Wealth in the US

According to Ron Paul's website:
Top 1% own 38.1%
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5%
Bottom 40% of population has 0.2% of all wealth

These figures indicate that 10% of the US population own 70.9% of the wealth.  At present time our political system supports and is facilitating this income distribution.

While I am definitely not a socialist, what does this say about our society?   I hear it often that the poor just are people who do not want to work.  There are jobs out there.  If they would just go to work for McDonald's they would do better.  However, these statistics indicate that the wealth of this country is already taken and the rest of us have to share in the remaining 29.1%.

Politically, I don't understand the 90% of the population who are so supportive of the policies facilitating this distribution of wealth.  If I were to believe in conspiracy type theories, I would wonder of the media has somehow taken control of our minds.  It does not make sense to me that these individuals would be so supportive of those who have seized the wealth of the nation.  Wall Street manipulators, responsibile for the recent financial crisis, for example have done quite well in the past few years while most in the US have struggled to pay their bills.  It would seem to me that if anything our policies would want to err on the side of the poor.  Even if we would increase their wealth by say 500%, they would then only have 1.0% of the overall wealth, hardly a number that would threaten the wealthy.

Washington is concerned about the national debt.  You would think they would focused on those who have the most resources to address this debt.  Yet, they instead turn to we, the 90%, who can least afford it.  Even if the government took the entire wealth of the lowest 40% it would not solve the problem.  They simply do not have enough.

I guess I just don't get it.  I am clueless.

Parents, Children, and God

I have great respect for those who choose to accept the responsibility of bringing a person into existence.  That is the greatest responsibility I can imagine.  Before your action, this person simply did not exist in this reality and  as a result of  your decision, either plan or unplanned, a person has been created.  Whatever this individual experiences, your choice allow him or her to exist.  I have always been a much too selfish person to accept such responsibility.

What a burden this responsibility must be for someone who believes in a literal hell complete with God's Damnation.  Even parents with the best intentions may discover problems when raising a child.  Certainly, good parenting skills set the odds in favor that the child will be socialized in an acceptable manner but part of the maturation process is revolt against the old paradigm.  This revolt could lead to a unacceptable lifestyle with the resulting heretical beliefs and thus possible damnation.  It would seem to me if a parent believe his child had died and gone to hell then this parent would never be free from guilt.   He or she is ultimately responsible since it was their choice to bring this person into existence.

If God is the creator then this scenario would also seem to apply.  For if one chooses to create does that not imply responsibility for the creation.   Let's say I create a robot and program it to have various independent choices of behaviors.  If one of these choices resulted in behavior that  harmed or killed someone who would be to blame, the robot or the creator.  I would imagine a court of law would hold the creator liable.    If I gave the robot even more freedom and then declared this robot as a free agent, would this change anything?  I would still be liable in a court of law for his actions.

It would seem God would also share this liability.   As the story goes, God created everything.  He created the very physics which operates in a precise fashion that allow atoms to exists.  He created gravity to allow for the formation of galaxies and solar systems.  He create life and the resulting creatures.  As a result he is ultimately responsible for everything and whatever happens to you or me is a result of God's action to create.

I choose to believe we have free will limited by the realities of our existence.   We are subject to the laws of physics and to various societal mores.  We are also limited by the programming we received during the socialization process.  God on the other hand apparently had complete free will and his intervention into creating our reality was fully his choice and thus the resulting responsibility for this creation is his alone.  Both the good and the bad would not exist if had not acted.

I choose to believe there is an overall purpose to this existence.  I do not have the slightest idea what my part is other than I feel it is best for me to live a somewhat moral life.  I say somewhat since that is the way I have lived.  I don't choose to confess my shortcomings at this time but simply admit that at times I have acted in ways upon later reflection I do not approve.   Why do I believe this morality?  One of the main reason for my belief is it makes me feel good to believe in a purpose rather than in meaninglessness (is that a word?) universe.  Maybe not the only reason but one that does seem to work for me.  I wish I could say I have had some great revelation verifying these ideas but I continue to await such an experience.  Meanwhile, I just do the best I can.

My Problem with Atheism

If I understand the idea, Atheist believe that there is no type of universal intelligence in the background of the universe.  Plato's forms exists only in Plato's imagination.  The only metaphysical aspect to the universe is some mistaken phenomena that science has yet to address and which will ultimately be explained in strictly materialistic terms.

One can not address this question with empiricism.  I have found no scientific methodology offered which would adequately explore this issue.  So the answer to the question of the existence of God is ultimately one of subjective opinion.  It seems this leave you with a 50/50 odds of having the correct assumption.

I point this out to reach my problem with atheism.  If God does not exist in any form then I can not see how there can be such a thing as morality.  Morality would require some organizing universal principal operating in this reality.  Now I am not addressing any specific aspects of that morality or how that morality operates, just the fact for morality to exist there must be something generating the principals.   It would seem to me this organization would require some type of intelligent consciousness.  If God does not exist then morality is simply the subjective and relative opinion of the individual.

This would mean "right or wrong" would only exist in the sense of my personal goals related to my survival.  I might add others to my morality since it would be helpful to me for others to survive, but morality would only exist as an agreement which facilitated my group's survival enhancing my personal survival.  It would simple be an evolutionary function.

While I believe you could make an argument for this viewpoint I disagree.  I feel there are at least some behaviors that are simple wrong.  I could give examples of such behaviors and could easily fill this page with actions I feel are just simply "wrong".  These "wrongs" have nothing to do with survival and in some cases would not facilitate survival of the group.

I also feel there is a "right" way to live one's life.  There are some basic laws which facilitate a "good" life.  These laws go beyond survival and add to a higher "purpose".  If there is no God then this is a ridiculous statement.  There would be no purpose to this life other than living it.  Atheist say this is enough, just to live a your materialistic life.  I disagree, if living this life simply means completing the biological processes of life and making various survival choices along the way with no higher purpose than survival then in my opinion life is not worth living.   You are born, you live, you die, you are no different from an amoeba other than you have a few more behavioral options.   I choose to believe there is such a thing as the "good life" and there is an overall purpose to this existence.  I do not see how this could be true without some type of  organizing principal to the universe.   I refer to this as God.

Now, the nature of God is for the next book.

My Political Bias

My political bias tends to create an internal conflict between wanting the government to err on the side of those who need assistance and freedom of the individual.  I feel in a civilized society various segments of the population should be protected, i.e. the very young and the very old.   I also feel that individuals in a free society should have the right to make poor choices and be responsible for those poor choices.   However, society should be protected from these poor choices if they have a negative impact on others.  For example a person should be able it ingest whatever substance he chooses but others should be protected from his diminished capacities such as in operating a vehicle.    A person should be free to choose to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle; however, in the case of a resulting severe head injury society should not bear the medical costs should he survive.

I feel government should ensure children have the basic needs,  food, safety, and shelter.  Education should be a basic right of everyone and everyone should have the opportunity to obtain at least a Bachelor's Degree or some technical equivalent.   Time should be spent in the educational system evaluating students and preparing them for appropriate directions for their future careers.  This requires guidance given to students as to their realistic abilities and how to best develop these.  One should be free to choose their path but they should be provided good information to aid them in their decisions.  I know during my education I had no guidance as to what options I should  consider.  

I feel medical care should be a basic right; however, it should be administered with some limitations.  Children should be given priority.   Beyond this there are some very difficult questions.  These involves one's rights in a free society.  If one chooses to overindulge in alcohol over a period of time, then this should be the responsibility of the individual rather than the society.   Society would not have the responsibility for the medical costs resulting from such activity.  The question of whose bears the cost is simple but the administration of such a policy would be very difficult.  How do you determine if the person drank too much or had some type of liver defect?  These would present many such problems and there is always danger in a free society with anyone having such decision making powers.

There is another very difficult question that we as a society will have to address at some point.  This relates to end of life issues.   Most people spent more on medical costs during the last six months than they do during the rest of the lives.    These procedures are very expensive and in most cases only serve to extend a poor quality of life a few months.    How should our society address such issues?   As for myself, in my present state of mind I prefer to let nature take its course.  However, if and when I have to address that issue I may indeed become very greedy and not care about the cost to society.  I may simply want to extend my life as long as possible.   However, at some point this issue will bankrupt our medical system.

My main complaint of our political system at this time is that politicians seem to have one major issue: reelection.  This seems to dominate both parties and I no longer care to listen to politicians speak.  Depending on their party, you already know what they are going to say because they always use the sound bytes of their particularly party.  It seems to be a sin for a politician to have an original thought.   Of course, this may have always been true but in the past there seemed to be more statesmen, more concerned about their country than their election results.

Why Is There Anything?

It seems it would have been a lot easier if the universe simply never existed.  There would be neither good nor bad, no wars would have been fought, and sickness and death would not be an issue.  For Christians Jesus would not have had to die, God would not have had to be upset with Adam and Eve nor Noah's generation, and would have avoided all the problems he had with the Jews.

When you think about it a lot exists.  The universe is large, much larger than one can imagine.  Our Milky Way galaxy has billions of stars and there are billions of these galaxies.  Now that is big.  Some physicists says there are multiple universes so this means even our entire universe is relatively insignificantly in the overall scheme of things.  Now doesn't that make me feel little.

This stuff has either existed forever or else was created.  Well, it is not even that simple.  Because time only begins to exist inside a particular universe when it is created.  Before it is created then as physics indicates time does not exist.  I know, what does that mean?  That means if time does not exist then cause and effect does not exist and so even the notion of creation is illogical.  Something can not be created unless time flows.  What happened before our universe existed?  For our universe the answer is literally nothing in the most literal sense, no stuff, no space, no time, no nothing.  Then the Big Bang and stuff existed including time, so from our perspective inside the universe time began from nothing.  Does that make any sense?

So things do apparently exist.  We can not be absolutely sure about the nature of this existence because we can only judge things through our five senses which are then filtered through our individual biases based on our experiences.   Yet, it does appear things  exist and it appears that I exist.  It even appears that you exist too.  You could be a figment of my imagination but that would be very narcissistic of me.

This is where the subjective, less than logical side of me awakens and says there must be more than just what my simplistic empiricism indicates.   If this must I can perceive with my limited view then what must I be missing in the larger picture.  I am limited by my five senses, by my entrapment in the this 3D universe, and my extremely short life span.  What other realities must I be missing?

Human Knowledge

We humans think we know a lot.  We have computers and advanced electronics.  We can travel across the globe.  Yet, in the realm of actual knowledge of reality we have major gulfs of ignorance.

I read various philosophers and theologians and enjoy their elaborate theories on everything.  Yet, when I ask, "What is the validity of this particular ideal?" I am left empty.  Usually, the answer is because I said so.  Of course, then you read the next philosopher who rejects his predecessor's ideals and presents his own contradictory message the answer is again the same.  My theory is correct because I say so.  This seems to be true for both philosophical and theological ideas.  Of course, the theological ones also have the claim for metaphysical revelation as their validity.

It seems there is a vast gulf between objective and subjective statements of knowledge.  Objective knowledge such as obtained from scientific methodology gives what I call empirical data.  Data that can be verified by some type of experimental data that is repeatable.  Of course, our objective experience is subject to our filters of reality, our five senses and their entrapment in this three dimensional space.  Subjective experience which may be valid can only be experienced by the reporting individual.  Even when there is more than one person reporting the same experience the evidence continues to be located only in the consciousness of the reporting individual or individuals.   Thus both types of knowledge create problems but the fact that empirical knowledge can be experience by third person seems to add to his validity.

We humans are born into this reality, exist for a short span of time and then cease to exist.  Most individual's history are forgotten in a century or less.   Some suggest we have histories before we are born and others say that death is the beginning of a future existence.   The problem is we have no empirical evidence supporting such theories.  In fact there is a lack of evidence for either proposition; whether we exist before or after physical death.  We have many theories but these are all without empirical evidence and are based on subjective statements most of which originates from what people have believed in the past through various religious teachings.  These theories are many and often contradict each other even within the same system of thought.   Some theology is older, much more developed and complex but all suffer from the same deficit, lack of empirical evidence.

I am not saying this as a negative reflection on philosophy or theology.  I have my own subjective belief system.  I give it only as an example of the failure of our knowledge system to address such questions.  Is there a metaphysical dimension?  Is there no creative scientist who can design a method to study these type questions?  So far it seems to be the answer is no.

Public Education

I have never worked in the field of education although I am a product of public education.  I guess I would be considered an educational success.  I graduated public school, my middle class parents were able to provide the means to my obtaining a B.A. degree.   I then returned to school part time and obtained a M.A. degree.

My wife now teaches the Third Grade and has been a teacher for 16 years.  She is the teacher that knowledgeable parents requests for their children.  What I don't understand is the fact that not one of her current students are able to perform on the third grade level.  In fact most can not even perform on the second grade level.   Several do not know their alphabets.  Why is her designation third grade when she is not teaching third grade?

When I was in school I feel sure that the majority of my fellow students in a particular grade were functioning on that grade level.  Some classes were more advanced than others but all were more or less the same overall grade level.  In other words while some fifth grade classes might be less advanced than others, they were fifth grade levels.  If I did not succeed in mastering fifth grade materials I was given a grade of "F".   I would have failed the fifth grade and repeated that grade until I made a passing grade.  The fifth grade teacher was responsible for teaching fifth grade material which to me only makes sense.   There were classes for intellectually challenged students but these were on their on system of grading which did not apply to regular classes.

I understand this phenomena is not just at my wife's school but is common in public education.  It seems to me a principal would be opposed to such a inefficient means of providing education.  It would seem a student should remain in the appropriate teaching situation for his level of understanding.  Why would you want a student performing on the first grade level in a third grade class?   If a teacher has to divide her time to students of different abilities then she would be unable to excel with her proficiency in the grade she is suppose to teach.  If there are students in her class who are of the third grade level are they not being cheated since they are in their appropriate grade level class but are not receiving full attention for that grade level?

I can only surmise a student who "fails" must reflect negatively on some political statistic.  It would appear it is assumed that the failure is due to the incompetence of the school rather than some problem with the student.  Now I am in no way suggesting there are not incompetent teachers.  A teacher who passes a student who can not compete in the next level of work is setting that student up to fail. Thus, this becomes a moral issue of purposely not providing a student with his particular needs and setting him up for failure in order to improve the school statistics.

Is There Such a Thing as Evil?

Does evil exist as a thing in itself?

Is Darkness a thing or is it just the absence of Light?

From my experience individuals do not decide to do acts because they are evil.  They decide upon a behavior that serves themselves in a particular situation.  These behavior can certainly be judged as evil by an observer.  However, the individual chooses the act with a mindset of something beneficial to him or her many times without regards to its consequences to others.  A rapist sees rape as a satisfactory means to an end possibly a violent eruption of his libido that results in some type of release which he finds pleasurable.  The victim sees this as evil whereas the rapist sees it as some type of perverted pleasure.  This reflects his lack of concern about another person but the act itself is considered of some positive benefit to him or else he would not act.  The point is the rapist decided upon an act that he judges as "good" for him even though it is at the expense of another human.    BTW, I am in no way excusing rape, I am simply explaining a thought.

I would suggest no individual ever does an act because he or she sees it as evil.  These individuals may know the act is evil but they are doing it for a greater good, their good.  There are times when killing another human is considered a good thing such as someone resisting a rapist by shooting him.   This would be a personal judgment that this act will be beneficial to them thus an act worth doing even at the expense of another person.

The point I am attempting to make is that evil does not exist in itself.  A person may complete an evil act but their intent is always for what they judge as good for them.  They may be delusional or psychotic but this does not change the nature of their intent.

My Christian friends tell me that Satan is the embodiment of  evil.  However, if evil does not exist as thing in itself then how can Satan exist?  How could an entity exist if his construct is compose of a lack of something? You can not construct anything using darkness, the lack of light.  I would conclude this is true of evil since evil is the lack of good rather than a thing in itself.

What did Jesus teach?

I choose to be a member of a United Methodist Church even though I feel there is some conflict in their understanding and my understanding of the teachings of Jesus.  However, in my area this church is about as close as I am going find to the way I view Jesus and his teachings.

There is some question as to what Jesus actually said but I feel there is enough correct information in the Gospels to obtain the spirit of his message of love.   While it sounds good, the message is a very difficult one.  It seems many who profess to follow these teachings seem to miss his teaching's core message.   Jesus focused on how one should live their life rather than splitting hairs on theological points.  Focusing on these split hairs results in missing the overall message.



Examples:

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Luk 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.

Luk 6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

Luk 6:25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

Luk 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:




These are some rather radical teachings. Jesus apparently feels God favors those who are poor over those who are rich. He also seems to hang around the "trashy" people in his society. He not only says you are suppose to be nice to others, he says you are suppose to love them even the ones you hate.




So how is one who professes to follow these teachings live his life in congruence with what Jesus says. I don't. I use rationalizations such as Jesus set the ultimate standard and he did not expect me to be as good as his example.




Example: Luke 10: 25-37. This is the Good Samaritan parable. You can read for yourself.

If I were to find a unacceptable looking stranger lying wounded on the street I would be hesitant to stop and help. What if this is a setup? I find being somewhat paranoid a good trait. If upon further examination it looked as if the person needed help, I would likely stop and give assistance. I would call an ambulance and wait until it arrived. I would watch as the ambulance drove off and then proceed on my way. I don't see myself doing more than this. I believe in most circles this would be an acceptable response to the situation. I certainly would not go to the hospital and offer to pay his medical bills. I would not assist in finding his family or helping find somewhere for him to go for his recovery. I would depend on the hospital and their social worker to provide this assistance. It would not be my problem.




What grade would I give myself using Jesus' parable as an example? I did stop, I gave some aid and then washed my hands of the situation. I guess a C, maybe C- would be a fair grade. In high school I was completely satisfied with a C grade.

I don't know but Jesus made not be so impressed and give me a D. The Good Samaritan not only paid for the person's medical care but provided for his residence during this recovery at a considerable cost. He even planned to return and make sure he was doing okay. Now if I were rich it might be different and the cost would not be an issue. Of course, if I were rich I would probably be more like the Priest and the Levite.

Of course, I do not profess to be a good Christian. I am sure there are people who would score an A+ just not many. If this country is a Christian nation (we could debate that issue) then why aren't people more helpful to those who are suffering.




Three Jesus Suggestions:

1) Appreciate what you have.

2) Let God be the judge, disagree but don't judge.

3) Give the other guy a break.




I find these to be sure ways to greatly reduce the stress and live a happier life when I follow them.

Wealth

If you are reading this, you are a wealthy person.

With a touch of a button I can control the temperature of this room where I sit.  With a touch of another button I have access to over 200 video channels on my cable TV.  I can walk a few steps and obtain frozen ice to cool my drink.  I have never known starvation and never worried where I would obtain my next meal.  In fact, I can go just a mile or so and have the choice of foods from all over the world.  I have lived a mostly healthy life with few major illnesses.  How lucky can one guy be?

I am sure most of this is true of the vast majority of people who live in the US and have access to the Internet.  Yet we, including myself, foolishly take these fantastic luxuries for granted.  In the past rulers of great kingdoms could not boast of such extravagances no matter how much gold and silver they owned. 

We could talk about the excesses of the very wealthy in this country (I will at some point) but that should not keep us from rejoicing at what we have right now.  I want to enjoy what I have,

Death

I find death to be a very interesting subject.  Although many do not share that view.  Most of the people with whom I associate tell me if you have the right theological belief system then at some point in the future you will be awarded a new perfect body and live again in a wonderful paradise.  Of course, if you choose wrong and in many cases the wrong choice can be of a relative minor theological point, then you perish in eternal damnation irregardless of how you lived your life.  You will be judged the same as child killers.  Some will say their punishment will be worst but what can be worst than eternal damnation.

Now that I am 60 I have watched numerous people die.  These include my parents, my first wife, and one of my best friends who sadly was a year younger than me.   Where are they?  That is the unanswered question.  Many have opinions but so far there is no empirical evidence to support any particular opinion.  Near death experiences are interesting but since their evidence is entirely subjective and as of now there is no experimental model to investigate this phenomena, these experiences give us no empirical information.

I wonder what would happen to religion if death no longer posed an issue.

My comfort in this issue relates to the fact that I do not remember existing before I was born.  Some say I did but I have no recollection of it.  The possibility I did not exist before I was born does not bother me.  So, if I will no longer exist after I die then it seems to be the same thing.

My Christian friends expect go to "heaven" and live a blissful life.  One major question I have concerns the question of free will.  Assuming we have some measure of free will now (yes, I realized that is an assumption) then would one have free will in heaven?   If so, what would stop individuals from making the same poor choices they make in their physical life.  If, indeed, God has some sort of plan to allow individuals to have both free will and make only good choices, it would be nice if he would implement that plan now.  The world would be a much nicer place.

My Thought Process

There is conflict within my mind.   This results from two main established patterns of contradicted thought processes that to this point have no satisfactory resolution.  It is my own personal yin and yang.

My rational empirical self operates by forming a hypothesis and then gathering empirical data to either support of refute the idea.   This usually results in some type of conclusion on whether or not the hypothesis has merit and should pursued or else discarded as a false premise.  I find this very utilitarian in daily life.

While this other pattern begins with some firm basic assumptions about the nature of reality.   These are not supported by empirical evidence although so far they have neither been refuted by empirical data.  This pattern of thoughts relate more to my apparent emotional needs.  The most basic assumption that fuels its philosophy is that this reality has an overall purpose and thus my life is meaningful in some significant way.

I have an emotional need for a purposeful universe.  This need results in further basic assumptions.  For there to be a purpose there must be some type of organizing intelligence to the universe.  My rational self says the odds appear to be 50/50, either there is or there is not.  My emotional self thus chooses to believe the intelligence exists.   This of course is a rationalization resulting from the premise it is unacceptable for me to believe there is no reason for things to exist.

Of course, my empirical nature says show me.  Most metaphysical explanations seem to only reflect our current ignorance.  These explanations had the same logic through out history.   We did not understand the destructive force of lightning so it must mean there is an angry god directing it.   It seems many beliefs today follow this same pattern of logic.   When we don't understand something we invent a theological explanation.

My conflict is that I have discovered no empirical evidence supporting actions that defy the basic laws of physics.    Even though you can't prove a negative it would be quite satisfying to have empirical evidence supporting my current theological beliefs.

Thus you have my conflict.

Everything

I often ponder various questions as I walk and so decided to post them.  This is more for my own narcissism  than for anyone else but if anyone is interested feel free to imbibe in my thought processes.   These thoughts may range from the meaning or meaningless of the universe to the huge disparity between the rich and the poor in the land of opportunity.  We will see if this self therapy is worth the effort.