be recognized by the UN as Catawbistan

The UN has suggested a 10-year plan for removing the current residents of Upstate South Carolina, many of whom have been residing and farming their upstate lands for many generations. The lower-state cities of Aiken and Columbia, SC are expected to be the primary beneficiaries of the population move, estimated at roughly 2,000,000 persons.

This ‘news post’ is of course a fiction, a metaphor. For me, personally, I have struggled for a long time to understand the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and maybe, more importantly, how that issue affects muslims in the middle east – why they act so crazy.

This metaphor helps me to understand.

In this metaphor the Catawbas represent the Jews, who were relocated into their traditional homeland by the international community.

And the Upstate South Carolinians represent the Palestinians, who were forced to leave their homes.

And Americans, in general, who sympathize with the removed South Carolinians, represent the muslims throughout the middle east.

A Solution to the Gay Marriage Question

In America our fundamental spousal construct is the marriage. The problem is that marriage is a religious concept, not a civil concept. And because our Civil State has adopted a Religious Ceremony as its fundamental spousal construct, other spousal-wannabe’s are running into walls.

The solution: remove Marriage as the fundamental spousal construct, and replace it with the Civil Union.

This opens the door for many types of Civil Unions.

As it turns out, Marriage is a type of a Civil Union, so its ceremony will remain in tact, and unaffected by the civil union debate taking place in our democracy. The churches own Marriage: it is theirs.

Other possible types of Civil Unions:

  • the Las Vegas Elvis Civil Union
  • the bungee jumping Civil Union
  • the captain-of-a-ship Civil Union
  • the gay Civil Union
  • the human-mannequin Civil Union

… all of which are questionable in light of the religious doctrines that created marriage.

But in the hands of county-by-county democracy, who knows.


Natural Roles in the Natural World, but in the Artificial World?

In the natural world, such as the jungle, the societal roles of children and adults are pretty natural: hunting (…for the children: learning to hunt), gathering berries and crushing them (…for the children: learning), building leaf-covered huts, etc. These tasks are at some core level in us instinctive.

On the other hand, in the artificial world, such as the suburban commercial district, roles are not so naturally instinctive: filing the blue copies in the executive file cabinet, and forwarding the pink copies to the inventory controller.

None of us really have a choice about being born. We come out and immediately we are told that we have obligations. Well, that’s life. But the question is: what types of obligations can be expected of us? The key word is ‘expected’. It is certainly fair to say that mega-complex obligations are wanted of us.

Fair enough: society wants of me to build rockets using new physics that I invented while simultaneously investing in high-yield bonds … but can society expect that of me … expect?? After all, there is good reason to believe that my high-end multi-tasking in the industrialized marketplace is not natural, not instinctive, but rather the product of my upbringing, a specialized training, if you will, begun by my parents, and fostered by the schools that they put me in.

In my opinion society can only expect of me what is natural with respect to natural human instincts. Anything more is a bonus. And of course society can strive to foster the higher competency, but can not expect it of me.

Capitalism has many positive offerings, but it is a competition. And in a competition there will be losers.

How the BB-LiA targeted American conservatives … and won

In the beginning the BB-LiA was just another lobby in Washington DC, plowing through congressmen to get policies that favored its existence (Big Business Lobby in America).

The organization got its trickle-down favoritism, and then got its NAFTA-type agreements (imbalanced foreign business relationships). It put a lot of effort into these campaigns, working the congressmen at golf courses, ski resorts, social affairs, and then selling these ideas to people.

But in the 90’s the BB-LiA realized something: why waste our time on the congressmen … we should lobby the people.

At this point all Americans were fair game. But any good strategy team will analyze cost/return equations. They realized that highly-educated, secular-leaning people (typically these are democrats) were too pragmatic to influence easily; but that the conservatives, who were gullible (gullibility is a by-product of trusting, which is a by-product of faith … the gullibility of conservatives is a sacred feature and should not be exploited), would be easier to influence.

Of course you can’t call up 100 million conservatives and invite them to a vacation retreat in the Hamptons to make your case. What you need is a large scale marketing component, such as a media source or two. Rush Limbaugh was hired; FOX News was put together.

Rush Limbaugh and FOX News are merely the media component of the BB-LiA’s campaign to lobby America’s simple folk, to get them to do the BB-LiA’s bidding in DC through democracy channels. And now you have religious conservatives teaming up with fiscal conservatives, two sub-groups that should be polar opposites.

Was Jesus being an unrealistic emotional sap?

Was Jesus being an emotional sap when he told the rich man to give all of his wealth to the poor person (Mathew 19:21)?
Was Jesus hinting at a fiscal policy?

To find out we have to take Jesus literally, and build a legislative rule around his suggestion: JR-7473: Rich guy must give wealth to Poor guy … now let’s see what happens:

scenario 01The rich man, we’ll call Aaa, follows the rule and gives all his wealth to the poor person, we’ll call Zzz.
scenario 02But now Zzz is rich, and Aaa is poor; so Zzz must follow the rule and give all his (new found) wealth back to Aaa.
scenario 03The cycle continues: Aaa and Zzz keep handing the money back and forth indefinitely.

For me, what I see here is an Economic Circulation Pattern.

Of course, the money is meaningless to both Aaa and Zzz if they do not spend it. So let’s try a different scenario set, allowing them each to spend money while they are in possession of it:

scenario 11Aaa follows the rule and gives all his wealth, $1,000,000, to Zzz.
scenario 12Zzz, who is starving, goes out and buys a loaf of bread and a Porsche.
scenario 13But now Zzz must follow the rule and give his wealth to now-poor Aaa … but what to give? The bread does not constitute ‘wealth’ (at least not in appropriately modest quantities), but the Porsche is clearly excess and so it is ‘wealth’ … therefore Zzz must hand over the Porsche and remaining cash (assets + cash = $999,997) to poor Aaa.
scenario 14Aaa receives the Porsche and cash. He is psyched about the Porsche, but quickly realizes that JR-7473 will not allow him to keep it, so he trades it in for a Ford Taurus. Also he buys some groceries.
scenario 15Aaa then gives his wealth to the poor person. The current value of the wealth is $979,977 (the Taurus was about $20k).
scenario 16Aaa and Zzz continue the cycle, each time getting the basic things that they need. The wealth slowly dilutes until at some point neither has excess wealth. The cycle stops.

In other words, Jesus’ rule, if followed literally, leads to a middle-class society of economic equality … interesting.

I personally believe that in a real functioning society that this is not realistic, but I do think that there can be systems in place to foster this type Economic Circulation Pattern, specifically I think Bubble-Up Economics via Productivity-Oriented Social Programs does it, although Productivity-Oriented Social Programs do go against JR-7473, which required nothing of the recipient, whereas Productivity-Oriented Social Programs do require something. Read more: P-OSP

if the HaveNots would just work hard

I am amazed by the people that say that they got what they got because they worked hard for it, referring to the demands of their academic experience. And then they go on to say that if poor people would just worked as hard, that they could pull themselves up by their own bootstraps rather than begging at the government coffer.

The Haves have a terrible habit of taking for granted all of the mitigating and supportive factors that have accompanied their life of diligence.

Here are a couple of questions for our mega-diligent college alumni:
1 – did you ever go snow skiing during your college years, or to the beach for spring break?
2 – did you ever have sex with a beautiful girl during your college years?
3 – did you ever take a summer hiatus for three months?
4 – did you believe in your future, did you have a sense of optimism?

The point is that although college can be tough, it is accompanied by an assortment of positive mitigating factors. These reduce the stress level of the academic demands, making the hard work of college much more survivable.

But for people below the Subsistence Threshold (their head is below the water), these mitigating factors do not exist and thus the hard work of a person struggling to get out of their own hole is much more complex and difficult, and as such the odds of success are DECREASED.

Self-righteous vs. Compassionate charity

It is important to not downplay charity regardless of the motivation.

But typically:
Self-righteous people give charity to make themselves sleep better at night.
Compassionate people give charity to make the poor person sleep better at night.

Don’t get me wrong, self-righteous people do accomplish a lot. In fact, the nature of self-righteousness is an important engine in getting good things done. Imagine corporations that sponsor cultural events or seasonal soup kitchens.

But usually the nature of self-righteousness blinds the giver to understanding the truth and complexity of the recipient’s situation, whereas compassionate people are more likely to really put themselves into the recipient’s shoes and are thus enabled to think about fixing the problem rather than merely applying a band-aid.