Social Issues


Government and Music and Poetry and Politics and Social Issues12 Jan 2020 07:34 pm

The Discontented Rule the World 8/31/13

A contented man seldom worries
A contented man does not hate
A contented woman needs no ambition
A contented woman is able to wait

The Discontented Rule the World

The contented man savors conversation
The contented man enjoys the day
The contented woman is open to pleasure
The contented woman finds joy in play

The discontented rule the world
The discontented abuse the world
The discontented cause us pain
The discontented mock the sane

My contentment nestled in delight
My contentment welling up inside
My contentment whispered in my sigh
My contentment permeates my life

The discontented are always plotting
contesting, battling and forever defeating
The discontented are not to be trusted
they’ll never own enough even when you’re busted

The discontented rule the world
The discontented abuse the world
The contented have no urge to rule

This song depicts the radical difference between those who are contented from those who are discontented. Those who are content find enjoyment in time alone as well as time spent with others. The contented feel good in their own skin and find pleasure in both arduous activity and leisurely play. The contented appreciate the gifts and talents of others and derive satisfaction from engaging in the hobbies and interests which infuse their lives with meaning.

The discontented never feel whole or complete. Their constant dissatisfaction fosters a need to control and alter their environment as well as control and micromanage everyone with whom they come into contact. No matter how much they have or accumulate, the discontented are never sated or satisfied. They are threatened by anyone else’s joys and accomplishments and spend the bulk of their existence battling, defeating, and taking from others whatever they can.

When making the sale, getting the vote, or winning is paramount, then the end justifies the means. Lying, cheating, exaggerating become the norm. Look at our national politicians, it is just lie after lie. How does the atmosphere of dishonesty and never ending acquisition not create discontentedness? How would contentedness not put one at a disadvantage when ruthless self-serving greed and avarice is the very means and measure of success in our culture?

Our consumer based economy encourages a perpetual state of discontentedness, a constant state of wanting more. This fosters a kind of ambition in which acquisition and getting the largest piece of the pie becomes an urgent and endless process. This obsessive form of ambition uses all resources, defeats all opponents, and respects no boundaries.

We are taught that little lies and exaggerations are just a necessary and expected element of successful commerce and human relationships. We are all expected to market ourselves by highlighting our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses through spin and omission.

We use make-up, fashion, social media, and pop culture as ways to assist us in making the best impression and seducing our target audience by often suppressing, masking, or denying what we feel is our true nature.

A contented person is able to share the bounty of the planet and not feel a need to go to war to acquire more land, resources, or to own and dominate everything and everyone.

Despite the constant (24/7) bombardment of the capitalistic/imperialistic message to ruthlessly acquire all one can to maximize one’s wealth and success, the vast majority of people give in to their humane nature thereby putting a ceiling on their financial ambitions. At some point one’s desires to be good, kind, and have authentic connection with others limits their avarice and thirst for power, allowing them to find a relatively acceptable spot in the great hierarchy of success, wealth, and power.

The very last line of the song, “the contented have no urge to rule”, is of the utmost importance. Contented people do not have the desire to control, or the thirst for power and ambition which is the forte of the discontented.

Our modern PR and propaganda narratives try to convince us that it is built into human nature to be self-serving, greedy, ambitious, and competitive. While that may be true, it is also true that we are social beings who like to love and be loved, to be good, and to do good things.

The fight for survival does exist and all life needs to kill and consume food in order to attain life sustaining energy. Yet, we also live on a flourishing and abundant planet teeming with life. Organic life has learned how to survive in a way that also supports and maintains plenitude.

Our modern narratives acknowledge and overemphasize the fight for survival and generally ignore the other reality of life on planet earth. The unquenchable thirst for constant expansion and endless domination is not natural or beneficial. It is a misleading and very detrimental perspective and leads to the kind of rampant discontentedness which, if played fully out, results in catastrophic destruction of organic life and the human spirit.

Contentedness leads towards coexistence, teamwork, and intimacy while a constant state of discontent goes towards dominance and an exhaustion of all resources. A generally contended person is neither impractical or a utopian ideal.

While our society foments discontentment, it does not mean that this is the case for all functional human societies. Just as humans have adapted to nature throughout the eons, so too have they adapted to the general tenets and goals of the communities and societies in which they live.

Whenever the vision of a more equitable and egalitarian society is put forth, the purveyors of greed and discontentedness state that people always want more and that ambition and competition are essential elements of human nature.

Again the defenders and apologists of our explosive capitalistic society are gifted at half-truths, deception, exaggeration, and perceptual management. While it is difficult to argue against the soundness of the observation that ambition and competition are pretty essential to our nature, the conclusions and spin that the narrative contain is quite dubious.

Throughout history there have been many tribes, communities, and societies that have had a different definition of success than ours. A society whose dominant values and goals centered around qualities and traits such as honor, generosity, sacrifice, truth, and friendliness would define success according to those values.

As an example, an ambitious person in a society that defines success in terms of being the most honorable or generous is not likely to hoard, deceive, or exploit people. A person acting in such self-serving fashion would be shunned and vilified and treated as a criminal. Rather than being supported, rewarded, and praised they would be treated as toxic and dangerous.

The desire to win at all costs is often central to our goal of financial and social success in a discontented capitalistic society. When winning and domination is the sole measure of success, then cheating, deceiving, and destroying one’s competitors becomes both necessary and laudable.

While our exploitive and dominating culture often equates competition with the dog-eat-dog reality of the fight for survival, competition can often be a vehicle to hone and improve our skills and the skills and abilities of others.

An example from my childhood should help illustrate this point. I have always loved sports and found great enjoyment in playing and competing. I enjoyed competing against myself through identifying personal bests as well as performing well against others.

My greatest love was basketball and my best childhood friend and I would spend much of the fall and winter playing one-on-one games to one hundred points. We both benefitted greatly from the competition and took pride in the growth of both of our games throughout the years.

We used each other to become better players and would often give each other tips on how better to guard one of our pet moves or how to improve the mechanics of each other’s game (dribbling, rebounding position, shot form, etc.). It seems even at a very early age we realized that improvements in our overall skills was greatly dependent on the level of competition.

When playing with others we tried to remain steadfast in our intention to have our competition continue to improve, thereby, challenging us to become better and maximize our abilities. While I have many fond memories of the joys of healthy competition with him and many others I have competed with against throughout the years, I also have had numerous encounters with people whose need to win at all costs stifled the amount of joy I gleaned through the competition.

Before closing I’d like to tend to one more misperception of contentedness that often gets a lot of air time in our culture, that a contented person lacks motivation and contributes nothing to society. In theory, it is logical to assume that contented people could lack initiative. Yet in practice, isolated inactive people are usually depressed not content.

We are wired to be social animals and content people are usually highly engaged and are drawn towards pleasure and intimacy. A toddler when feeling comfortable and at ease spends the bulk of his time exploring, developing basic motor and perceptual skills, and feeling connected with their environment.

Contentedness does not lead to inertia, but to finding joy and pleasure in what we do, think, and say. A generally content person finds joy in being alive and doing things. The major difference is that the discontented person, seldom, if ever gets satiated and satisfied finding no endpoint in their need to acquire, control, and perpetually consume. The discontented have little or no concern for the long term health and quality of life for others and the planet.

In sum, we live in society where owners and producers exaggerate, deceive, and seduce consumers into purchasing products (most of which are not necessary) in order to maximize profits. The entire system is based on the fostering and maintenance of a generalized sense of discontent for both the general consumer as well as the financial elite.

We also live on a lush and abundant planet teeming with life which belies the message of scarcity that lies at the base of our need to hoard. If the fight for survival were the superior truth, then life on the planet would never have become so abundant and the population of humans would never have gotten into the millions, let alone the billions.

The above paragraph demonstrates that both nature and human nature are inherently plentiful and we should not let our society brainwash us into believing otherwise. The discontented rule the world, but only because our society’s values are currently skewed that way.

Education and Government and Politics and Social Issues27 Apr 2019 07:40 pm


Due to the pervasive nature of mass media no previous culture has been as influenced by PR, propaganda, spin and perceptual management as ours. Our opinions, consumer habits, desires, goals, values and perspectives have never been more a central target of so much time, energy, research and economic resources.

We are monitored, watched, prodded and herded towards specific attitudes and ideologies which serve and benefit powerful alliances. More and more money is funneled into fewer and fewer hands which allows for the message to be honed and refined into a truly narrow focus. This allows for increased consistency of the message and goal. This is not to say that one day all variance will disappear with only one totalitarian message surviving, but rather that the variances that do survive will be relatively small and the shared goals of the remaining voices will become gospel and reality, at least for the vast majority of people.

This is evident in how our political system has evolved (decayed) to the point in which millions of citizens parrot and accept the premise that one has to vote for the lesser evil. Anything or anyone challenging or seriously questioning the status quo is either an idealistic dreamer, or a crazed conspiracist (quite an impressive disinformation campaign by our perceptual managers, I have to admit).

Since perceptual management is vital to the continued survival and success of the power elite, it is important for us to not only accept and identify its existence but try to remain at least partially immune to its influences. This becomes increasingly difficult as our busy lives and our exposure and dependency on their messages through all forms of media and information make it impossible to be as vigilant in maintaining perspective as they are devoted to molding and altering our perception 24/7.

Before talking about the current faux deflective controversy regarding vaccinations, I would like to visit a couple other divisive and confusing controversies that have raged during my lifespan. The two I’d like to recall are the smoking causes cancer and the current global warming debates.

The ill effects of smoking on one’s health became pretty obvious the more the entrenched the habit became in the lives of ordinary citizens. As the craving for and consumption of tobacco products increased so did health issues regarding lungs, heart as well as smokers ability to jog, be active or in many cases even walk without becoming winded or exhausted. 

Many scientists and health care professionals began sounding the alarm that smoking could negatively impact one’s health and quality of life. When the public response remained muted it became apparent that the addictive qualities of cigarettes over rode the health and quality of life concerns. The response of those concerned of the health implications of smoking was to intensify the message and suggest that the health harms of cigarettes could result in death. 

Expanded research seemed to bear this out and much data showed an increased probability of terminal cancers, and heart disease in the future of many smokers. The tobacco industry turned the entire discussion away from the irrefutable evidence regarding negative health impacts of smoking into a debate on whether or not smoking “caused “ cancer. This clever and effective distractive dialogue shifted people’s attention from the obvious health restrictions and impact on one’s personal quality of life at the hands of a habit/addiction into a theoretical, and almost impossible to win debate, on whether smoking or any individual variable could ever truly be said to cause cancer. 

As you know the debate lasted decades and the word games and spin continue even till today. The tobacco industry shows its compassion by offering programs which help people who want to quit smoking do so, while also supporting groups that espouse that smoking is a matter of personal choice and smoking is a right on par with any other freedom.

While the ill effects of air and water pollution were known for centuries the “ecological” movement became a popular political scientific entity in the late 60’s and early 70’s. The corporate industrial spin doctors borrowed from the tobacco industry play book and seized every opportunity to deflect common sense and observable negative impacts of toxic materials and pollution on personal and global health into a debate over whether pollution can prove to be the cause of some abstract global tragedy.

Despite the admission of the harmful effects of various toxins and poisons in our air water and land, the bulk of the political debate has been on whether certain forms of air pollution cause the destruction of the ozone layer, and now whether or not industrial practices “cause” global warming. Whether or not global warming is truly an imminent problem, or even if such a thing exists is still up for debate, in much the same way that evidence regarding smoking’s relationship to cancer was challenged and dismissed decades ago.

The main point of the above discussion is to show how spin and perceptual management were used to obfuscate a discussion away from some basic common sense observations. Just as one can observe that depriving a person of oxygen results in death, one could state that lung capacity, breathing efficiency, etc. are impaired by smoking, or that toxins and poisons in our water, air and land are by definition generally harmful to life.

Big tobacco portrayed smokers as fun loving individuals who wanted to maximize the moment and enjoy life, and anti-smokers as up-tight busy bodies that wanted to control everyone’s life and end their freedoms. Environmentalists were posed by corporate industry as alarmists who were opposed to progress or misguided and paranoid extremists who didn’t understand or appreciate the reality of modern life. 

In the current “debate” and “controversy” over vaccinations the “anti-vaxxers” are portrayed as paranoid, naive, or misinformed nitwits who are unintentionally going to cause the resurrection of the very epidemics that the vaccines have successfully eradicated from society. The anti-vaxxers are deemed either opposed to all medical science or attempting to falsely blame the illness of their child or loved one on vaccines.

In many ways Big Pharma has turned Big Tobacco’s message on its head. Where Big Tobacco claimed that the anti-smoking crowd’s opposition to freedom and free choice was trying to inhibit the joy and quality of life afforded the smoker, the anti-vaccers refusal to get inoculations (freedom of choice) is endangering the health and quality of life of others, potentially leading to death or major disability (through the re-emergence of a disease such as polio).

While the above concerns contain much truth, the framing of the issue is where this “controversy” is being manipulated and spun in a similar fashion. In the cases of tobacco, industry and now Big Pharma the core issue is to protect and maximize profits and all arguments are designed to create controversy and debate in a way that obfuscates the issue. The misdirection and purposeful framing allows them to maximize profits and jeopardize the heath of others while avoiding any meaningful reform or engaging in social responsibility.

The very term “anti-vaxxers” is highly misleading and provocative. It implies that people questioning or challenging any aspect of Big Pharma’s implementation of its vaccination policies and methods is based on a blind and biased opposition to the very existence of vaccines. It purposely polarizes the situation as a black and white decision to vaccinate or not. It tries to make any challenge of their practices on vaccine administration into an attack on vaccines in and of themselves. It is framing the situation in such a manner as to make those who, through experience or data, are uncomfortable with vaccines as being anti-science or reckless alarmist trying to dismantle one of the greatest forms of disease prevention and extinction ever accomplished in the history of medicine.

The majority of people “opposed” to vaccines, are only concerned about the “disputed side-effects’ such as autism, immune system disorders, etc. observed after immunizations especially when administered in early infancy with its recommended schedule. 

The scientists denying any possible tie between vaccines and serious health repercussions sound extremely similar to those scientists who diminished or even denied the data of smoking related problems, and the scientists who claimed that the levels of mercury, arsenic, etc. found in air, water and land were at safe levels.

The number of lives damaged by being exposed to unacceptable levels of mercury and lead, just to give two examples, in paints, pipes, water, air and land during the long debate is quite sobering. We are similarly being assured that the levels of heavy metals such as mercury and aluminum added to our vaccines are no where near approaching a dangerous level. 

It is my understanding that the heavy metals contained in the majority of the standard vaccines are not essential to the efficacy of the vaccines. They are used as “stabilizers” or preservatives in order to increase the shelf-life and therefore the profit margin of Big Pharma. 

The label of ‘anti-vaxxers’ is a spin smokescreen to avoid any serious discussion on how we can maximize the benefits and reduce any potential harms of our vaccination policies and their implementation. Instead we’re being forced into a false debate in which we have to choose between to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. 

The number of articles pertaining to a potential “outbreak” of a once eradicated disease such as measles are appearing more and more frequently in the corporate press. The cases though most likely real are being posed in the most alarmist fashion, with commentary designed to up people’s fear of an epidemic while blaming either tacitly or directly those who refuse to immunize themselves or their children. The call for forced immunizations is growing with stories of parents being arrested and charged with neglect or some violation of a health code for not immunizing their child. 

The dialogue is now shifting towards a debate between freedom of choice versus public health. This feels like just another obfuscation, another way to protect the profits of Big Pharma under the guise of public health similar to the push for our acceptance of a loss of all our freedoms for the safety of the surveillance state in its fight against terrorism both internal and external.

Jim Guido

Economics and Social Issues18 Mar 2019 06:28 pm

I recently started binge watching episodes of Mad Men. Since I was born in 1955 the show naturally speaks to my early childhood, and more directly to the world of my parents. While my family was relatively poor there still are significant similarities between my parents world and that portrayed in the adults in Mad Men. 

One of the most glaring characteristics of the era is the fact that adults often had at least one of their hands occupied with beverage or cigarette. My parents and their tribe did not drink hard alcohol as much as the Madison Avenue types, so other than in evening social gatherings the glass of liquor was replaced by cups of coffee. 

My mom in particular spent the bulk of her waking hours smoking cigarettes (between two and three packs a day) and drinking coffee, a pot or two a day is my recollection. Most of my parents friends and relatives also smoked and drank with great regularity. While the confines of many jobs, such as factory work, kept a lid on both smoking and the drinking of coffee (and a few years later carbonated beverages) free hands usually were occupied by one or the other.

Though my mom was surely addicted to nicotine and dependent on caffeine, she was equally dependent on the oral habits of both activities. My mom stated and even looked lost, “naked”,  and lonely without a cigarette or cup of coffee in her hand. I can recall many occasions where my mom would go through an entire cigarette without even taking a single puff. 

She would be sitting on the couch deep in conversation with a friend with her hand poised above the ash tray occasionally flicking away a long ash and never once taking a drag. When the cigarette burned to its completion she would instantly replace the old cigarette in her hand with a new one, and continue talking. 

My mother, and many of her contemporaries, only seemed to feel complete and secure with a cigarette in hand. Sure cigarettes were chemically addictive and people began to be aware of the oral addiction of beverage and cigarette alike, but no one seemed to focus on the hands being occupied habit.

Cigarettes were the adult version of the toddlers stuffed toy or “security’ blanket, whose softness they found comforting, but also the object became part of their body image. A toddler often felt incomplete and vulnerable without their “softy’ in their hands or being cradled in their arms.

Looking back at my early childhood it now seems pretty obvious to me that the majority of adults and parents I knew used cigarettes, coffee and alcohol as hand held transitional object companions that had them feel complete. Without such objects in their hand they felt alone, empty, vulnerable and experienced a sense of loss. A hand without a cigarette mourned the emptiness similar to a widow misses the physical presence of their spouse in bed and around the house after they die.

I think the same sense of being incomplete, of an empty hand being experienced as a deep loss,  and the missing of an integral body part is now being replaced by the smartphone. Screen addiction is becoming accepted as an official diagnosis. Like cigarettes there seems to be a recognized habit addiction, but I do feel we are yet to fully realize that its not just a habit, but smartphones are becoming central to many people’s body image. Without their smartphone, they aren’t just disconnected from the virtual social world and missing the habit of having it in their hand, but it’s more than their hand being empty, it is experienced as missing a vital part of their body. 

Just as a young toddler’s identity and body image is made complete by their transitional object, so to are an increasing number of youngsters, teens, and adults feeling incomplete and physically deformed without their smartphone safely in their hand. The belief that the smartphone screen addiction is mainly about staying socially connected, or is just a habit of the hand, is missing a very important element of the smartphone. Smartphones are being experienced as an integral part of the body, where an empty hand is felt as an incomplete body.

It is not unusual for toddlers to give their stuffed toys a name, imbuing them with a personality and speaking to them as if they are a companion. While this is considered to be a generally healthy and natural stage of development it does become problematic when a toddler isolates and walls themselves off from the community of others and communicates almost exclusively with their stuffed toy.  

With smartphones, being our companion is less of an act of imagination that the stuffed toy. Smartphones can now speak to us with a human voice, they can inform and educate us, and even tell us stories. As the technology improves they will be able to converse and entertain us in an increasingly sophisticated and seductive way. Most toddlers eventually find the real world of others to be more rewarding than the pretend world of stuffed toys and inanimate objects, I’m not so sure if the same realization will be made to those addicted to smartphones.

Jim Guido

Ecology and Philosophy and Social Issues13 May 2018 01:11 pm

I, on numerous occasion throughout the years,  have included in my posts the observation that the Industrial Capitalists have taken liberally from Big Tobacco’s play book of how to defeat scientific and populist concerns about their behavior and policies. When science and citizens began complaining about the unhealthy effects of tobacco and smoking, Big Tobacco shifted the debate from health to whether or not cigarettes “caused”cancer. 

This debate, as you well know, went on for decades as proving something causes cancer is all but impossible. So instead of having to admit the obvious and highly documented negative health impacts of tobacco including the incredible number of toxins and poisons in the cigarettes, they were able to fend off such realities with a conceptual debate on causes of cancer or there even being a possible way to ascertain absolute cause of any multivariable health issue.

The science of the early ecological and environmental science movement is the late 60’s and 70’s had no trouble showing and documenting the unhealthy aspects of dumping tons of toxins and poisons into our land, water and air. And like big tobacco, the industrialized corporate community could tie up litigations in courts for years. Yet, like big tobacco they reveled at the opportunity to switch the debate from easily documentable health implications into a theoretical debate as to whether the poisonous assault on our environment is/was causing global warming.

During the great cancer debate smoking enthusiasts (nicotine addicts) were able to cite personal or anecdotal testimonials of people who had smoked two or three packs a day for decades and never got cancer. Likewise the capitalist industrialist (greed and wealth addict) is able to cite numerous examples of how their practices have in some way improved the environment and quality of life while finding many isolated and cherry picked studies which draw into the question the whole reality of the cause of global warming or its very existence.

While the term ecology was coined in the late 1860’s it took almost a full century before ecological science had popularized concerns that the very survival of much of the life of the planet was being threatened by human generated pollution and industry. In the mid 1960’s Buckminster Fuller began to popularize the idea that the earth was in essence a self-contained spaceship hurdling through the universe. He maintained that while the earth had evolved over billons of years to become a lush and flourishing home to an amazing array of organic life it was also a vulnerable and fragile enclosed biosphere that could be destroyed by the careless actions of humanity.

The more we learn about the planet and all of its organic life the more we see how intertwined and interlaced it all is. While it is true that the fight for survival gets played out in so many arenas of organic life, it is equally obvious that there is an even stronger dynamic of things working and functioning together. Life on planet earth does not just survive, but thrives and flourishes. In general, life uses the dead and dying life as fuel as a means of getting rid of waste and having the greater organism (earth) grow, thrive and flourish. The more we learn, viewing the earth’s biosphere as a living organism is more literal than figurative. 

When one acknowledges that the earth is one huge spaceship one can easily see how foolish, dangerous and destructive pollution and war are to the long term survival of much of organic life, including humans. The Starship Enterprise, the famous spaceship from the TV series Star Trek was supposed to be half mile long and home to a couple of thousand people. Imagine how quickly it would have become a mass grave if it would have been home to endless wars amongst its crew members or would have been generating poisons and toxins inside the spaceship and becoming part of its circulated air and water supply.

While space ship earth is far larger it is still silly to think we and most of organic life can continue to survive and flourish when under constant assault through the propagation of poisons and toxins into our living environment. The earth took some 3 billion or so years to become stable and suitable enough to allow organic life to survive. All of organic life has a relatively narrow band of temperature, chemical composition, etc. in which they can survive. While it is true that the adaptable survive, it is also true that adaptation takes time and acceptable changes move at a snails pace in which hundreds of our generations aren’t even a recognizable blip on the screen.  

The above discussion now has advanced to the point where we can talk about its title, Killing the Host. The earth is the host of all of life, and as a planet it is itself a living biosphere teeming with life. The earth as biosphere is alive and is filled with life in the very same manor that each human being is alive and their body and viscera is teeming with life.

Our activities are killing the host, that being earth, in much the same way that microbes, bacteria, germs, etc. can  threaten, make ill and even kill the body. While the fight for survival is usually dominated by a need to kill or eat the dead, dying or disabled to acquire fuel the killing the host method is quite rare and inefficient. In general organic life does not eat or kill something into extinction for a predator is dependent on the survival and flourishing of its prey for its continued survival and flourishing.

The vast majority of organisms that kill the host do so only during a relatively short adjustment period (especially considering the organic life time line which spans hundreds of millions or even billions of years). Once mutual adaptation occurs, if not becoming a mutually beneficial “teem/team” member, the once lethal organism either adapts to being a parasite or becomes  an agent causing temporary dis-ease.

Shortly after developing microscopes strong enough to see bacteria we recognized the role they can play in deadly inflections, diseases and plagues. Soon the general populace began to view all germs (bacterium) as predatory and lethal, beginning a decades long, and in many cases still existing, war against the germ. 

Recent dissemination to the public of the essential and beneficial role bacteria play in digestion as well as many other functions of our organs and central nervous system has still not removed the evil status of germs. Even when acknowledging their necessary role in both our surviving and flourishing we still feel it necessary to talk of good and bad bacterial cultures such as in the talk on probiotics. 

When a microorganism is in its lethal stage, for its own survival, it must find a new host to inhabit before its old host expires. One of the more common ways in which lethal organisms jump from one host to another is when it becomes “air born” through sneezing or coughing. 

When one frames the current status of mankind as a lethal germ whose activities are endangering and killing the host (various biomes and the earth’s biosphere in total) we can equate our desire to seek survival through space travel and “colonizing” other planets as our truly “exploring” ways to find another host to infect and kill. We are totally capable of adapting and becoming as life affirming and promoting as any other organic organism on planet earth, but our current course is one of killing the host.

Please look for and read my next post entitled “Does the Body Secrete Self-Consciousness?” which poses how we got where we are at, and what are some potential alternative courses of action. We can in deed become one of the most beneficial organisms in natures progression in having organic life continue to thrive and flourish in an ever increasing efficient and life affirming manner.

Jim Guido

Government and Politics and Psychology and Social Issues23 Sep 2017 03:27 pm

The constant assault by the corporate media on Donald Trump is both obvious and potentially dangerous in so many ways.The negative focus on Trump partially paralyzes the functioning of our government, diverts attention from other important issues, has us fantasize that he is the root of all our problems, and helps foment a social landscape full of fear, hatred and endless divisiveness.

The public treatment of Donald Trump as means of trying to purge from society all that is bad and evil finds its roots in psychology, comparative religions and social anthropology. The use of an individual to exorcise the demons in a family, community and society has occurred throughout history. In most cases all that is accomplished through these devices is a form of emotional release without any real substantive change occurring.

Here are the definitions of two common strategies used which while serving functional, psychological and emotional purposes due little to engender meaning change or progress:

Identified patient, or “IP”, is a term used in a clinical setting to describe the person in a dysfunctional family who has been unconsciously selected to act out the family’s inner conflicts as a diversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Trump is being vilified for making vulgar, insensitive and hateful statements regarding women and various racial and ethnic groups. Yet, many of those criticizing him are just as vulgar and insensitive in their vitriolic attacks on Trump and his family. Any of his archaic or potentially insulting remarks regarding women are more than matched by the attacks on his character being hurled by many feminists and liberals labeling him as a misogynist. The slurring and vicious attacks are also lodged towards any man or women who doesn’t engage in name calling or show of hatred at Trump. Any sign of tolerance is viewed as a sign of being a closet misogynist or homophobe.

His fitness of office is questioned because of his impulsive nature and how dangerous it could be regarding international affairs. He is accused of being a racist and an Islamaphobe for his protectionists stances regarding immigration. Yet, if this were truly the issue, and he was not just being used as scapegoat and identified patient, than why weren’t the deportations policies of Bush and Obama equally horrific. While the data can be interpreted in many ways it clearly shows that Trump’s actions pale in comparison to Obama.

https://www.blackagendareport.com/obama_beats_trump_deportations

The concerns regarding his impulsive, belligerent and possibly unstable personality endangering our safety is well worth our attention and concern. Yet, publicly calling a person crazy and unstable does not seem to be a wise thing to do. A mentally unstable person is the last person you would want to publicly and consistently call crazy and threaten with impeachment. This leads one to believe that those in the media and government with the most exposure to Trump do not fully believe the “he’s bat shit crazy” narrative.

Yet, if weren’t the identified patient and scapegoat he probably wouldn’t be singled out for his war like disposition and instead either be grouped with his predecessors or given a free pass like they generally have received. The previous president, and noble peace prize recipient, was the first two term president to spend his entire time in the White House engaged in war. The US was engaged in war with no less than seven nations, and many of his international policies such as the drone program and various sanctions were in violation of international law.

While Secretary of State Hilarly Clinton’s propensity towards military aggression and fomenting war attracted relatively little attention regarding her fitness for office. In a previous post http://guidoworld.com/blog/the-snubbing-of-barak-obama/  I explored the inappropriateness of her showing such unabated and unrepentant glee at the brutal execution of Gaddafi who while being controversial, had an impressive record of improving the quality of life for many Libyans and African’s in general. Likewise Clinton’s and Obama’s stated desire to create a no fly zone did not alarm the press, despite its enforcement being a de facto act of war against Russia.

Trump’s being viewed and used as the identified patient and scapegoal helps explain many of the conflicts, ironies and discrepancies between how his actions and proposed policies are being reacted to so much more harshly than similar ones of his predecessors.

While Trumps impulsive nature is given as reason for his impeachment, to date, each of Trump’s more aggressive and impulsive acts of war, or threats and ultimatums to nations such as N. Korea or Russia have been met with positive press and praise from members of the Senate and the House. The only path apparently left open to Trump to lessen his being treated as scapegoat and identified patient is to continue our immoral and reckless policy of assassination and overthrow of specific sovereign leaders and governments who we frequently claim, but rarely prove, “kill or gas their own people”. Calls for his impeachment seemingly subside when he supports huge arms deals to other nations such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey who have documented histories of engaging in actual genocidal acts.

We are being conditioned to fear, despise and loathe every single action of Trump and “his supporters” as “deplorable” racists, misogynists, Islamophobes, etc. Anyone not eager to ridicule his every word and gesture becomes a modern version of a “pinko communist” of the McCarthy and Archie Bunker eras.

The spiritual left has now joined the ranks of the fanatical religious right in their righteous assertion that all those not sharing their beliefs as being evil, immoral and a danger to society. All, if not especially liberals are being conditioned to being close minded, mean and intolerant to any person who is hesitant to hate Trump, the Russians, or leader of any nation which we have/had designs on such Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq and Libya.

It has become the national past time to foment hatred and division. The use of Trump of as scapegoat and identified patient seems to be more of a catalyst for an increase in social tension and chaos than a release. The identified patient and scapegoat provide temporary relief and deflection, but they more often then not do not bring about healthy change.

I, too, find much of Donald Trump’s policies and stances unsavory and reckless. Yet, while his presentation is often childish and rude the substance and content of what he says and the policies he espouses is in line with our nation’s basic policies for decades. He is not a rogue president, just one with poor filters. If all we do is demand that our presidents be more sophisticated in articulating and implementing heinous and destructive policies all we do is insure that our executive branch becomes a breeding ground for sociopaths and smooth speakers who feel that morals and international law don’t apply to this “exceptional and essential” nation.

Identified patients are a product of the dysfunctional families in need of therapy and services. Families which try to pawn off all their problems on the identified patient are only missing an opportunity for healthy growth and change. We are a nation in need of reflecting on how we can become more life affirming and an agent of peace and harmony.

Blaming Trump for all our ills, or preventing him from establishing better relations with nation’s who we currently do not trust and who have lost trust in us is counterproductive. I remember seeing a quote by a Congressman in which he said he could never trust the Russians, and therefore, he would never engage in diplomatic relations with them. Well, the whole purpose of diplomacy is to work with those that you don’t trust.

Without diplomacy there is only domination and annihilation. Peace isn’t dependent on complete agreement, only in learning how to adapt to and accommodate our differences and preferences.

Jim Guido

Gender Issues and Government and Politics and Psychology and Social Issues09 Sep 2017 04:53 pm

The original seeds of Political Correctness stemmed from a desire to avoid making blanket prejudicial statements, in which people were over identified with an aspect, feature or attitude that they possessed. The goal of this sensitivity was to highlight how complex and unique individuals are and to avoid pigeonholing people into powerful and often negative stereotypes.

Instead of identifying a someone solely as a handicapped person, they became a person with a handicap. Likewise a person could be one who tells lies as opposed to a liar, or a person who struggles with addiction or has stolen things rather than being labeled an addict, thief or criminal. The politically correct appellations were more descriptions than absolute labels. They allowed the person being described to have other attributes, and also allowed for them to make changes and improvements such as rehabilitation or recovery. A person with autism, addictions, or has depression is quite different then labeling someone as autistic, an addict or depressed.

Much was gained in the descriptions for both speaker and the person being spoken about. The speaker was able to identify qualities of a person without sounding or being prejudiced or biased. The descriptions and politically correct language allowed us to appreciate and celebrate differences as well as name and identify undesirable characteristics without being overly harsh or close minded.

The person being spoken about was able to see themselves as more than a label. In this manner their dignity and worth were restored, and in many cases they were able to use the attribute as a way of becoming a part of a community often with a sense of pride. The autism spectrum, addictions and many factions of the mental health community have become opportunities for not only acceptance and understanding from those outside of the community, but often a source of connection with those who share their experience and way of being in the world.

In an effort to reduce and remove all forms of hatred from society a movement inside the desire to be sensitive and politically correct began to try to purge and replace any language which promoted or was saturated with prejudice and intolerance. Ethnic and racial hatred was found to be housed in many cultural and racial slurs. My being Italian I was familiar with the derogatory slang terms such as “dago”, “wop” or the modern day “Guido” which so happens to be my actual last name. While ethnic slurs and slangs were able to be replaced with more formal terms such as Italian, Jew, or Mexican other terms were harder to find non-offensive alternatives.

Yet, soon the desire to avoid stigmatized and hate ridden language became obsessive and extreme. Descriptors were often discarded and replaced with euphemisms or vague if not misleading terminology. The stigma of the “n word”, or “retard” was not and cannot be removed by language alone. The attitude infuses the word with meaning, and while a word may be contaminated over time with how it is used, any new word will suffer the same fate if the underlying hatred is not addressed.

My friends “of color” never had trouble, and usually preferred my use of the term blacks as opposed to African Americans. First of all the term African American is both inaccurate and a form of prejudice in that I am assuming the black person I am meeting is both of African descent and is American. Yet, what about those who identify more as a member of an island culture or happen to be born in another of the 100 or so lands in which blacks happen to be born. Calling someone “a person of color” is also extremely vague and racially biased because we are generally referring to specific shades of color. We are  indirectly insulting many people by insinuating that they aren’t people of color. Everyone has color whether that be beige, white, pink, red, yellow, brown or black, and to say someone is a person of color is either a euphemism or code word for a particular color or shade range.

I think it is absurd to think that using the term black is inherently racist, or derogatory. It is descriptive and far more accurate. Likewise I always found it strange to replace the term oriental with Asian. The Orient and Asia are both geographical terms. Yet, when one speaks of someone looking Asian they are usually referring to someone whose heritage is found in the Orient. If I told a sketch artist that the person I saw was Asian, they would most certainly draw someone with characteristics from the Orient, and not a person from India or Pakistan which are from Asia and number in the billions of people.

Likewise I do not believe that referring to the mentally challenged as “special” removes the stigma, those who are mean and insulting to the mentally handicapped do not change their prejudice because he word has changed. While calling someone “retarded” is a slur like calling me a “wop”, saying that someone has mental retardation is more descriptively accurate than designating them as “special”.

Saying someone suffers from depression is a description of a way a certain population reacts to and responds to their experiences. Likewise mental retardation stripped of its stigma just refers to the fact that the neurology of a person with this condition processes information at a slower rate and that their cognitive abilities fall below the average. I have been a tutor of a number of people with neurological and processing conditions including Autism Spectrum and Downs Syndrome, and have not felt that any limitations they had make them inferior to those who are “higher functioning”. I have no need to use euphemisms or to be less accurately descriptive because I have found their neurological tendencies and skills have little and in most cased no bearing on their ability to find joy and be good people.

Accurate descriptions of people assist us in appreciating, celebrating, understanding and feeling compassion for the experiences and hurdles of others. While the seeds of Political Correctness started with this noble goal it has in many realms become a purveyor of fantasy, misinformation and even its own form of stigma and prejudice.

Many of the those who used political correctness as a tool to reduce prejudice and increase the level of human understanding and tolerance have become some of the most biased and prejudiced individuals in our culture. The heritage of political correctness was to defend those who were being attacked for being different or the minority. They advocated for the underdog or those ignored or hunted down by the power structures which favor certain groups. They supported those that were attacked, devalued, marginalized, stigmatized and predatorized by others simply due to their race, cultural heritage, disability, gender, religious affiliation or ideology.

In Identity politics we now are insulting and condemning people for what they say, believe or in a growing number of cases what they are perceived to think. Instead of celebrating diversity of opinion we are demanding every one to have the same value system, express themselves with the same terminology, and see the world through the same eyes

Instead of saying someone has made a remark which could be considered racist, or sexist or insensitive to a particular group many of the previously politically correct crowd are labeling people as sexists, racists and bigots. Righteously and aggressively hating the haters has become vogue. People are pigeonholed, judged harshly, harassed and even physically attacked for expressing an opinion which is thought to be biased or holding to an antiquated view of a particular minority group. If a man makes a remark which could be construed as insulting or demeaning to a female he is a sexist, not a person who made a remark which could be perceived as insensitive or insulting.

If a person expresses a desire that their child marry a person of their race, ethnic group or religious affiliation they are often irreversibly labeled a racist or a hater of other groups. The consideration of such viewpoints being a love and pride in one’s heritage is not possible, not even that they are a segregationist, but only that they are racists and haters.

People are being denied preferences, a desire to maintain cultural heritage, free speech and even the right to harbor negative feelings towards any identified group. Those who hate the haters often claim the ability to read minds when those who make both pro and anti statements towards a group state with certainty that the positive statements are lies and the negative sentiments are truth and in fact are a thin veil for their underlying hatred.

In identify politics it is fine to call someone a racist, sexist, Islamaphobe, Nazi, or any other slur if they do not adhere to a very specific political and ideological agenda. Anyone who voted against Obama is a racist, and anyone who didn’t vote for Hillary is a sexist. The Identity Politics narrative often labels any protectionist action or one aimed at preventing Islamic Extremism as racists and Islamaphobic.

Even when laws are passed out of fear and paranoia it might be a bit of stretch to say all proponents are haters and white supremacists. Yet much of the identity politics crowd is engaged in a level of McCarthyism regarding the Russians which matches if not supersedes that of supporters of building a wall and not allowing Arabs into the US.

It is perplexing and disappointing how much of the Identity Politics and Feminists crowd are engaging in prejudice, hatred and intolerance. Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are useless if they are only reserved for certain groups and entities. The original point of political correctness was to promote tolerance and acceptance as a universal which would in and of itself create social harmony.

On a daily basis I hear friends who are consumers of the Identity Politics and popular Feminist narratives call people who are conservative or traditionalists as being “stupid”, “backward” and “ignorant”. All of these terms are expressed with a palpable level of disgust and superiority. This attitude is at the core of exceptionalism. It expresses the idea that people of higher intelligence are inherently better than those who are not, the irony that many of these same people have been vociferous advocates for the mentally handicapped is totally missed. I want to state once again, that I do not feel better than or inferior to others due to their IQ or any other recognized measure of human intelligence.

The self-proclaimed exceptionalism lying at the core of identity politics is the total opposite of tolerance, understanding and the celebration of diversity. Exceptionalism is a form of cultural or ideological eugenics. If one is exceptional all others are inferior, which is actually the very definition and essence of prejudice and bigotry. It shouldn’t be a matter who hates first, or feels the most justified in their anger and righteousness, but rather who has the courage to be devoted to peace, love and understanding. Good people have good intentions, and engage in life affirming behavior, but that doesn’t make them inherently better than their contemporaries.

United in Compassion,

Jim Guido

Gender Issues and Relationships and sexuality and Social Issues27 Aug 2017 02:53 pm

I have always been a person who has had an ambivalent relationship with objectivity. While I like being able to see things clearly and not be overly influenced with my perspective, I’m also a person who views emotion and feeling as being integral in the experience of joy, intimacy and rewarding experience.

So while trying to see things from a multiple of perspectives and being able to live in another man’s/women’s shoes, I also want to fully engage and participate in my own experience. I yearn to savor and relish my sentient life full of thoughts, feelings and sensations.

This has led me to have a very ambivalent relationship to science in which I utilize its objectivity to see things as they are, but then I quickly advance beyond pure objectivity and avail myself to the artistic subjectivity of life. In my song Thinking Inside the Box, I express the concern of overdoing objectivity in the following manner.

I object to the objective of your objectivity

In Science often the objective of objectivity is to avert and transcend subjectivity. The goal is often to annihilate the prejudicial view of subjectivity and to acquire objective Truth and Knowledge. Yet, for me pure objective knowledge is sterile and inhuman. I therefore object to the objective of objectivity!

I am enthralled with life in all its imperfections and impermanence. Life is a rewarding and unending process in which each day I become more intimate with myself, others and nature.

This brings me to my discomfort with the modern feminist framing of objectifying females and the female body. While I admit it is possible to objectify anything, including the female form/body I strongly react to how it is presented. I once again object to the objective of their claim that men generally objectify women.
Continue Reading »

Government and Politics and Social Issues20 Aug 2017 07:17 pm

It was indeed fairly odd that Nelson Mandela refused to meet Barak Obama in person when Obama went to Africa while Mandela was in the hospital in 2013. Though Mandela was in stable condition it was Nelson’s and the Mandela family wishes that Obama not come to the hospital. An opportunity for Obama to meet one of his heroes in person was squelched and the press did their best to normalize this and not make it significant or noteworthy.

Obama did manage to get a phone call with Nelson’s wife and was able to meet with some relatives at a foundation in Nelson’s name. Yet, to be rebuffed at paying his respects to one of the world’s most respected if not revered black leaders had to be a tough pill for Obama to swallow.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/obamas_visit_mandela_family_in_south_africa/

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/23/nelson_mandela_barack_obamas_south_africa_visit.html

Yet, to theorize and understand the possible reasons for Mr. Obama’s being snubbed by Mr. Mandela is not necessarily that difficult to ascertain. Nelson Mandela was dedicated to the freedom of blacks all through Africa. On many occasions Mandela spoke of his great respect and admiration of leaders such as Gaddafi, Castro and Chavez for both their support of the cause of Apartheid and South Africa in particular.

Mandela referred to Gaddafi as a hero and the person who did more for black rights and the unification of Africa than any other man. Mandela has a grandchild named Gaddafi and seems to have viewed Gaddafi as an African version of MLK. It was Obama who endorsed if not commandeered the policies that led to the brutal murder of Gaddafi in 2011. Ms. Clinton as secretary of state is famous for her glee at taking credit for his demise. Whether or not the US shares Mr. Mandela’s feelings for Gaddafi one can appreciate the anger and hurt that Mandela must have felt to one of the persons most responsible for the demise of his dear friend and hero.

https://thisisafrica.me/watch-nelson-mandela-defends-relationship-with-gaddafi/

Nelson Mandela's love for his "brother leader" Colonel Gaddafi

One must remember that Mandela was labeled a terrorist by the US all the way up to the Obama administration despite his popularity as a freedom fighter and leader of civil rights for black africans. The label of terrorist was common to most of Mandela’s political friends an allies such as Castro and Chavez. Obama’s suppression and prosecution. of whistle blowers along with his protection and working relationship with the financial organizations that worsened the life of many blacks in the US and internationally could not have helped him win the esteem of Mr. Mandela.

Yet, the view of increasing disappointment turned to anger at Barak Obama for his poor record regarding black and human rights in the US and around the globe was not just the apparent stance of Mandela, but began to be shared by many others. In the US former associates of MLK and other leaders of the black and civil rights groups became increasingly disenchanted and frustrated with Obama’s stances, policies and missed opportunities. The bulk of the victims in the endless wars and military interventions during Obama’s two terms have been people of color.

One of the most respected black activists and intellectuals of our time is Cornel West. He is the perfect example of a man whose high hopes and expectations of Obama were quickly dashed. As the Obama years passed his frustration and disappointment grew to the point that, for him, his administration wasn’t just a missed opportunity but actually set black and human rights tumbling backward.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/barack-obama-legacy-presidency

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/24/cornel_west_he_posed_as_a_progressive_and_turned_out_to_be_counterfeit_we_ended_up_with_a_wall_street_presidency_a_drone_presidency/

We have  become a nation that focuses too much on appearances such as skin color, gender and beliefs and far less on the impact one’s actions have on the actual lives of others. We judge people on what they say and how they present themselves and spend more time trying to control their thoughts and read their minds than actually paying attention to what they actually do.

 

Jim Guido

 

Music and Philosophy and Poetry and Politics and Psychology and Social Issues13 Aug 2017 07:38 pm

For those of you new to the site, or who haven’t visited in awhile I invite you to fully explore GuidoWorld and all it has to offer. If you click on to the Words tab at the far top right you will currently see four of my novels along with two of my nonfiction books.

I have recently updated the page so that the entire books are posted rather than just some selected chapters. Within the next year I plan on posting two or three more of my books, so by the time you finish reading the current menu of my works more should be available.

A couple tabs to the left of Words you will find the Music tab. There you will find the growing library of my albums. The music contained on the albums spans from the early 80’s all the way up to the present. Similar to the book menu, the posted music library will continue to grow and be of a higher quality throughout the year. Of the 19 albums currently listed 14 of them have been remixed and remastered and will show themselves as part of Bandcamp.

The remaining five plus an additional five more albums are in the process of being updated and remixed. My son, who is a far better recording technician than myself will be in charge of the new revised mixes. Since I have a huge backlog of songs and I still write and record between 8 and 12 songs a year, new albums will be appearing in the foreseeable future.

The podcast button is new and is rather sparse at this point. Within the next year or so I plan on beginning to record a number of podcasts that discuss my books and music, as well as all discuss and expand upon all of the social, political and psychological topics that you have covered in my posts over the last decade.

Those who have been faithful readers to this site know how much I am enthralled with life, and how much I relish the opportunity to share and to grow. Thanks for taking the time to read, listen to and ponder all that I have produced and posted over the years.
Enjoy!

United in Compassion,

Jim

Government and Politics and Social Issues25 Jun 2017 01:06 pm

Yes, let’s have a party. A new political party which represents a true alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. Let’s have a party that actually respects and represents the wishes and values of the majority of the people. Let’s have a political party which is for affordable and universal health care, let’s have a party that works for the economic and political interests of the common man, the vast majority of US citizens.

Let’s have a party that makes peace and a decent quality of life for all citizens its number one goal. In fact let’s call it the Peace Party. Let’s have the Peace Party major focus be on maintaining harmony while increasing the quality and standard of life for all citizens not just the wealthy and privileged.

Let’s have a party which makes  our being able to live in a healthy and sustainable environment a higher priority than making money or controlling and policing the world. Let’s have a party which respects the integrity and self-determination of each person not only in this country but in all others around the globe. Let’s have a political party which strives to live harmoniously with others and respects the sovereignty of all other nations to make their own decisions regarding social and economic policy and political ideology as long as it does not directly harm or substantially impair the quality of life of US citizens.

I am not alone in this wish, or in thinking that such a social movement is both vital and possible at this juncture of our nation’s history. David Lindorff of http://www.thiscantbehappening.net penned the following this weekend.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/23/we-need-a-mass-movement-to-demand-radical-progressive-change/

Similar sentiments were also presented by Paul Craig Roberts in his latest blog, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-24/paul-craig-roberts-warns-world-going-down-trump. He casts the need for such a movement as urgent, and in fact hints that our chances of averting a nuclear confrontation with a nuclear power such as Russia are dwindling daily. Such feelings that we are a warrior nation in need of changing our path, is not only held by an ex-Reagan administration guys like Roberts but also held by peace activist and ex-president Jimmy Carter for years.

Here is a short article quoting Mr. Carter that was written in 2013. http://www.endthekoreanwar.org/landauer ex-president carter-u.s. failing to promote peace.pdf In this article and many others through the last decade or so President Carter while remaining tactful and diplomatic has made it very clear that the US is no longer a leader in world peace and that we need a political rebirth regarding our nation’s commitment to world and domestic peace.

In the article cited above by Paul Craig Roberts he presents the well documented but still controversial view that the US is purposely generating conflict in the Middle East and with Russia. While the US’s role in destabilizing nations like Iraq, Libya, Yemen is now pretty much accepted, the idea that we would purposely escalate tensions with Russia is still difficult to emotionally accept no matter how convincing the evidence.

I personally found this last short article particular disturbing. It involves Representative Gabbard Tulsi’s attempts at getting a bill passed that would make it illegal for federal dollars to be used in arming and supporting known international terrorists groups. Please read the article and bill as it seems straight forward and to the point, and does not include any extraneous attachments which could make the bill a Trojan horse for less honorable intentions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-government-proves-love-for-isis-as-bill-to-stop-arming-terrorists-gets-only-13-supporters/5595796

There are those that believe that the ousting of Donald Trump would cure all ills. Yet, the path of war with a nuclear power such as Russia did not start with Mr. Trump. We are, and have been an ambitious empire for many decades, and the need for change of direction far predates Mr. Trump.

The previous administration was the first one lasting 8 years that was at war for every day of its tenure. While this is quite saddening it should be noted that we have been involved in some war or military conflict for well over 90% of our existence as a nation.  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm

Not the type of world record for which any nation should be proud, especially one that portrays itself as being a beacon of freedom and democracy. Here is an article attempting to quantify the number of global deaths attributed to US direct and indirect intervention.  http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

My thought is that through the use of social media we can start a campaign to have people register as members of the Peace Party. Not being a maven of social media I would hope someone reading this would take the initiative to begin the campaign. The goal of this article is not to demonize the US, but to point out the need for the peaceful will of citizens of the US to have a viable political outlet.

Becoming a member of the Peace Party is not so much a commitment to vote for its candidates, but a belief that a Peace Party is a valuable voice to be heard, and policies based on peace and diplomacy are an important and missing component of our current political climate.

United in Compassion,

Jim Guido

 

 

 

Next Page »