What Is Living?

I spend a lot of time on my business. Sometimes I feel that I am missing out on life. But strangely, I've come to accept this lifestyle. Maybe it's because I have a feeling of satisfaction at the end of my day: I've helped people, and made some money in return. I truly enjoy my line of work. It would be fair to say this isn't "work" but rather my life, my purpose. That's a nice feeling. It compensates for the lack of time for other things.

There are times when I muse on an alternative life: coming home to kids, going to the park or to my kid's school play; being an active member of a church, etc. Or traveling the world and working on my hobbies at home. Yes, that would be nice. It's something to look forward to. But in the meantime, I am happy doing what I do today.

Life is the here and now. It is about doing what you love. It's about not forgetting those who are close to you, those you care about: spouse, family, and friends. It's about remembering to find the positive in a situation. It's about recharging yourself spiritually from time to time. It's about enriching yourself with the treasures life offers; whether its a museum, a local theater, a city park, a nice fishing spot, or a nice coffee shop. It's about learning about others and trying to live among them in peace. It's about making yourself aware of what's happening in the world around you, and doing what is necessary to help preserve what you have. It's about giving thanks, for appreciating the small things in life as well as the big things. It's about not forgetting to say "I love you", "I appreciate you", "you are wonderful", "thank you", "how are you?". It's about acting like you did when your were a kid from time to time. It's about realizing that life is short, and not having any regrets during the last minute of your life.

What I Don't Like About the Muslim Religion

The Muslim religion is flawed. It calls for the oppression of women; directly and indirectly. Some would argue against this observation and claim that "extremist followers" of the Muslim faith are to blame for the injustices against Muslim women. They are wrong. The practice is too widespread for it to be blamed on a fringe group of worshipers. There is something really wrong, really bad with the Muslim faith. And to me, it is this flaw that keeps Middle Eastern countries a step behind Western nations. A country cannot reach its full potential if it oppresses 50% of its population. You can't force your women to hide in gowns and expect job opportunity and innovation to flourish. You can't force your women to be escorted by a male relative if she leaves the house and expect happiness in the home. You can't deny your women education, jobs, participation in sports, participation in government, religion and civil service and expect your country to compete with the rest of the world. You can't make it acceptable for male relatives to murder their sisters and mothers just because they show an interest in another man.

Muslim men are worst sexists on the planet. They are insecure with themselves; they don't know how to handle their women. They are unnecessarily afraid and intimidated by their women, so they hold them down. Let me tell you, the human spirit refuses to be held down indefinitely. If it can't free itself from oppression, it dies and in the process, takes something with it. The poverty and poor standard of living that we see in many regions in the Middle East aren't without reason. It stems from the injustice that is being constantly waged on half the population.

Sadly, I do not see this changing; as a matter of fact, it is getting worse. The Taliban have resurrected themselves in Afghanistan (thanks to Bush prematurely pulling troops out and sending them to fight in Iraq), and the more fundamentalist Shiites are starting to enforce traditional Muslim rule since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. The Middle East is the worse place for a women to live. I feel sorry for those who suffer there; they are prisoners in their own country.

When Force Isn't The Answer

We all should know by now that raw force rarely resolves problems. Pouring billions of tax dollars a month into Iraq over the last two years has not improved the conditions over there. Each bomb that is dropped just strengthens the resolve of the terrorists. Rather than go on and on about the failures in Iraq, I offer a few, simple analogies to illustrate my point:

1. More money has not stopped illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico. It is as bad as its ever been.
2. More money has not resulted in a cure for cancer, despite the War on Cancer proclamed by Nixon in the early 1970s. It still remains the number one killer.
3. More money has not stopped illegal drugs. They continue to make it past our borders.
4. More money has not killed all the cockroaches, mosquitos and rats in this country. They will continue to survive until the end of the world.

And, I submit to you that more money will not wipe out terrorists. They operate on a different level of reasoning. They are not afraid of death; as a matter of fact, they welcome it. Our soldiers do not want to die, so who is going to hold out the longest? The terrorists don't care for the luxuries we enjoy. It is not their goal to have iPods, laptops, X-boxes, and DSL. We have it all wrong. All they want is a roof over their heads, modest food, peace, and the freedom to pray five times a day. That's it. If this insanity continues, the U.S. will drive its economy into the ground and will eventually meet the same fate of the Roman empire. More successful terrorist attacks will expedite this process. Terrorist can disrupt oil production in the Middle East, which would put a strain on our economy. Small nuclear attacks in major cities will not only kill thousands of people, but will send the stock market into a crash. We need to find a peaceful solution, a compromise. And time is running short.

We need to go back to "speak softly and carry a big stick," not Bush's "scream loudly and drop big bombs." Why can't we just leave them alone? We can always come back with the big guns if they turn against us. But if we leave them alone (pull our military out of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iraq) and foster trade and tourism with them, what reason would they have to attack us? Some people think the Quran commands Muslims to kill all non-believers of the Muslim faith. I'm not convinced. There are no historical records of unprovoked Muslim attacks against non-Muslims, going back thousands of years. I have never been approached by a Muslim "Evangelist" who tried to persuade me to attend a mosque. Some of the pro-war people say the terrorists hate us and want to hurt us because they are "jealous of our freedom." This is just part of the fear scheme that the Bush administration would like you to believe. Do you see Muslims attempting to duplicate our lifestyle? Yes there are rich Arabs who are converting sections of their countries (Dubai, in particular) into lavish resorts that exceed even U.S. standards, but they aren't the ones trying to kill us. If it were true that Muslims were jealous of our freedom, I think you'd be seeing some kind of futile effort on their part trying to duplicate it. It's silly and egotistical for Americans to think that Muslims want to bring down the U.S. because they are jealous of us. It's not logical. It can't be true because it doesn't agree with their conservative, religious lifestyle. My point is that Muslims DON'T CARE about what we do with ourselves; they only take offense when we INFRINGE on their way of life; i.e. maintaining military bases in Saudi Arabia (considered by Muslims to be holy land, the cradle of their civilization); dropping bombs decimating villages and killing civilians; and showing favoritism towards Israel. Why can't we realize this and do something before it's too late? Think about the future of your children. What kind of world are they going to live in when they reach adulthood? So, the next time you hear one of those Right-Wingers call for the heads of the "terrorist Muslims" and shout down anyone who dares object, you have a duty to take a baseball bat and crack him/her over the head, because it is these very people who are pushing us away from a peaceful, reasonable, workable solution. The major offenders are: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Matt Drudge, and John Savage. These people are literally going to get your children killed one way or another. Tune them out; don't listen to their poison. They are misguided miscreants who've got it all wrong.

Bias in Reporting

News, whether it's print, internet, live or televised is supposed to be objective. This is the most basic code of journalism. Editorials, much of which comprise this blog, are understandably biased and opinionated. There is nothing wrong with biased information, as long as it is delivered in the proper context. A reporter on CBS News should not inject bias, for his only job is to deliver the facts. His audience is the general public. A lecturer on college campus delivers information in a more private (as opposed to public) setting. He is able to speak more freely and express his opinions as though they were facts. The listeners are left to decide what they believe. This atmosphere of free and unrestricted dialogue is why universities have historically served as the crucible of societal change.

Yes, this blog is biased. Although I strive to maintain fairness and consider opposing positions on the issues I address, I believe that empassioned writing is more effective and definitely less boring than a "compromising" style of writing. This is precisely how the Republicans made their gains in 2000, and how the Democrats lost touch with the American people. The Republicans had a clear message that was easy to understand, whereas the Democrats stood for just about everything. The fact that the Republican message was emotionally charged and emphasized the fear card made their message all the more powerful. They invented weekly "talking points"-- basically, a carefully selected, bulleted list of items designed to promulgate the conservative agenda, piece by piece. The talking points (probably drafted by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney) were distributed to Republican lawmakers and media outlets and repeated over and over again. In 2000, the conservative movement was like a fine-tuned machine, military-like with a command and control center. It moved together, in synch like a school of fish. A Republican spokesperson in Florida would quote a bullet item on local news; another Republican in Iowa would quote the same thing a few hours later. They were clear. They were consistent. The clever Republicans knew that the attention span of most people is a few seconds, so they had to break their message up in snippets, and have them repeated over and over again by their agents at Fox News and conservative radio stations. Brilliant idea, flawlessly executed.

Fox News resorted to fear tactics and selective, unbalanced reporting following the 9-11 attacks and during the last two presidential elections. This was an irresponsible act, because as a mass media outlet, they abused their power and served as the messenger for the conservative agenda. They wrongly "took a side" when they should have remained neutral. It's like having the Super Bowl announcer favor one team over the other in his commentary.

The Neocons Are Wrong About the War on Terror

Karl Rove, the architect of George W. Bush's presidency, is at it again. He accuses Democrats of being "stuck" in the pre-911 mode. He insists that the current Administration's hard-line stance is needed to protect America from future terrorist attacks. This includes electronic eavesdropping on American citizens without court order. It also includes "staying the course" in Iraq, meaning, keeping troops there without set withdrawal dates.

I hate this pudgy weasel. He is the caricature of the beet-faced, tight-collared, right-wing, Republican "war hawk" know-it-all who loves to talk tough, despite not having served a single day in the military, nor having any special background in military history. He is basically unqualified to make such statements in a policy-making capacity. He has not paid his dues. But Rove is a dangerous man--not to the terrorists who he aims to destroy-- but to the American way of life.

You see, history is full of expamples of leaders who employ the most powerful technique of human motivation in order to push their agenda: FEAR. It's not anything new. The scheme is pretty simple-- declare an enemy(Iraq, Muslim "Terrorists"), convince the people that this enemy is a threat to their way of life, and label all those who speak otherwise (Democrats, people who stop to think) as traitors to the state. It's been done before. Hitler used it to build the Third Reich. Mussolini. Fidel Castro. Mao. All masters of the fear game. The scheming Neocons (notably Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Scooter Libby) realized that fear tactics were the only way to get the American public to accept their right-wing agenda. From what we see so far, the agenda called for more power to the Executive Branch, weakening of checks and balances between the branches of government, tax cuts for the rich, deficit spending, primarily for the war machine; reduction of federal funding of domestic programs to compensate for reduced tax revenue, challenges to the separation of church and state, challenges and downright disregard for scientific advisory boards (global warming, conservation, stem cell research, etc.), an experiment in empire building (Iraq), and the most unscrupulous of all, skirting campaign finance laws to add to the conservative war chest. The Neocons so far have been successful in most of their objectives, despite strong opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans.

In order to push through such a controversial agenda, the neocons quickly invoked fear tactics after 9-11, hoping to catch the public off guard in the emotional disarray that permeated the country during the months following the attacks. 9-11 was the Golden Egg that dropped into Bush's lap. It was an anointment from the heavens above; a license to depart from the traditional democractic principles that have held this country together for over 200 years in favor of a demagogic, unchecked rule. 9-11 served as a green light to hold public policy meetings in secrecy, thwart Congressional inquiries, foster cronyism, engage in war-profiteering, weaken environmental protection laws, weaken privacy laws, waste tax dollars, abandon funding for our public schools, libraries, parks, roads and bridges. It was a fortuitous event that enabled Bush to reward big campaign donors who stood to benefit from a protracted war (Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon, all aerospace corporations).

The Bush administration's post-9-11 planning was a devious, political scheme that fooled most ordinary people; and in my opinion, a success that rivals the success of the WTCs attack. Fox News contributed to this unscrupulous deception of the American people by providing visual aids and sound bytes. On the day the U.S. invaded Iraq, I remember, with disgust the Fox News anchor (Shepard) who giddily rattled off the various weapons of war, displaying their pictures for added effect as the US forces made their way towards Bagdad. Cobra Helicopters. C-130 Gunships. Bradley Fighting Vehicles. M-1 Abrams tanks. He couldn't help himself from cracking a broad smile and yukking it up. "We're going to KICK SOME SAND NI_ _ER ASS!!! HOORAY!!!" Well guess what, nimrod: It's four years later, terrorism is rampant in Iraq more than ever before, and the U.S. death toll is over 2,200 and climbing, with well over five times that number maimed and disabled for life. Doesn't sound like success to me. And what about those five colors of threat warnings? Where did they go? Fox News quit using them shortly after Bush defeated Kerry in 2004, which suggests that their use was for political purposes.

Bush's main legacy so far is making the world a sadder, more dangerous place to live. He shares this honor with the Muslim fanatical extremists. George W. Bush played perfectly into Osama Bin Laden's treacherous plan to instigate a holy war between the West and the Middle East; a war that continues to manifest. People should realize that Bin Laden's 9-11 attack did not end with destruction of the world trade centers in New York. Although devastating in scope, the 9-11 attack was just the opening salvo. Future damage to the U.S. will not be limited to more terrorist attacks. It will come in the form of a gradual decline in our quality of life -- not as dramatic as the complete destruction of two office high-rises, but just as damaging with wider ranging effects. Thanks to the ill-advised U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Middle East is on edge. More terrorists are joining the cause. Iran, seeing the aggressive U.S. actions in Iraq and the continued U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, desires to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians fear that they are next. How can we blame them? Palestinians recently voted for Hamas as their ruling party. Hamas is led my militants who call for the destruction of Israel. As the situation in the Middle East continues to destabilize, there will be a strong reason (this time a real, justifiable reason) to keep U.S. forces there indefinitely in order to protect our oil interests and to protect Israel. This will consume billions of tax dollars that would have otherwise gone towards domestic improvement projects. Our roads, bridges, schools, libraries and park systems will be the first to suffer; followed by the arts, medical research, student grants, foreign aid, and so on. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and China will invest heavily in their infrastructure while the U.S. is bogged down with military spending. In a matter of years, these countries will surpass the U.S. in technological innovation and commerce. The Right Wingers will continue to play the 9-11 fear card, will win more public offices and will convince Congress to allow electronic spying of its citizens, without court order. Pretty soon, the feds will use this new power to root out criminals in general, and in the process innocent civilians will be wrongly accused and imprisoned. This will tie up our court systems. As the Right Wingers get their way and go unchecked, we will soon see armed military troops in metropolitan areas, patrolling the streets and subway systems just like in Israel. We will feel a lot of tension as a society, as this new world order starts to sink in. Yes, pre-911 life will soon be a distant memory...

To reiterate, the U.S. continues to suffer damage four years after the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. A hundred years from now the history books will show that 9-11 was the most brilliant, successful act of terrorism in the history of mankind; a flawlessly executed operation whose gains wildly exceeded expectations. It was a bargain, too-- about 12 terrorist lives and a few years of training, perhaps costing less than a million dollars in all. A measly million dollars that shook the foundation of the most powerful country on the planet, and forever changed the course of history.

Armageddon, Anyone?

Religion transforms itself from a life-affirming practice to a destructive cancer when its followers embrace isolationist, segregationist views (us vs. them, believers vs. non-believers). Conflict is invevitable, because in society there are millions of people who are non-believers, or are luke-warm believers. When religious fundamentalists aren't in control of a country's government, they can be kept in check. When religious fundamentalists are in power, danger lies ahead: like gasoline and fire getting closer together.

In the case of the U.S., we have a President who caters to the Religious Right, and is a religious man himself. Whether or not he is a fundamentalist, only he knows. I believe that, based on my personal observation of his behavior, if it weren't for the political opposition (if it wasn't necessary to play the "political game" in Washington), President Bush would show his true colors as a fundamentalist Christian. He would outlaw abortion, cripple all institutions that stand for civic rights (labor unions, trial attorneys, advocacy groups, etc.) and restrict other religions, especially Muslims and Jews.

Here's the inherent danger of religious people in positions of power: to them, mortal life is subordinate, or less significant to after life. They reason that reaching the gates of Heaven is the only purpose of life--the supreme, ultimate goal. Mortal life is full of suffering, pain and sin, they believe. It is just a mere pit stop on the way to Heaven. Only when the soul leaves the mortal body and rests in Heaven can one experience true peace. While on Earth, the fundamentalists put into place policies that "smite the practices of the non-believers and sinners", damn the consequences. The death and destruction occurring in Iraq is a direct result of this practice. Bush believes that God told him to invade Iraq. Despite over an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, including babies, women and children; over 2,000 American troops killed; and over a hundred journalists and charity workers murdered, Bush is able to sleep well at night because he believes that God is on his side, and that all those dead people are in a better place now (except for the bad guys, who are burning in Hell). "Yeah, it must have been very bloody and painful the way they died, but at least it was quick," Bush's dull mind tells him. And, as a bonus to Bush and his ilk, the Iraq war is bringing the world closer to nuclear destruction; i.e., Armaggeddon. The fundamentalists have a sick, morbid attachment to nuclear annihilation, because it is something that is referenced in the Bible. In a very sick way, they welcome it, because it is judgment day: Sinners will meet their fiery death in Hell, while believers will reach the gates of Heaven and will finally be able to meed God. Everything in the universe will be perfect once again.

I truly believe that the U.S. went way too far this time in its long history of imperialism. Young Muslim men are heeding the call of their imams. They are interpreting the Quran in a way that compels them to attack infidels. They are bent on acquiring nuclear weapons technology to finally bring down the U.S. They will use the internet to solicit members, set up and activate sleeper cells in the U.S., and surreptitiously orchestrate mass destruction like 9-11. How about a small nuclear bomb at the Superbowl, or Times Square NYE, or the Las Vegas strip? What about all those nuclear warheads of the former Soviet Union? Over 25% of them are unaccounted for. There are a lot of Cold-War Soviet scientists living in anonymity whose nuclear bomb expertise is in high demand. Remember, many of them lost their jobs after the collapse of the USSR because their services weren't needed anymore. Here's the equation that spells danger for the world's future:

Wealthy Muslim Sympathizers + Angry Fanatical Muslim Terrorists + hundreds of obscure scientists who know how to make nuclear bombs, and need money + Internet = Big Explosions and Large Scale Deaths.

People foresaw this equation and kicked and screamed during the last two Presidential elections, but the wrong person got elected each time. The momentum of civilization's destruction are close to reaching critical mass, and once that happens, there is no saving the world.

To Sum It Up: F-you Ralph Nader. You screwed the world by running against Gore in 1999 despite strong warnings of the consequences. Screw you Al Gore, for running such a wimpy campaign and making the fatal mistake of deciding to distance yourself from Clinton(65% approval rating) to appease to the right-wingers who wouldn't have voted for you anyways. You too, Jeb Bush for committing a crime by illegally giving your lunatic brother Florida in 2000. To Hell with you, Supreme court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, for not allowing a recount to finish. And Colin Powell, may your guilty conscience plague you for the rest of your life. You were in a position to find a non-military solution to the Iraq problem, but like a house slave, you decided to abandon your better military instincts and instead chose to appease your white master. You lied to the world community when you made those bogus WMD claims to the UN. You are partly responsible for the beheadings and maimings and torture and death and destruction that continues to go on and on and on... General Powell, why did you decide not to serve in W's second administration? Couldn't stomach the consequences of your actions? You went to Pottery Barn, broke the expensive vase, and high-tailed out of the store. You know General Powell, you could have been President, but you kowtowed to the right wingers who talked you out of running against Bush. What a wimp you turned out to be.

Life is Bipolar

The events that drive life are opposing forces that cede to one another back and forth, like a tug of war. The result, of which there is no end, is life-- the current state of humankind. Just like the Earth that spins on its axis and around the sun, life is a closed circle. Here are word associations that describe what I'm talking about:

push-pull
conservative-liberal
yin-yang
destructive-constructive
restrictive-permissive
fire and brimstone-love and peace
force-persuade
give-take

You can see it right before your eyes: conservatives jousting with liberals on the best way to rule the country; the battle between religion and secularism; multiculturalism vs. race segregationists.

The Bush Administration, by virtue of its actions has divided the country in a way not seen since the Civil War. To be fair, such debate has been a part of American society since its earliest beginnings. But Bush is reinvigorating and giving momentum to the entities whose activities tend to divide. His policies have pitted citizen against citizen, brother against brother. And it has crossed the oceans. Iran is very close to building a nuclear weapon. They cannot be blamed for their apprehension towards the U.S. Bush, in his incredible demonstration of ignorance on the grandest scale, ordered a first-strike war against Iraq-- the first time in history that the United States military used deadly force without being directly provoked. It doesn't take a foreign policy expert to realize the effect such an action would make on the reputation of theU.S. This action served to confirm most peoples' beliefs that the goal of U.S. foreign policy is empirical rule, cloaked in a mission of promoting peace. We have lost our standing with fellow nations; we are a bully on the world stage. Bullies, as we all know, never grow up to be great people. Their selfish actions are the seeds of their destruction. Fellow Americans, the wheels of our demise as a great nation have started to turn, and they are gaining momentum.

Today's Thoughts On Religion

I learned that some sociologists believe that Europe is shrinking. Not coincidentally, Europe is becoming less religious and more secular. For whatever reason, less Europeans view religion as an important part of their lives than was the case a decade ago. Church attendance has steadily decreased over the last ten years among Europeans. The current generation is more interested in what "mortal" life has to offer, and has little interest in an "afterlife." There is a disconnect between the church and today's Europe; a rift that continues to widen. The theory is that with a de-emphasizing of a religious lifestyle, couples are foregoing sex for reproductive purposes and are engaging in sex for recreation. Abortion is available if unplanned pregnancies occur. The absence of a fear of an "eternal hell" results in the abandonment of traditional, moral behaviour and a surrender to the temptations of the secular, modern world. Personal restraint gives way to the temptations of lust, avarice, power. The traditional temptations that the Bible warns of have in essence become man's subconcious goals. One can see this happening by simply reading the news: CEOs pillaging their companies for personal greed; congressmen like Rep. Duke Cunningham whoring themselves out to the highest bidder; lobbyists and lawmakers like Tom Delay curry favoring to each other in order to gain more power without the peoples' vote; and of course, all the trash you see on TV: the Paris Hiltons of the world. The current birth rate in Europe is not sufficient to perpetuate the culture. Spain, France, England, and Germany have declining birth rates. For a country to grow, new blood is needed to advance technology, maintain the infrastructure, and contribute to the GDP, and of course, pay for social security for the rest of the population. By 2040, over 40% of Europe will be over 50 years old. Hence, the belief that Europe is "shrinking."

In 2001 Pat Buchanan, the staunch conservative, charged that liberals in the US are attempting to model American society after anti-religious Europe, and are succeeding. He cites the classic liberal stances on birth control, casual sex, abortion rights, gay marriage and separation of church and state. The controversy surrounding the celebration of Christmas can be added to this list. Can he be right? This begs the question, does man in fact need religion to save him from himself? Some will argue that there are many cases of perfectly normal, moral people who make it a part of their lives to do good deeds, like helping a fellow in need, caring for the environment, contributing to charity, and so on, who are not religious. They will also cite the fact that being religious does not make one immune to the dark behaviour that is found in non-religious individuals. John List was a devout Christian family man, a leader in his church somewhere in the Midwest. One day, he systematically shot his wife and three children, one by one, left their bodies in his living room, and moved to another state. He was apprehended almost 25 years later. Yes, criminal behaviour can penetrate even the most religious individuals. This group will also argue that many wars and genocidal actions in the world are religious-based. So to them, religion is not the salvation to the world's ills.

I used to hold this belief. But, as I see what is going on, I am forced to reconsider. If a statistical analysis was done on the number of murders, rapes, and other violent crimes that were comitted in the last ten years all over the world, I'm sure that the majority of the perpetrators do not consider themselves religious. I would love to know that percentage. Can it be over 90%? The same study should be done for white collar crimes. I think the result would be the same, but a lower percentage. So, if 90% of violent offenders are non-religious, this would show a negative correlation between crime and religion. This would serve as strong scientific evidence that religious beliefs may in fact curb violent behaviour.

To the progressives and liberals out there: don't hold prejudices against the practice of religion. The greatest of men had their faults, but they were still great men. Religion can be used in a positive manner. Seek it out, and become a better person. What good is life if, after all is done, everything ends? What's there to look forward to? Let religion help you find the answer to this question.

DP

Race and Behavior

Will the races ever get along? Will racism ever cease to exist? What is the best approach to improve race relations?

In an ideal world, the color of one's skin shouldn't matter. One should treat an individual without any preconceived notions or prejudice related to his race.

Here's the problem: race is the primary identifier of an individual, followed by sex(How many times have we heard on the news, "the suspect was described as a white/black male, 6' tall wearing....). Ever since the first Homo Sapiens walked the earth, he has learned to differentiate others of his kind by observing the most obvious characteristics: skin color and sex. Perhaps a DNA code developed over the millenia that causes modern humans to key into a person's race when interacting with that person. If that's the case, there is a scientific basis for the roots of prejudice. Prejudice may the expression of a primal gene that once caused man to catalogue the racial characteristics of his competitors as he tried to survive in the new world.

Social factors reinforce race-behaviour associations. The scientist Pavlov showed that learning occurs primarily by association (his famous dog salivation-bell experiments). If a person is repetitiously exposed to an event, his subconcious mind, in an attempt to comprehend the event will break it down into in its basic components. If there is a discernable pattern, his mind will associate the individual components when he sees them in his environment.

Here's how the above analysis applies to race relations: It can be observed that certain ethnic groups exhibit behaviours that are common (but not necessarily exclusive) to them. The word for this is "stereotyping," but let's be serious. The statement "Filipinos are very tight with their money" may be offensive to some, but let me tell you, this statement is not all that inaccurate. Or Chinese people push their children too hard to excel in academics. Or Mexican couples tend to have more children than whites or asians. Or Indians eat a lot of curry and have pungent-smelling homes. Or African Americans are better at sports and dancing than whites. Are these assessments racist, stereotyping or are they simply the truth? If they are the truth, then why be offended? The answer that immediately comes to mind is that it is better not to prejudge people based on their race, because first of all it isn't nice. Secondly, you could be wrong and you may offend that person. Here's the problem with this answer: humans are constantly judging things around them. Forget that notion that "thou shalt not judge." Judging is instinctive and in our genes. Early man had to judge the situation around him every minute of the day in order to survive. Is that caveman from the other tribe going to club me in the head when I sleep, and take my mate? Is that sabre-toothed tiger going to try to ambush me? Is that auto mechanic going to try to rip me off? Remember when you were in college, and your buddy told you he's got a hot date for the weekend? Instinctively your mind pictured what that woman might look like. If you are a minority, and your buddy as well, the first question to your friend would be, "what is she-- white or (fill in the blank with your race)?" Skinny or fat? Inquiring minds want to know! So with respect to our subsconcious or conscious judging of people, race unfortunately to the idealists, is fair game. If you don't admit it, you are just kidding yourself.

What I try to do when I encounter someone is suppress the natural urge to judge that person by his race, and view him neutrally. Once my senses have absorbed his physical characteristics, my mind will evaluate him based on his behaviour. If he exhibits behaviour commonly associated with his race, then that race-behaviour association is strengthened. It may be harmless and not have an effect on my impression of that person; it may be harmful and cause me to dissociate myself from him; or it might be annoying, but bearable. I've experienced all three during my lifetime.

Criminal behaviour crosses all racial lines. Violence, crime and "aggressive, intimidating" behaviour are more likely to be committed by poor, uneducated people, who are disproportionately minorities, particulary blacks and Hispanics. How they came to be poor, unfortunately, is irrelevant to the subject at hand. By virtue of the fact that blacks and hispanics disproportionately commit violent crimes (a degrading statistic that is made available to the population through the media), a race-behaviour association is developed. Hence, you have the old white lady in the elevator clutching her purse with all her might when a black person enters. Yes, this is profoundly unfair to African-Americans as a whole, but I'm not addressing the issue of fairness in this post. White teens are getting a reputation of doing larger scale, more visible crimes; i.e., school shootings. If white teens continue to commit school shootings, an unfavorable race-behaviour association will be attached to this group. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are on their way to being stereotyped as greed-obsessed, heartless old white males. But with their money and power, I'm sure that's the least of their worries.

Yes, racial differences make our society interesting. It is a test for humanity for us all to get along. Almost 40 years after Martin Luther King's death, we've seen big strides in race relations, but problems persist. It's like the curve is flattening out. With the terrorist situation going on, I think the problems are going to get worse, especially for those of Middle Eastern descent. Can it be that primal gene expressing itself? Who knows.

Aging

I visited my alumni website today. Saw some pictures of some old college classmates. Many have children, some in their teens. Me--age 41, happily married, no kids. Can't complain, feel like I'm in good health. Gray hairs at about 10% of total. Too much to pluck at this point. Considering Grecian formula 44. Attractive women still get my attention. Still get the freaky thoughts when I see the hotties, just like any regular, healthy guy. Seems like college wasn't that long ago. I'm just happy to be alive. Only concern is my accomplishments; or lack thereof. Have my own business, but don't own a home. Have debt, minimal life savings. I need to either make the big dollars in the next 10 years, or be prepared to work till I'm 70 in order to retire. I'd love to travel overseas, but I'd also be happy doing things in the good old USA. Like camping, fishing, hunting, golfing, sailboarding, sailing, participating in intellectual or social organizations, and partying with good people. I wish I could live to age 200, because life is exciting.

Why Can't We Be Friends?

Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister recently suffered a major stroke. As of this writing, he is in a medically-induced coma.

Pat Robertson, the self-proclaimed sentinel of the Religious Right suggests that Sharon's illness was brought on by God in retaliation for his order to withdraw Israelis from the Gaza strip. Robertson believes that "God does not want Israel to divide HIS land."

The president of Iran, a radical Muslim hopes that Sharon dies.

Radical Muslim. Religious Right Sentinel. Both finally in agreement. An agreement to Hate.

What has become of religion? Was Karl Marx's famous statement, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" a harbinger of things to come? I am still struggling to understand the purpose of religion-- the utility of it; the necessity of it-- in our society. Is it to keep man from murderous rampage, perverted behaviour, and soulless destruction of his environment? Is it to give man hope that, yes, there is more to life after you die? I understand that it can be very scary to not know what the future holds, and that having religious beliefs can offer some sense of order and reassurance. That's a fine concept. But organized religion seems to be gaining center stage in the business of hate. Muslims crashing planes into buildings. Christians endorsing the plan to lay destruction to an unrelated Muslim land in response to the 9-11 attacks. What's next, a throw-down between the Hari Krishnas and Buddhist Monks? Somebody get me outta here!