Being Socially Relevant

During college a friend told me I should keep up with news and current events so that my thoughts and what I said would be socially relevant. I didn't much like the idea, but I have to admit it makes sense. (The reason I didn't much like it was that what I thought was relevant was that society was crap.)

In honor of his advice which does make sense after all, this month I decided to be socially relevant at least once. Or twice, but that's another story.

The "once" this month is that I voted and can share my thoughts about how I voted. I mean what could be more socially relevant than that, on an elemental, obvious level? (One could argue that voting is not relevant, but I'm being simple here; don't spoil it.) It even feels important in some kind of "Political" way, whatever that means. So here goes:

Step 1: When the sample-ballot-and-voter-information-pamphlet comes, save it well enough that I can find it when voting day comes.

Step 2: One should actually study it early, although I didn't.

Step 3: Sometime (for me, it was an hour or two before voting -- not recommended timing, but better than nothing), find that ballot-pamphlet and study it. Most of it didn't interest me. I decided I really ought to vote for the biggest race: the one for governor. I read the statements about the candidates -- not in the pamphlet -- it doesn't have that useful thing -- but online, preempting my daughter on the computer because I have this outstandingly good excuse to use the computer; it's for my civic duty.

Jerry Brown "reduced the `tax burden'". So what. It's not more or less tax that matters, it's what kind of taxation system that matters. And hardly anyone ever gets that deep in the discussion.

Chelene Nightingale "demanded secure borders & no amnesty" and has spoken at Tea Party events. I don't see anything good there. If they want security they should stop bombing the wrong countries by carelessness -- which makes lots of extra enemies and alienates friends -- a sure way to make your borders and everything else less secure. I don't know much about the Tea party, and don't want to, but I think they're supposed to be modeled after the Boston Tea Party in history which was about rebelling against an unjust taxation. That's okay but I think the modern so-called Tea Party just rebels against any taxation, without bothering to make distinctions, and I think that's just dumb.

Carlos Alvarez "led a protest to demand an end to Israel's massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Organized a march of 4,000 people against the Iraq war." I can identify with both of those things.

Laura Wells "proposes a state bank for California" and "proposes an oil severance tax". I'm sure the oil severance tax is a good idea (it's a tax on taking or depleting a natural resource). The state bank for California is probably a good idea too: it might be a way to stabilize a banking system. Government does have some legitimate purposes, and regulating currency (closely related to banking) is probably one of them.

Meg Whitman -- I couldn't find a clear obvious statement about what she stands for. I had to scan her web page for a while. On education, it says she would put more control in the hands of local educators and parents ... and she would remove the state cap on the number of charter schools. But to my mind there's nothing obviously good about those things. Is she abandoning public education? Are charter schools better for society than are public schools? I myself would prefer to see more support for a good public education system.

Dale Ogden wants to "absolutely limit future spending increases". He just about lost me at that word "absolutely". I can't remember any occasion where the word "absolutely" was justified in any socially relevant discourse. Moving along, I see he's against increases in spending. But what kind of spending? All spending? From this short obvious bit that I read about him, he sounds like an airhead. Of course there should be some spending, and occasional increases or decreases in various kinds of spending.

That was the whole list of candidates for governor.

I had thought I might vote for Jerry Brown, though I couldn't say exactly why. Now, thanks to rational study, I can give my reason for my vote: I didn't vote for Jerry Brown because there was nothing obviously good about him. I voted for Carlos Alvarez because he did two good socially relevant things that hardly any candidates do.

Carlos Alvarez is against "the Iraq war". Starting the war in Iraq is the most obvious wrong that the United States has done in recent history.

Massacre'ing Palestinians in Gaza is a highly socially relevant issue and should be strongly opposed. (It's particularly socially relevant here in the U.S. because a portion of our taxes supports the Israeli brutality and virtually none of it benefits the Palestinians in any way -- yet there are more Palestinians than there are Israelis, and the Israelis don't need our money nearly so much as the Palestinians need us to stop giving it to the Israelis.)

I could have voted for Laura Wells. Why did I choose Carlos Alvarez over Laura Wells?

Laura Wells's proposals (state bank and oil severance tax) are sensible and down-to-earth. Such a candidate would even have a ghost of a chance of winning, as compared with Carlos Alvarez who had only half a ghost of a chance of winning.

The reason I favored Carlos Alvarez over Laura Wells is that war and massacres are a lot more important than are banks and taxes and even oil, and even pollution, and even (in my opinion) global pollution. War and massacres are more important than all these; because the Iraq war and the Israeli occupation of Palestine are so unjust, and our failure to oppose them is so bad, that all the world is worth a lot less because of it.

I'd rather vote for Carlos Alvarez, guessing that he'll probably lose, than vote for any of the other candidates, guessing that he or she would win. Without ranked choice voting, most of our votes don't really count meaningfully, but if I couldn't vote for a demand to end Israel's massacre'ing of Palestinians in Gaza, and if I couldn't vote against what this country did to Iraq, then my vote doesn't count for much anyway. I have no regrets at voting for Carlos Alvarez, win or lose. If our country goes down the tubes it won't be because of my vote for him. It'll be because of wrongful bombing by the U.S., of other parts of the world, actions which have to eventually come back and haunt or damage or destroy us.

The governor of California does not deploy bombs, but at least one governor of California went on to become President of the United States, an office which does have the power to deploy bombs.

Carlos Alvarez, even if he were eventually given that kind of power, is the candidate least likely to wrongfully bomb places in the world. But even without direct access to that kind of power, it is important to oppose big wrongs, and that opposition needs to occur anywhere in society, at the grassroots level and at leadership levels.

Not bombing wrongfully, not supporting wrongful bombing, and opposing wrongful bombing, all comprise the one most important issue, at virtually all levels of society today in the United States. Wrongful bombing is the one most important issue of our time, and that wrongful, unjust, cruel act will continue to be repeated until enough of us actively oppose it.

Step 4: Look at the rest of the ballot. I thought I might vote for lots of Democrats (as I have a very low opinion of what the Republican officials have been doing and saying this past decade), but then I remembered having written to one or more congresspeople and senators, saying to them: I won't vote for anyone who I think might support Israel's illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine. So, I left virtually all the candidate races blank, but I did vote for Carlos Alvarez. I strongly doubt that he would support Israel's illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine.

Issues (or "Measures"):

a parcel tax to support education: yes. It's a tax on land, which is a natural resource which no individual creates. It's the right thing to tax. And it's good to spend tax dollars on public education.

a "marijuana business tax" -- hmm. Why would a business tax, on any business, be a good idea, unless that business were depleting or taking natural resources away from the general public? I'd be inclined to vote no, but I don't understand the issue enough, so I leave it blank.

legalize marijuana -- yes. I am so sick of living in a society that subsidizes tobacco and imprisons marijuana smokers. It's been obvious for a very long time that tobacco (or nicotine in tobacco) is very addictive, and also I feel sure enough that it is harmful. One thing I've noticed about marijuana is that what's commonly said against it doesn't make much sense (particularly in light of the same people not saying as much against tobacco or alcohol).

suspend implementation of air pollution control law requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year:

That one is so long, I gave it its own paragraph just to state the question. When I read "suspend implementation of air pollution control", I was already inclined against it. But I couldn't be sure, at that point, because given what laws are, there might be some good reason for suspending the "implementation" of one. But when I read "until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent", it was all over. It is the wrong way to mix issues. It isn't right to allow unchecked pollution just so people can have "jobs". Instead, people should think outside that box, and think: healthier people could have better jobs, more jobs, and more meaningful jobs, in industries that don't pollute much at all. And they could breathe cleaner air, at home, at work, and while travelling.

Whoever thought "jobs" could only be gotten by polluting had a bad idea to begin with. Maybe we'd be better off if there were a lot fewer of _those_ kinds of jobs; because what good is a job, if the one thing that we know about it is that it is directly correlated with more pollution? That direct correlation is what's implied in the statement of the Measure. I voted against that Measure.

a parcel tax to pay for medical checkups, immunizations, and "early detection" (of illnesses, presumably), etc. Yes. A parcel tax is the right kind of taxation system, and public health is a correct pursuit of society and its government. I leave aside the question of whether immunizations as they exist today may sometimes be hazardous. Overall the whole goal, even just the immunization part of it, is good and right.

increase motor vehicle registration fee by $10, and spend the money on maintenance of roads and pollution mitigation projects etc. Yes. "Vehicles" as they exist today are a slow poison to everyone who lives near them. Because they pollute everyone's air (a natural resource that is inherited by all), of course they should be taxed and the proceeds should go to benefit the population at large.

Step 5: Leave blank all those issues and races for which I don't have a clear reason or at least a strong opinion. One of the best things about my ballots, virtually every time I vote, is that I leave most of my ignorance off the ballot, thereby increasing the effects of the votes of people who know more about those issues or those candidates than I do. It's my civic duty NOT to vote about things I cannot hope to make a wise decision about.

Step 6: Find the right polling place. The voter pamphlet tells the address. Upon going there, I find it's in a rather obscure corner and hard to find. So when you vote, allow some extra time to find the polling place, in case your polling place is not easy to find. On the other hand, if you are one of those people who vote about lots of things you don't understand, then take your time, and leave for the polls at the last minute possible. Everyone who thinks seriously about the issues will thank you for your overall carelessness, but only if you happen to arrive at the polls just after they close.

test post

test post (ignore it)

Listing The Good Things

This week I thought of listing the good things in my life. Here are a few:

Annual family camping trips to the Rocky Mountains when I was small

Christmas when I was small

Learning how to play chess (when I was 9)

The first two years of college (1971-1973)

The first week of college (1971)

Some of the reading, writing, running, and trumpet playing

Reading to, and taking care of, my two children when they were very small

Explaining things -- an example is when I was helping my fellow students add fractions in grade school.

About this list: I have found it difficult to make a good "list of good things". There's always something about it that is problematic -- either I have to leave out something because it cannot be revealed, or I will offend people I don't want to offend (indirectly).

For a long time in my life I have had a short list of bad things in my life which I have always thought were very important. I still think that way, but this week I tried this experiment in which I write down good things.

I like to arrange concepts. Usually that takes the form of prose writing, and is like a short rough essay. The concepts may be bad things, good things, technical things, or some kind of reasoning or solutions. I usually begin after encountering something provocative, such as someone's email post, or an injustice, and I write an email about it.

Sentiment

I seldom pray the way a religious person would; but my father liked to say that everyone prays all the time, all prayers are answered, [so] be careful what you pray for. I think he was right, or if he was quoting somebody, then that person was right.

If I prayed like a religious person more, then maybe I'd have more of an outlet for sentiments I am feeling. Tonight I am happy to have received a shipment of books from a relative, and happy in a vague sort of way that I'm on good speaking terms with both of my children and with almost everyone else I know. But most of my sentiment, lately, more than when I was younger, is about mortality, which is the way it's been since my parents each died a few years ago.

Here's the thing about mortality which I've figured out: It is a natural thing. It would be reasonable to not fear it any more than one would fear being sick for a while. For me this is a discovery. I did not realize it, as much, earlier in my life.

We are like leaves on a tree. The tree is more important than the leaves. Identify not only as a leaf, but also identify with the tree, the forest, the planet, the universe, and with principles or with your God.

We each have an awareness. We are aware of what happens while we are alive. When we die, that kind of awareness stops (presumably). (Or if you believe it continues, then you can be happy about that, in this benign universe with its benign God or its benign unGod.) Presuming that there is a real comprehensive death, then our waking moments and our awareness extend only to our living moments; therefore, for one's living awareness one's death does not even exist: one is never aware of being dead.

I would regret dying soon, but that is for two reasons which would not have to be. One reason is that I (and close associates) have not yet made good practical preparations for my death. The other is that I (and close associates) am(/are) not fully philosophically and emotionally understanding the naturalness and benign-ness of death. The problems are not really about death per se, but rather about life and about understanding.

Finally (and this is like a prayer of praise), I am happy that, even when I don't understand, and even when I do everything wrong, the universe is (ultimately) still benign, the God is still benign, and the unGod is still benign.

As for my parents, I feel sentiment about them, too.

Some people use the word "love". But today I am thinking that love is like air; or for a fish it is like water. If we are always surrounded by it (which is the way I feel in this moment), it is not a thing to be defined, because it is everywhere and not distinguishable from everything else.

The Privatization of Air

Here in the USA we are used to the privatization of land, and some of us are aware that in some place in South America there has been an attempt (by an outside corporation) to privatize water.

How would that work: privatized water? I guess it means that if you want some water then you have to pay the corporation for it.

If you want some land, you either pay for it, steal it, or instigate a war and pretend that the land is somehow yours.

Nobody created the land itself, though they may have created or improved what's on it.

I think air is -- or will be, some day -- subject to the same basic notions as land is now in the USA, and as water could be in some places. You need land, air, and water, to sustain your life and the lives of your family. You may (if not already, then someday) pay someone for the land, the water, and the air. Why not? If it makes sense for one natural resource, why not for all natural resources?

In one possible scenario, people will first pay for air in space colonies, and then later some entrepeneurs will transport the idea to the planet. What's good for business in space colonies is good for business on Earth.

In another possible scenario, an engineering corporation will create a new kind of oxygen molecule, which will be "accidentally" or otherwise leaked into the environment and will drift around such that the corporation will be able to sue for patent infringement whenever anyone else is discovered in possession of said molecule. There's already something like that going on for corn, using genetic engineering and the wind (which blows seeds). There are all sorts of possibilities (such as engineering a disease for which only you hold the (patented) cure) and all these things can be very profitable, and likely supported by the U.S. and its Supreme Court. The United Nations or the World Court may not like it, but they don't have enforcement powers (bombs).

So what you may want to think about, just to plan ahead, is to save up some air, maybe compressed air in tanks, and bury it in your back yard (if you don't trust the air banks). Then when air becomes scarce you will be positioned for the kill -- economically of course. I mean you could sell part of it for a big profit and breathe the rest. Everyone who didn't save up any air would be at such a disadvantage, you might end up living a long time.

Me and Religion

I have a postulate and an example. The example came first so I'll tell it first: When I was a boy I absorbed, from church, the notion that there was everlasting suffering in Hell for individuals, for wrongs committed in a finite lifespan. That is the start of my example.

I cannot prove such things one way or the other. One can apply logic, but that does not suffice to resolve such an enormous issue. After all, there could be a God which can do anything and which we mere humans cannot fathom. So I do what I can: I apply logic, and I can have a faith. Logic tells me that it doesn't make sense that there would be everlasting suffering for a person as a consequence of whatever he or she did in a finite lifespan. Logic also indicates to me that a God worth caring about is not petty nor maliciously tricky.

Logic can only take you so far, but not all the way into the religious issues. Part of what we are is faith. My faith is simple and sturdy. It is that "The All Is Not Bad". (That's my postulate, axiom, and faith.) The All (the universe and everything in it, including whatever God or Gods may be in it, and in all its dimensions including time and emotion), altogether in its net effect, is not horrible, not maliciously governed, not an eternity of suffering for most well-meaning people; rather, it (the All) is at least benignly neutral, or possibly "good".

That's my faith. I cannot prove it is true, but that's how all faiths are: not provable. My faith is that being sensible and well-meaning is good, and that the supreme God over all, if one exists, is not going to punish us for being sensible and well-meaning.

Some people think that a lack of reverence for their God implies a wanton, careless, and bad life. I don't see it that way. I don't say I have a "reverence for God"; rather, I am more inclined to say I am trying to hold onto what is good, important, and lasting. My lack of religious-speak does not imply any shallowness.

Some people think the question of whether God exists or not is the First Big Question that has to be answered, and that everything else depends on how it is answered. But I say, it is not the main issue. I say, yes God exists, though I don't know exactly what that means and am not much concerned over exactly what it means; but more importantly, The All Is Not Bad, whether God is in it or not. Believing as I do that the All is not bad, I have hope for myself and for everybody, and I can believe that each suffering will come to an end, and that aspirations can be fulfilled. I can believe that whatever we really need can be obtained. I can believe, for example, that if it matters, then a loving God exists.

But if I did not believe that the All is not bad -- if I believed that the All might be bad -- if I believed, as many people have been taught in churches to believe, that a Supreme God would impose a horrible everlasting punishment for a finite sinful life, then I would not have much hope, and could fear, but not love, such a mean God. And I _would_ fear and obey such a God, if I were sure that was how things really are. But I can never be sure of that, and it may be that that kind of belief would be the wrong path -- the path that the real God disapproves of and hates.

I live, or try to live, my little mortal life in such a way that I have no major moral regrets. If it turns out that my faith is wrong, and it turns out that I'll go to Hell, I won't have any good reason to feel guilty about it. I will have tried to be a decent person and live as I suppose the real God would approve. (I won't be anywhere near perfect -- but the real God, as I believe him/her/it to be, respects reasonable efforts.) I could be wrong, and thus I might be a victim of a petty malicious God that tricked me by giving me a brain to be logical with; but if that is so, then its opposite might as easily be so, and any other statement might as easily be so -- one can never be sure that one small tricky God in particular is the real Supreme Being Over All.

April 23, 2010, 10pm, home alone

I am at home alone, the house-cleaners left, and I already took the kids' stuff to them. They are at their mom's house for a few days.

Tomorrow I can't work much because the computers I would need are down. In the evening I'll go to the Arab American Cultural Center for the first time, and get a copy of the book "Mornings in Jenin" which according to a reviewer is an easy and exciting read. Why not. I can't work because the computers are down. And it's the weekend so I might read a book.

I will also get some exercise. I had planned on training for a marathon but that plan has changed. Now I am training to walk a half-marathon. I know I can do that because I did it several times when I was younger, but back then I didn't call it a half-marathon; it was just walking to Blackwell, and back home later the same day, and that was as far as two half-marathons. With a little care and and a few months of training, I should be able to walk a half-marathon now even if I am 56 years old. The other exercise I'll do, tomorrow, is lifting light weights at the gym. I've been doing that fairly regularly for a couple of weeks. It hasn't made any noticeable difference, except that I feel better.