Living In Reality's Limitations

I hope you all had a good weekend. I had a lousey weekend. Channel eleven on my TV stopped coming in Sunday. I guess the station is doing one of their legondary cuts in transmission power. The other time it lasted from June 12th to June 30th when the station again began coming in. But that wasn't my only problem. Due to the insistance of my family and a certain member in particular, I am now going to a different dentist, and this one found more problems with my teeth and a bigger bill, thankfully for me not to pay. Someone once said that people are inclined to believe in conspiracys when they feel a lack of control of the events of their own lives. If you're going to say that, do you want to scratch out the word "feel". I get so tired of people saying "so and so is insecure" meaning NOT that they ARE in an insecure position but that they FEEL insecure and that it somehow isn't REAL. The list of things that some people don't call real would blow your mind. Today I managed to spit the hook on a financial matter. A lady wanted me to go buy her some cigarettes and she gave me eighteen dollars. But I knew the bill would be at LEAST nineteen from a reliable source, so finally she just said "I'll get someone else to do it". Of course the whole subject of my smoking has again come into the limelight. Other problems presented themselves in the course of the weekend. One was the text of some family letters between two people who are both now dead, and these letters pose some disturbing questions I'd like answered. Also my modem has been playing mind games with me by showing three and not four lights making me think the internet was out on my computer. It used to always show four whether the computer was on or not.

In government Randy Rhodes recited the same sad litiny of events on the national scene. This Max Baccus bill and its connection with the "game of six" is in the news again. As I understand it, it's three democrats from conservative states, plus three republicans. The blue dog democrats are voting like republicans nowdays. When they were in power the republicans wanted "the nuclear option" where they would pass bills by a vote of 51 senators. As Randy tells it the democrats and liberals never even got to testify on the record so their words would be recorded. The republicans had a definite problem with this. They rammed through measures like nobody's business when they were in power. Now that the democrats have sixty senators, we'll still behaving like a minority party and above all it's republicans we need to please. They are defining all the issues, as well as all the terms. If indeed we only have a year left in power, you would think our side would make the most of it. Also today Randy talked about the 9 - 11 comission and only spending three million dollars, when for instance Whitewater was being investigated the Republicans spent forty million, with nothing at all to show for all that expenditure. President Clinton had to opperate under a very different set of rules from President Bush. There are gaps and holes a mile wide in the 9 - 11 investigation, giving it a grade of about D - , were you to assign a letter grade. None of the real issues were satisfactorily dealt with, and nobody even believes the scenario of events put forth. Witness were being yanked off the stand during their testimony for fear they might say something- - dangerous, that would involve having to answer more than a few embarrasing questions.

Our reaction to Iran is excessively slow and sloth like. If indeed Iran is as dangerous as I believe they might be, we need to vastly speed up our response timetable, with military action definitely an option, and soon. Why not "take care of the situation" now, while there is still something that can be done to nip their nuclear ambitions in the bud? Hitler got valuable time to advance his plans in the 1930's due to the slowness of the Western nations to react to the clear and present danger Hitler posed.

In Federation football the Federation are the X's and Alcyonne are the O's. Tbe X stands for dynamic power and the O stands for imposed limitations. Sometime you can win against your enemy merely by imposing limitations on him, and trusting that he will not go beyond them. As Thom Hartman says, in economics, even the winners only win because the rest of us agree to be "limited". We all agree we won't rob banks or hold the rich up in their transport of money. We agree to rig the table so that they win every time, and agree to limit ourselves to a perpetual disadvantage. We agree with patent laws which a few isolated and perhaps undeserving people very rich. We agree to turn Wall Street into a gambling casino with bizzare options that were never legal before. It is if we played football with different yard markers for their side verses ours, and that we moved the goal posts around at will, and gave their side five downs for every turn while our side settled for three. And we agree to have the referees to have selective blindness never seeing what our oponet does that's against the rules. There is a very profound truth about poor people Dylan once gave voice to, "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose". There is something about human nature that if you go too long without "winning" you get restless and "Make yourself another set of rules" again to quote Dylan. And the other side just might not be happy with these "new rules" if you decide to play the "game" where you are terrorist and the other side plays the part of the "rich, scared capitalist". But to quote a psycho therapist, the game only "works" if both sides agree to the "roles" they are playing. This axiom of psychologists thus gives the true terrorist a permission slip that he might not have obtained any other way.

Obviously the previous paragraph was speaking in the abstract and the hypothetical. I have asked myself on occasion, "Do you think your harsh remarks about Christians last week put out a lot of negative karmic energy?" First of all I have control to influence very little. The things I said last week were ongoing realities whether I actually SAY them or not. Do I have it personally in for James Dobson? No, I don't. In fact I think that had he only started his ministry ten years earlier than he did, when I was young enough to be helped by him, Dobson could have been a useful ally. The observations of people like Dr. Phil and Dobson- - are quite ofter right on, and to the point and address problems squarely. Lord knows my own family never did this. I would be the first to say that "In some other lifetime, in some other world" me and Born Again Christianity may have been the best of friends. But in this lifetime it just didn't work out that way. If the axiom is true that "to allow something to happen is to endorse its occurring" then to me this creates a lot of Explaining that God will need to be doing in the afterlife. Personally I have doubts as to whether he is up to it.