Healthy discourse or a mistake?

Those who know me or keep up with my posts know that i am outspoken with my opinion on many matters and hide nothing.  Unfortunately, that outspokenness has caused some uproar.

I recently posted as a 'public' status my answer to a question posed.  The question was simply asking when was the first time trying any drug.  My post was such:

"alcohol i started when i was probly 11 or 12. cigs when i was 26. cannabis @ 27. AMT @ 29. Ecs (and various designer), LSD and psilocybin @ 30/31.

Of it all, wish i NEVER would have started cigarettes, i'm not much of a drinker anymore, would love a mushroom weekend, some acid for xmas ...and love the ganja. End the insanity. End the war on drugs. End prohibition. End the lies."

The grand discussion thence proceeded with family members, friends and acquaintances chiming in.  Of the over 50 comments left on the thread, there were two contributors that i didn't see coming -- my ex-wife and 14 year old daughter.  Why i didn't see them coming is a discussion for another time, but where the discussion went definitely gave me pause, and another status update, "going through evaluation."

Thus, my evaluation:
I definitely could have (and some would say should have) not posted the status publicly and avoided the issue all-together, but that definitely would have been against my personal agendas of transparency and activism.  i am not afraid nor ashamed of my stance on the subject and welcome discussions of such.  No change is ever brought about by inactivity.  With that said, do i regret that my ex-wife and daughter got involved, or felt the need to get involved?  Well, honestly i couldn't care less what my ex thinks, but what hurts is the discourse between my daughter and i.  It was never my intent to approach the discussion of drugs with my daughter in this way, but now the box is open and i am sure my next visit will be an adventure.  What it does tell me, though, is what she is being fed.  She had made the comment, "I DON'T want to be taught about drugs, I want to be warned!"  An issue of semantics; warn about drugs or teach about drugs.  Although i most definitely see the place for warning someone of the possible dangers surrounding drug use/abuse, on its own it does not do the subject justice and is left wide open for bias abuse (by bias abuse i would refer to the example of religious fundamentalism involvement in politics/government).  An honest impartation of knowledge or instruction is far more useful and enforces the exercise of wisdom based on facts.  i would most definitely warn my daughter of the negative effects of drug use (to include tobacco, alcohol and various prescriptions), but not without giving her the facts.  Besides the legality of such, the physical and mental development is hindered/altered when at the yet developing stages of life.  Having correct knowledge vs. a biased warning better prepares them for possible confrontations and pressures in the future by peers and outsiders AND still leaves them with their own free-will decisions in maturity.  Would i condone my daughter partaking in drugs of any recreational sort at age 14, or 12, or 16?  Emphatically NO!  Do i want her to be properly equipped/guarded if-and-when she is approached with the opportunity under peer-pressure to partake?  Emphatically YES!

Just saying "no" is weak (IMHO), but there is a great deal of strength in understanding why "no."  Just reiterating a societal dogmatic agenda proposed by 'authorities' (and i use that loosely) flaunts a weak mind that has jumped on a bandwagon.  Knowing the unbiased facts of a matter and then saying 'yea' or 'nay' exhibits an exercised mind and purposeful free-will.  We have created an environment where personal responsibility and accountability are null-and-void and the exercise of "free-will" is delegated by the 'authorities.'  That is not the country our ancestors and forefathers fought and died for.  The illegitimate use of greedy power has derided the personal liberties/freedoms this nation was founded on.  It is time truth and facts are forefront in every societal debate or discussion of pertinence to the "greater good" of the whole.  Prohibition (in the arena of alcohol/drugs) has caused more harm than good, fed the appetite of criminality, grossly misdiagnosed the ills of justice, imprisoned the impoverished, fattened the greedy -- all on the taxpayer dollar with nothing to show for it but MORE of the same.

Am i worried where my public stance on this issue will take my relationship with my daughter?  A little.  I sure as hell don't want this chasm to be between us (this isn't the only thing dividing us), nor do i want it between me and any other family member or loved one, but a few years ago i saw something in the world.  Deception, greed and dogma have muddied the once crystal-clear-down-to-the-bottom pool of life.  It's going to take a lot of work, but i would love to see that pool cleaned up.  It can be pristine again.  i want my daughter to experience life the way it should be experienced.  i'm sure you want the same for yours.

With all this said, i haven't deleted the aforementioned post from my wall ...but i have changed its visibility to 'friends.'

But, this post will remain 'public.'

Enjoy life
          Truth, Knowledge and Humanity

Anonymous: To The Machine

http://youranonnews.tumblr.com/post/12614562283/anonymous-to-the-machine-you-will-rust-and-die

Mentally Ill?

I recently read an article on the site Atheism Exposed , entitled "Are Atheists Mentally Ill?"  I would recommend reading that particular article before reading my response that i emailed to the author, but that's up to you.  If anyone finds discrepancy in my response, please feel free to comment on such.

_________________________________


Just got done reading your article "Are Atheists Mentally Ill" on your site, Militant Atheism Exposed.   I plan on reading more of your articles as time allows, but i felt a need to address this one.


I am afraid you are misguided in your attempt to 'prove' your premise.  You were definitely correct in your opening of that article that both camps [i would say all camps] suffer populations of mentally ill/crazies/nuts/psychos to varying degrees, but i feel you failed in your overall claim that "atheists rely heavily on the psychological defense mechanisms of denial, rationalization, repression, suppression and displacement" to reject the existence of God.  It seemed to me that instead of general psychological attributes to show possible mental illness, you did more to say they are mentally ill because they don't believe in God.  Understandably, you are approaching this from a Christian perspective, but in making claims about another group of people (especially if you're going to claim they are 'ill') it is not only prudent but essential to define the group correctly, else-wise your entire claim is null.

"The mind of many atheists protects itself from these realities by rejecting God’s existence."

First, you base your article on the idea that your (Christian) perspective is reality and atheists are rejecting that reality with "mind games," assuming that it is an already founded fact and not providing any examples to back your claim except to say "It is the view of this author that the existence of a Creator is the most provable of all realities and that the proofs are 'many' and 'sufficient.'"  You also didn't sufficiently explain the atheist rejection:  they do not believe in ANY god (not just yours) because there is NO evidence to support the existence of any deity.  Throughout history, man has given a god the credit for the unexplainable.  History is replete with stories of various gods from multitudes of cultures and societies, many of which are extremely similar to others and most claiming sovereignty and superiority.  There is absolutely nothing different coming from the judeo-christian belief, so there is no reason to accept one over another if accepting any at all.

defense mechanisms to block out the pain.

Denial:  can't really argue with you on this one.   there are multiple reasons anyone can give for denying something, whether it is sufficient is the question.  yes, many (hopefully not most) deny simply on the premises you propose (i wouldn't go so far as saying mentally ill though).  But for myself, and many others like me, it goes back to no evidence supporting the existence of.  IMO, this is pretty much where atheists/agnostics differ.  Atheists, for the most part, flat out discount the existence, whereas agnostics believe there is no evidence in either direction thus no claim til one or the other has that evidence.  i personally lean more to being agnostic, but i will say with almost certitude that NONE of the surviving, viable faiths of today are correct. 
Rationalizations:  Your argument here, to me, just does not make sense.  Something either is or is not logical.  If someone is fooled by 'logic-sounding' speak, then they just do not know enough to be making a judgement -- period.  The logical reasoning i have heard (by many of the authors you note throughout your site) are not "why God does not exist, or why they cannot accept the existence of God," but rather how giving credit to a deity for something that clearly is not correct is illogical and the definition(s) of given god are negated by the actions of the god and by other characteristics attributed to them ...thus given god doesn't exist and is not worthy of worship.  Atheists (the smarter ones, at least) will use demonstrable, sound rationalizations from across the spectrum of disciplines, whereas religion/faith can ONLY use circular reasoning inside of itself.  The reasoning "because the bible says so" is ludicrous, given how observable evidence, logic and scientific ventures have shown it to be inaccurate.
Repression:  your definition here is correct, but not applicable in this argument because, again, you are assuming you are correct and assuming there is a pain to be blocked.  Projecting your assumption to a subject does not make your argument valid.  Rather, the rest of the paragraph throws it out by claiming 'design' and 'artist' for the existence of what is.  "All of existence yells out 'design.'"  I beg to differ:  All of existence yells out "careful where you step."  This planet is abundant with natural existences that are not 'human-friendly.'  From microbiological organisms to natural disasters, all of existence is up-for-grabs at any moment.  The 'beauty' that you speak of is subjective -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- beauty is only skin deep.  I would recommend understanding what pareidolia is.
"The atheist mind will not stop and observe and see the connection."  Myself, and many others i associate with (and i know we're not alone) love laying out in the yard, or walking through the swamp or trees, or watching birds and bees, or planting and nurturing -- we do stop, and observe the 'beauty' of it all.  But again, beauty is subjective.  We do see the connection, just not the connection that you're proclaiming.  The connections we see (demonstrable evidence) have nothing to do with an invisible deity's magic wand, but with each other ...affecting each other ...relying on each other.  Even, i would say, the unpleasant ones like army ants and wasps.  There is nothing to repress in nature: it's where we learn everything from.  Nature has ALL the answers, and none of them point to a deity ...yet, at least.
Suppression:  again, your definition is correct but your application is not.  There is no rejection on the part of atheists for the "concept of design ...daily being reinforced by all the sciences" because there is no such reinforcement by the sciences, only a projection of one's ideology or, dare i say ignorance (not meant to be derogatory - please refer to the definition of ignorance).  The "fair and sufficient analyses" are out there and are being done, and i would say again, none point to a deity.  Natural cause and effect.
Displacement:  can't really argue with you here, except to say that atheism does not recognize a god, thus 'anger' or 'hurt' cannot be directed toward a god.  Only one who believes in the existence of a god can direct emotion to that god.  For atheists, we don't blame god(s), we blame the arrogantly ignorant actions of those who do or do not believe in a god for certain atrocities. 

"Over-relying on [defense mechanisms] to cope with life and specific pains in life can lead to disjointed thinking and emotional immaturity."  You are correct, but using this to claim that atheism is a mental illness is completely misguided and misleading.

I look forward to your response, if any.

Truth, Knowledge and Humanity

i beg of thee!

"...it is their right, it is their duty ..."

From a multitude of sources and leanings, the 'Occupy' movement is being covered, and scrutinized. Only a couple months in to the movement, it has gone from a relatively small group of disenchanted occupying New York to hundreds of cities around the globe.  Amazingly, no recognized leadership is being claimed by the occupiers, as if they're waiting on the leadership to come to them.  Well, maybe that's the point.

Even before the occupy movement started, recent years have seen an increase in civil uprisings against their respective leaders.  Movements declaring "we're tired of your shit!"  The occupiers in this more recent movement are basically saying the same thing.  They are also proving to everyone that they do not individually have to agree on everything, but they all agree on one thing: the system has been corrupted by profit and power.  It's difficult to argue that.

Watching or reading the coverage by multiple news media, we are bombarded with phrases of police brutality, vandalism, prolific drug use, rape, incoherent statements, mis-education ...to the point that the overall message is being stifled.  This is much more than just a faction rising.  This is not a liberal or conservative propaganda machine, nor is it just a bunch of hippies and sympathizers.  This is a movement by the people against the corrupt, despotic state of bought leadership who have shown little or no concern for the well-being of its citizens.

To them:

Although i personally prefer a more civil and formal approach to addressing grievances, it is difficult to find blame in much of the behavior of the occupiers.  Many feel there is little option left and time has passed to regard civilities.  They have been pushed in to corners and see no point in regarding formalities to address the grievances anymore.  We will listen or they will get louder.  They have forgone respect for process because processes can be bought.  They have lost respect for elected offices because they also can be bought.  Even when groups have tried to be civil and do things 'by the book,' they have been 'allowed' to protest in the corner, removed from public.  Riot police are called in to 'keep the peace' at a peaceful assembly, then videos and testimony show law enforcement beating protesters.  The reason the occupiers are not listening to your ordinances and warnings is because you haven't listened to them.  They are trying to tell you that "of ...by ...for the people" has been replaced by "show me the money."  Do you really expect them to respect you?  I, for one (of the 99) do not respect you, and i will without hesitance throw my voice in with the occupiers and, we will not stop occupying until you get the point.

To us:

This movement gives me a more ensured hope that my faith in humanity is not a lost cause.  To see such a wide demographic in solidarity is inspiring.  The voice is empowering, knowing that "We the people" still has power.  I proudly stand with my brothers and sisters declaring in protest the injustices of greed in power.

With that said, i must also say this: it pains me that there are some in this movement giving credence to the claims by some that this has turned into mobs of lawlessness.  If we are going to stand in accord fighting injustice then we must be that example of behavior we desire to see from them.  Violence ...vandalism ...rape -- there is NO excuse for these activities, and i beg of everyone to do their part in ensuring these things are not part of your occupation.  To those who are the offenders, GET OUT!  i have no qualms with the cops nabbing your ass.  Your actions are a disgrace to the movement.  Also, we cannot be a hindrance to the rest of the population (the rest of the 99%), for they too are trying to ensure their security and stability.

i would beg of everyone to please educate yourselves on all these issues that we have individually.  Work with or form solution groups in your areas to not only tell the 'powers that be' that there is a grievance, but how we can make the changes that will "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..."  It is time to show them we are more than a bunch of factional deviants.  We are Americans, and we vote.



We are 99%

Solutions for Sustainability

It's 7pm, November 8th and there's now just over a dozen locals gathered in this small meeting room of the Senior Resource Center for this presentation of Lester Brown's proposals for a practical approach to the human factor on the global climate.  Plan B is Brown's response to a "world on the edge."

...humanity toward a sustainable society ...
In 1974, Lester Brown founded, with the aid of a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Worldwatch Institute, devoted to analysis of global environmental issues.  A thinktank focused on environmental issues, the goal was to educate the people and government about environmental problems and to recommend actions.  He was also given the MacArthur Foundation's genius award in 1986.

At the Earth Policy Institute, which he established in 2001 after leaving Worldwatch, Brown's interdisciplinary experience provided him with a refined ability to notice and track trends.  This new project was devoted to providing a plan to save civilization.

...to be addressed ...
After watching a portion of the Plan B Movie,  the speaker, Rebecca Heyer escorted us through a selection of slides covering the four main goals of the proposal.  This is also where the night was opened to more of a discussion over the bullets.  The first two, stabilizing population and eradicating poverty can both be handled with one global initiative ...education.  According to one attendee, " ...births decline when standards of living improve ..."  The consensus of the trends that Lester Brown brings to light show strong, relative correlations between population, poverty and education.  The lower/lacking education in societies or cultures tend to have higher population rates and higher poverty numbers.  The trends also indicate that in cultures where women are better educated, they in turn contribute more in the direction and well-being of the family unit, to include the size of the family unit.

Social goals was the third of the proposal.  From individual resolutions of saving energy costs at home and recycling, to local city planning of biking/walking paths and community gardens and much, much more, there is a myriad of activities that as individuals and as communities we can all get more involved in to be more self-sustainable.  Being self-sustainable also means less reliant.  Local involvement in city, county and state dealings with things like water and air quality, ground contamination, and efficient energy policies and programs put the power of the people in the forefront.

The fourth goal discussed is the local, state and global effort of restoring the Earth.  According to Lester's plan as calculated in 2009, a global commitment of $110 billion towards restoration efforts could make the difference in the direction of human impact on the global climate.  From planting trees and the conservation cultivation of topsoil, to the protection of biological diversities and rangelands or fisheries.  The list goes on and on of things that can be done, locally and globally.

At least according to the slides presented (and i always urge further reading and research), local and state initiatives around the globe have made tremendous differences in relatively short periods.  In South Korea, they have reforested 65% of its land.  Over the last 25 years, the United States has reduced soil erosion 40% by retiring cropland and practicing conservation tillage, while increasing grain harvest 20%.  Fishing restrictions in 6600 sq. miles of marine reserve in the Gulf of Maine has increased population over 90%, size over 30% and diversity 20% of the different species of fish there ...within two years.

...you, me, them ...
Awareness is the first step to any problem encountered ...individually and communally.  Recognizing that there is a problem that needs to be addressed precludes any direction of solutions.  The next step is educating yourself, first on the general impact then the big picture.  The links provided in this article and a general web search will be all one needs for a beginner's course on the subject.  Connect with others in the local environment that share the interest or that we can learn more from:  all sides, all disciplines.  Then, getting involved locally with organizations or groups working toward this sustainability.  Right here in Pensacola, we have 350Pensacola/Sustainable Gulf Coast program, the newly formed Pensacola Solutions Project, the University of West Florida student-led green energy initiative for the campus, not to mention the average local citizen adapting their own environments and business owners promoting sustainability efforts, and several more.  I personally would recommend beginning by reading this government article on the impact of human activity on the global climate and environment.  Also, sites such as Dirty Kilowatts/Environmental Integrity Project can give the viewer a run down on plants that emit dangerous levels of toxins and poisons into the ground and air.

The debate goes on over the degree to which human activities have affected global climate, or could have in the future but, it is undoubtedly true that an impact HAS been made, and an impact CAN be made.