Who’s Thinking in The Shower?

The Buddha said it. Sages have said it. Jim Carrey says it. Even Sam Harris would say it — after a long, drawn-out answer to a question on the subject: that there is no subject. There is no “I”.

I have taken to saying things such as: I experienced this image/thought/idea… because though the conventions of Standard English demand I use the first-person pronoun to allow a listener to know who is doing the doing or the experiencing in my sentences (not all other languages require this — Korean, Japanese and Chinese don’t require the use of subjects), I do not feel authorship for most of what happens in my brain, and ‘I’ usually (not always) implies a sense of authorship.

We witness our actions and thought, but we say “I thought of something,” “I came up with an idea/solution/poem. I did this thing.” In reality, you might be good enough to admit, we have ideas, we witness solutions, we discover poetic verses. These things come to us. And when we finally get up to go to the bathroom, doesn’t it seem as if we could honestly say, ‘my body finally got up’, when I had just been thinking about it? Think carefully. How often have you decided your favorite color, taste, or even dating type. Doesn’t something inside you do this for “you”? I have been thinking about this for decades – long before I heard of or read Sam Harris. The point is, it is a phenomenon common to us all – if we are observant and honest.

The Buddha said the brain was a witnessing gland, an interpreter, an observer; actually he said it was a sense organ. We can manipulate what we interpret in the world, design sentences to describe it,  formulate equations around the properties we observe or imagine to  be responsible for the properties we think we sense in the universe and edit the words that come to us in the writing of a poem. But these things — these processes we invent come from inspirations, flash-points, touchstones.

Ideas: Whence Do They Come?

Many people will tell you — myself included — that we get the best ideas in the shower, or during other mundane acts, when basically the mind and body are united in a task that does not allow for too much ego-driven control. Some might be tempted to say that during these deeds, such as in the act of bathing, we are following patterns — some learned, some programmed by habit, and some just common sense: you drop the soap and pick it up in the exact same way you had when you were five years old — minus any age- or injury- inducing changes in your locomotion.

And this deed, be it watering the garden, washing your hair, or doing the washing up (the dishes) is a “thoughtless” activity — and yet, the brain “thinks” as freely as if we were dreaming. And we get ideas. Some might say these mundane acts should indicate the brain is in its programming (programmed) modse. We are doing tasks — such as cleansing, organizing or even driving the car — a more or less programmed set of rituals and scripted responses to the world outside — which we ingrained the memory and motor circuits of the brain to come to engage in unconsciously. But during these acts of washing, working mindless tasks and driving, we sometimes find it more obvious to notice what the brain is doing behind the scenes all the time: thinking for itself.  So, I would say that that part of the brain is on “auto-pilot”, whilst the rest is in “free-flight” mode. And this is where our genius comes from.

Einstein imagined the scenes that became his basis for the theory of relativity. He saw himself riding a light beam through the cosmos. He wasn’t in the shower, but haven’y we — in our busy lives — been deeply involved in working with water, as I alluded to, before — when we have experienced ideas we wouldn’t honestly say we authored?

Bears And Big Thoughts

I remember the first time I bathed in a roaring creek. I was on a back country camping expedition in Colorado — with a girlfriend. We had no other way to wash. Well, I can tell you that in bear country, you don’t blithely dream away a twenty-minute period amidst dense forest as you throw frigid water on your naked body in the out-of-doors. First, you want to get the task over with, because the water is nearly freezing cold. Next, you are scanning the horizon – which is basically a hundred yards in any direction, except up and down stream — for something big and furry that might want to miss the fish for a day for a side of human sushi and creek drink.

In the hunter-gatherer days, this is how people washed — carefully. Could it be that this was one of our first meditative acts in which the mind and body are engaged in auto pilot, whilst in the background the stirrings of conscious dreaming were in their infancy, in such a way as they could be called up today whilst we are in water? And in the time that ensued in which people became more used to this — effectively having our brains say, ‘fuck the bears’, I need a bath, this act of washing became more and more relaxed and automatic and so our contemplative thoughts increased at this time.

Sow we find ourselves, today, a hundred thousand years hence washing in total abandon — unless we have to make a commute. Could it be the body (or the part of the brain that is the body) tells the mind it is okay, now, to take over — when we are touched with water — because of our nascent experiences as a species, always in thought — with that medium?

More to Come on This…

“Princess” Nokia’s Violence

“Race” And Its Misuses Destroy Conversation on Human Rights, Science And Religion

A Little-mentioned Major Reason “Race” And Its Misuses Destroy Conversation on Human Rights, Science And Religion

I don’t like conservative religious Christian, Hebrew or Muslim culture in the modern era, because they are cognitively, emotionally and sometimes physically violent.

 The doctrines of these religions are violent — despite their itinerant and intermittant talk of love and generosity. 

This doesn’t make me “racist”, but it might make me an ethniphobe in terms of moderate or conservative religiosity coming from theists.

Basically, if you are a theist, it’s harder to like you (but I love you as a human being) — unless I never hear you talk about these offensive, immoral and indefensible ideas relating to gods, demons, angels, science-denial and “moral” control, and I can be assured they don’t affect your politics.

This is not a casual statement; I have read and listened to — extensively on this — academics who are expert in their fields. I have thought, meditated on and soul-searched this subject, discussed it and written extensively about it, too — with much compassion and what I hope has been seen as generosity.
I mention this, today, because all this increasing talk about “race” has heightened and will worsen the mistruths, sidetracking, political correctness and identity politics relating to the discussion of theism and culture and their effects on society, which philosophers, scientists and human rights activists who are concerned with religion and culture know has a disingenuous, deleterious, dampening and derailing effect on the conversation. 

In case you don’t understand or would like further clarity on this, read these examples, please:

The Bill Maher-Sam Harris-Ben Afleck Incident

A year ago, Bill Maher hosted Sam Harris — the philosopher, author and PhD in neuroscience, as well as Ben Afleck, the actor, and others — to his show, Real Time with Bill Maher.

Ben Affleck attacked Sam Harris, calling him a “racist,” at one point in a very difficult conversation about religion, as Harris, in attempting to state his premise, included saying that Islam gets special treatment and that  “Islamaphobia” is a meme and conversation-stopper and a way to shut down substantive discussion. (I agree.)

Afleck used many colorful and non-sequitor epithets, trying to draw disingenuous and innacurate analogies — false-equivilencies, really — between what Harris and others have been saying and the ethniphobic statements made by anti-semites in ages past.

Ben meant well, but was out of his depth and hot-headed. 

Harris and Maher had to fight to finish each sentence as Afleck continually interrupted them, but Harris and Maher eventually prevailed pointed out to Afleck that what they were saying was about the  high percentage of Muslims who think such-and-such egregeous principle in thier religion is true and right and how the polls in many Mulsim countries — including in “liberal” ones — illustrate the frightening reality of this.

Then, Afleck asks rhetorically whether Harris thinks ‘Islam is a bad idea.’

Probably and mostly out of exasperation, Harris says what many who know scripture and history are aware of, but do not say: 

“Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas.”

This is when Afleck labeled Harris a “racist.”

The Problem And Point

The point is, religions deserve no right to be exempt from criticism and the misuse of the word “race” in relation to them and their adherents, cognitively and verbally sets up an unfair and unjust protection of their doctrines, making them off-limits to scrutiny.

As Douglas Adams and many philosophers and scientists have pointed out, in virtually no other endeavor do we make criticism off-limits.


Religion and ethnic practices, incorrectly protected by “race” are the only areas of human life walled off and unfairly guarded like this, and it’s unjustified and dangerous.

Mislabeling Criticism as Racist

The second example is all too obvious and ubiquitous and at the heart of every “racist” complaint, which comedians point out is becoming a larger and larger category encompassing any type of criticism.

If you don’t think a majority of (or a large minority of) a particular cultural group is practicing human rights — or some other civic responsibility — to the desired measure of egalitarian norms, you can be called “racist” for your criticism of this behavior. That’s intellectually dishonest and unfair.

This is actually a different example of the first case — mentioned above — but equally demonstrative (or perhaps moreso) of the bad situation we are in, where “race” awards unwarrented and undeserved protection. 

This example will be easier to discuss than some of the classic American issues of this type.

The Burka Ban

France has banned the burka and the burkini. One reason for this is “cultural protectionism,” meaning that many French do not want the face of their culture changing to the extent that it looks like a Muslim majority country. 

Many can argue that this is not an example of how to create a free society, and they would be technically right, but then they could be blamed for being unfair in this assessment as the burka and its derivitives are marks of female-subjugation, which is a concept anathema to the French and in gross contradiction to the ideals and struggles of the Renaissance, the French Revolution and French Enlightenment and a defining aspect of French society. (And I agree.)

Islam, itself, is a religion of submission — an idea quite contrary and offensive to everything it means to be French. 

Pro-Muslim and multi-cultural people can say it is Islamophobia, but this is an attempt both at shutting down the substance of the conversation — because there is nothing wrong with expressing fear of cultural encroachment coming from a culture diametrically opposite and hostile to your values — but it is also tragically comic, because the suggestion is one should not be afraid of Islam, whilst in actuality, people are terrified of it, whether that is right or wrong. That’s how they feel. And the inconvenient truth is there is a good case for defending this fear. Look around. Read the newspapers.

Now if you are poised to attack this notion, understand many of us are terrified of Christianity, too. I am.

Purpose Check

The point of this article is to say that whatever your honest convictions about this subject of religion and culture, “race” doesn’t enter into it — insofar as race is culture plus biology — an amalgam once used to excuse the subjugation of “inferior” people in the time of slavery, but now used to defend against criticisms of religion and cultural practices, so people can enjoy a special status affording them the right not to be offended and the right to — in the case of religion — perpetuate intolerence and dangerous ideas under the guise of multi-culturalism and liberalism. 

The irony is these religions are anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic, anti-science and anti-freedom (in terms of the mind, of sexual freedom and persuasion, of art and expression and of women).

The Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz – Southern Poverty Law Center Incident

The final example involves Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex Muslim, former Dutch Parliamentarian and author famous for her human rights activism and criticism of Islam. She is a friend and contemporary of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Professor Daniel Dennett and the late Christopher Hitchens, the journalist credited with having been the greatest British essayist since George Orwell.

Ali is also friends with Majid Nawaz, founder of Quilium — an organization founded to reduce Islamic Jihad and Islamism and to promote a reform of Islam to usher the religion into the 21st Century. Nawaz is a former Islamist who left his home country of Britain to spread the ideas of theocracy in Pakistan. He changed in an Egyptian prison, where he met true Jihadis who revealed to him the extreme violence and ignorance of pure, theocratic Islam.

Nawaz met Sam Harris after a debate, and they had an argument, in which a slightly tipsy Harris challenged Nawaz to just come clean about the fact that he couldn’t admit the truth about Islam.

This sparked a discussion in which they became friends, Harris apologized for his abruptness, and they went on to write the recently published book, Islam And The Future of Tolerence. In it they discuss (it’s a printed conversation with audio available) how to solve the problem of radical Islam.

The point about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz:

Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Ali and Nawaz Islamophobes and denigrated them and their work — which is, of course, ridiculous and will prove to be a great stain on SPL’s reputation.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s lectures, like those of Harris and Nawaz and the rest of these luminaries, are brilliant — compassionate, repspectful, ingenious, eloquent honest, and accurate.

Ali is a victim of Female Genital Manipulation. She escaped a forced betrothal. She talks of the Mecca-Muhammad (a spiritual persona) and the Medina-Muhammad (a raping, murdering, homophobic warlord manifestation) and how Islam cannot be reformed to eradicate violent Jihad and theocracy unless Muslim guardians — parents and leaders — explain the difference.

The Challemge for Muslims

The problem with reforming Islam is in the fact that the Prophet Muhammad cannot be criticized — as Ali has criticized him — and so his violent pronouncements of how to prosecute war on infidels, rape enemy women and kill gays cannot be amended.

Ali’s friend Theo Van Goh was murdered for making a film about Islam, and his body was left in the streets of Holland with a note pinned to his chest by a dagger, warning the likes of those who criticize Islam, such as Ali. In light of this, Southern Poverty Law Center’s rebuke of her can be seen as extremely irresponsible and damgerous.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist, now. Maajid Nawaz, a reformed Muslim.  She, he and Harris muat travel to their speaking engagements under high security because of death threats.

The Richard Dawkins Incident

Recently, the famed Richard Dawkins, prize winning author of the Selfish Gene, The God Delusion and The Greatest Show in Earth: The Evidence for Evolution was uninvited from a speaking engagement at Berkley because of a politically correct outcry that is attempting to stifle his criticism of religion and of course, principally of Islam. This is the subverting of our culture and erosion of free speech at the highest levels. Dawkins is a genius evolutionary biologist and a gentleman of the highest order.


Muslims are not a “race.” Pretending they or any other cultural or religious group is a “race” represents a dishonest attempt to protect them against legitimate criticism at worst and extremw ignorance at best.

The fact that Southern Poverty Law Center – once a legal bastion of equality and justice, has succumbed to the politically correct dumbing-down of America and become a mouthpiece for blind pop-culture criticism of human rights champions such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz is terrifying testament to how far illigitimate concepts in identity politics such as those which lean on “race” have come to indicate how far the left is becoming fascist.

This is hypocracy, intellectual and spiritual dishonesty, academic illegitimacy and entitlement — and it’s unjust and dangerous.

One Thing You Can Do

I encourage you to stop using this bastard and erroneous word — ‘race,’ perpetuating its illigitimate entitlements and in so-doing you shall also be stopping the perpetuation of the phony concept of “race” and its pernicious effects. We only have cultural challenges, as we are all members of the same race. And cultural challenges cannot be met or eliminitaed with dishonest and innacurate speech.


Why I Speak And Write Proper English

A Reader on Facebook (to me): “Your notion of correct English doesn’t line up with what we all consider natural English. Something all native speakers of the language are capable of.

I, in Reaponse:

I speak standard English to preserve it, because I taught English as a Second Language for 18 years and know that because there are more non-native speakers of the language than native speakers, the accuracy — and thus the beauty and nuance of it — is being destroyed, or is at least devolving.

In addition, I realized that I would have fewer incidences of confusion in the classroom, if I modeled correct English first — before speaking the dialectical incorrect versions of the language so common to many today.

I knew I would also have less of a hard time re-explaining structure if my students learned English correctly the first time.

I speak Standard English properly to the best of my ability, also because I am a burgeoning essayist, poet, comic and activist to the best of my abilities, and I feel that accuracy in language often — if not always — conveys meaning more precisely in those endeavors — and less ambiguously, if one utilizes it.

I have suffered occupationally and socially due to ignorance of the language on the part of others (a huge problem in the PC world of today).

I am interested in aviation and aerospace. There are hyper-important reasons illustrating why English is the international language of those endeavors and they aren’t in the realm of hegemony; its about accuracy.

English is a low-context, highly democratic and accurate language for “level-the-playing field” communication, which prevents plane crashes.

Finally, I seek an audience with the righteous, academic and political — as well as with common people such as myself, for the current era and for posterity, such that I can help improve the world. Saying things correctly makes that easier on all fronts — in my opinion.

I do step outside proper English to convey points, too, however — especially when I want to be humorous!

These are wonderfully good reasons to speak the language according to its best devised rules and conventions, in my opinion.

For America

I hope that more Americans, while resisting most or all of the Trump agenda, can remember to be virtuous, honest and courageous in action, word and integrity, and in confronting the challenges of our nation, remember that identity politics divides us, while love, understanding, mindfulness and discussion can heal our wounds and take us on the road to solutions and recovery, even with our adversaries and enemies — at home and abroad.

Why People Insist on Using ‘Race’

Some of you know I have been on a crusade to eliminate the use of the word race outside scientific discourse, because of its erroneous and pernicious hand in ethnic prejudice.

When an issue comes up such as the Charlottesville clashes and the like, I post a few paragraphs on this.

Invariably the idea gets approval, but people continue to use the word, and there are always one or two of you who push back on insignificant grounds, citing semantics and lingual tradition or maybe revisionism.

On Youtube I have even been told that I am wrong in supporting the scientific and social consensus; those are opinions in disguise of the true ethniphobes and xenophobes, I think.

The thing some of us don’t understand is if you want people to get along, it should make you happy that the genome project a few years ago proved what scientists knew all along, and that is that we are one species (“race”). Why this fact doesn’t excite  all of the good hearted people and encourage them to see the problem with the word race, I cannot fathom.

So when I meditate on it, I come to these conclusions about why:

1. Some are afraid of losing their special status as “black,” “white,” “Korean,” whatever.

2. Others are afraid of being lumped in with everyone else (another angle on number 1).

3. Some feel it is a semantic difference (when it clearly is not), and just don’t understand what I and others are saying. They obviously think a change in language won’t affect the problem. To me, this is like saying we should continue using the “N-word,” because it does no harm.

4. Some feel the phasing out of the use of the word race will erode their political and social agenda which more than being about concerns about prejudice, I suspect involve false pride.

As far as the issue of prejudice — institutional or otherwise — is concerned, I feel this is not true. No one is whitewashing the history these days unless they are white supremacists, which I obviously am not, and my call for the use of other words besides and in place of “race” should prove that.

‘Race’ in non-scientific discourse just makes it easier to incorrectly assert that people are permanently different. How does that advance the agenda of equality?

5. This is the most disturbing and another version of number 1: Some want to continue to assert their superiority so insist there are actually different races. This is the position science deniers are in for the sake of fossil fuel profits, pretending global warming is a hoax, and of course it is as equally evil, because it obscures the truth and perpetuates suffering.

Just remember: believing in seperate races among humans is science denial and a major cause of the problem.

Also remember that if you refrain from using the word ‘race’ and its derivitives, and you use species, instead, you will see what is so wrong with ‘race.’

When you want to refer to an ethnicity, a culture, a nationality, you can still do that, just leave biology out of it — because that’s not only incorrect, it’s bigoted. Then you’ll see there are no grounds for using ‘race’ without asserting your belief in its fiction — which makes one a “racist,” like being a believe in the living Elvis, only that’s harmless; thinking others are a different species just because of their skin or skeletal variation is incorrect — and has been hurting people for hundreds of years.




Talk to The Power You Control
Often and most recently, I have encouraged people to be politically active, using the pen, the keyboard, the phone and twitter. I say tweet to the Trumps and to our representatives at this sensitive and dangerous political and historical time. In response, people have told me they were not “on Twitter”, that they ‘couldn’t figure it out’ or that they ‘weren’t sure whether tweeting to politicians was an effective method.’ What on Earth is Trump doing?
Here is a paraphrased, expanded and developed composite of my responses:
You can remedy your lack of a Twitter account in minutes. You can figure out how it works in equal time. The tools for democracy and sinfully easy participation were never better.
Do you only do things with a guarantee of success? If a man had his finger on the button, would you not lunge at him without doing a statistical analysis of your possible failure rate, first? And what is “effective” in your book?
No one is asking that your small democratic participation and responsibility solve everything. I do it to simply say, ‘hey, primate-like-me, I’m one of the citizens you’re dumping on and leaving in a lurch with your stupid, cowardly and selfish policies, and I am watching you.’ I also do it out of love. These are people and they get caught up in the corrupt system you and I maintain — so, it is a reminder that it is not okay. I am often quite polite about it, too, but now that we are literally being bent over and kicked in the ass, along with the rest of the world — due to our power, influence and responsibilities, by these usurpers and traitors, I can’t stand tall as a man without at least saying something.
As a matter of fact, I just tweeted to my representatives in the Senate (see below), to make sure they fight Mitch McConnell on his irresponsible and climate-killing energy bill.
You see, I don’t find this the most enjoyable pastime — my political outreach; as a matter of fact, I am very far behind in many areas of my life — and this is not my chosen vocation — although it does involve quite a bit of philosophy (which I do enjoy in principle, but which could be applied to grander designs of much more interesting subjects, if we had only responsible, intellectual, educated and spiritually mature people in government).
It is infuriating and boring to me, that I have to deal with such childishness when I would love to turn my full attention to bigger problems of humanity, such as understanding the human mind, saving the environment (though that is part of this), spaceflight, art and poetry — and so it feels like a giant obstacle in the course of my life trajectory (I have school work to do; I am alone, between private places to live and I need another job); but it is not ‘a waste time. Political participation is, in the smallest way, my part in democracy.   not enough. Voting is the hiring. Political participation is the day-to-day work of being the boss. That’s our job! Did you ever have a job wherein you were hired and you never saw your boss or a supervisor, again? Did you ever get a job and have the boss say, ‘hey, now you’re on your own; do what you want. Sit at my desk, use my phone, have a party, take a vacation, set fire to the building, if you like.’
Indeed voting, alone, in America, is extremely flawed, as we know — and Trump and the Republicans are working to restrict that, too. That’s why I included the issue of voting in my petition to ban private campaign finance.
If I am not at least slightly politically active — tweeting — how can I call myself an American and be deserving of our democracy? How can I expect my representatives to represent me if I don’t stand up to have my opinions counted?
I had family die in wars for this country, I have worked and paid taxes, I see Americans and our enemies and allies suffer because of our decisions. And Trump and the Republicans are dumping on all of us with their conduct and undeserved positions at the helm of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Have you ever considered that millions of people and trillions of other species died around the world for our ’empire’, as well as Americans and foreign nationals. And these unscrupulous nitwits are taking your taxes to spit upon the memory of those souls, by running the country into fascism and the environment straight into hell.
I don’t know about you, but I want to earn my right to the legacy of Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Washington, Lafayette, Lincoln, Kennedy, and all the people in between and since who fought for this Republic in government and private life — as soldiers and private citizens paying taxes. Hell, what did John F. Kennedy live and die for — this? It is disgraceful and should shame us all. And what about the world we are handing over to our children? I saw a headline yesterday that asked when the earth would be too hot for us. The sub-title answered ‘maybe in our childrens’ lifetime. How can you sit by and accept that?
So, I don’t see how people can make excuses about what’s “effective” — to explain away why they won’t do something. It’s BS. Come on; you know that.
You either do your part or you are dead weight. You have the tools to talk to your oppressors and supporters — instantly. Why would you attempt to find an excuse not to?
As I said in my twenties, “democracy is not a spectator sport.” So ‘if you don’t like democracy and don’t want to do its work, you belong in China, Russia, North Korea, Thailand….’
Also, when I was in my twenties, there was no Twitter. I had to write a letter and take it to the PO. But I did that. A lot.
I am aghast at American excuses for not participating. If you have time for Facebook, you have time for your employees: the government. We, are responsible — and we do not do enough to rein in our government; that is why Osama Bin Laden attacked us.
Own it, friend. Or lose it. And according to recent 18th, 19th and 20th century history, we are on course to lose it as they had — through their vote and inaction.
© M∧N⊃⊙ (Carl Atteniese Jr.) 2017 All Rights Reserved

Trump And “Race”

Let’s Get One Thing Quite Clear: on Prejudice

Trump is not a “racist”; technically, no one is — no matter how hard he or she tries to be or appears to. Now, before you get your PC underwear in a knot, thinking I am taking away the mechanism by which “good” people get to hate “bad” people, hear me out. By the end of this, you won’t be angry at me — unless you want to be disingenuous, and you don’t really care about prejudice.

To be a “racist”, there have to be subspecies among humans to be prejudiced against; there aren’t. They don’t exist. It isn’t enough to say disliking a culture or even its peoples’ behaviors equates to “racism”. Race and racism call into the equation biology as well as culture. Therein lies the error and the offense. Therefore, in order to use ‘race’ in your description of a people, doesn’t it stand to reason you must believe in the fallacy of race; don’t you implicate yourself as “a racist” when you add credence to the existence of different races among humans — when you USE ‘race’?

To be a racist, you have to think religion, education, up-bringing, politics, culture and personal intention have not enough to do with a group’s behavior or with the behavior of members of the group you think they belong to. Otherwise you would use a different word to describe them. To be a racist you think biology enters into that (thus you use ‘race’ in your description) — or that it is a big part of all the other factors I mentioned.

If its not Race (Subspecies)
If you do believe all those factors — religion, education, up-bringing, politics, culture — are the reasons for the preponderance of certain behaviors observed in a group — or among members of it — and you subtract biology from the equation, you no longer can or should use “race” as a determinor in your reference to those people you speak of as different; you should use ‘culture’.

Words to Use
Therefore, if you think someone is inordinately concerned about a group of people along that line of thinking (whether he or she is right or wrong for that concern), you can refer to him or her — if you must label — as “a culturalist”, an “ethniphobe” or in the cases where you think the person is unfairly prejudiced, as “a prejudiced person”, “a bigot”, “ethnicentric”, “xenophobic” or as “a xenophobe”.

So we see readily that we have words to describe the phenomenon of unjustified and/or irrational prejudice. We don’t need “race” and its pernicious affects — its woefully inaccurate and incorrect implications of biology. Why be wrong when you can be right and still make your point? Why insult a group of people suggesting they are a different species or subspecies (which use of ‘race’ unequivocally does)?

Back to Trump
Trump is a draconian strategist. He is obsessively focused on the perfection trying to eliminate all chances of undermining his control. That means he sees a problem and wants a strict penalty — so he can ensure results. For example, Jihad occurs in a country, so he says “no one can come from there to here.”

It doesn’t phase him much (or didn’t) that out of say 10,000 refugees maybe only one would commit a terrorist act. That is not “racism.” If anything, it is culturalism — saying that a certain strain of education and political interest or proclivity exists in a particular group — and you want to eliminate its chances beyond all doubt.

Likes, Dislikes, Tastes And Prejudice
Now let me make a point about likes and dislikes. Is it “racist” to dislike Italian food? Personally speaking — though I love the taste of it — I am intellectually against it; it’s unhealthy, in my opinion. This is not ethniphobic. No one in his or her right mind would argue I am against Italian individuals (Italians, Italian people) just because I have an intellectual opinion about Italian cuisine. Similarly, if my taste — not merely my nutrition-oriented opinion of Italian food — is such that I don’t care for it, who would blame me?

If one does not care for Latin culture in general, however, we might agree that others would say this at least leans toward what I call ethniprejudice — what lazy or ignorant or defensive people call “racism”. But is it that?

If it just so happens that viscerally-speaking, my inclinations make me wince when I hear Spanish or Italian, and if by unconscious proclivity I also find Latin music unpleasant, and if I do not care for the teachings and habits and tendencies of those practicing the dominant religions in those cultures — additionally, if I don’t care for or am anathema to the politics they tend in large part to engender, so I do not have a lot of friends or a wife — more poignantly — from that culture (or from those cultures), am I an ethnicentric or ethni-bigot? Am I prejudiced? Am I… a “racist”?

I would hope — for the sake of the quality of your mind — that you would judge with a resounding “no” and that you would say that the afore-mentioned are matters of taste.

Now, if I judge each Italian or “Latino” before getting to know him or her (I can imagine people blaming me for using ‘Latino’ in the name of conversational efficiency) according to my tastes then THAT would be prejudice.

Back to Trump.
If Trump sees a record number of particular behaviors in subsets of people, and there is ample evidence to suggest that there are reoccurring contributing factors to perpetuate a continuation of those particular behaviors among them, is he wrong for naming this phenomenon and trying to take action regarding it? I am not saying he is right. I am asking the specific question with its inherent specific parameters to make a point — regardless whether the details are right; that’s academic. What is not is whether the premise is not sound and whether it is ethiphobic (and/or xenophobic) — “racist”. I don’t think it is; it may be problematic on other grounds — but has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. If it has to do with taste, there might be a big problem THERE, but not necessarily — if by taste one sees differing morals or educational and occupational tendencies in a group distasteful or undesirable for concerns of burgeoning citizenship.

Personally — and I digress — on the issue of immigration, I support amnesty in most cases of “illegal” resodence, because I consider a state a failed human construct if it cannot erect a society that honors human birth rights on this planet — in this day and age, and to me it is a human birthright of a human being to go wherever he or she chooses to go on the planet.

Back to Trump.
Ostensibly we want him out or to change based on (among other factors) his draconian, incompassionate and unrealistic approach to immigration and refugee policy and based on his offensive nature on these and other topics, hopefully not because we foolishly think he fosters policies, simply because he has trivial views on Mexicans and Muslims — such as his ‘not liking their cultures, because their names begin with the letter ‘m’ or his ‘dislike of tacos and humice’.

And even if Trump doesn’t want certain people here, because he thinks they are getting a free ride or he thinks their religion and culture are dangerous to egalitarian values, we don’t have to perpetuate the ignorant and stupid phenomenon of the existence of subspecies as relevant in the debate with the use of the wrong words — to accomplish a case against him.

The Cause is in The Word — Fostering The Belief
This is the cause of the problem — our saying human beings are fundamentally different by sub-species — not just by their food and clothes and music — when we use ‘race’. And so, the people using the word are the culprits — or some of them.

I won’t buy into the neo-liberal PC bullshit lie about race anymore, just because I ‘like’ the fight against prejudice (and truth be told I don’t like to fight). However, it is my strong and experiential suspicion that those who use the words ‘race’, ‘racist’ and ‘racial’ do like to fight — or need to (or they need to sound and appear as though they are fighting), because of their jobs and/or their relationships.

You can, buy into the PC bullshit of “race” and “racism”, if you want. I won’t. I will not go along with “most people” who are too “ignorant”, as a friend called those whom he said were “not smart enough” to be accurate and righteous with their words — defending the use of the word ‘race’, ostensibly for the purposes of efficiency.

Ignorance is the only fuel irrational-ethniphobia and prejudice, bigotry and xenophobia need to thrive. I will not remain ignorant any time I glean a path away from its darkness into the light of truth; not only is it anathema to my personality, I took an oath against it — in a temple — with my Dharma Brothers; nor will I perpetuate ignorance — for political expedience, friendship or acceptance in some circle — not even for the politics of “saving people”, because then I would be just like Trump.

Let’s Get One Thing Quite Clear: on Prejudice

Trump is not a “racist”; technically, no one is — no matter how hard he or she tries to be or appears to. Now, before you get your PC underwear in a knot, thinking I am taking away the mechanism by which “good” people get to hate “bad” people, hear me out. By the end of this, you won’t be angry at me — unless you want to be disingenuous, and you don’t really care about prejudice.

To be a “racist”, there have to be subspecies among humans to be prejudiced against; there aren’t. They don’t exist. It isn’t enough to say disliking a culture or even its peoples’ behaviors equates to “racism”. Race and racism call into the equation biology as well as culture. Therein lies the error and the offense. Therefore, in order to use ‘race’ in your description of a people, doesn’t it stand to reason you must believe in the fallacy of race; don’t you implicate yourself as “a racist” when you add credence to the existence of different races among humans — when you USE ‘race’?

To be a racist, you have to think religion, education, up-bringing, politics, culture and personal intention have not enough to do with a group’s behavior or with the behavior of members of the group you think they belong to. Otherwise you would use a different word to describe them. To be a racist you think biology enters into that (thus you use ‘race’ in your description) — or that it is a big part of all the other factors I mentioned.

If its not Race (Subspecies)
If you do believe all those factors — religion, education, up-bringing, politics, culture — are the reasons for the preponderance of certain behaviors observed in a group — or among members of it — and you subtract biology from the equation, you no longer can or should use “race” as a determinor in your reference to those people you speak of as different; you should use ‘culture’.

Words to Use
Therefore, if you think someone is inordinately concerned about a group of people along that line of thinking (whether he or she is right or wrong for that concern), you can refer to him or her — if you must label — as “a culturalist”, an “ethniphobe” or in the cases where you think the person is unfairly prejudiced, as “a prejudiced person”, “a bigot”, “ethnicentric”, “xenophobic” or as “a xenophobe”.

So we see readily that we have words to describe the phenomenon of unjustified and/or irrational prejudice. We don’t need “race” and its pernicious affects — its woefully inaccurate and incorrect implications of biology. Why be wrong when you can be right and still make your point? Why insult a group of people suggesting they are a different species or subspecies (which use of ‘race’ unequivocally does)?

Back to Trump
Trump is a draconian strategist. He is obsessively focused on the perfection trying to eliminate all chances of undermining his control. That means he sees a problem and wants a strict penalty — so he can ensure results. For example, Jihad occurs in a country, so he says “no one can come from there to here.”

It doesn’t phase him much (or didn’t) that out of say 10,000 refugees maybe only one would commit a terrorist act. That is not “racism.” If anything, it is culturalism — saying that a certain strain of education and political interest or proclivity exists in a particular group — and you want to eliminate its chances beyond all doubt.

Likes, Dislikes, Tastes And Prejudice
Now let me make a point about likes and dislikes. Is it “racist” to dislike Italian food? Personally speaking — though I love the taste of it — I am intellectually against it; it’s unhealthy, in my opinion. This is not ethniphobic. No one in his or her right mind would argue I am against Italian individuals (Italians, Italian people) just because I have an intellectual opinion about Italian cuisine. Similarly, if my taste — not merely my nutrition-oriented opinion of Italian food — is such that I don’t care for it, who would blame me?

If one does not care for Latin culture in general, however, we might agree that others would say this at least leans toward what I call ethniprejudice — what lazy or ignorant or defensive people call “racism”. But is it that?

If it just so happens that viscerally-speaking, my inclinations make me wince when I hear Spanish or Italian, and if by unconscious proclivity I also find Latin music unpleasant, and if I do not care for the teachings and habits and tendencies of those practicing the dominant religions in those cultures — additionally, if I don’t care for or am anathema to the politics they tend in large part to engender, so I do not have a lot of friends or a wife — more poignantly — from that culture (or from those cultures), am I an ethnicentric or ethni-bigot? Am I prejudiced? Am I… a “racist”?

I would hope — for the sake of the quality of your mind — that you would judge with a resounding “no” and that you would say that the afore-mentioned are matters of taste.

Now, if I judge each Italian or “Latino” before getting to know him or her (I can imagine people blaming me for using ‘Latino’ in the name of conversational efficiency) according to my tastes then THAT would be prejudice.

Back to Trump.
If Trump sees a record number of particular behaviors in subsets of people, and there is ample evidence to suggest there are reoccurring contributing factors to perpetuate a continuation of of those particular behaviors among them, is he wrong for naming this phenomenon and trying to take action regarding it? I am not saying he is right. I am asking the specific question with its inherent specific parameters to make a point — regardless whether the details are right; that’s academic. What is not is whether the premise is not sound and whether it is ethiphobic (and/or xenophobic) — “racist”. I don’t think it is; it may be problematic on other grounds — but has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. If it has to do with taste, there might be a big problem THERE, but not necessarily — if by btaste one sees differing morals or educational and occupational tendencies in a group distasteful or undesirable.

Personally — and I digress — on the issue of immigration, I support amnesty in most cases of “illegal immigration”, because I consider a state a failed human construct if it cannot erect a society that honors birth rights on this planet, and to me it is a birthright of a being to go wherever he or she chooses on the planet.

Back to Trump. We want him out based on his unrealistic approach to immigration and refugee policy and his offensive nature on the topic, hopefully not because we foolishly think he fosters policies, simply because he has trivial views on Mexicans and Muslims — such as his ‘not liking their cultures, because their names begin with the letter ‘m’ or his ‘dislike of tacos and humice’.

And even if Trump doesn’t want certain people here, because he thinks they are getting a free ride or he thinks their religion is dangerous to egalitarian values, we don’t have to perpetuate the ignorant and stupid phenomenon of subspecies with the use of the wrong word to accomplish a case against that.

The Cause is in The Word — Fostering The Belief
This is the cause of the problem — our saying human beings are fundamentally different by sub-species — not just by their food and clothes and music — when we use ‘race’. And so, the people using the word are the culprits.

I won’t buy into the neo-liberal PC bullshit lie about race anymore, just because I ‘like’ the fight against prejudice (and truth be told I don’t like to fight). However, it is my strong and experiential suspicion that those who use the words ‘race’, ‘racist’ and ‘racial’ do like to fight — or need to (or they need to sound as though they are fighting), because of their jobs or relationships.

You can, buy into the PC bullshit of “race” and “racism”, if you want. I won’t. I will not go along with “most people” who are “ignorant”, as a friend called those whom he said were “not smart enough” to be accurate and righteous with their words.

Ignorance is the only fuel irrational ethniphobia, prejudice, bigotry and xenophobia need to thrive. I will not remain ignorant any time I glean a path away from its darkness into the light of truth; not only is it anathema to my personality, I took an oath against it — in a temple, with my Dharma Brothers; Nor will I perpetuate ignorance — for political expedience, friendship or acceptance in some circle — not even for the politics of “saving people”, because then I would be just like Trump.

Edward Snowden And You:

Encapsulated in Oblivion, And The Media Gets off Scott Free

Watched Snowden last night, again — this time with family. The most comprehensive and prolonged discussion ensued, but after only 5 minutes, there were just three of us: me, my sister and my brother-in-law. “The elders” (of which there were two) had gone to bed — one of whom called Snowden a traitor. The other probably couldn’t decide, but was offended by even the most basic spying by our government, and my bro-in-law, like me — felt Snowden was trying to do a good thing but that he also erred in revealing some of our plans and tactics — which tipped off Al Qaeda in a few incidents and generally.

My sister started covering all the net-connected cameras in the house, and I was encouraged to feel as if — though Snowden is a man of conscience like myself (but of course technically much smarter), I might not have revealed as much (stress on ‘might’, because it seems he was as careful as was possible).
The conversation resulted in my sister and I being left talking about Islam. I introduced her to the Bill Mahr episode wherein Sam Harris and Ben Aflec had their showdown on the subject — so (of course) she, like most non-initiates — was remotely offended by #samharris and identified with Ben Aflec (which — no fault of hers — disturbs me — a little, as she is very intelligent and rational — and thus is indicative of what busy members of our society know and don’t know).

So, I then introduced her to Ayaan Hirsi Ali ( #ayaanhirsiali ). Good information was coming my sister’s way from the horse’s mouth, but her daughter came into the room and needed ‘mommy to lie with her.’ My bro-in-law also had to attend to looking after their other daughter.

And, so — this scenario illustrates how America is caught: enormously important issues are reduced to history and even then, find their way into a minority of minds as entertainment. By the next morning they are forgotten — as Snowden is.

Edward Snowden: A Superlatively Moral and Ingenious young man who believed in the Constitution so greatly that he became a Marine and the most intelligent CIA and NSA asset this country has ever seen. He now languishes in Russia — the target of our post-9/11 national security state — which under the leadership of Donald Trump will probably see him turned into a pawn of Putin’s.

Barack Obama: Pardon him and let him come home. His “crime” is he upheld the Constitution of the United States and helped launch one of the most important dialogues ignored by the citizenry — of one of the most powerful nations on Earth — which can only return to true greatness with a righteous and honest discussion of this issue — not by prosecuting a whistle-blower and sweeping him under the rug with a cookie-cutter determination of “treason.”
Going to the press is not treason; erecting a secret extra-legal spying and foreign-ally-undermining network of non-constitutional actions… perhaps should be.

Edward Snowden did not reveal the classified information he felt morally compelled to as an American — to a foreign enemy… or with the intent to harm the American government or American citizens; he gave his information carefully and with admonishments of caution to western journalists Glenn Greenwald (a former arch conservative) and the Guardian: these and other news entities shared it with the public, whom Snowden knew deserved this information… as they who financed it had fallen unwitting victim of it and its programs. So, Snowden is in trouble, but what about the press?

Why is Snowden the only one who has fallen out of graces with the US government when the information about the offending government agencies was released by The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Glenn Greenwald? And why have you forgotten him when he has given up everything for you?
If — like many people — you cognitively dissuade yourself (accidently or deliberately) from seeing what the main concerns of Snowden were, consider this:

1. Pay attention to what Snowden said were the greatest dangers of these extra-legal programs; hint: look at who our new president is.
2. Think of Watergate and…
3. Think of this last election.
4. Think of what Snowden said had become the aim of these programs and what the excuse is;
5. Think of what we had done to Japan with these programs, and remember: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton


Oh, Islam

Billions want to say:

‘Oh Islam!’
Whilst we know
We The People
Kill with plane and robot

“Not deliberately!”, we say

Carl Atteniese Jr.

•Dozens Of People Killed In Attack On Turkish Nightclub; Suspect Still At Large http://n.pr/2ipVFVy

•Blasts In Baghdad Kill At Least 28 At A Busy Market http://n.pr/2iouzOD

On The Death of Celebrities Important to Us

Their Deaths Equate to A Partial Death of Our Living Culture.

It feels like a part of us has died, when honored celebrities we loved have died, because we identify with that culture and with they who helped define it. As we feel a part of our culture — not mere observers of it, this means we feel a part of ourselves has died.

In our celebration of celebrities is an important part of self: we are proud to appreciate those who reflect our values. Thus these icons had become a part of us which allows us to relate with and connect and commune with others on levels of agreement and in admiration that define us — even if only in our minds. Where else do we reside, if not in our minds and cultures?

I, myself, have grown fond of saying (in a tongue and cheek way) that I don’t fully trust people who don’t like Monty Python.

Who among us has not approved (or disapproved) of others based on their political choices? Haven’t you heard people say they are more terrified of Trump supporters than of Trump?

Likewise, someone who routes for Luke Skywalker (over Darth Vader), appreciates the struggle of Edward Snowden (over that of the Justice Department), or revels in the exploits of Neil Armstrong (when he cheats death and restores our faith in patriotic endurance) becomes someone in our mind — like Bernie Sanders or Elizibeth Warren — whom we could pick up a torch for — or trust. We partially base friendships on these affinities (of course in addition to how potential friends treat us). It says something about the world they want — and how we would fare in it. Celebrities help define this — and it adds to our sense of security — real or imagined.

I am moved to comment on this, because a very well-meaning and intelligent friend (fast becoming something of a celebrity, herself) wrote this morning about the steady, heavy mourning going on these days — for the celebrities who have died this year (the feelings for which are, of course, compounded by this “triumph of evil over good” sentiment that many of us feel, due to the political situation which hangs over us like a death star).

She pointed out that all this going on about celebrities whom we don’t know can actually hurt the feelings of those of us who have lost people actually close to us. It is a very special and generous sentiment, and I appreciate it, however:

As encouraged as I am by her sensitivity and concern for others (and I would say that maybe losing an icon — or ten — from one’s extended world is… yes — not as painful, per se, as losing a direct family member or intimate friend) — I feel the death of heroes is a somewhat traumatizing event on a significant cognitive and visceral level — because it shows us how old we are getting… and how we have to adjust to a new world… that maybe we don’t relate to as readily.

I know that the deaths of Neil Armstrong, Scott Carpenter, John Glenn… and then the scare we had with Buzz — as well as the deaths of David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, Leonard Nimoy and Carrie Fisher meant something deeply personal to me — insofar as the world I was a part of (and could have shared with a future paramour — or with young people) has become a little less populated and real. And this means I am more alone, insofar as “heroes” in my midst have disappeared.

You’ll understand more intimately, perhaps, when some of those icons important to your worldview (besides the ones that I’ve mentioned — maybe ones I don’t really know much of?) disappear….

Trump’s “Hate-filled” Speech: Why Americans Support It

I don’t support trump, but in splitting hairs over what is said about him, I take issue with American thinking and discourse; why wouldn’t I — I care about Americans.

I think people make sweeping generalizations and become careless when they feel small and vulnerable, so I am not sure Trump means everything he says. This has been a solid impression I have had from the start. A lot of this is likely posturing and ‘fear-allayment’ for those he courts; he knows a large majority of his supporters want exclusive, tough, conservative solutions and he deduced they won’t support him if he softens up. He also knows the average American is a “tough noogies” kind of person: we say “do what ya gotta do.”

We walk past the homeless and say “I gotta take care of mine” and “get a job.” These are conservative points of view. We also do not show any shame for Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq (–I would like to add Greece, Iran, Latin America, but what Americans even know we transgressed in these places?). Look at the thousands we kill with drones, 90% of whom are non-combatants — dwarfing the casualties in the 9/11 attacks.

So, what’s my point? No one should be shocked that Trump supporters — the ones who have to die in our wars — are enured to his draconian pronouncements. This is our culture of guns, discrimination and cognitively dissonant “country music.” It’s our culture — or theirs.

A friend of mine on Facebook, a thoughful musician with a political and philosophical mind said that when people are scared, they surrender their power.

To be continued…

Talking with Women

This is tongue-in-cheek, and not meant to be a serious psychological, philosophical or political opinion.

Is it just me, or is it difficult talking to women in a way that it isn’t usually difficult talking to most men — especially those with whom we have some kind of relationship (in family or love)? In such situations it is as if reason, listening and personal interest (ours) do not count as they would in the outside world.

This is only a sample conversation, but it’s indicative of the kind of phenomena I have experienced — talking mostly with women — more than with men– on many occasions.

My Mother: The coffee machine is broken.

I: Can we get it fixed?

My Mother: It doesn’t heat up.

I: Yes, I see.

My Mother: Use the Kurig.

I: Thanks, Ma, but as you know, I don’t like coffee that’s been filtered through boiling plastic. (Thus my behavior in using the Japanese tea strainer to filter the coffee coming out of the French Press — rather than letting it go through the plastic grill on top.)

My Mother: Just don’t go through all of them; they’re expensive.

I: “…”

I: I’ll just get some out; I haven’t been out all day. ( I go to the other room.)

My Mother: Here’s your coffee. (Bringing it into the room where I am  writing this post; and of course, it was made with the Kurig).

TO COME: “Why didn’t you ask if you didn’t know you were unsure?”

The Dangers of AGI

How dangerous is Artificial Intelligence? Chances are you are viewing this thanks to a device in your hand which constitutes AI in many of its functions.

Are Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking right in saying AI is the greatest potential threat to humanity? Sam Harris (samharris.org) originally thought their pronouncements to be hyperbolic — but now he agrees and adds that the only scarier potential prospect regarding AI besides developing its super-intelligent, self-learning and self-replicating AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is not developing it, because it can solve our problems. ‘However’ — Dr. Harris points out — ‘if we develop to the extent that it is a million times faster than the greatest human minds, it could go through 20,000 years of human intellectual development in a week.’

Harris goes on to say that we will have deprive AI access to the internet at first — how we have to solve the political problems we have such that this thing does not cause unemployment at 30% — how we will have to program AI to not do what HAL did in the epic and prophetic film “2001: A Space Odyssey” (though he did not put it that way), because if you give AI instructions to protect humanity, it could wind up waging war on what it sees as deleterious or harmful members of humanity…. Sam Harris also worries about the fact that — as he put it — ‘some of the people working on this are keyed up on Red Bull and apparently on the Asperger’s spectrum; they have totally “drunk the Cool Aid” on AI.’

This has to be heard.

Bertrand Russell And God

Good morning:

I would like you to let me share with you just one or two points about a book I’m reading, by Bertrand Russell.

Russell was a British philosopher writing the book I am reading at a time when things Christians don’t believe today were well-believed or recently let go of by them. That is a monumentally enormous point.

What Russell does–amongst other things–is make you realize that the arguments used a long time ago to prove God, etc., have changed, meaning (as we know) that what is acceptable about God and religion has changed due to intellect; this has the surreptitious effect of showing we make God, not the other way around. That is not his point–or at least wasn’t where I am in the book, right now, but I realized from yet another angle of approach that it’s our story, not His–though Russell doesn’t say that, per se. It’s consequential and deductible from the reading. He suggests it, or you glean it reading his debunking of old standard arguments for the proof of a god.

Russell isn’t heavy-handed. He does what great philosopher do–like some comedians: he illustrates tracts of reasoning based on observations you realize should be plain to all of us. He gives you “Ah ha!” moments. You find yourself saying, ‘a child could see that; why didn’t I think of it?’

He is funny. He goes into “God is good.” That’s hilarious. But he doesn’t approach it as people often do, with a litany of disasters. He goes into it sort of like ‘good as opposed to what–by what other cause’s standard?’

That’s what I love about philosophers. Like comedians, they are so plainly and obviously insightful where others are stark raving blind that they can deconstruct the arguments “stupid” people take for granted, for lack of looking and caring– either because they wouldn’t even know to look or because they are afraid to.

The important aspect about philosophers and scientists is this: they approach their subjects out of honest and sincere naivte and innocence in a spirit if good nature. The fact that they come to conclusions religious people don’t like is a fact about the religious people, not about they who are the challendging philosophers and scientists; they don’t set out to hurt anyone or to aggrandize their situations, but rather their deeds indicate they are the epitome of lives utilizing free speech and free thought–to better the world and our misunderstanding of it.

These are some of the topics Russell covers on the existence of a god:

The First Cause Arguement

The Natural Law Arguement

The Arguement from Design

The Moral Arguements for Deity

The Arguement for The Remedying of Justice

Other chapters:

The Character of Christ

Defects in Christ’s Teaching

And more….

Keep in mind this book was written in 1927. That fact stands to illuminate the debate raging now among prominant American, European and Muslim-American and Muslim-European intellectuals.

I first read Russell when I was nineteen. I am glad to be reading him, again. You should be enjoying this amazing thinker, too. His work is rather essential:

‘Why I Am Not A Christian’ by Bertrand Russell could do you and the world a lot of good, because you matter. That’s why he wrote it.

Blame Tradition And Religion for FGM

All around the world, in traditional cultures, female genital mutilation is a violent, terrifying, painful and medically problematic issue. Traditionally, if you were not cut, you could not be married. In some places this is changing as human rights and modern modes of fairness, compassion and reason seep into formerly tradition-run societies–and in this context, tradition equates to religious leadership, clerics, tribal chiefs, and male dominance.

The Fingers of Control And Marriage
I am not an expert on this issue, however, I can say that there are fingers of the concern that brought FGM to the world in many communities of the non-traditional (or still semi-traditional) world. Those fingers belong to long arms that connect to still male-male-dominated or tradition laden semi-male-dominated cultures where ethnicity and DNA expression (read “race”) are of paramount importance and status is right up there with that primitive concern. In such places, fathers–and mothers, perhaps to a lesser degree–insist their daughters–and sons–marry inside the ethnicity, the religion and the nation. I have seen and heard of this multiple times in my travels, and experienced this kind of traditional prejudice first hand. However, where FGM is concerned, it is an issue of reducing a girl’s and a woman’s amorous desires, and this is what I want to talk about. I will make a tacit mention of the issue of male genital mutilation, too–but as men have a more arguably superfluous protrusion of skin to be removed–beyond the human rights and sensitivity issues inherent–it is not as invasive or deleterious a procedure as that performed on women.

Teaching Love Instead of Marginalizing It
In my opinion, a lot of the traditional minds in the religious parts of the world could be relaxed and their concerns about promiscuity alayed if a practice of love were taught–even here, in the West–especially here.

Love is left to the realm of sex, “fantasy romance,” luxury and poetry–to tales of adventure in lwgend and in Hollywood, and that is, in my opinion, because it was taught that way in ancient religions.

Love (or mating–insofar as it is or was a part of marriage, by some association), has also been left to the realm of fiat, on the part of parents, clerics and royalty. In other words, mates have been–and still are–chosen by authority other than that which should choose mates: love. This still happens jn most of the Muslim world, in India and in parts of Asia–most notably in South Korea, where it is becoming less and less common but is still done–not so much with parents making the outright choice, but in their having the prerogative to pressure their adult children into “Seon” meetings of blind dating–and in refusing some suitors and choosing others.

Religion And The Love
In the Bible there is a passage that warns that the desires of the heart will lead one astray; this is terrible nonsense, and it is there because in ancient times–when male dominance protected bloodlines, fortunes, property and power–love could not be allowed to get in the way–and because humanity seems to have had a very primitively developed concept of what I call “the precepts of love,” which when understood and developed can foster very strong bonds of physical, emotional and honor-bound attraction, dedication and sustainable romantic states of mind–such that a need to curb promiscuity can be made to be almost non-existent; but this depends on virtually sanctifying love, freedom and personal chpice, not curtailing these virtues. However, traditional cultures have a long historical history of not liking freedom of choice.

Demonizing Sex
Finally, and perhaps most succinctly, that passage was in the Bible (the Torah or Talmud), because love was not truly respected or understood as both a bonding force in human relations that renders chastity rules virtually unnecessary, and because love was largely separated from the desire of sex, which was demonized; we continue to do both, today today: “it was just sex.”

The desire for sex is actually the beginning of what can be love, but society teaches us not to honor that, because– ‘mommy and daddy (and traditionally, king, queen, prince and princess; cleric, bishop and Pope) don’t want you to love this one or that one or to love at all, right now; love is for later….’ This is the beginning of the parental and societal guidance toward the habit of “promiscuity” and why we have FGM and parental meddling in nature.

Carl Atteniese

Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes…

Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes did an expose, tonight, about surgeons and hospital staff wearing faulty gowns from Kimberly Clarke–which transmitted disease into the gowns and made doctors and other patients sick. After all we have seen in business–from defective engineering in cars to drugs that kill people to spacecraft that explode in the atmosphere to factory farms and cancer-causing growth hormones in live-stock, I am convinced that anything coming from a private company that can affect our health should have to pass the snuff of an administration with NASA-like perfection and priorities.

To Tell or Not to Tell: I Love You

This is a response to a letter I received at All Experts.com, where I counsel people afrom round the world on their issues in relationships–which in my opinion all boil down to one’s understanding of love as a practice, which I write about; it is not spychoanalysis or therapy, so I am not delving into those methods of helping people. I am answering questions taken at face value and applying my Precepts of Love Philosophy®.


I left out salutations and introductory writing because (1.), I find that useful, sometimes–to answer the sense of immediacy I suspect the writer feels and to dispense with pleasnatries he or she is likely to skip over anyway (like when you are reading an article and you skip over the first paragraph wherein the writer  wants to prove to agents that he can write, se he or she wastes your time with poetic verse instead of telling you as soon as possible about the details of why a jihadist blew up a restroom in your town. You know the type of writing I mean:

Man Destroys Mayberry Bathroom

It was a beautiful spring morning…

To which I always respond, in my mind, ‘Buddy, you’re confusing your day job with your sabatical and it’s assinine.’

(2.) My responses at All Experts.com have a set signature that is time-consuming enough and polite enough.

Now that I have wasted your time, let’s jump in:


On the one hand, how do you know it will end badly if you tell her you like her? On the other hsnd, maybe you feel that way because your unconscious mind (some say “intuition”) is telling you it’s not that kind of relationship (yet)? So, what kind of relationship is it; is it “the same kind” of relationahip to her as it is to you? People rarely ask that, or they don’t ask that enough. Ask that: what kind of relationship is this; what stage are we at. Who is she? Who am I? What are we to each other? Am I willing to move slowly and get to know this person, her family, her language and her culture–developing deep understanding and a culture of our own? These are the foundations of love. A lot of people imagine the relationship they think they are in while they are actually in another kind of relationship.

Nature works by symbiotic interplay and mutaually beneficial interdependent players. It doesn’t work by force.

Then there is another way of looking at this: just enjoy the moments with her without milestones such as tellng her you like her in serious, a dramatic way; she knows you like her. She likes you. That’s a given–considering what’s happening. So, if you want to follow this train of thought and develop a tack for it, be natural, but also be smart. Let it unfold without labels for a while.

Telling her in a pivotal, dramatic or serious way might be considered to just say, ‘I wanna get serious.’ Is that necesary? Is that helpful (now, if ever)? Will it endear her or make her point of view change (now, or ever)?

In yet another mode of thinking and tack, be strong and confident and don’t imagine what she will say or do (that is fantasy, based on your very little experience with this person); or don’t think that she will pull away and it “will end badly.” Why would that be bad–if she pulled away? She might be a crazy person, once you get to know her, or she might be very immature and on her best beahvior, these days–or she might be methodical, intelligent and prone to taking her time; so she pulls away and comes back stronger. You actually don’t even know her or her world–so, sadly, it could be a good thing!

What if you say you like her in a fun way? But, again, why not just show her?

As far as her being too far away, that will only matter if you two do not grow in love for each other (“fall in love”). In true love, distance doesn’t matter.

Please consider donating to this cause of helping you by clicking the Donate button.”

My letters of response to petitions for help end with a suggestion that the client let me know how he or she feels and inform himnornher that he or she can write me with further questions.

I have had numerous enough relationships in my life to know that a lot more than live is going on and a lot of love is lost in the process. The main element in love is knowing it is a practice that began with being free to appreciate and grow with that which you are drawn to; this fosters live in yourself (not others indulging and supporting and controling you).

What do you think? I’d like to know.




People who adhere to deffective interpretations of dogma at the expense of good sense and neighborly behavior, fairness and survival are called crazy for a reason: they are fanatics and thus dangerous. On a deserted island peopled by castaways, they would have no power delegated to them or have that power taken away from them. They would be separated from the group and ignored–or killed, sadly–but for the sake of the virtues I mentioned above–for the children and the benefit of all; only in a corrupt society can they actually run things; and only in a delusional and corrupt society can that continue for very long.

© Carl 卍道 Atteniese 2016, All Rights Reserved.



To Those Who Quit Smoking

You are a hero

You now are no longer
One of the most radioactive people
You now are cleansing
Instead of toxifying
You now are not a threat
To the global environment
Simply because of your body
And because of unnecessary emissions

You are in defiance
Of the most insidiously evil
And stupidly legal
Homocidal and DNA-destroying
Profit motive

And because of you
Others can breathe as they should
A little more

Thank you

The Limits of Zen

On a Facebook page dedicated to Buddhism for expatriates in South Korea:


I like most of what you said, however, there is one relative flaw, and that is in the idea that the most evil will change and become a better person when you change inside; I actually fully understand what you mean, and there is an across-the-board strong element of truth here that deals with perception and how we deal with others, adversity and conflict or challenges–but, there are people so ignorantly inculcated and abused–say those in ISIS, who won’t change in any practical time-frame relevant to your immediate dilemma with them; on this particular point I have run the gamut of thought, all the way to abandoning where ever they actually are–but if you look on my page and find the link to a recent ISIS magazine article, you will see that they do not attack us first and foremost over politics or past transgressions; they say, themselves, they attack us because they want caliphate and because we do not accept the supreme laws of Al ‘ah.

Yes, a Zen mind will create the personal and state policies necessary to reduce or eliminate anger and involvement with entities like ISIS, but in particular, ISIS and groups like it will seek you out to conquer you, anyway.

One’s Trump Folly

Oh for shame and sadness

And even for his own

Will sell their lives down river

Blind to his evil tome

For he tells straight what he will do

But the stupid aren’t scared

So Americans ignorant to the truth

Will be the last ones spared



Use-mention Error, God And Karma: Where Confusion Begins And Conversations End

Good morning, friends.

I want to share with you the concept Dan Dennett talks about called Use-mention Error. He developed the idea from the statements of Donald Heb. It’s simple; can you see the differences, here?:

Use-mention Errors:

1. “I believe in God.”
2. “I believe in ‘God’.”

Of course I believe in the concept “god” and even am aware of “God” as a real cognitive, linguistic and cultural phenomenon. I know ‘god’ and ‘God’ are words, too, but that’s not what most people mean when they assume I believe as they do (that their version of “God” exists) and they ask — baitingly — “Do you believe in God?”

As another example, people often say — as my friend Paul just has:

“Do you believe in Karma?”

This is probably a use-mention error. Paul likely assumes I understand Karma as he does. In that case, he is not making an error if he omits quotes around ‘Karma’ like this: “Karma”, but that assumption is likely going to corner a person and start the confusion, or worse, an argument — especially in the case of “God”. In sime parts of the world (embarrassingly and chillingly too many, actually), the wrong answer to that glaring use mention error can result in one’s death.

So Paul is using the word ‘Karma’ according to his perception of it. He should be mentioning the word, instead, and saying, ‘what do you think about ”Karma.”

The reason is, as with “God” it is not universally understood –or more accurately, it is not universally agreed upon — what ‘Karma’ is. In fact, most people I talk to or who use popular memes including ‘Karma,’ use it in a way that I feel is not correct at all.

“God,” ‘God’ and God:
Let’s back into the “Karma discussion” by backing up and mentioning the “God discussion,” first, as way of better understanding this.

People make use-mention errors all the time when they ask:

“Do you believe in God?”

The first questions that come into my mind when people do this are:

1. Which one (which god)?
2. Is there one?
3. How can I believe in something I don’t know exists?
4. What concepts define and describe your understanding of god?
5. How can we talk about this if I don’t know what you mean?

(Those are actually just a few variations on the many queations that coalesce in my mind when people ask that question.)

Karma is not best described by “what goes around comes around.”

Karma is the results of Dharma. Dharma is the natural way of things–or the “natural” way that comes out of the perturbed doings of things that we put in motion, adopt, do–which can result in “good” or “bad” outcomes in “the end.” (Therebreallybis no end; there is cause and effect. An ejd is a subjective event.)

In other words–and this will be over-simplified: what happens (or what you do), is Dharma; the actual (if they are actually caused by you or your deeds) — the results — are the corresponding Karma. Karma is the result or results; Dharma is the cause or causes.

Karma is not some magical force we build up or tap into, building or losing merit; many confused Buddhists have misunderstood it as such and thus taught it this way to others — or others misunderstood their Buddhist friends’ speech and actions in relation to Karma and have passed the ignorance along about it…. Or, more commonly, the limitations of language (or a combination of all three) have put ‘Karma’ incorrectly into the scheme of their “understanding” and the ‘public mind.’ This what I call “Pop Karma” like there is — I feel — a pop-god and pop-love, like pop-psychology.

©Carl Atteniese Jr., All

#usementionerror #god #karma #dharma #language #understanding #misunderstanding #confusion #donaldheb #dandennett #bartehrman #richarddawkins #samharris #ayaanhirsiali #rezaaslan #neildegrassetyson #billnye #michiukakau #lawrencekraus #einstein #darwin #cricke #loenhook #jerrycoyne #davinci #galileo #bruno #copirnicus #bacon #christopherhitchens

Maxim Monday

It’s Maxim Monday!

I hope I have not brought this to you too late for your rumination, over lunch!

Today’s Maxim comes from that scholarly and supremely well-spoken journalist of the world–the famous contrarian and champion of superlative and uncompromising morals and ethics, the late Christopher Hitchens:

“The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right.”

― Christopher Hitchens, Mortality


This is old news, but I want this on my site.

Space Suits: Think White And Get Serious (Final Version, including new ideas)

NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is developing new spacesuits for deep space missions to asteroids, the Mars system, and perhaps for missions to the Moon. Some of the new suits being proposed by would-be contractors for NASA have graphic designs on them. I am not an engineer, but in my imaginative estimation, spacesuits should be white–virtually all over, or at least a non-absorbing color–preferably reflective.

Graphic designs as minor elements may be acceptable, even preferable in view of some psychological and aesthetic estimation–but they should not be a distraction or impediment to this very serious and utilitarian element of manned spaceflight.

Some of the suits being proposed are dark and look more like something completely self-indulgent and silly–like concoctions devised for hipsters from a sci-fi B movie.

I don’t like the idea of dark colors on a spacesuit, because space travel carries with it unexpected risks and endless opportunities for unknown circumstances wherein seeing the astronaut in reduced lighting conditions is important–or could be.

Astronauts on EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity–meaning when they are performing tasks outside the ship, station, rover, or habitat), and even in-craft, will encounter situations where maximum visibility and camera detection will be enhanced by reflective colors–or the lack of color all together–on the pressure suit.

It makes no sense to me to put grey, dark, or absorbing colors on the exterior of a spacesuit–which, in shadow will create pixilation issues in video and other imaging media–not to mention possibly causing first-hand visibility-issues in situations involving astronauts separated by great distances or structures and land features–as well as in shadow.

We have to apply imagination to its limits in planning long-duration and deep-space missions to asteroids, to Phobos and Demos (the moons of Mars), and to Mars–in all areas of cognition; transport, stowage, unintended exterior rescue & repair (perhaps at inopportune locations on the mission trajectory)… in suit-replacement situations (say a ‘surface-suit’ must be donned in a Zero-Gravity EVA scenario–instead of a deep space EVA suit that has been damaged); in unexpected psychological situations, and in scenarios of injury and location-loss on the surface of a planet, moon, or asteroid.

On another note, rear-entry suits are being made, such as the Russians have. The back of the suit has a door, which must be closed and sealed by another crew-member. I feel we have to move toward a suit that can be donned alone; I realize that with present and past spacesuits, astronauts have worked together in some aspect of donning the upper hard-shell torso and lower sections, the helmets, and the gloves–but certainly in rear-entry suits, more than one person is necessary in a more comprehensive way–and this I feel will be a great disadvantage on long-duration and deep-space missions—where many unpredictable situations may arise. Should other astronauts be absent, incapacitated, or in the most undesirable scenario–deceased, what will a lone survivor—or perhaps the only healthy astronaut do to don his spacesuit? I feel there may be situations in transit to Mars or the asteroids, or on the surface–wherein a lone astronaut may need to don a suit by him or herself, and with no one around to help, what is he or she to do? Think of The Martian. The suit used in the movie was a fantasy.

Another concern regards the space helmets; I think new suits should include movable helmets, such as was used in the Mercury and Gemini programs. I understand that the cushions in those helmets–which afforded helmet swivel, because they gently pressed up against the head of the astronaut–were likely confining and uncomfortable after a while, but that problem might be circumvented with a motorized rotation or serviceable and adjustable head-clamp-cushion system that could open and close on the temporal portions of the astronauts head–with servo motors or retractable claps.

The reason I think lateral head movement of the helmet is crucial is many-fold; first, it will increase the range of motion usually natural to humans and thus decrease a feeling of confinement, claustrophobia, and frustration. Next, in terms of efficiency, a fixed helmet in which an astronaut must turn his head–like in looking out a window–and then his or her body, to go beyond a 360 degree angle–takes longer, requires more energy, and alters the astronaut’s orientation to turn him or herself around–simply to look in another direction. On EVA outside a ship, this causes torque and fatique (which could happen with a movable helmet, too, if the locking collars are not friction-free).

Finally, regarding the helmets of the Z2 and other suits you can see via the links below, am I to assume no shroud, shield, or visor will accompany them to protect against micro-meteoroids, blast-ejecta, flying regolith, falling rocks, dust-storms, and extreme sunlight? Surely this is just oversight in the online presentations of the spacesuits and not an oversight in design? I am aware that in the case of Mars there is a thin atmosphere to filter out micrometeorites—but surely we are not relying on that. Remember: Imagination, imagination, imagination.

Returning to the graphic design issue of the over-all suit exterior, I understand NASA is almost totally beholden to selling space exploration to a public that is key to its funding and all too ignorant of the necessity of increased support for space travel, but fashion isn’t the way to go in this area.

Fashion in spacesuits reduces the glamour and seriousness of manned space travel–if not the safety–by possibly passing it into the realm of the frivolous–however slightly. And frivolity does not increase funding in a serious and dangerous endeavor like spaceflight, especially in America. NASA has terrible budgetary problems as it is, and this writer (as well as others) thinks this issue–in no uncertain terms–contributed to the forteen deaths we winessed during the Space Shuttle Transportation System.

Keep space suits white, or silver–not just for visibility, but to keep them cool (temperature-widse AND style-wise)–to highlight the presence of foreign matter, and to help show damage incurred on them.

Regarding the darker spacesuits proposed, luminescent wiring or graphic designs are suggested for their bodices and appendages–but I don’t think these will be enough to identify an astronaut at a distance, in all circumstances—especially where multiple light sources and extreme blinding brightness may be factors, as are experienced in Low Earth Orbit, in deep space, and on celestial bodies lacking the filtering-effect of an atmosphere.

Space travel is light years ahead of everything else in the excitement and danger departments. No bells & whistles are necessary for window-dressing to make it more appealing–and could bring harm.

Deep-space travel at this juncture in human history is necessary, for Near Earth Object deflection and asteroid mining, for Moon and Mars bases to establish energy depots, mining (again), way-stations for distant interplanetary exploration, and for terraforming and multi-planet species colonization in the face of looming climate disasters; finally–for the sheer growth of the human spirit, general science, and the economy. These are all essential and beautiful, but deadly serious businesses. Let’s apply fashion in space travel when we have shopping malls on the Moon and Mars—not before.



NASA Reveals New Spacesuits: http://t.co/OPDBy1UavB

Thousands Vote on The Next Spacesuit Designs. You can too:http://www.nbcnews.com/…/thousands-vote-nasas-next-spacesui…

Vote on The New Spacesuits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkjSMTi54p4

Non-inflatable Spacesuits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExH_YEE4DCs

The ‘Slide-in’ Spacesuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lnfnwrq9VY http://www.dogonews.com/…/nasas-next-gen-z1-space-suit-not-…

Adam Savage’s Mercury Spacesuit Replica: http://t.co/FawA3EAGJo

How Astronauts Put on Spacesuits: http://t.co/iVs6KN18JB

Sam Harris Interviews Megan Phelps roper: Leaving The Church

This audio is superbly audible. it is easy to listen to. It is a very educated and sincere, but non-academic discussion and narrative of a woman who grew up in the community of the Westboro Baptist church, which built a name for itself in picketing funerals of soldiers, saying they were punished by god–not for their war service–but for their personal lives, which the church investigated. They also picketed in towns holding signs saying ‘God Hates fags’ and things of that nature. This is a very human story of a highly educated young woman who had to leave her family to fulfill the voice of her conscience. This is relevant to Dr. Harris as he is a leader in the atheist and scientific movements to bring to light the dangers of religion. he has written books on neuroscience, spirituality, and philosophy and is one of the most important intellectuals speaking out today on all abstract issues relating to consciousness, AI, Islam and Jihad-ism, psychology and more. His podcast is The Waking Up podcast. It can be found online at his website and at You Tube via this video. it is also available on Audible and Stitcher.

Provocative Memes And Anger

A meme on Facebook entitled ‘what pisses you off?’ sparked this comment from me:

If my blood sugar is balanced, I don’t get angry; I don’t get “pissed off” or “upset.” I don’t get offended. I feel the emotions that come close to the obsessive states of mind that perpetuate those behavioral conditions, but reason and meditate them away.

I feel that getting offended is a weakness and indicates a lack of love and understanding of humanity and the human codition that requires constant states of ignorance, which keep one in a reactive mode.

I much prefer to eduacte myself on the causes of outcomes, eliminate the childishness of expectations, and to prepare my mind to accept and understand everything as normal (if humans do it, it is part of the human condition) and to see the things that are disagreeable and unfortunate as elements of life to work on with others–through conversation and contemplation and suggestions for better relationships.

People depending on getting angry are people who don’t want to solve problems amicably but would rather blame and complain; they’re the people who depend on anger and disappointment for an emotional roller coaster that feeds their unhealthy and addictive emotional disappointment and reward circuit and their unhealthy self-esteem; they are the people who depend on self aggrandizement by showing off how great they are when getting angry; it’s really just primitiveness–an un-educated, non-compassionate and undeveloped consciousness they are victims of. And, it requires maintenance through cognitive dissonance, delusion, arrogance and dualism.

If something did piss me off it would be the promotion of anger, such as in memes like this.

Anger is not a solution. It’s symptomatic of frustration, indicating a lack of self control and options. Basically it is the master alarm on one’s flight panel indicating failure and helplessness.

Meet Your Teacher

  • TalkYourWaytoFluency ProfileI teach corporate, academic and casual students in the New York City area.
  • We engage in good, interesting, inspiring, exciting and humorous conversations–about subjects that interest you.
  • We use lesson material I make or in books.
  • Look at the menu on the top of this page; see how much I enjoy ideas. There are many videos there, linked from my You Tube channel–featuring my video essays, humor and poetry.


(a limited list) 
⏺I have worked for: 
cropped-20130401-171109.jpg(in The US:)
Kaplan, NYC
•as a proctor
•as a level-tester
•as an academic assistant
•as a Guide
cropped-me-onban-private-campaign-finance.jpg•as an activities director 
Embassy Center for English Studies, NYC
•as a registrar and substitute teacher 
Berlitz Language School, NYC

cropped-comedian-carl1.jpg•as a teacher 
•as an assistant to Asian co-director professors 
Carrot English, Nonhyun, Seoul

cropped-3744669205_5b1958033f_o1.jpg•as a teacher 
Jung Chul, Gangnam, Seoul
•as a teacher 
The Korea Herald

cropped-carl-live.jpgas a teacher
•as a writer
•as a voice actor 
□Actor Park Joong-hoon (and tens of privates)
•as a teacher to his children 
cropped-cropped-cropped-20121224-151756.jpgThe Korea Deposit Insurance Agency
•as a teacher 
□Hanmi Bank
•as a teacher 
 ■cropped-copy-copy-image2.jpgArirang (Korea National Broadcasting Federation)
•as a voice actor and narrator 
TBN/CJ E&M Entertainment
•as a voice actor ( see website for voice: http://carlatteniese.org/voice/
•as an actor 
•as an actor

cropped-cropped-dsc_268714.jpgDRAFTING & DESIGN 
Brooks Brothers, NYC
•part time/temporary 

Creative Designs, NYC

Cat_hat_moon_spoonfull time -drafting, rendering & sales

□Rainbow Room, Rockefeller Plaza, NYC
•as a page, host, waiter and union delegate
•saw, met and/or served: 
cropped-chonggo_and_the_dharma_students_at_tab_eyes_opened.jpegHis Holiness The Dalai Lama
♤President Nelson Mandela
♤President William Jefferson Clinton
♤General William S. Westmoreland, US Army, Ret.
♤Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara (JFK)
♤The Queen of Thailand

11849084_962580607117349_371869214_a♤Gloria Steinem, Writer
♤Geraldine Ferraro, Senator
♤Glenn Close, Actor
♤Meg Ryan, Actor
♤Oliver Stone, Director
♤Harrison Ford, Actor
♤Richard Dreyfus, Actor
♤Michael Douglas, Actor
♤Martin Sheen, Actor, Activist
♤Liza Minnelli, Actor, Singer

cropped-407267_10102029791747961_1707596359_n1.jpg♤Harry Conic Jr., Musician, Singer
♤Lanie Kazan, Singer

I have eighteen years of intercultural experience.

I was fifteen years in South Korea.

cropped-photo6331-e12909152646732.jpgI visited Japan many times.

I have a method that is very much original and amazingly helpful, called Rhythmomnumonics, which helps you remember clauses, phrases and sentences without grammar (but I teach that, too).

Students, parents and educators say I am:

  • fun
  • creative
  • kind
  • diligent
  • humorous
  • well-written
  • well-spoken
  • compassionate
  • a good conversationalist
  • interesting
  • knowledgeable
  • entertaining

I help  you with:

  • style
  • phonics
  • culture
  • grammar
  • conversation
  • pronunciation
  • I can inspire you to learn!
  • I make custom lessons for you….

I am multi-cultural–especially regarding Asia and America (n I have lived in these places) and I use original methods to assist your progress.

I offer:

  • voice skills (I’m a voice actor and comic)
  • listening skills ( I have near-perfect pitch)
  • drawing skills (I’m an artist)
  • I even even write upside-down (this allows me to transcribe notes for you from across the table, so you can read as I teach you.
  • I am familiar with basic Korean and some
  • I focus our lessons on your speech and culture.
  • I teach you the culture of English-speaking locales, so;
  • You you can learn the language comfortably and naturally.

The advice and attention I give you alone will build your skills if you listen to me.

I look forward to helping you.
Call: (516) 655 – 2478.
Dear Visitor, I apologize for the ads on this site:

I know that sometimes they are offensive. I have nothing to do with them. They are here because WordPress wants to get money out of me to take them away. I won’t indulge them.

Discussion Talk

Asking Yes/No Questions about Interests and Likes

Are you interested in/ keen on /are you into…?
Do you like/enjoy …?
Do you take much interest in …?
Do you have any favorite …?
Have you got any favourite …? (Brit. spelling)

Answering Yes/No Questions about Interests And

Yes, actually/ as a matter of fact I do/I am
Oh, I love … !
Well, as a matter of fact …
actually/ to be honest …
I prefer …
I am rather more into/ interested in …
No, I don’t particularly enjoy …

Asking WH- Questions about Interests and Likes

  • What are / is your favorite …?
    What kind of … do you like (best)?
  • enjoy most?
  • enjoy?

What kind of … are you interested in?

  • are you keen on? (Brit.)
  • are you into

Answering WH-Questions about Interests And Likes

  • I am rather interested in …
  • quite keen on …
  • I rather like …
  • quite enjoy …
  • Oh, I like … very much.

Asking for Opinions

  • What do you think about/of …?
  • How do you find/feel about …?
  • What are your views concerning …?
  • What are your feelings regarding …?
  • What do/would you suggest?
  • What/How about …?
  • What would you say about/to …?
  • How does the idea of … appeal to you?
  • Would/Will it be a good idea if/to …?
  • Wouldn’t/Don’t you agree that …?

Expressing Opinions

  • Personally/Frankly I think that …
  • What I think is that …
  • It’s (quite) clear (to me) that …
  • I feel …
  • It’s obvious that …
  • In my opinion …
  • As far as I am concerned …
  • The way I look at it …
  • The way I see it…
  • It seems / appears to me …
  • If you ask me …
  • As far as I can tell …
  • To my mind …
  • To the best of my knowledge …
  • I’m quite sure that …

Asking for Clarification

  • Could you explain what you mean by … ?
  • What do you mean?
  • I’m sorry, but I’m not… clear about … clear on
  • I’m not sure I understand that
  • I’m not sure I follow you.

Giving Clarification

  • Well, what I’m trying to say is that …
  • All said…
  • What I really meant was …
  • What I really mean is …
  • What I’m really saying/trying to say is …
  • Sorry; let me explain it more clearly …
  • In another way …
  • Put another way…
  • Better said …
  • Let me put it in another way …
  • Expressing Agreement
  • I couldn’t agree more.
  • I agree entirely.
  • That’s exactly what I think.
  • I’d go along with you on that.
  • I think you have an interesting point.
  • Expressing disagreement
  • I honestly don’t see why …
  • I don’t think there is any need to …
  • I’m not sure I quite agree/I’ll go along with
  • You there/on that.
  • I don’t think it would be advisable to …
  • Yes, but on the other hand …
  • Yes, but you’ve got to remember that …
  • Well, to be quite honest …
  • I am afraid that …
  • Isn’t it possible that …?
  • What will happen if …?

Expressing Doubt

  • I take/see your point but …
  • I see what you mean but …
  • I agree with you on the whole but …
  • But don’t you think/see that …?
  • That’s true I suppose but …
  • That’s an interesting point of view/comment but …
  • Well, you have a point there but …
  • Might it not also be true that …?
  • Dealing with doubts and objections
  • You needn’t worry about …
  • Look at it in another way …
  • This may seem impossible/improbable to you but …

    Introducing a Point

  • I’m sure/convinced that …
  • It seems quite clear/obvious that …
  • Wouldn’t you agree/admit/say that …
  • The first/basic problem seems to be/ is …

Introducing an Opposite Point

  • I take/see your point but …
  • Possible/True, Yes, but …
  • On the other hand …
  • Looking at it from another point of view …
  • Buying time: fillers
  • Well …
  • Um … / er …
  • Actually …
  • You know/ see …
  • I see.
  • I/ you mean …
  • As a matter of fact …
  • Let’s see (now).
  • Now let me think/see.
  • I’ll have to think about it.
  • Frankly, …
  • To be (quite) honest/frank, …
  • In fact, …
  • I wonder …
  • The thing is …
  • It’s like this, you see …
  • What I’m trying to say is …
  • What I would say is …
  • Let’s put it this way …
  • I’ll tell you what …

Saying Things in Other Words/ Defining

with People:

  • It’s a person who works in …
  • someone you can find in …
  • somebody who is known for …
  • who …

with Places:

  • It’s a place where …
  • Time
  • It’s the time when …

with Things:

  • It’s something similar to …
  • like …
  • made of …
  • It’s a kind/ type of …
  • It’s a thing that is used to …
  • an object for …
  • People use it to …
  • for

Giving Reasons

  • This is why we have decided . . .
  • The main reason is . . .
  • Another equally important reason …
  • Our decision is …
  • Therefore, we strongly believe …
  • Highlighting
  • In fact, …
  • As a matter of fact …
  • In particular / Particularly …
  • Pinpointing the reference (for Examiner 2)
  • You mentioned …
  • Could I go back to the point you made regarding…
  • About … ?
  • I was interested in your comments on…

Idioms: Don’t Beat Around The Bush

To beat around the bush means to take a long time explaining something. Synonyms would be dragging something out, and belaboring the point, as in “Don’t belabor the point.” Antonyms would be getting to the point or keeping it simple.

Wonwoo: Are we still meeting, Saturday?

Jane: Sure.  Is there something wrong?

Wonwoo: No. Not at all.

Wonwoo: So, why did you ask whether I am still into it or not?

Jane: Well, because you asked if we were still meeting.

Wonwoo: Oh, okay. So, everything’s cool.

Jane: Yeah! Why wouldn’t it be?

Wonwoo: Well, you said last night you that haven’t seen your friends in a while, so….

Jane: So, you were wondering whether I had wanted to see them, instead, on Saturday?

Wonwoo: Sort of.

Jane: Oh. Thank you for thinking of me, Wonwoo, but next time, don’t beat around the bush.

Wonwoo: What do you mean?

Jane: I mean, tell me straight out what you are worried about.

When The Cows Come Home

“When The Cows Come Home,” which means “never,” or ‘not for a very long time’


1. John will take out the garbage when the cows come home, so you had better do it yourself, honey; that kid doesn’t do anything.

2. Yeah, I believe North and South Korea will reunify–when the cows come home. How can we expect this with Kim Jung-Un at the helm of North Korea?

3. Bill, Joan And Joe

Bill: I got my hair cut, lost some weight, have been working out and improved my attitude; do ya think Joan will go out with me, now?

Joe: Well, she’ll go out with ya–just not now.

Bill: Don’t you think I’ve improved my appearance?

Joe: Sure, a million fold.

Bill: So when do you think she’ll go out with me? When I make more money?

Joe: No. When you stop talking like you’re going to vote for Trump, which means… when the cows come home, because I don’t think you can change

Making Plans

“Weekend” Plans

It’s Friday, so here is a dialog for you to practice:
Background: Melvin Udall is the fun character people love to secretly like–though he is the type of person we are thought to hate; he is a crank of a character from the hit movie “As Good As It Gets.” He is played by the celebrated actor, Jack Nicholson, who pulls off Udall’s Obsessive Compulsive Disorder soft and fiery sides with great skill. Alice is his no-nonsense but pretty waitress at a local bistro, with whom he has fallen in love. She’s played by the dynamic Helen Hunt. I made up this very short exchange between the characters. If you have questions, let me know.
Melvin (looking old but handsome, charming, but nosey–and with an expression that says, ‘have I got a surprise for you.’):
 “Ya got plans this weekend? Do ya, waitress girl?”
Alice (looking slightly annoyed, but relieved that Melvin isn’t embarrassing anyone in the restaurant):
 “Yes, Melvin; yes, I do. ‘Sorry.”
(A long pause ensues as Helen clears Melvin’s breakfast plates and dishes from his corner table–the one with the open-door view of 6th Avenue; she doesn’t look at him….)
Melvin: (in his usual cutting sarcasm–but with a head-bob and a smirk that seems to say, ‘I still got this.’):
     “Are we working for the CIA, now?”
(Helen freezes, stares into Melvin’s empty coffee cup, but doesn’t look up.)
Melvin (realizing he is screwing up):
     “Is it a secret?”
Alice: (Stops clearing, looks a bit annoyed, then feigns a smile–realizing if she doesn’t answer, Melvin could say something that would ruin her day):
      “I’m going to take Spence to the doctor.”
(Another long pause as Helen finishes cleaning the table and Melvin actually takes the time to think before speaking.)
Melvin (looking like his frontal lobes have been removed):
     “Would it kill ya ta ask me?”
Helen (Perfunctorily and without looking, again):
     “How about you? What will Mr. Charming do, this weekend? Hmm?”
(Helen stops, wipes her hands on her apron at the hips, and looks at Melvin dead on, waiting for his special brand of a boy-ish answer. A group of hairs, comes undone from the rubber-band holding the rest of it in a pony tail, falls in front of her tired face. She ignores it.)
Melvin (looking personally injured, looks up at Helen over the tops of his thick black glasses and wrinkles his forehead and nose):
     “Not any more I don’t.”
So, we see Melvin asking:
  • “Ya got plans?”

This is because we don’t say, ‘Do you have a plan?’ when talking about the weekend, the holiday, vacation or other times of recreation. Having ‘a plan’ is having a solution to a problem; it sounds tactical, strategic, military, martial.

Lunar Modules Are Not Like Spiders Anymore

Click to Enlarge (It’s worth it).
Click to enlarge.
Click to enlarge.

I am officially voicing my support for asking space journalists to cease and desist from likening lunar landing craft to spiders. In the late fifties and early sixties they may have looked remotely like twisted versions of arachnids. Now, peeps, come on–they look like lunar-landers. Let’s look at why: first, it’s cultural and linguistic; lunar-landers have been on paper in sci-fi pulp magazines since the forties–and in blueprints & in the form of mock-ups since the fifties; and we had real ones from the sixties onward-which flew in space and went to the moon! Second, it’s mental: lunar-landers are a real fixture of the public mind and are so unique an artifact that they have earned their place in our cognition as a source item to be likened to, instead of being an oddity to have some other thing held up to identify them. They aren’t novel, anymore–so they don’t need the help of animal similarities. Finally–thirdly and furthermore, spiders have eight legs, not four or five, are oblong, and possess a low center of gravity. They are squat, not tall and ungainly, and they have legs that protrude from low center points–not from vertical attachment spots that look like ladders. The comparison was original and helpful, once; it’s not, any more. It’s silly, illogical, misleading, and cliche.

Who’s with me?

Americans on Democracy

The greatest evidence of mass delusion, ignorance–and perhaps even simple stupidity in America (I am very sorry to say) is in the fact that the majority of the average citizens of this democratic capitalist society are not tripping over themselves, racing to demand the end of private campaign, PAC, and political party finance–which basically make us the lapdogs, human slaves, and victims of the super rich. lack of action in this area is also the clearest form of self-loathing and disrespect.

We may be a legal and financial oligarchy, but we still have the power of association and referendum, however, we act as if the vote is the most important power tool in our democratic shed; it most certainly isn’t. It’s a false machine, a toy. The most powerful tool we have is our voice–in petition, assembly, and what we fund.

We could literally petition the law to real change, but we allow it to stay as is it is–and as is, private campaign finance is the hand with foreign fingers that is perpetually in our pockets. It is the gun to our heads. It is the knives at our back–but we keep watching TV and staring at our phones and tablets like zombies, or like a mental patient on a Thorazine drip. and as we stay medicated and inactive, politicians and reporters whispering lies or approximated stories into our ears, as the super rich funnel cash into their pockets and tighten their leashes. And ours.

These who won’t act on this don’t really want things to change. And they don’t understand that this is how they could change–massing together and expressing our discontent and solutions to end it. That’s why they won’t support publicly funded elections, political parties, and PACs; they don’t want democracy–not really–not true democracy, with totally fair and equal representation across the electorate and the society….

Sometimes I wonder, if privately (and unconsciously?), each middle to upper class group of citizens, each rich group; each ethnic or religious group… secretly doesn’t in fact want the option of buying politicians–because Americans are a group of people who have become so comfortable and complacent–able to stand the pressures of their discomfort and conscience–because their fears and prejudices are more powerful than their honor and their courage. And I wonder whether secretly they are terrified of true democracy, because it would prevent their respective group (ethnic, religious, academic, class-oriented) from having undue influence at their disposal–in an emergency. They secretly fear true democracy, for they could wind up with–for example–with a string of Latino, female, or black presidents, or Jewish or Chinese ones, or, whatever. They might end up living in a country with truly sensible and socialized governance that favors the poor and middle class, rather than the rich folk they are, or want be. It would mean inclusion for people they don’t desire, or a lack of favoritism toward their own group.

To me, this kind of holding on to the cards, the power, the favorites–all boils down to a lack of courage in the face of righteousness, justice, and logic about what would work in a way that leads to responsibly across the board in American society. To me, this is what keeps people down. Any way you examine it, it pares down to fear and prejudice, which depend on ignorance and lack of character. Or, as I have been learning in research online, it may also be attributed to their brains, but that is another aspect of the issue, for another essay.*

*If you would like to look into that, watch videos on Youtube in the Bomb in The Brian series (though these are not perfect since the narrator seems to be trying to get all this information into our heads to justify libertarian-ism). Also look into Sam Harris and Free will. The general idea is that most–if not all of us who have not changed this–are victims of childhood-traumatized brains, which are hard-wired to be either conservative or liberal–basically fearful or not.

The God of The Spiritual

The god a spiritual person talks about (if he or she can justify a god) doesn’t have any disqualifying prejudicial, limiting, or exclusionary qualities about it. The god a traditionally religious person talks about often does.

If we look at the types of people who followed Jesus, we see they were of the spiritual nature–that is, open-minded, living purely in “the now” and free of heart. They were common people: prostitutes, thieves, common fishermen, tax collectors, murderers, even (well, it seems murder was pretty common and justified in Biblical times)–quite different from those who merely tolerated or rejected Jesus, like members of the Roman government or the Pharisees. What is the significance of this realization, or can i call it an epiphany?

In my estimation, the Pharisees of today are the conservatives and fundamentalists–religious and rigid in their thinking–prejudiced and exclusionary in their actions. These people need to follow Jesus and the words of the Bible more or less to the letter, and are not flexible in their interpretation of the divine.

I have been gently admonished, sometimes criticized–and most egregiously–rejected in my life–for having adopted the Zen Buddhist practice, when really all I did was expand and purify my spiritual way.

The lessons I learned in knowing “God” and “Jesus”, the paternal figure and the man, as opposed to what I have done in incorporating the transcendental essence of what we might think or hope represents God and Jesus–their spirit, or message, if you will–into my heart and actions, is something the religious do not seem to understand–because they are not spiritual, in my view–otherwise they would know the difference between the superiority of the latter, and the limitations and violence of the former.

The point is, the rhetoric is for the closed-minded, “the scared,” the ones who would actually have been among the temple Pharisees condemning the man and essence of Jesus–out of mortal fear of the Roman government (of course, to be fair, they also rejected him because he was a textbook heretic according to the Hebrew law).

The freedom of transcendental understanding and divine transformation–in love and anything divine–is for the free, themselves… who do not get caught up in the rhetoric.

Be it through Al-la, Yahweh, Yeshua, Buddha… the transformation is inside you, not in a book or in a temple or church–not in following the words to the letter (which in the theisms can be quite limiting and dangerous, anyway).

The knowledge is joyous oneness. This is “God,” if there is one. The result is love. This is the Spirit.

Violence And Religion

This was my reaction to ISIS captors saying they could rape women because ‘it pleases God.’

(There have been some additions here and there to make my points more clear, understandable, compassionate, and just.)

This religion and all religions that justify, accept, or regulate prejudice, heinous and ridiculous punishments, genital mutilation, prejudicial discrimination, emotional, physical, or psychological violence, war, animal or human sacrifice–must go–or they must be reformed and revised. In the very least, they cannot be allowed to be taught in egalitarian democracies.

The basic problem here–of course–is that any religion based on a god–be it passive, benevolent or altruistic–or aggressive, belligerent, and harmful is that it is totalitarian in nature… because clerics, priests and monks of a theistic religion can tell adherents what to think and that they are interpreting the word of the religion, and saying that the adherents of the religion must do A, B and C–to be in the graces of an omnipotent god who rules over their lives.

What The  Theistic Interpretations Lead To
What it is doesn’t matter, because it tells them to obey. Take the best case scenario: a priest tells the followers of some religion that they must love one another, however, there are some simple-minded people in his flock and when presented with a situation that involves ‘killing for peace,’ a simple-minded adherent interprets this as a form of love or duty–so, he kills. He does so thinking he must do so. Of course the worst case scenario is one in which adherents are told outright that violence is in order (be it in the physical form or that of prejudice, agitation, harassment, subjugation, bondage, lies), but it isn’t called “violence,’ because the theisms originated in the bronze age.

Where We Draw the Line
Any doctrine with the totalitarian power of fiat–administered by human beings over its adherents is harmful and deleterious, because it supersedes human conscience and is vulnerable to the continued interpretation of its administrators. This is not spiritual; this is political.

What We Need to Do
As we will not outlaw theism, I am calling for a reformation–or the dis-allowance of violence to be disseminated in a scriptural form of any kind, in egalitarian democratic states–for the sake of the freedom of the human mind and corpus–and for the benefit of all human beings–and of course for the establishment of cognitive reinforcement that leads to true safety, justice, peace, love, compassion and good sense in society. This would certainly go a very long and effective way in degrading the possibly of cultivating minds amenable to terrorism.

Religions based on the written word that is elevated to the lofty designation of scripture, and which either justify, give beneficial examples of or can be interpreted as promoting violence are not safe, and so have no place in civilized society.

The Literature Question
Religions based on this kind of writing are different from fiction and fantasy, because they are not those things in the minds of the faithful; they are factual commandments and prescriptions for life coming from a dictator deity who sees all, rewards and punishes, and is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in their minds. This makes followers of such doctrines–especially in politically and economically compromised regions of the world unequivocally and inherently unsafe–and most especially where the administrators of these religions can call their followers to resort to the violence in their faith.

But It’s A Small Number People
People who say a small number of the faithful commit acts of terror or that ‘only crazy people’ resort to the old ways are inaccurate and missing the point. For example, of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, between 23 and 25% of them proclaim to believe in the extreme aspects of their faith. Moreover, it doesn’t take all the people in a room to set a house on fire. Those who do not bear in mind these facts are extremely short-sighted, unimaginative and in-abstract in the least–while being unintelligent, ignorant, dangerous, and as evil as those who say “guns don’t kill people” in the worst case scenario. They apparently exhibit cognitive deficiency or betray a certain gross cognitive dissonance, for they do not face the fact that whether a religion is meant to be peaceful in essence or concept or not is irrelevant as long as it holds sacred words that can be and are used to promote violence in reality. Many of these apologists are probably being disingenuous, too.

Who Would Do This?
What we allow to be taught to children and to the vulnerable people of a society finds its way into that society in some way, to some degree, at some time–among the literal and fundamentalist and “extreme” … among the mentally ill, among the cognitively challenged, and among the intellectually deficient or mediocre of mind and spirit; it finds its way into the people who are justifiably over-stressed, disenfranchised, angry; it finds its way into minds of the otherwise mentally healthy people who are simply made ignorant and controlled (which is what most of the fundamentalists are–people born innocent and cognitively healthy, but made insane by doctrine and its precipitant behavior); this is unacceptable.

“Extreme Interpretations–Not Everyone Does This”
“Extreme interpretations” of religion are not so extreme, just literal; the killing they advocate is there… in the texts of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. This is no longer appropriate. If it were not there, it could not be interpreted literally, dangerously. And saying that many societies show examples of millions of people who do not interpret the scriptures violently is irrelevant; as long as the violence is there–like a gun–it will be used, and it is used; and these days that violence is used to devastating proportions–tearing apart whole nations.

Divine or Egalitarian?
We can no longer give a tolerant nod to the teaching or allowance of the teaching of religions that contain scriptures that are or can be dangerous, superstitious and plain refutations of observable reality, of science, or of scriptures that teach the opposite of egalitarian principles and compassion. And above all, we can no longer allow such to be called divine. It matters not what a “sacred” book is purported to say; it only matters what it does say and what its affect is on people. It also matters how it can be interpreted. Some religions cannot be twisted to become violent. that is the only good kind of religion.

Literature (Fiction) or Holy Commandment?
This is what separates religious works from literature: the former is holy dictum, said to be handed down from on high by the author of the universe–so if it has prescriptions or justifications of violence in it, you can’t get more pernicious than that; the latter (simple literature) is mere entertainment and the artful interpretation of the human condition. The former is a disaster waiting to happen under the right conditions. History is replete with such disasters–most of which were committed by people acting in the mindset of the theisms or in secular religious movements of the state… employing cult of personality adulation for supreme leaders. Theist apologists love to refer to Hitler and Stalin and Mao as atheists. Hitler was a Christian and he proclaimed his movement Christian. It was said to be–inscribed on every Nazi soldier’s belt; Stalin and Mao may have been atheists, but their movements were quasi-religious and not in the name of atheism.

The Superior And the Inferior, The Creation of Subjugation
The concept of a single god, separate form humanity creates the idea of superior and inferior in beings, sentience, people, and usually it’s men over women, and straight men over gays and bisexuals and over the other species. If we are going to respect the existence of these religions, they must be made safe, respectable and relevant for modern times; modern times no longer can tolerate this kind of prejudice; it is below us.

Theism And Violence Are Too Pernicious
People will defend religion on “holy” grounds, cultural grounds, and literary grounds, but this promotes their dangers and results in violence in many ways. Violence should not be part of any education system; theistic violence is the most dangerous, because it is believed to come from gods and so is about the most dangerous thing you can teach–as it reins supreme over the mind when justified. This can no longer be tolerated in modern civil culture.

In Particular

The violence of judgement, of fear and loathing of different innate sexual persuasions, of accepted slavery, of the subjugation of women, of the murder of people who leave the faith, or who make clothing of the wrong materials, of those who eat at the wrong times–or of the wrong foods… the violence of the persecution of non-believers, the violence of dismemberment and stoning for theft or infidelity, the violence of the out-casting of and killing of homosexuals… the violence of war against peoples not chosen by one’s chosen scripture and the violence of the perpetuation of ignorance and the dissemination of visceral fear… taught to children—in whose minds the seeds of neurosis are thus planted–all makes for pain and neurosis.

It’s Insane

All of this, by elevated standards of consciousness–is now deemed insane. Therefore, it is insane to allow it to be held up and defended as righteous lessons or of history worthy of continued edification in religious books; it must all come out of the books or the books must be disallowed in places of worship and learning in egalitarian democracies where the sanctity of the individual has been enshrined since the enlightenment and the French, British and American revolutions for democracy.

Review, Summation And Conclusion

To reiterate succinctly and make clear my point: in the very least—if we are not to outlaw or eradicate these religions for the sake of “respect,” tradition, cultural identity, and the good parts in their teachings, then we must either ask that they be thoroughly revised, or that their texts not be allowed in civilized, egalitarian states–but then we will hear that religious scripture is literature: ‘If we don’t ban violent literature, then why ban the words of violent religion?’

This defense of religion as mere literature is pale. You don’t defend something as mere literature when it is taught as coming from a deity and is used to set up societies, has the power to regulate human relations, marriage, law and civil punishments—when it dictates the origin of the universe, affects peoples’ health, and determines the direction of public policy. That’s politics and government and so is infinitely more powerful than literature—unjustly so.

Defending religion as literature is like saying the owner’s manual of a car is science fiction. Scripture is instructional authority from the highest agency. Allowing it to contain anti-egalitarianism, violence, slavery and rape is the definition of foolishness if not stupidity, cruelty and organized megalomania–to any thinking, honest, compassionate, and healthy human mind with a shred of self-esteem and intelligence.

Ban these words from egalitarian democratic societies and do not let people in to democratic and egalitarian societies who observe, protect, defend, or excuse them. Porn is porn; violence is violence. Stop allowing children to see it. Stop splitting hairs over culture and antiquity and that disease of the in-compassionate, the unthinking, and the militant: ‘PC-ism.’

This dark-age poison has to go. Get rid of it from the face of the planet or for anthropological significance, relegate it to two-foot-thick glass cases in maximum-security museums, and you will only see this inane, horrifying tragedy of wasted minds and torturous immorality where it is left–in countries using it as law… where it is left to rot the heart and mind–until the human souls in these lands get tired of being cut off from the civilized world and they change the ways of their people–of their own accord.

See to an eradication of violent religious passages from any books in Europe, The Americas, Asia, Africa–wherever thinking, compassionate, advanced egalitarian society exists or where the people would have it.

I guarantee that if we do this, America will also see a monumental decrease in its cold and cruel Republicanism, too–because all through this reading you might have been thinking I have been talking only of one theistic religion.  I have not been. If we were to apply this reformation to one theism that contains  prescriptions and allowances for violence, we would have to apply it to them all. And that would be a damned good thing.

Link: ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape http://nyti.ms/1TucUEA

Incessant Demands for Unaccepted Apologies

This is a reaction to the details of an NPR News story- Japan’s Abe Notes Regret And Past Apologies In WWII Speech at http://n.pr/1Ern78

I Am Supremely Discouraged by Wise Asian Nations whose leaders continue–year after year–to fan the flames of shame and pain and do not accept, decade after decade after decade–a multitude of deeply remorseful and annual state apologies from the Japanese for their wartime transgressions.

It particularly troubles me, because some of these nations have very spotty human rights records, themselves–in the current era since World War II. They act, in modern history, with exceptionalism, through foreign invasion, duplicitous technology-hacking, atrocious use of the death penalty, and with reputations for high levels of xenophobia, endemic societal enthniphobia, sexism, and providing poor opportunities for the aged and poor–exhibiting rampant ageism.

So how can these nations partake in finger-wagging at Japan– especially in modern times? To me it so plainly obvious that this is opportunism at work, with spiritual decrepitude in evidence–which amounts to a representation of a very low national character, indeed.

Some of these nations are the world’s human traffickers extraordinaire, with economies dependent in no small part, on economically entrenched prostitution, while they harbor a citizenry that is, in numbered cases, abusive to and discriminatory toward citizens of foreign countries who come to work in their lands–and to foreign soldiers who are there to protect them from one another.

If it weren’t shameful it would be comedic, how these Asian nations pick at the apologies of Japan and they blame Japan still–nation which paid torturously for its missteps–with fire-bombing and nuclear blasts that maimed, poisoned, and killed hundreds of thousands–if not millions; then Japan resurrected itself into one of the world’s most kind, civilized, and peaceful philanthropic nations.

To me, one who called his home twice and for fifteen years in total, this has more to do with the national characters of the nations in question; I found it very difficult, for example–in one of these countries–to observe both sincere apologies and sincere forgiveness among the otherwise genuine people, and I found it came after long periods of cold, if at all. It was very consistently curious–but this, is not. It seems indicative to me.

For shame, North Asian Mainland and peninsula–for shame. Put an end to this and clean up your own house. This behavior is beneath your greatness and kindness and subtracting from your world image, national potentials, and priorities. You are only hurting yourselves, making enemies of people who have come to love the Japanese fiercely, and damaging future relations with them and their friends–of which I am one.

Art’s Not Dead And Comedy is Its Heir

Whoever said art was dead had no god, no special powers, and no crystal ball–nor did he have an over-reaching intellect, because he could not foresee the future we live in now, where comedy has become the most relevant and powerful art form–more so than Hollywood or even Indie films, which cannot be said to be commenting on and affecting the body politic as effectively and in such a real-time fashion–more powerfully than any other form of creative expression.

Comedy, today, communicates and moves large numbers of the citizenry to political change by informing them without mincing words and worrying about some business or abstract and arcane dualistic agenda; comedians tell it like it is and are generally not bought off by corporations. They may have to tailor their message to a degree in order to conform to FCC regulations, but for the most part–with the advent of cable and online broadcasting–comedians can say virtually say whatever they wish.

Comedy, today, therefore is hyper-relevant–and not only happening only in expensive galleries and old museums–for profit and antiquity, fashion, or for mere entertainment; yes, comedy is born in talent, skill, and vison and it is expressed through a practiced craft (a collection of crafts, actually and multi-tasking observational and psychological, and journalistic skills), but comedy is not intended only for our amusement–though it amuses us wonderfully.

Comedy, today, is not shallow, as many other art forms are relegated to being minus a cultivated intellectual culture; it’s not simple decoration or intended for self-aggrandizing display; it’s certainly not for private journalistic creation in diary form. It is for the general public. It may be commercial, but it is above all, pure. In fact, it is my contention that comedy is the last refuge of free speech. It does not fall victim to over-liberalized or lying conservative political correctness, a force that is going down in history as possessing a greater dumbing-down effect on our society than that of prime-time television.

Indeed, comedians are at the forefront of the battle against PC militancy, saving intellectual discourse and nuance in communication.

Comedy is an art form that is a breathing social force built on truth, observation, and monologue that inspires dialog and thought about everything affecting individuals and society–everything that effects our nation–like Picaso’s Guernica affected the world or as agit prop in both the West and in the former Soviet & present Chinese and North Korean religious states of communism did and do–only, in American comedy, comedians are not lying.

This author is no communist, but permit me to use some terms that will show how powerful comedy has become, in order to make a point. Comedy has developed into a better source of inform-ation, news and social outreach on politics, big business, the environment, the growing police state, and foreign exceptionalism than our free press. In this way it has become a pillar of the movement of the masses and the proletariat (the poor, working, and middle classes)–against the evil, encroaching, careless, and destructive forces of capitalism that we have allowed through pathetic campaign finance laws to run our country and destroy equal representation, sensible banking, energy, environment, education, health, trade, and gun-control policy—as well as governance regulating the military industrial complex and foreign policy. Marx and Engels never saw this coming–nor did Ayn Rand–thank the Gods of Greece!

Comedy, in our era, is so powerful that governments around the world restrict its craftsmen, and comedy has answered the call of Jefferson, replacing–to some degree, journalism–as a necessary foundation requisite to the maintenance of democracy.

The reach of political comedy in our times (with a requisite nod to the internet and technology) is so effective, that very un-funny people have been all but forced to defend themselves against its penetration into their hypocrisy–such as we saw with George HW Bush and “W”, and as we observe regarding Fox News, today–to name only three examples.

Who was it that said art was dead? Was it Nietzsche? Well, let’s not go to hard on him. He was original, caring about his times, and creatively expressive & insightful. Actually, he had said God is dead. Well, maybe for him–and for those that abuse the gods, today.

Marcel Duchamp is actually the one that “Art is dead” is attributed to (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp), but he and Nietzsche lived in a time when men like today’s Republicans, some Democrats, and many businessmen & despots were actually in control. In contrast, and proving art is not dead, we live in a time when men like George Carlin, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Jon Oliver, Jon Stewart, and–to some extent–Jim Jeffries, Louie CK, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, and even Rachel Madow, are showing with humor whom the would-be emperors are and why they have no clothes–and they are shining a spotlight on those who prove goodness is certainly alive as well as in politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Art is very much alive, and has a punch line; the joke’s on the bad guys.

About “Kaaru No Eh”

“Kaaru-no-Eh” means “Carl’s Pictures” in Japanese. With this name I amuse myself, and I pay homage the Ukiyo-e print masters of seventeenth and eighteenth century Japan because of their gorgeous and original way of picture-making.

In the future I will feature an article here on Ukiyo-e and perhaps a video–as well as sample images of the traditional Japanese art-form.

About “Mando”


I am a Buddhist–a philosophical Buddhist, or Zennist, not a devotional one; I don’t pray to anyone or anything. It is a way of looking at things and a practice.

In Buddhism, there is the concept called the Dharma, or “Dhamma, in Pali.” Think of it, for now, as The Way.

⇐ These characters, on the left, are my Dharma name.  A Dharma is another name a Buddhist is called which represents his or her identity in the Dharma and among his or her Dharma brothers and sisters in the Sangha, or the Buddhist community.

My Dharma name is pronounced “Mahndoe,” with the ‘a’ sounding as it does in “father,” and with relatively equal stress applied to each syllable. If a little more stress could be applied, it would be given to the first syllable, “Mahn.”

“What kind of name is Mando?”

That’s what my mother said that my father asked her–about my new name.

I know that to some people it may seem pretentious to change one’s name. People like Prince and The Edge do it. And actors do it. In the West, women do it when they marry. Did you know that Japanese woodblock masters did it? It was done to protect one’s family name, among other reasons. Hokusai, I think, had something like thirty names.

Long before I received this Dharma name, I had thought it appropriate for a thoughtful person to change his or her name–to better suit how he or she sees him or herself. After all, my father changed his name, too!

The Words And Their Spelling

In Korean ‘Man-do’ literally means Ten-thousand Ways, with ‘Man’ (pronounced “mahn”) meaning ‘ten-thousand,’ or ‘many,’ and ‘Do’ (pronounced ‘doe’) meaning ‘way’ (which can also be written and pronounced “Gil”)–but as Man-do (the way it should be transliterated from Korean) was transmitted to me by my teacher, it was conveyed to mean ‘Many Paths of Change.’ In Korean, Mando looks like this:


The name in Chinese is “Wan Tao,” meaning basically the same thing — Ten Thousand Ways.

Please look at the red pictographs again:


 The Swastika (on top), is Sanskrit, and in that language means luck (or fortune) and well-being.

The second character–on the bottom–is “Doe.” In Chinese, it is “Tao,” as in the Tao Te Ching’, or “Way of Virtue” (the name of the collection of philosophical poems attributed to Lao Tzu).

Two of my Dharma Brothers–who took their precepts the same day as I–have this word, “way,” in their Dharma names; there is Cheon Do (Way of Heaven) and Gil Do (道吉) Way of Luck (or Fortune). My other Dharma Brother’s name is Seog Chon, meaning Upright Stone.

In Japanese, this name is “Manji Michi” and the meaning is the same as described above.

You Can See The Swastika All Around Asia

adolf hitler, swastika, swastik, Atheism, atheist, new atheists, Christianity, Christian apologetics, God, Bible, Jesus, evilbible, evilbible.comThis first character, Man, in Korean and Japanese, or Wan in Chinese is under the eaves on all Buddhist temples in Korea. It also denotes temples on maps of Japan. In this case it may be said to mean “Buddhism” or “Dharma.” That is because it was adopted to represent the turning Dharma Wheel, which is what it essentially is. Imagine a cross, say of the two bars that make up a compass, or an X. Now, imagine it spinning, round axis at the intersection points of the two perpendicular bars. Can you also imagine a blur that might be perceived at the ends of those bars? Now you have what the Jane and Buddhist Swastika is. It is a Spinning Dharma Wheel, or at least that is how I see it..

It is a symbol that dates back to pre-history. It is a symbol used by the people of the Jane religion–arguably a more compassionate religion than Buddhism. 

A Little About What Buddhism is…

A. The assumption should not be made that says a Buddhist practitioner believes this or that, though there are some basic notions. Buddhism to some is a religion. To me it is a practice (to some that’s the same thing, but you will accept my meaning that a religion these days generally means a belief system requiring faith in unproven things). Some would say Buddhism is my religion, but it is not–not in the traditional, modern-day meaning of religion, because I do not depend on something outside myself. I depend on my perception of what I am a part of, attempting to be as good a part of everything as I can–so it is responsible, inclusive, singular, and thus affords my part of the universal Mind quite a beautiful point of view, I feel. It is almost like saying I am part of what is “divine,” rather than separate from it. 

B. Buddhism involves a moral path of inflicting as little harm as possible. It also says that we must accept reality for what it is, not what we or some doctrine wants it to be. For me this is perfect, because I feel a religion or philosophy is only as good as far as it abides by reality and does not attempt to recast it in some self-serving image. To me, a good religion or philosophy also must not preach punishment or pain–only benevolence. To do otherwise is politic–a politics of retribution and dualism–what Buddhism seeks to eliminate.

Mando's Precept Certificate

C. At left is my Certificate of Precepts. It signifies that I and my Dharma Brothers took vows and were witnessed doing so, promising not to

  1. kill
  2. steal
  3. consume alcohol irresponsibly
  4. lie or use harmful speech 
  5. partake in immoral intimate contact

D. To me, the most important aspect beyond these promises is to use meditation and our own conscience to determine what is in ourselves and around us–understanding that the five senses, or Skandas, are the source of our perception.

E. I also see Buddhism–and specifically Zen Buddhism–is a humble, honest, moral practice and a way of looking at the universe that says “all is one,” and suffering is in the mind and caused by the mind; it is caused by the ego, or “selfness.”

F. Buddhism is a non-dogmatic way of looking at the universe–focusing on what is honestly and plainly perceived–or, on reality as it is.

G. The Buddhist attempts to perfect Right Mind, Right Action, Right Thought, and Right Speech.

Some reasons I chose this practice are:

  1. I was enamored with the peaceful, revalatory, and epiphanal ways of meditation.
  2. The more I read about it, the more I felt and learned that this way of being was more honest and pacifying–spiritually, scientifically, and socially–than anything I had heard of or witnessed. For theists who feel this is “bad,” I suggest they look into it, and if they cannot part with their religions but still like Buddhist philosophy and practice, they can become Zen Christians, because:

3. The practice of Zen conflicts with nothing–most importantly, with science.*

4. There is no worship in true Buddhism–though there are those Buddhists who are devotional.

5. Buddhism can bring one peace like nothing else–in my opinion, because it is about being (and being peaceful, eliminating suffering) and it is about not doing as opposed to doing this or that–or not doing this or that.

6. There are pronouncements as to how to live morally, but what is interesting is that the Buddha said to look at ideas–including his ideas–and test them, seeing whether they are right for us. In this way–and most importantly in my opinion–Buddhism does not interfere with sentient conscience, a most superlatively necessary way of ensuring the primacy of freedom.

7. It is true the Buddha suggested his followers not to depend on a god or gods, but rather on themselves. However, until one can reach a transcendental path, it is possible for theists to benefit from the Buddhist ways of Zen meditation and mindfulness. I have met several Zen Christians, and have heard of formal Zen Christian sects.

8. If one attempts to practice Zen Buddhism, specifically living a meditative life, she or he will be relieved of most–if not all–illusions and delusions, so that following religions based on faith in stories that have no proof likely become impossible. But remember, The Buddha told his followers not to follow what he said outright–and rather to investigate things for themselves. Each of us creates his or own moral universe, so one could take the meditation of Zen and leave the Buddhist elements of wisdom out of it if one wishes. In fact, I think if more theists were at the same time Zennists, too–if they were Zen Christians, Zen Muslims, and Zen Jews–they might find much more peace, because…

9. Meditation and the Buddhist way–which are crucial to the practice–are about presence, awareness, listening and seeing clearly, and conducting oneself in such a way as to not contribute to violence in oneself–as we are considered all one–aiming to diminish ‘I’ and ego and not causing violence to anyone else.

Thank you for reading. I wish you and yours peace, love, joy, and enlightenment.


(Carl Atteniese Jr.)

Guns Do Kill People

A poster on Instagram defended guns with a double-image picture of a woman being abused in its first frame, and in the second, that same woman is defending herself with a pistol. The caption read “This prevents this.” I commented that the scenario depicted in the second image causes the scenario in the first, remarking that it is a chicken and egg situation. The person who had posted the picture said people can be killed with knives and that there is a difference between giving guns to children and arming responsible adults.

What I Wrote in Response:

What I said still stands as a reflection of the evidence and as a monumentally flawed and solution-less answer to the problematic questions of conflict, ethnic and political tensions, domestic disputes, religious intolerance, hunger, poverty, illness, and crime–exacerbating violence in the US.

Guns do kill people, in enormous numbers–and it is because people have them that they can kill (it is also because they empower us and inspire us in unnatural and almost narcotic ways; see my article: “What’s Wrong with Guns in America”).

If the guns were harder to come by, so would be the damage they inflict. If guns were difficult or impossible to obtain, people wanting to do harm would have to confront one another at close range, giving a greater opportunity for human contact, interaction, conflict resolution, even a chance at surviving through defense and escape; most murderous interactions might not even happen. Stabbing someone is too intimate and yields a greater possibility for failure, getting caught, and self-reflection.

Saying ‘people will get guns anyway’ doesn’t change the fact that their violence would be voluminously reduced if their acquisition were non-ubiquitous; it would be harder to get them, so fewer people would have them—therefore, their use would decrease exponentially. In addition, there would be a greater stigma attached to them, a greater need for concealment, and thus the greater possibility of perpetrators with guns being caught in suspicious behavior.

It is clinically insane that one can carry around a device in society that can render another miracle of thought, feeling, and life (a human being) inert. I lived in Korea fifteen years. I never heard of one murder by gun, there–because there are virtually no privately-owned guns in South Korea. Some Russian gangsters were rumored to have them. Gangsters kill gangsters. The police basically didn’t even have guns the first ten years I was there. Would you like to know why? The people didn’t have them. So, there was no need for the police to have them.

The kindergarten example I’ve written of is the best example, I can think of for illustrating the fundamental nature of the problem: if a boy has no gun, he has to get up the nerve to come close to you and hit you and spend a lot of time being intimate with you to beat you up. If he has a gun, he can kill you by mistake or intention, but both require only an action akin to pressing a button. It is perfect for success by error or insanity: virtually no skill is required. This is why guns are the weapons of choice among cowards and sociopaths; these personalities are indifferent to people and afraid of intimacy.

Perhaps the most sense offered on the gun problem in America is offered by resident Australian comedian, Jim Jeffries, who are points out the only reason Americans have guns is, ‘they like them.’

He says it’s not an issue of self-defense or home security: ‘You can’t go and retrieve your safely-stored gun to fight an intruder in your house. What are you going to say—dazed, and in your underwear, tripping out of bed—‘Wait, I’ll be right back’? Then you would go to your combination safe, unlock it, and assemble the gun or turn off the safety in the dark.’ It’s all nonsense. Sure it can be done, but with great difficulty. Jeffries then goes on to say that ‘in order for a gun to be useful in one’s defense, you have to keep it loaded and available.’ These are the guns killing people; ‘a person is seventy percent more likely to be injured by gun if he has one in his house.’

All the statistics (statistics are reflections of real life in numbers) show that where there are guns, there are more extremely violent crimes. It’s logical and sensical because it is natural, probable, and true. Guns are for crazy people, and so that’s why crazy people have the advantage, be they temporarily crazy or permanently—whether they are soldiers, police officers, criminals, or right-wingers—and the crazy people are the ones supplying children with guns—by mistake or on purpose—because, Dr. Poindexter, they are crazy. Now, who’s crazier; the crazy people, or the people following them?

Things I said Today: On That Stupid Word

You can’t have discord based on scientific ignorance and ignorance of ethnology based on fantasy and Victorian “science” driving inequality, tension, and violence if you are disabused of the fallacy that started it.

The problem is the word ‘_ace’, as applied to humans in issues of descrimination.

But hey, people seem to love that stupid, erroneous, misused, pernicious, and culpable word: ‘_ace,’ either because they are unaware of its bastard power, or because they want to believe they belong to another species (what the word actually means)!

If you want to help stop enthniphobia, inequality, and violence caused by ‘_ace’ in America get a brief scientific education in a few minutes on the internet, learn we are all one ‘_ace’ (one species)–literally, scientifically, actually… one-hundred percent matter of fact-ly–and…











Human Race.

You will help create a paradigm shift in the language that will contribute to stopping the validation of ethniphobia*.

Think about it: you can’t be a species-ist against aliens from Mars because there are no aliens on Mars. Likewise, people can’t be ‘_acist’ toward other human beings because there are no other ‘_aces’ of human beings on this planet — in this geologic epoch besides — that of Homo Sapiens. Translation: there are no other races of humans besides the one you belong to. Period.

What people have a problem with–but are afraid or too stupid to admit–is culture. Some of us don’t like how others among us in certain ethnic and religious and class-oriented groups behave. But we are either misinformed to think it has to do with biology (‘_ace’), or we are too polite or frightened to admit it is about culture, because we don’t really want to take the time, nuance, intelligence, and courage to say that.



*Ethniphobia – as far as I can tell, I have made this word.

Things I Said Today: On Yin & Yang

This is from a from a Discussion on Facebook

Hi, Friend:

With all due love, respect, and compassion, your understanding of yin and yang is all wrong.

‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are egotistical concepts taught in Middle-eastern religions and which are the cause of all our problems, because they give rise to a prejudicial mentality and the time-honored and pernicious concept of “us and them”.

In Taoism and Buddhism these concepts do not exist, because it is the core and principal idea that says all is one. And this is actually true if you look at the chemical and physical nature of all life and all that makes up the universe.

The Yin and yang represent “opposites” of nature, not “good” and “bad”. In nature there is no good and bad, only a continuum of cause and effect.

If you bring the Abrahamic god into this, or Jesus, or Allah, it all becomes heavily laden with right and wrong, which, yes, are important to society — but which are the main reasons for all the suffering in the world: judgements of good and bad. This is why people don’t forgive and why they punish; it’s why they fight. It’s why they believe in demons and angels and gods in the first place, and it all stems from dualism — the attempt to balance opposite inventions that serve the ego.

All is one or part of everything else. As soon as people accept this, all conflict stops.

Yes, Yin and Yang represent opposites, but even this is a product of ego. Nature has no ego. It is all flow. It certainly has no good or bad, just a continuum of cause and effect, and that is relative, too.

Things I Said Today: Dualism And Homophobia

This is from a discussion on Instagram:

It’s weird to ‘Down with Big Brother’ because he looks at the situation as he suggested: biologically. It is weird that a being has the anatomy necessary for it to reproduce with the complementary anatomy, yet its consciousness and hormonal system are attuned to the same anatomy, however, it isn’t wrong. It is natural and has been natural to a certain proportion of the species kingdoms since we can date back. Or at least it is in evidence in other species, including our cousin species of primates.

The challange is for us to look at life on the planet as a whole, instead of how Down with Big Brother tended to look at it — between only two subjects of Homan Sapian. In the species kingdoms it has been noticed that homosexuality benefits the social group, but people don’t tend to see the group as an issue or the tree of life as the unit to be concerned with.

Especially in Western culture, we think in terms of a fearful outlook that says, ‘if this happens over there, will it happen with me?’

You have heard this: ‘what if everyone did this?’ This is a product of insecurity, of the legal system, of moral laws, of religion, and specifically of dualism, which is a very West-centric or Western product very much fostered by the “us and them” aspects of individualism, “personal freedom”, and ego. The theisms play a huge part in this — unlike Eastern philosophies, which teach singularity — because the theisms succinctly teach good and bad, evil and virtue, Heaven and Hell, right and wrong, love and hate, forgiveness and punishment — all in the same book.

If one is raised in a mindset of oneness, energy-wise, biologically, cosmologically, interpersonally… dualism disappears and so does “us and them”. Homophobia can’t exist unless people are steeped in the illusions of dualism.

Banning Private Campaign Finance


Me.onBan.Private.Campaign.FinanceDear Friends:

We now have eighty-nine (378) signatures supporting a ban on private campaign finance in America. Your signature–if you are an American citizen–is badly needed. When we attained fifty signatures, http://moveon.org wrote me a letter saying they would support me in sending me to my representatives to deliver this petition. I thanked Move On, but said that I would want at least a thousand signatures as a start to show Americans were serious about this issue. Indeed, we would need hundreds of thousands to move congress and the senate, if not millions. However, a thousand would show that is possible.

Thank you to signer #89: Ms. Dana N. of Provence from Alamosa, CO, who signed this petition on Nov 13, 2014. And, Thank you to signer #88: Mr. Gary Lamble from Escondido, CA, who signed this petition on Nov 13, 2014. Mr. Lamble had this to say: “The Seemingly Impossible Dream, but we need publicly funded campaigns and a ban on private contributions of any amount.”

Publicly-funded campaigns and a ban on private campaign finance will make all candidates equal in how much and when they speak to us. A system involving a set amount of funds for election–an equal amount for all candidates–would also take the corruption out of politics and out of our electoral system, ensuring that no corporation or individuals could curie favor with statesmen and thus undermine the electorate. Finally, it would put representation fairly in the hands of all constituents–unless a candidate wanted to favor an individual or group more than others–according to his or her conscience; then voters could decide whether to tolerate that or not–at the polls.

Right now we have an auction system, a system of bribery, and a system wherein even moral, good-natured, and honest statesmen must compromise their values to satisfy their financiers, so they wind up being bought by those sponsors and taking away our rights to have our voices heard and our wanted policies implemented.

Especially in a time of global climate change–to say nothing of issues related to healthcare, gun violence, education, infrastructure, banking, and foreign policy–we need a government that answers to all citizens, not just to wealthy oil and pharmaceutical companies.

Take back your dignity, take back fair elections, and restore democracy to America–for Americans and the world. We are one dangerous nation, to our own citizens, and the citizens of other nations, without it.

There is no place for oligarchy on Earth now. Sign to ban private campaign finance and put the power of the American people back in the hands of the  American people–where it belongs.

Thomas Jefferson said democracy would end when the government fell into the hands of moneyed institutions and corporations. That is what happened a long time ago. Is there any doubt in your mind that if we accomplished a majority of support for fair politics like this, that we would not be able to solve our problems, instead of spending decade after decade of just complaining about it?

Sign here, and tell your friends to sign, too: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/establish-a-state-of-2

Thank you,

Carl Atteniese Jr.

Pick A Good Religion

I met a man on a mountain in Korea. He had this to say about Religion:

We all talk about what happens when we die. I met a wise man at the top of Bukhan Mountain in Korea, once, and this is what he told me about where the followers of different religions go:

The Christians go to a resort in the sky if they’re sorry for being jerks and profess to believe. If they’re not, they stay at a place something like the sun–forever. God makes them non-destructible at that point, but able to feel pain.

The Jews don’t go anywhere. They become their own advocates and litigate outside the gates of either place. The reason they don’t get muscled in is no one wants to cross them. They are good in a fight, make good movies and, you never know when you’re going to need a lawyer.

The Buddhists have unlimited lives, but if they’re pains in the ass, they come back as worms, or dogs, or North Koreans. Or  almost worse, they come back as dogs in traditional villages in South Korea, where they are a delicacy.

The Muslims have the best deal. They have to be good–which may include being involved in Mission Impossible-style military campaigns for political causes, which may include suicide, but the rewards are great for this. If they die during one, I hear they go to a place like the Playboy mansion in the sky. If they are bad, they have to hang out with infidels at Fox.

Taoists hitch a ride on a meteor, which mysteriously leaves the atmosphere without crashing, hitched to a flying dragon–who then takes them to some wine and opium-filled after-party in another galaxy.

Atheists just die.

Agnostics sort of die, sort of go to Heaven (where they are rewarded by God for being honest), and sort of go to Hell–on a rotating basis. I hear it’s like riding a merry-go-round through a segmented circle, with parts being like a sex shop, an inferno, and a Woody Allen movie.

Deists go to The God Buffet and have a membership card to all realms–which they can visit at will, but can never stay at permanently. They tend to hang out with the spirits of the Jihadist Muslims at the Playboy Mansion in the sky. Even the women.

Janeists own the whole shebang. Yeah, unbelievable, right? All the realms of the afterlife are concessions, owned by those vegetarian pacifists. I don’t know where they live after death. I think it is some big floating resort called “In Your Face, Nirvana,”  orbiting another star in the constellation, Virgo.

The Hindus are the limo drivers and the Sufis are the therapists and yoga instructors.

The Shintoists just go on tending those sublime shrines and go to sleep at night in the rocks, the trees and the creatures in the breeze.

Nobody knows what happens to American Indians. I think they just continue on as great spirits in the form of living peyote smoke or drum rhythms & chants–everywhere.


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

A Letter to Mayor DiBlasio on Public Smoking

Dear Mr. Mayor,

I sincerely hope this message finds you and your family and your staff and theirs’ in good health, happiness, and peace of mind.

What Decent, Healthy People Would Like–in New York City

People want to be free to be healthy. In New York, however, we are not free to be healthy, because of the ubiquity of smokers. But what is New York supposed by others to be about, if not individuality and individual freedom? What happens when the sick and inconsiderate are usurping those virtues of personal freedom and health–because they are addicted to a drug that harms not only themselves, but everyone, nearby and far away? Cigarettes–the burning type–which I shall refer from here on as ‘combustion-driven’, in the hands of people addicted to their vice and carcinogenic delivery systems, are doing this every moment of every day–in New York City. I and tens of thousands of others–if not millions–who care about their health, must hold our breath and bob and weave and dodge around smokers on crowded New York City streets, every day–and in vein–because we lose, every time; we still inhale cigarette smoke from others no matter what we do. It is not fair. It is not just. It is not sensible. It is insane. Furthermore, it is ‘un-New York’. I would go so far as to say it is un-American–not traditionally–of course, but philosophically. One man’s vice is not supposed to be a public health menace. Not in America.

America is supposed to be about fairness and freedom. It is bad enough we are shackled to faulty political practices, unfair banking and economic policies, environmental degradation due to corruption, poor infrastructure and foreign policy, terrorism and a host of other facets and factors of life we have little control over at the moment. Why should we also be forced to inhale cigarette-spewed nuclear radiation and Carbon Monoxide–on the streets?

I strongly advocate the banning of all combustion-driven tobacco products from New York City streets. Moreover, I think all of us who are healthy and sensible and in line with this should demand it!

What About in Other Western Democracies?

When I was in Japan, I saw that smoking on city streets was illegal. One cannot walk and smoke in Japan, and one must go into a smoking chamber or a smoking area separated from pedestrian traffic to abuse nicotine. Why are we less socially advanced than the Japanese?

When I was in Korea, I was forced to inhale cigarette refuse on the wind–all the time, and I thought, ‘I cannot wait to live in an American city, again, where this does not happen.’ Well, It does happen–because we are just as foolish to allow this. I inhale cigarette smoke every morning, noon, and night–on the wind–in our beloved city, and… against my wishes. Why must this be? It is tyrannical and clinical insanity.

The forced inhalation of cigarette pollution–is a human rights violation, a gross inconvenience, a corruption of a person’s peace of mind, his personal choice, and a distraction to his or her concentration.

But What About ‘Smokers Rights’?

Cigarette smokers exercising what I call their secondary right to relieve their emotional problems with nicotine products that harm others–whilst damaging their health–are violating what I call non-smokers’ primary rights to peace of mind, fresh air, and in the case of pedestrian traffic–free-locomotion in while in transit. However, I don’t want to be callous toward them–for they are human beings with needs, too–so let us suggest that they who are addicted to this  drug–use Electronic cigarettes, or vapor pens, which only produce the global warming gas, water vapor, and no other pollutants–such as are found in regular cigarettes, like nuclear radiation (Polonium), heavy metals (Cadmium), and the carbon-based greenhouse mitigants, Carbon Monoxide (car smoke); there’s no rat poisoning (Arsenic); nor any of the other 3,900+ chemicals we are forced to inhale found in combustion-driven nicotine products (regular cigarettes).

And finally, please consider this: billions of cigarettes are burning on this planet, every moment, twenty-four hours a day–pumping a tonnage of greenhouse gasses and radiation into our mutating atmosphere… in a time of severe global climate change–this is plainly stupid of us, and grossly irresponsible.

I wish you well.


Carl Atteniese Jr.


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

How to Be A Nice Person

Albert Einstein said, “common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen.” That means that what we automatically think of as sensible is only ‘automatically sensible’ to us because it derives not from experience, logical thought, or emotion but from prejudgments placed in our minds based on how we were raised. Keep that in mind as you read my essay, please…. 


Suggesting or alleging that someone is fully responsible for an outcome of negative qualities, or “blaming” others is like the air. No matter where you are, from time to time (if not every day) you will hear people saying ‘look at what I did for him’ or ‘look what was done for her’, followed by a reproach–because the person being spoken about apparently didn’t appreciated the good deed–or worse, did something wrong according to the speaker’s opinion. This has always bothered me, because it sounds like the person who received the favored treatment owes something to the party who was generous. My reaction to this, inside, is to feel like, ‘well, why did you do something for that person; was it to gain favor for yourself, or to be generous?’ Similarly, when a person is treated nicely or receives favorable treatment from the world, you can hear others saying something like ‘and look how she wasted that opportunity.’ Neither of these responses are nice; they reflect a lack of understanding, in some cases envy–or worse, jealousy. Keep in mind that people often–if not always–are doing the best that they can–even when they don’t know they could do better.

I feel and believe that being a nice person is not so much about doing nice deeds for others. Although helping and giving are beautiful aspects of friendship, more is required to qualify as “nice”.


Forgoing blame, or offering “forgiveness”, is a great part of being nice. It shows that one is really interested in getting back to the normal state of affairs in a relationship—as long as it is sincere, and not mere appeasement. It shows understanding, and humanity, for you can understand people, you can be kind toward them even when they don’t do things that you think are smart of kind–the logical and empathic reaction because all people do stupid and unkind things from time to time, either by mistake or due to a confluence of events that came from misfortune and ignorance. In other words, blaming people is not only unkind, it is shows a real lack of understanding human beings and nature. So you might say that a big part pof being nice is about awareness and intelligence.


Paying attention deeply when someone is speaking  to us, or “listening”, is a requirement, and I don’t just mean allowing someone to talk. By listening, a nice person considers deeply—or at least, adequately—what is being said by another. It also means that baring some cognitive or emotional disorder, the nice person tries to implement behavior that reflects consideration for what the speaker has said. If s/he cannot, s/he at least acknowledges, or validates it—meaning the nice person recognizes that the speaker feels that way. Validation is very important in all relationships, from those of strangers on the street conversing for only a few moments, to those of lovers. It means the nice person says, in effect, ‘I see that you feel that way and that is okay.’ You can always tell when someone’s feelings have not been validated when you hear him or her complain, ‘my boyfriend/girlfriend/friend/mother/father (whomever) keeps doing that!’; in other words, the other person is not paying attention to what is liked or wished for—and doing the opposite.


Telling others how we feel and think, or “expressing ourselves”,  is how we learn about people about ourselves. So being a nice person—to me—requires giving and helping and forgiveness, but also requires listening and considerate behavior based on what was heard. And, of course, in order to be a good listener, one has to be involved with people who express themselves on the same level we are used to–or we have to spend extra time and effort trying to understand them. It helps no one if a person is the silent type—expecting others to “know” him or her so well that nothing is said about his or her feelings. This is especially a problem with taciturn people, or with people from other cultures whose ways of communication may involve expecting a lot of guesswork or reliance on assumptions built into cultural norms. However, we should waste no time in blaming taciturn folks; understanding them only helps the situation.

Respecting People’s Space

Showing mindfulness toward other peoples’ boundaries, or “respecting someone’s space” is something I didn’t intend to include here (though it is important), because it is automatic and fundamentally natural if one is listening to and honoring what another has said (which I mentioned above). You cannot respect a person’s space if you do not listen to him or her, nor if that person doesn’t communicate his or her boundaries. Of course some forms of respect are generally basic across many cultures, but some boundaries are different and unknown to us because they are personal, familial, regional, or relationship-specific. If one is communicating and another is listening–and then, finally, the other is behaving according to what was communicated—then, respect for space and boundaries is a given.

So, don’t expect people to think you are nice if you simply do nice things for them; you have to listen to people, understand people,  validate and honor what they say—within reason of course.

It was a big shock to me when a girlfriend once said ‘I don’t like a lot of messages’, partially because I was sending too many—however, this was also a result of her indulging me for quite some time, and even rewarding my loquaciousness. That is more a case of poor communication, than lack of consideration—because people interpret the meaning of things differently, and they cannot expect others to know that their feelings about things have changed without saying something about those changed feelings.


Sharing your experiences and actions by telling the truth, or being “honest”, is important. It is the foundation upon which people may know one another—so therefore it is the most crucial element of friendship and therefore of being nice.  Dishonesty around people who trust you is a form of control, and control is not love or friendship; it’s manipulation—because when we do not know what is really happening, what friends and partners are really feeling and thinking, how can we treat them according to what they want, need, and experience? We are living in a false world of misunderstanding about them, and taken too long, we become their playthings—accidentally or deliberately. This is why people will say, ‘don’t play with me!’ It is also why people in America say, “keepin’ it real.” Real is honest. People don’t want to be manipulated. Manipulation is for things, not beings such as people. People must treat people as people. That makes them nice.


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.



I think the crisis in Iraq is terribly unfortunate and heartbreaking. I felt this way as soon as we attacked in 1991. The Crisis did not begin there, though. There was a war with Iran. We aided both sides.

But after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait over the fact that Kuwait used to be part of his country, and over the fact that Kuwait was stealing his oil… and after we had told him we had no opinion on his border dispute with Kuwait… we wrecked his country beyond repair with eleven years of sanctions.

Think of the war we had there to remove his men from Kuwait. We bull-dozed them, with dirt-removal vehicles, in the sand. We carpet bombed them in bunkers–crushing and baking them. We used radioactive shells to encase the missiles we shot out of tanks. Cancer is much more common in Iraq as a result of our war there. We became the Nazis as they were over England: cruel and unusual.

Our sanctions ruined Iraq’s economy. We blocked medical supply shipments, shoe polish, even–electronics… from entering the country. On a flight from Korea I met a man who told me they couldn’t even get hospital equipment.

In 2003 we invaded again: “Shock and Awe”, we called the endeavor. And you can bet Satan’s evil, we gave ‘em hell on Earth.

Then we allowed the poor and angry citizens to loot the museums and the ammunition lockers. We didn’t guard the weapons. We didn’t patrol the streets. We really didn’t plan the rebuilding of the country well and didn’t get started right away, either. It’s almost as if the Bush boys let them at the weapons, to further justify their plans of inflating the military budget and prolonging the conflict–to guarantee a permanent presence and the building of infrastructure–on our dime. Just funnel that cash right to Cheney’s Halliburten, Carlyle, and Brown & Root. ‘Sheeeeeeeiiii. Thems some smart ‘n good ole boys!’ (slaps knee and tips brim of cowboy hat.)

But we fired all the government workers–the civil servants. So, you had thousands of people out of work in a country beaten to hell. No teachers, no postal workers, no office people, no meter maids, no sanitation, no police officers… and no army in a country of militant religious rivals.

This is not about George Bush being unintelligent; this is about his administration–composed of highly educated men and women not caring about the people of Iraq, because they had an agenda lain out for them a decade before. And it is about you and I–not doing our jobs with the local and state legislature.

Any guesses as to where the roadside bombs came from? Or why? Any guesses as to where ISIS came from–or why?

If you hellishly attack a country, lying about why you are doing it, break international law and squander your valiant World War II reputation in the tradition of the Vietanam and Nixon era–and it is historical fact that you lied to do it, do you think everyone in that country you flattened and burned down is going to respect you or trust you–least of all the ones out of favor? Will they honor the authority you vest in the new government or its soldiers?

To say the least, ISIS is not a nice group of people, but the difference between nice people and fanatical people in this world often three things (if they are are theocratic), a lack of a strong man to keep them from oppressing one another and others, a lack of opportunity, and the US attacking their country—telling them what to do.I am.in no way sticking up for ISIS, but we have to look at the root causes of conflict in the world, if we would eliminate those causes.

Saddam Hussein was not a nice man, but he wanted to be. He just had maniacal intentions, a government in a region whose philosophy allows jihad, and a population of people who were in religious warfare with one another–some of whom always wanted to kill him.

Theocratic philosophies do not democratic traditions make. They engender hierarchy and fiat. Put all the aforementioned ingredients together with that fact and you wind up needing one tough gangster to keep peace. What did we do? We removed Hussein from the equation when he was actually the one leader with a progressive secular society, unleashing centuries of theocratic tension–and after we destroyed his society–attempted to rebuild it under the leadership of a fool–with a get-rich-quick and democracy-in-a-box plan.

Then we left.

What’s interesting to me is, in April–when the Obama Administration was poised (or bluffing; that’s another theory of mine) to bomb Syria, there were those in the citizenry, including a former Kennedy staffer–saying that we really did not know whether Assad has used poison gas or the rebels had, and what’s more, that many of the rebels were radical Islamists who were not fighting Assad because he was a despot–but because they wanted a Caliphate and to run out of town or kill Aloites and other non-Muslims. Now we know this is where many members of ISIS came from.

Had we bombed Assad and possibly overthrown him, who do you think would be running Syria, now? And what kind of hell would McCain be catching for his boots on the ground, there? Whose boots would they be? The boy’s next store–until he either didn’t need one or both of them. And then we would rush them home. And Syria would be another Iraq–and Korea.

Look at South Korea. It is a nation divided since 1953. Iraq looks like a nation that will now be indefinitely divided (in more parts than two). Finally, had we bombed Syria….

In Inventing The axis of Evil, by Evrand Abrahamian, Moshe Ma’oz, and Bruce Cumings, the sober suggestion is made that the hawkish American agenda is actually to keep nations like Iran, Syria, and Korea divided. If these astute authors are correct, it’s now two down, and (not one, but…) two to go.

Oliver Stone said we lost in Vietnam because we were spiritually wrong from the beginning. Of course we were; when we aided the French–who were trying to maintain their imperial hold on the Vietnamese–we were too ashamed to give them funding outright, or to let them have lanes with our insignia on them–so the French had to repaint them. And, more egregiously, we invented the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to get into the war ourselves. We also killed a president over it (among other reasons). Our hearts were never in the effort of rebuilding Iraq. Now we are reaping the wrath of the fringe who think like we and the American Natives had in our own little culture war before the birth of our nation: ‘Kill and terrorize so they leave you alone’.

What do you think a disenfranchised group of Muslims who do not like the installed government are going to do when the peacekeepers leave?

Maybe it is time to stop doing this. No fixes, no “help” but that which is humanitarian, and no weapons… not even to the good guys, because no guys are good guys after atrocities are committed against them.

We are a bunch of clowns and fools for letting arms dealers in our “military industrial complex”–as President Dwight Eisenhower warned–and senators and congresspersons in our government drag us into wars wherein our citizens come home dead or in pieces (figuratively and literally) and we wind up broke—so they and private contractors can get rich.

Believe me, Saddam was no threat to Saudi oil–the real back-room reason for attacking Iraq on paper, but a ruse in practice to establish another beach-head in the Middle East where we could guarantee the flow of oil for Europe and Asia and inflate the defense budget whilst raising the ratings for a previously failing presidency, back home. And they sold it to you with three letters and a vial of nothing.

We should not only be ashamed, we should have our heads examined. Don’t coddle your little Facebook/SUV/iPhone head with delusions; we are the reason journalists are having theirs cut off.

You, yes, you—the one reading this, had better call your representative tomorrow and tell him or her that she or he had better not dare sanction more troops for Iraq; call Obama, too. Eliminating ISIS will only be the beginning.

Sanction any maneuvers necessary to get our journalists out and whomever else is there; then it’s game over. Or what happens all around the world is on your head and mine. Take some responsibility, this time–American.


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.


Source Material:

Inventing The Axis of Evil:



The Rise of The Vulcans:

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

What’s for The Professional? What’s Shiny Kid Stuff?

Windows, Apple, and Samsung

I just hooked up my giant DELL desktop keyboard and mouse to my Windows tablet. Why? Because I can! And you can, too, if you have the case/fold-out keyboard–which comes with a sleek and aerodynamically fattened rear-end, to accommodate two USB ports).

The Deets ‘N Perks of Many Wings…

On the Nokia/windows tablet, I can–if I want to, of course–use the tantalizingly soft-and virtually hidden-mouse-pad that is attached to the keyboard in the fold-out case, or, I can use the on-screen keyboard (which can display one of three versions–one featuring a segmented layout with left-hand and right-hand ergonomic displays for the letters–and which has the number-pad in the middle). And as another quick diversion, I will add that the amazing thing about the on-screen virtual keypad is that it is–tactile-wise–a huge pleasure to type on because of the size and design of the layout, as well as because of the fantastic bio-rhythm pulse we get at the touch of its virtual keys. But we know about this from using fancy smart-phones. I don’t want to talk about that, right now; we are familiar with such typewriter-replacing finger candy as we get it with virtual typing modes of all modern devises. It’s nice–but who cares? I’m talking about the pleasure and convenience of smart writing.

Laptop Convenience? Got Muscles ‘N Space?

The point is, real writers–who have to live at the keypad or keyboard–really appreciate size and the tactile experience that comes with using a full-size layout to type on. But for those of us who couldn’t resist the tech revolution and started working on phones and I Pads to get away from looking like World War II correspondents who had to carry around a Remington or an Underwood in a case–lugging our “laptops” (which we cannot really use on our laps, unless we want hot legs, over-heated computers, testicular cancer, a hunchback, carpel tunnel syndrome, and poorer eyesight than we already have)! I don’t care if you have the MacBook Air; yes, it’s nice; yes, it’s light, and yes it is solid state, so needs no fan (amazing, actually) but it is still a tank, no matter how small you pretend it is.

Uh Huh, You’re Different. Got Inconvenience?

So, we had to get used to Apple’s redesign of the keyboard! Who will admit that the Windows original is not the most logical and intuitive step away from the typewriter and word processor? Thankfully, it doesn’t cause us to scream in our heads, ‘look at me and how different I am because, I don’t have  a normal delete-button or a back-space key!’ In opting for the transporter room, Captain, you take the joy out of flying the shuttlecraft, and you screw up your body!

Nostalgic Comfort, Baby…

So right now, because I am not on the LIRR or at Starbucks, I can have my big old healthy keyboard, clicking away and telling my brain I can “punch the keys!” as Shawn Connery yelled in Finding Forrester! And it’s better for my brain, memory, and typing skills. Don’t know what I mean? Dust off your uncle’s old typewriter, word processor, or even your DELL keyboard. It’s a monster of a man of a thing, with bravado, character, style-behind-usefulness efficiency, is comfortable, human, and tells you aren’t texting–like a high-schooler in a Seoul café; It says: I AM WRITING…in NEW YORK, clown!


And not being a complete dinosaur, I AM using the Nokia/Windows 8 RT–top of the lie tech with many perks (I can watch Netflix, YouTube, and fly my flight-sims whilst getting messages from Facespook, Twitter, Linked In, and Insta, baby!) To boot, it is very light and the size is “sports coupe”, not “iPhone Terminator”.

Keystrokes. Got ‘Em?

I can touch the screen (I can touch if I want to) and make spell-check corrections because this is “a tablet”, all the while typing in the old conventional clickety-clack way (remember, I hooked up my desktop keyboard–try that with your I Paaaad!). It takes me back to the great dexterous and auditory pleasures of the original typewriters (without the workout)! And I can use my Control + C, X, and V, keystroke shortcuts, so I don’t have to be “reaching out” to the screen every other second (sometimes I like to keep my hands to myself); Something has to be said for speed, dude!

And because this is “a tablet”, I have the option of using “apps”, but it’s Windows, so while on the internet, I can use Control + N to open a new browser, which is actually much faster than switching screens, going to apps, and using the touch-interaction… and… waaaait combo, that we have to deal with on all the new and different tablets.

So Many Devices, So Little Time…

As the technology world has marketed to us new ways of computing, writing, playing, and communicating, it has slowed us down. Every time you have to learn the new aspects of a device and are forced to then wait until it becomes intuitive to you–you slow down the most mundane aspects of your twenty-first century brain, and you delay the completion of a lot of tasks that are really important. Typing should be like riding a bicycle: simple, standard, and learned once! It’s bad enough the evil companies controlling our purchases in phones, service, and computing force us to upgrade every year–we should not have to keep learning the ABCs. It’s a wonder we get anything done. Every add up the amount of time you have to be online learning how to use appliances (remember that world), these days? Not to mention all the time you spend shopping new ones–as well as for cases, chargers, wires, cables, routers, service plans, screen protectors, blah, blah, blah? This has taken over a good portion of the life and time it was all supposed to save us from!

One Stop Doccing…

If you are like me, utilizing “platforms” for document creation, photography, blogging, and the self-promotion of your ideas for comedy, poetry, essay-writing, job-search, and social networking, learning new hand-eye coordinative arrangements, along with passwords, password retrieval, “portal” ins and outs and so on–the hours add up, peeps!

With an I Pad and Samsung, you have to use “The Clouds”; true, with Samsung you can use Polaris to write with, which is in the dictionary under ‘the North Star’ but should also carry the definition, ‘cancerous nightmare disaster from hell’; Kingsoft is nice–and a thousand times a million times better–and almost gives Word a run for the money (actually, it does), but you cannot download a Word doc into it in your device (which you can do with Polaris, but Polaris doesn’t wash the dishes in any other way)!

Stop Playing, Start Writing, Yo…

Get a system that is most versatile, yes, but get a system that allows you to connect most easily to everything else, because–as Andrew Gerndt–my anatomy-drawing instructor at SVA once told me–“you can waste a lot of time.”  The Windows system on the Nokia tablet handles all your “PC” docs with no differences from your desktops, with no need for third-party apps, and it has all the other shiny perks  in a sleek, light-weight presentation package that comes with two (count ’em, baby–two) USB ports if you buy the fold-out keyboard/case). You can use ’em for whatever you want–and that means you can have your trusty pet mouse and keyboard from the writer’s trench with you–when you want! Of course you can also link up your smart phone with those ports, data sticks, whatever connects to a standard data cable with USB connector! The results are conclusive: I Pads and Samsung products are nice, but for kids. Windows is for the pro, yo. Goodbye Steve Jobs! You were a genius, but you were too stingy and “special”. I have work to do! Goodbye Samsung! You are versatile and make nice phones, but leave writing to the big boys.

Keys Aren’t Left in The Car

So Why Are The TV and Guns Available?

This was originally written to a mother who had contributed a post online about how being a parent of the female sex is frustrating and unappreciated, why her child watching TV programs not approved of by her was so annoying, and why her child was so bad in this regard. While I can appreciate her point of view, I felt that her penchant for rage at her child was due to poor parenting rather than the mischievous ways of children.

To Mothers Everywhere:

I am not a mother–and I offer all respect to them that’s due–but that is largely irrelevant. And not to discount outright your feelings or point of view, but generally speaking, people can truly love and emote if they want to and so can understand other human beings and provide comfort–personally. In this endeavor, they may also find the need to be critical. It is not necessary that we be the same sex as others, have the same experience, or even have the same feelings in order to emote–though I admit that this can help–in order to observe shortcomings and faults. This is an outcropping of empathy, and the understanding of humanity–which many people feel only incorporate agreement. That is not always necessary. This is compassion, and this is wisdom–and we are all capable of it. In fact–it is because others are usually not in our situation, and ‘always not us’, that they can offer a clear perspective.

Of course, were I a mother, I could commiserate with mothers to a greater extent and make them feel comfortable; I could draw on similar concerns borne out of similar or the same circumstances, and I could validate feelings better that way–especially to the satisfaction of the complainers and to that of popular culture–but I am not disallowed to comment, especially where grievances are aired publicly-and about issues affecting society–even if I do not meet the sameness criteria spoken about. After all, I am human.

Popular culture is your challenge, Mothers, not your ally, and I don’t want to get in the corner with you, frankly-speaking; I want to invite you out of it.

And so, being human–like you, being a child of a mother–like you, being one exposed to mothers tens of thousands of times–even having had the benefit of experiencing mother-child relationships as a teacher in another culture–I wish to give you my feelings, observations, and insights–so please take them with love:


Your adoption of popular notions is why you have a TV and why your children have access to it. It is thus your responsibility to decide how that TV brings the world into of your home and before your child’s eyes. The fact that it is not under lock and key and that most channels are not restricted by some mechanism is also your and your adult society’s issue–not your child’s.

Parental Fiat, The TV, and Normalcy

The fact that your child doesn’t pay heed to your commands is natural. The child was born out of you–but yaks Khalil Gibran said, you don’t own him or her like property and you cannot control his inclinations–but you may influence his or her behavior. Your restrictions on the freedom of his or her inquisitiveness are also limited–and are another aspect of how you mold him or her. Because you and your society have not found a way to keep the TV from being a source of tantalizing entertainment and knowledge–right at the child’s fingertips (which she or he sees you using with your husband and friends), naturally works against your desires of mind and behavior control. Being human and not seeing herself as a being less than you, she or he wants to explore and enjoy, in the same ways he or she sees you do the same; this is normal.

Some Parents And All Human Beings

As you may be able to tell by now, I disagree with parents treating their children as indentured subjects instead of as human–albeit younger and more needy–individuals. There are parents who teach their children from a very young age that they are human beings as worthy of the stirrings that come to their consciousness and their growing conscience as are those of the overlords who are supposed to guard those growing faculties and inalienable parts of their existence.  And if that is too much for other parents, they make things unseen that they don’t want their children to see. It is a matter of human sense and responsibility.

It would be far better for your child and for society if young people and your children were respected and not subjugated, from the earliest possible age. However, it is still the prevailing parental paradigm of thought that they must be under parental command and that they obey–like serfs or subjects under a monarch—instead of being treated as human students in the care of a loving professor. This is primitive.

How to Respectfully Deal with Young People

Where the children’s’ safety is at stake–or that of others–it can be explained to them in terms of not venturing into the use of things not theirs, and/or it can be taught that the consequences are big. If not, lock it all up; stove, sink, kitchen knives, cleaning chemicals, handgun, whatever. The keys are not left in the car, are they? So how stupid are parents who make all manner of dangerous things available to their children and who make use of those things in front of their children, then expect the children not to explore those things, themselves? I don’t know why society has not figured this out en masse and incorporated it en masse as well. It makes no sense at all to assume that because one tells a child not to utilize something that the child will comply—even with the threat of punishments—unless those punishments are non-violent and can create a common understanding of values.

The Dangers and Irrationality of Violent Punishment for Children

Violent punishments only show the hypocrisy and cruelty of a parent to the child, because the child is not mentally mature enough to grasp in agreement the notion that some people can have certain privileges and pleasures and others cannot–simply because of what appears to be size–an usually age—differences. And the physical punishment just indicates that the infliction of pain on a child (or a weaker person) is permissible—while it is not acceptable when meted out against adult or more powerful people. This serves as the child’s first lesson in the acceptance and politics of domination and unequal treatment.

Wanting Thanks

We are supposed to have children not as a rite of passage or to grow a work force, to plant seeds in the world reflecting our twisted religions and philosophies, or as accidents stemming from our passion; we are supposed—as civilized human beings—to give birth to new human life in order to spread and share our intense and healthy love with our partners and to the children we bear and raise with them. Therefore—though it is nice to hear appreciative words, and it is good to teach appreciation to young human beings—it is not part of the mental need of a parent who understands that it is a clear and undeniable duty, and it is healthy love that brings a parent to be necessarily working at raising his or her offspring. It is not favor we lavish on young human beings in caring for them; it is an undying desire to care for them until they can care completely for themselves, and it is the job itself that is the reward; parenting is a privilege as well as an unequivocal duty, to make healthy and free new human beings.

I sincerely hope you begin, with billions of other adults, to re-evaluate what it means to be human and what is natural and what is not—and therefore what is not really fair and sensible, and thus what is helpful and what is not.

If young human beings were treated as full human beings and not lesser than that, most of the problems people have raising them would go away; the job of guiding them would be harder in some respects, yes—but it would also be a lot less stressful and damaging, for sure—and society would be better off, as well.

Short of the employment of life-altering spiritual, intellectual, experiential and psycho-therapeutic alteration, everything an adult is… comes from his or her parental environment—and therefrom comes society.

New Love

When you awake

Most every day

Saddened by what’s gone

Feeling trapped in yesterday

Leaving you


When you arrive in mirthful climes

Feeling heart-felt pain

In beautiful places

Feeling it’s another stop

On a train

When you look happy outside

But’re rueful, deep within

And Lost because

That special time

Won’t begin again

With life eternally simple, now

You’re not want to care

And every step

Toward novelty

Fades from here

To There

Can you find

Some newness

Something that’s for you

Acting as a portal

To happiness that’s true?

And if you see such chances

As something all but real

Anchored in those

Blissful times

That tragedy did steal

Then this will be the hell

From which

You surely won’t escape

Where health and life

Will rob your self

As in the act of rape

Though you’re not want to

Letting go of dreams and things so true

and asking

Did it happen?

Is it gone, as it just seems?

Well then

Just don’t

Bury love

Stoke it fresh

And warm

While stepping into

New Love

Like hearing a new song

Revel in that time, then!

And live alive right now!

Lest you lose your mind man!

The common way known how

In heart remember memories

But don’t leave now behind

Lest your friends and family

And New love

Now be blind


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.


I don’t see the moral connection

Between a tragic, misdeed in death

And mayhem in the streets

While one was a result

Of poor conditioning and fear

The other is of premeditation

And culpability quite clear

It is the corrupted mind

That answers mistakes

And responds to misdeeds

With conscious violence

Minus fear

So please

Tell me

What your message is


As now your names you smear


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

Who Escapes?

What is wrong

if anything,

with family

and friends

and the self

and onlookers

that this happens

to us

or to one

What is right with one

that makes him see

all the more that is wrong

with us

so greatly

he can no longer be

Or is it plain to you

and is it okay

to me that

the only problem was

with the Robin

but we did not care

or could not see

We often ask this question

about God

and His defenders

We say it just has to be

Does that make God

like you and me

When a bird takes flight

we give her credit

but what made her fly

If a man is not frightened

but he’d rather die

who or what

was behind the wind

and who can remain

standing in it

And who has fancy names

for the gale

and why

Please trust me

We can turn

a gust into a breeze

if we whisper

Don’t be blown away

And fly to perches

whence ye can return

or talk to me

Carl Charles Carroll Atteniese

When Someone Blames You for Not Taking His Side

First of all, we try to ask someone to let go of an issue we can’t agree with him on. Ideally, we don’t ask someone to let go of an issue if it won’t let go of him or her, yet. We just listen until he or she works it out or gets stuck in a corner and needs us to pull him or her out of it. Though letting go is lauded, it often involves invalidating someone’s feelings. It is very hard to let go of feelings. It’s different from focusing cognitively on something; it’s visceral–and hurts, so we need to talk it out–to vent, sometimes.

Next, we don’t have to take sides. When someone asks for this he or she is insecure and when he or she expects it, that’s bordering on control. If a person wants your allegiance, he or she is asking for you to surrender your feelings and your mind and your freedom. Strong, healthy people who love one another don’t do this. Weak people in co-dependent relationships do. And, lots of people do it because, 1. they think friends are members of their armies, and, 2. they don’t understand love and friendship, which require people to be free and to be themselves–not what friends and lovers want them to be.

You do nothing wrong by disagreeing with someone. You can say you understand, or that you empathize. You can share in the pain, but to be a friend you shouldn’t fake agreement. This paints a false picture of who you are and will set up misunderstanding and co-dependence.


Get to Your Goals

Get to your goals

There is the reason we set up goals in our lives

There are plenty of obstacles to our goals and they appear every moment of everyday

In our attempts to do what we must you do from moment to moment, it is easy to become fatigued,

We are natural beings requiring rest and so this fatigue causes us to settle

So, before you know it, the obstacles have become your daily routine and you get no closer to your goals by settling into a life of obstacles

You can tell that you are settling by two main factors, and one is you are surrounded by things that you’re very interested in–but you’re really not taking a part in them

You see their traces on your walls

On your bookshelves

In your bag

But you’re really not doing anything about them–just carrying them around

This is why they become baggage

Sometimes we are so surrounded by the things we had intended to be a part of, we do not even recognize them until we go shopping–or until someone asks us what we want to do–and we see them apart from ourselves as new things, instead of as neglected fixtures in our cluttered lives

You know that you really care about something when it’s the first thing out of your mouth when someone asks you what you want, or like, or miss

You know that you really care about something when you go to the bookstore and that’s the subject that you unconsciously seek out before any other, whether it is “practical” or not

Or when you are in a waiting room and you pick up a magazine or allow your thoughts to center on a person, place, or subject

If our lives become a routine of surviving, doing chores, going to “work” (which is usually your effort in someone else’s work!), cleaning–the things we really wanted we may never get to, have, or do–unless we are doing chores and surviving on the path to what we want

Sometimes on the path to what we want, we decide the best way to get there is to do things the “smartest way” … but often the smartest way takes the longest and before we realize it, those things we want are just on the shelf, surrounding us on walls, or in our bags …

Worst is when they become unconscious obstacles to forward motion, and they show up only in our restless hearts, and visible in the cloudy vignettes of a dream, or a nightmare

If you are not satisfied with just surviving, with being in the wrong place, with dreaming about what you want… you should wake up every day with the intention of paying a little thought to what is really most important to you–and one of the first things on your mind should be where you are going and what you are doing that day–to get there

Think about what you are really doing, and recognize what you think you are doing, say you are doing pretend you are doing, and dream you are doing

And notice how close or far what you are doing will take you to your goals

Think about when you want to actually do what you want to do and how close you are to doing it

Setting goals or having dreams is not enough

Dreaming of someday doing something is dreaming

Saying it will happen at the right time is fantasy

And saying you will do it only in the best way is like saying it will never happen, unless you are taking the best steps to doing it, today


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

Facebook Supports Stalking?


For the first time I can remember, I looked at who is following me; Facespook says it is six people but shows only four. Why is that? Does Facespook support stalking?*

Stalking is following someone secretly

The Dictionary Definition:

stalk2 [stawk] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
verb (used with object)
to pursue (game, a person, etc.) stealthily.
to proceed through (an area) in search of prey or quarry: to stalk the woods for game.
to proceed or spread through in a steady or sinister manner: Disease stalked the land.
an act or course of stalking quarry, prey, or the like: We shot the mountain goat after a five-hour stalk.
a slow, stiff stride or gait.
1250–1300; Middle English stalken (v.), representing the base of Old English bestealcian to move stealthily, stealcung stalking (gerund); akin to steal

Fidelity and Flirting

A Letter to a recent Client

Hi there, Friend:

How are you? I hope you are well–though in the situation you’ve described, I see many problems–so I cannot imagine you are.

Realize that I can only judge your situation by what you have told me–and this isn’t therapy–so I have to make some assumptions. I’ll expect you to correct me, where I go wrong–based on the limited information I have, and if you want to revise your story at any time, please do. Okay, Friend, even though I know most stable, healthy relationships should require no extra-relationship flirting–many people do it on a harmless level. Personally, I never have, and I don’t think I have ever seen my friends or family members do it. I think it is a sign of strong relationships and healthy, mature people who have confident psyches–that they don’t have a tendency to flirt. On the other hand, the topic requires that we define flirting. Simply being friendly with people of the opposite sex (or the sex of our interest) in the same manner we are friendly with members of our own sex (or the sex of our disinterest) is not flirting.

Flirting is any behavior accidentally or consciously intended to create a possible sexual or love-oriented relationship with another person. It is also a way of making one’s partner jealous. Now–just for a moment, allow me to play devil’s advocate: Have you been overly sensitive? Does your fiance show you true love in all the healthy ways–listening to you, helping you, putting you and your needs first and looking out for your interests–and has he only been reasonably engaged in light conversation with other women–never taking any interaction to another level or developing strong feelings for those women? Is it possible this is a power play–whereby he resents your possibly having turned some innocuous interactions into his tendency to test you and play with you because you may actually be unnaturally jealous and insecure? You must think about these questions I have asked you–seriously.

All outcomes in a relationship of any kind are the results of two or more person’s input. Now, that said, I will say this: You deserve a relationship in which you are the focus, and only you–in sexual and romantic ways. You deserve a relationship from which you are able to leave, from time to time–even if only to go away and be alone for a while to explore your interests and feelings in a solitary fashion. And you deserve a relationship wherein you do not have to suffer the insecurities inherent in the discomfort of knowing your partner has a need to be attractive to other people in a romantic and/or sexual ways. Now, I cannot be sure–because I have not met him, but it sounds like your fiance does care about you–but in an immature way, and in a controlling way, and in an insufficient way. In fact–that is why you have written me. Isn’t it? What are your feelings on love? I ask all my clients to tell me; you might have noticed that on my profile page. Is this a satisfactory relationship–which you are in? I think it is not. Again, isn’t that why you have written me? Tell me; does your boyfriend make it clear to those he flirts with that he is spoken for? Are those people sure he loves you and that there is no chance of their success with him–because he loves you? If not–he is not just being friendly or polite. In such cases he would be cheating on you–because he is opening doors to new relationships with such flirtation. In a strong, normal, Western relationship, partners make it known they are spoken for when speaking to new people. When they don’t, a red flag should go up in their partner’s minds. This is something I didn’t like about dating in Asia. I often found partners there–even married people–who behaved in ways that were quite ambiguous–which caused me to feel that those doors were always open–in all directions–and it spoke to me of high insecurity and low fidelity.  It was not always the case, of course–but it was noticeable (and of course a certain amount of confusion could have been caused by the overly affectatious way women are expected to act in some Asian cultures); so, it can be cultural. But in a healthy relationship it certainly is not necessary.

Finally, one judgement I will make is that your fiance should not be doing things that make you uncomfortable–within reason. I mean, saying “hello” to women–or talking to them–in a polite, non-romantic, or flirtatious way–should be acceptable–even if it is with his ex, from time to time, but if there is some romantic need being met or fostered, that’s cheating. And he certainly should not be telling other women he misses them–unless he is not planning to be exclusive with you. I hope you’ll pardon me for saying this, but it sounds like you’re in a relationship with an “old boy”, and the image that comes to my mind is of people in their forties or fifties–from some sexist culture–wherein the men are chauvinists and can do what they want–and the women must abide by it. And when the women express protest, the men feign dedication, make excuses, and continue on doing what they had been doing before–with no alteration. Finally, when the women decide to leave, the men act like little boys–unable to be men about it, unable to make changes. Is that accurate? He sounds like an old-fashioned person.

This is the 21st century; people in love today don’t behave like that–unless they are immature… or playboys (which are immature men, anyway). Crying is okay, occasionally, but throwing tantrums is not. Controlling you and manipulating you are the worst things he can do–but don’t confuse control with influence. He has a right to influence you–in a loving way. You have to ask yourself if your relationship is strong enough so that you two can sit down and talk about your needs and then you have to ask yourself if you’re both willing to negotiate to create boundaries and rules for the relationship. When one or both partners cannot or will not do this–a healthy relationship is impossible.

Love is not just a feeling; it is a practice in which the partners engage to make one another comfortable, healthy, and happy, and when only one partner’s needs are met–that’s not a healthy love relationship. That’s a dysfunctional one. In fact–it’s not love. It’s usage. Someone’s being used and taken advantage of. Now, your boyfriend may not be making you feel this way on purpose, but he needs to be made to understand that you’re not happy and if this continues what kinds of uncomfortable situations and feelings will result. Actually–you’re already there–in a place of discomfort. Please let me know how you feel about what I’ve said and take good care; your health and happiness should be your most important concerns. Of course you should care about your boyfriend’s health and happiness, too, but he seems to be taking care of that quite well; he has multiple people–apparently–to make himself feel secure. I don’t want to paint a bad picture of your boyfriend, here; most times people are doing the best they can according to their own maturity and intellectual & spiritual achievements. Perhaps he would like to change, but is not able to see the seriousness of the situation. Maybe this is how he saw love whilst growing up.

Love requires originality and flexibility, to the extent that it enables partners who want to grow their love; to do whatever is reasonable to keep that love growing. You have to communicate reasonable needs, feelings, expectations, and boundaries, and those have to be understood, agreed upon, and practiced in a relationship in order for happiness, fulfillment, and respect to be maintained. When only one partner is achieving these elements, the relationship is unbalanced and unhealthy. When you accept such conditions, the relationship is dysfunctional–because it is not functioning in a balanced way. That kind of relationship eventually makes both partners unhappy–not just the partner being hurt, initially.

Lastly, when one party in a relationship has the need to be involved with people outside the relationship in order to fulfill that need–it means his or her needs are not being fulfilled within the relationship. Sometimes this is normal. A wife goes to her gynecologist because her husband is only a plumber, not a medical doctor. A husband plays baseball once a month with his buddies because they provide the male bonding his psyche requires for a balanced life of friendship that men get from their male friends and perhaps their wives cannot offer. However, the ego assuagement we get from possible sexual and romantic flirtation outside of our romantic relationships which perpetuates discomfort in our relationships is not healthy, nor is it fair. Sit down and have a sober, calm, understanding, and supportive discussion with your boyfriend–about the feelings both of you have. Only after you have decided what your feelings, needs, and expectations are–and you have both committed to fulfilling them as best you can–should you call him your fiance, again–because he is not acting like a fiance, now.

Will The Day Come?

Will The Day Will Come When “Republican” is Distanced From By All But Insane People?

I am aware of the fact that many following the Tea Party-line feel they are constitutionalists, but in my observation they are interested in the constitution in terms of freedom that excludes them from social responsibility; they are not constitutionalists in the sense Jefferson was, meaning they do not possess and admire a foundation thinking of humanitarian righteousness; they do not become inspired with a love for humanity. They are impassioned by isolationist self-interest and fierce individualism at the expense of community.

Tea Partiers and many Republicans are not altruists. Indeed, their political representatives worship Ayn Rand and fear mankind–especially those among us that express “weakness”, difference, or liberal values–even though they would not have a country such as we have today, without those liberal values. Moreover–where ‘liberal’ is concerned, conservatives have hijacked the word; ‘liberal’ means open-minded and flexible, progressive and innovative. Tea Partiers in particular and Republicans in the main, erroneously take ‘liberal’ to mean something akin to “communist”. Or, at least that is how they use the word.

Furthermore, Tea Partiers and Republicans in general suffer from a particular kind of idealism that is akin to totalitarian thinking–or it is, precisely, totalitarian thinking–meaning it is an irrational total-solution-state of mind; ie: ‘everyone can get a job that satisfies his or her needs.’ Not coincidentally, this is why the majority of them are Christians. Or rather, they are Republicans BECAUSE they are Christians.

With no disrespect to moderate and near-secular Christians, theists who follow the copied bible manuscripts literally are the ones so indoctrinated in totalitarian values (as are conservative Jews and Muslims); ie: they see issues as black and white, resulting in such erroneous ideas as those which say that LGBT people are not deserving of the same human rights as the rest of us, a state of mind akin to that in the simple-mindedness that says, ‘everyone can get a job and healthcare’.

What’s worse is, Tea Partiers and Republicans don’t care about–or are cognitively immune to–the consequences of their own across-the-board black and white thinking. And the kind of prejudicial discrimination it engenders, when levied against those different from them, is indicative of the their world-view which leads to their obvious and shameful selfishness, cold-heartedness, and rigidity. this is obvious in their denier status in the face of such challenges as the causes of poverty and global climate change and the self-evidentiary righteousness of  womens’ rights, labor issues, and more.

The rigidity and cognitive dissonance of pathologically conservative Americans is the reason they are ‘the party of guns’. They cannot see–or won’t–that ubiquitous gun ownership and lax laws on the acquisition of fire-arms is a major contributing factor to the high level of gun violence in America–because they think everyone can be responsible with a gun–or don’t care if the opposite is true… so long as THEY can have THEIR guns, the machismo attached to them, and the profits of their sales…per THEIR “constitutional rights” (at the expense of public welfare paid for by everyone).

I truly believe we are in a situation in America–with these people–that describes nothing less than a clash of civilizations; one enlightened and courageous–thus generous and progressive, and the other, frightened and ignorant–thus retrograde. I am not being the least bit flippant. And I am not alone in this observation, nor is my party small.

I guarantee the day will come in the future–if it is not already upon us now, when Republicans in general will be seen as a throw-back to primitive peoples and primitive times. Indeed, their ways remind me of what I imagine the mindset to be in the dark ages, what with their wanting to teach superstition in science class, their advocacy of legal discrimination, and their war-mongering. When that day comes, when their own ranks disavow themselves of their primitive and fearful ways, present-day Tea Partiers and Republicans will then deny their former party affiliations.

This new era will be ushered in with greater speed and certainty the more Americans grow accustomed to the rest of the civilized world and how greatly the conservatives here are different from they, out there–who have much purer egalitarian and compassionate values. Just look at how Canadians and Europeans laugh at our stewardship of our banking industry, education system, environment protection, and health laws. Everything in our country is ‘businessman first, citizen consumer last (if considered at all)’.

This new era is also being ushered in as science is daily disabusing the conservatives among us of ignorant ideas and superstitions–in the areas of genetics and “race”, evolution, cosmology, meteorology, and sexuality. These conservatives will also move away from their previous positions the more they are compared with conservative Muslims, Nazis, and other fascists–totalitarian-thinkers all. It is already happening; recently a Florida politician changed her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, because she said she could no longer affiliate herself with the values of the party she was once a part of, any longer.


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

Why We Need A Publicly-funded Election System

Why America Needs a Publicly Funded Electoral System
by Carl Charles Atteniese Jr.

Dear Fellow American Citizen:

A recent study conducted in Britain resulted in the determination that the United States of America is an oligarchy–by virtue of the fact that statistics show the majority of the laws passed here favor the rich and their corporations. It is no longer a left-wing mantra; it’s a fact: We don’t have a democracy any more. And it is because of our election laws and party finance laws.

Think about it; right now, our health, happiness, and security in this country is decided largely by whomever has the most financial influence over a select few candidates who in turn are able to afford the ad campaigns necessary to run for office. They also decide what laws are passed. As it has been accurately said before, ‘that’s an auction’ for political power. Is that what we want?

When it comes to elections–we usually have so few candidates, and that’s why we have to funnel money to candidates who are usually not our first choice–but more are often the lesser of two evils.

Thomas Jefferson said two things were necessary for democracy to thrive–an educated electorate and a free press. That’s all we really need. However, we have a dumbed-down and disenfranchised electorate and a private press, which means the press (the media) is often influenced by who owns it. In addition–and most destructively–we allow money to control our politicians by allowing it to be funneled into campaigns and parties–from corporations and wealthy private citizens who then expect their bidding to be done in office–and it is–to the detriment of truth, our public health, happiness, and security.

Moneyed institutions and banks narrow the size of the political arena and the depth of the national debate by making it near impossible for average, intelligent, and moral citizens to enter politics in America–unless they can compete with the financial saturation of their opponents. And this is precisely how Thomas Jefferson said the American revolution and democracy here would fail and end. He said it would happen when our government fell under the control of banks and moneyed institutions. This is precisely what has happened.

According to Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, thirty to seventy percent of a congressperson’s time is spent raising money for re-election. Moreover, 0.5% of the population supplies 60% of the funds necessary to put people in government. This one-half of one percent of the people decides with their money who is going to be on the ballot. This means a large part of their time is not spent on us, but on them.

Maybe we have allowed money in politics because we haven’t imagined a more fair system being possible. Maybe we privately feel this wealthy small percentage–who choose our candidates for us–along with the Electoral College, which finally picks our presidents—are the only ones qualified for the job. Maybe we are afraid that if rich white men did not control our politics, we would not be able to run this country or that we would really be a truly multi-ethnic society. I am not afraid of these things. Are you?

Imagine if money weren’t such a factor in candidacy; there would likely be a multitude of candidates–probably so many that we wouldn’t have to worry so much about one or the other getting elected. The more candidates, the more congruent their views would tend to be, so we wouldn’t have to worry so much about whether one or the other person takes. The way things are now, candidates to pretend to have vastly different views to strike the illusion of contrast on controversial issues–to differentiate themselves from one another. When really they are not much different at all, except for maybe in the area of social policy and war-making.

We keep supporting a system of elections and policy-making that survives on bribery, which is why we don’t have the foreign or domestic social policy that the majority of us want, nor the energy, education, and civic policies we need, or the environmental ones–necessary to save the planet’s biosphere.

These days, candidates say they’ll advocate a particular policy before being elected and later, as elected representatives, they advocate the opposite. They may believe in the original views got them elected, but if money is not behind them, they have to abandon those views and values (in whole or in part). They consistently have to severely weaken their positions and propose policies supporting the money–instead of what’s best for the nation, and/or what is righteous, just, and reasonable.

People against publically-funded elections say money is free speech. It isn’t. Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, and all the people against Citizens United & corporate manipulators like the Koch Brothers say it isn’t either. In politics, money is wealth–either enough or not enough–to influence people unnaturally. And it is bribery, when it is coming from a few billionaires and corporations, who actually often write the bills that become the laws—along with political action committees. The reason they get away with this is they pay off the politicians. It’s legal corruption, plain and simple. That’s not democracy. That’s plain chicanery. That’s oligarchy—rule by the rich. Noam Chomsky calls it polyarchy, because it is not democracy, but many rulers who are not us.

Unnatural political influence also creates ads in the media, and phony scientific studies. It’s hiring pundits, lawyers, and broadcasters, to say something over and over again, which we could hear ONCE in a public service announcement (but probably wouldn’t believe, anyway).

It drums ideas into our heads more frequently and more loudly–to bombard us and inculcate us (to program us) — and usually it is skewed messages, outright lies, or irrelevant information designed to distract us. And it is all possible because of private money. It is an insult to our intelligence and to those who have fought for this country and build it, too. It is un-American. It’s advertising–which is for commercial sales, not the running of a nation.

Let none of the money generated by the tax-based electoral system we advocate–in any way–come into contact with candidates or their parties in such a way that it corrupts them or their values. Let is only contribute to air-time and a few debates.

See what happens. I guarantee that after a short time (shorter than it took to get all members of Congress to obey the law on the Affordable Care Act), no one will take the ad campaigns of the then past system of electoral advertising seriously… over the new public service system of our proposed election and campaign process.

In the system we advocate, there would be an allowance given and press time provided for a set number of introductions to a candidate. So, the funds necessary for a few necessary public appearances by candidates would come from a couple cents on the dollar. That’s it.

We don’t worry about whether the police department is staffed with unskilled law enforcement professionals when we dial 911. That’s because we have a plethora of officers whose candidacy for a public service position on the police force is not determined by or predicated on vested wealth-based private interests. Police officers are hired after a test, a background check, and an interview…. That’s precisely how it should be for the most important jobs in the land: political jobs and the running of our nation!

The closer we bring the electoral system to an interview and job selection scenario and further away from its being an ‘auction and popularity contest’, the sooner we won’t have to be intent on one of two (or several) candidates we don’t totally agree with, and the sooner we will have more options in policy, greater commonality in sensible views, a deeper, more meaningful national debate, and astronomically less corruption.

Here is a recent bill that was introduced in the House, supporting public campaign finance and the politicians and celebrated public figures who have championed the cause of publicly funded elections (from Wikipedia):

US, SB 752, the Fair Elections Now Act, called for publicly funded elections in U.S. Senate campaigns. It was sponsored in the 111th Congress (2009–10) by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA). A companion bill, H.R. 1826, was introduced in the House, sponsored by John Larson (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Walter Jones (R-NC). Neither bill moved out of Committee.

Barack Obama as an Illinois senator was the first co-sponsor of the 2007 version of the Durbin–Specter bill. (Obama chose not to participate in the public financing system in 2008)

John Bonifaz, founder of the National Voting Rights Institute
Bill Bradley (D-NJ), former U.S. Senator

John Edwards (D-NC), former U.S. Presidential Candidate and Senator
Adonal Foyle, NBA player, and founder of Democracy Matters

Cecil Heftel (D-HI), former U.S. Representative

Ned Lamont (D-CT), former U.S. Senate candidate

John McCain (R-AZ), U.S. Presidential Candidate and Senator (McCain has also expressed opposition to a national version of the system and has not endorsed or co-sponsored the bills introduced in the U.S. Senate.)

Ralph Nader of Connecticut, U.S. Presidential Candidate

Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), former Governor, former Secretary of Homeland Security

Bill Richardson (D-NM), U.S. Presidential Candidate and Governor

Eliot Spitzer (D-NY), former Governor

John Eder, Green Party leader who utilized Maine’s public financing to win office to the Maine State Legislature

Thank you,
And Peace, Love, Joy, and Prosperity to You and Yours,
Carl Charles Atteniese Jr.

*In actuality, when it comes to corporate issues and the economy, right wing and left wing candidates do not differ very much on the issues. They appear to be different because of tax-issues, social issues, and their foreign policy stances–and both usually take huge contributions from BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum in the corporate sector (most top companies give money to both parties and the two primary candidates running for office), which is why all the other issues connected to the economy (environmental protection, labor, education, health, energy, and foreign policy) generally get compromised once candidates reach office. Politicians have to start raising money for their next election as soon as they sit down at their desks and they have to compromise their principles to take that money from otherwise hitherto ideologically political “enemies”. Money thus hamstrings our best intentions in this country and that is especially true for the well-intentioned politicians–most especially the good ones. The top sixty corporations generally donate to both parties. That makes you and I a complete back-seat concern, unless we are wealthy corporate officers who can have lobbyists rewrite the laws for us. Why not disallow this? What are we; slaves and second-class citizens? That is exactly what we are–under the present system.

American environmental, economic and national security policies have real international challenges; climate, health, education, and social policy are at critical emergency alert levels; now, more than ever, we the average American citizens must wrest control of our national direction and public policies away from the clutches of corporate and wealth-driven greed. It is essential to our survival as a nation and a species.

Join us on Facebook, at:

(Short Link) http://goo.gl/maFyff

Or at:
(Actual Link) https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ban-Private-Campaign-Finance/691017934250442


Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xzVBe3hmOk

Link: http://www.moneyoutvotersin.org/

Guns in America

When we “anti-gun” people start rabble-rousing, there are pockets of responsible and sane gun owners who raise their voices, gently (not like angry NRA and automatic weapons-lovers)–like the ones who hunt and fish and don’t bring guns everywhere they go. These are the people who might even use bow and arrow in the woods. These are the people who see guns–out on the frontiers of big open spaces or in the deep woods–as dangerous tools–to be left locked up until needed for killing animals for their food. I do sympathize, to some extent, with these people who use guns to hunt–even though I am a vegetarian and look to a better, more advanced day–when most of us will no longer use animals for sustenance. We are undeniably part of the species food chain; we are not vegetarians by design. We are not carnivores by design, either. We are omnivores by natural selection.  

However–I disagree that ‘guns don’t kill people’  as much as I agree that drugs do kill people. Let me explain. Guns empower people who should not be empowered–with infinitely hostile and deadly force. A person under great duress and mental fatigue–from bullying, feelings of inadequacy, injustice, abuse, and neglect–and who perhaps is not usually physically violent, but who will see recourse in the use of a ballistic weapon (unconsciously, at first–perhaps)–especially if suffering feelings of overwhelming persecution–will resort to the means at his or her disposal–if his or her feelings are intense enough.

People under duress are more sensitive–and so when preyed upon, experience emotions of greater intensity and hostility. For this kind of person (or for a person in these circumstances), a gun reduces retribution to an extraordinarily simple and impersonal act, like in the use of a TV remote or video game. For this kind of person, pulling a trigger–notwithstanding the skills necessary to carry, aim and shoot a gun–complies with an inner, painful, and intensely self-preserving feeling and a wish that the source of pain go away–as easily as with the pressing of a button.  

The use of a gun doesn’t require years of martial arts practice, physical or mental stamina, mental concentration, or much study. Guns make killing simple and too easy–so easy that they allow the user to be amazingly impersonal—perhaps just as he or she has been treated. the gun-using assailant doesn’t even have to be close to his or her prey to cause pain… or death. For this reason–among others–guns can be (and I feel they usually are) very dishonorable weapons, which is why they are perfect for the temporarily or long-term mentally ill, the depraved, and the mediocre-minded.  So as you can see—and we might agree–not much mental health is necessary to use a gun–beyond the motor skills involved in its comportment and use.

Even a person with largely pacifistic tendencies, such as I, can notice a marked feeling of power when holding a gun (as well as fear, foreboding, disgust, revulsion and sadness). This is what I sensed when I held an unloaded ballistic weapon in my hand some years ago—which I was using as a prop for a drawing I was doing.  

Another time I felt the latent but real power of a gun when I held a pump-action pistol, which I had found in my late uncle’s drawer. (He was a World War II veteran, a New York City Fireman, and like some of his sons who were police officers, very responsible with his guns); a gun is so powerful that as I held this unloaded one, I imagined that were I alone in the house, and were an intruder to come in unannounced in a threatening manner–or were I to feel set upon in a strange place–on a train, in a plane, or on the road–I might at least lift the weapon and say, ‘stand back’. This almost innate reaction is capable because guns have become second-nature in our culture, and so have their power—which I feel is embedded in our psyches—even for those like myself who have not fired one.  

Let me say that I hate violence–but I felt this feeling pulse through me. And if I could feel it, all human beings—especially those raised in gun-cultures—can feel it, because (as the Roman philosopher said), I am human.  

People and who are not stable are going to feel that power magnified, and when desperate, they will fall prey to it–especially when they are preyed upon, neglected, and abused (or feel as such). That power is going to influence their feelings of powerlessness in a way that gives release to them–to empower them… and it will bring danger to the rest of us. This feeling of empowerment that guns offer is how guns do kill people, because people do not have the power, otherwise, to blow holes in one another–with “the push of a button”—until they hold a gun.  

The seductive power of guns in a society that legitimizes their use in our constitution, glorifies it in our entertainment, and recognizes its significance in our freedom in folklore and history–sits in a device that possesses enormous technological power. And it is too easily available to us.  

In the way just described, we have the reason behind the ‘why?’ — which we hear almost stupidly–every time we learn of a gun-related tragedy… be it in a convenience store, a shopping mall, a school, a kindergarten, a post office, a bell tower, a park, a parking lot, an office, a library, a playground, a work or school campus, a military facility, or on the road. So, I say… stop asking why…. The reasons and means are obvious. We have enabled and justified them. But what are the causes?   Before guns were so ubiquitous and available, families were tighter, games and toys were more innocent, TV was less insane, and school didn’t teach to the test—meaning there was far less stress acting on our children; we weren’t eating plastic and mountains of sugar—meaning we were healthier, had less ADD, ADHAD and other mental disorders (this is documented), and we weren’t pumped up on drugs to make us perform—like those that keep people going, help them sleep, help them relax, and help them relate; we didn’t have devices in our hands–much like the guns, themselves–that make instantaneous satisfaction a reality—justifying immediate gratification and alleviation from pain.  

Before Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq–before the government gutted the bill of rights and started watching us and our neighbors secretly; before they weren’t trying to take away social security, unemployment, and healthcare benefits–and our very dignity was ; before, when Nixon was the only liar; before oil and gas companies weren’t known to be poisoning us on our land, in our air, lakes, streams, and oceans–the American government, society, and life were not such a problem, were they? They are now, and that is why guns are, too.  

So today, when young people have their own intense problems and they think of how they are all the more compounded by the world around them—making them feel more helpless than adolescents usually do, they turn to ending it all… and calling attention to themselves when doing it–lashing out at that unforgiving world–attacking the ones they see as part of the madness; the ones who have hurt them. They resort to the fastest, easiest, most impersonal and graphic means of instantaneous power, revenge, and finality of purpose–the gun. Guns are available to them. They have been raised by a warring culture, a gun-gaming-culture, a hunting culture, a TV and movie culture that worships getting even—often with guns–and a culture that believes heavily in retribution.

Look at our conduct:   1. We are the last western democracy to continuing to kill our own citizens (the use of the death penalty). 2. We use capital punishment against child-offenders. 3. We use immoral, illegal, internationally condemned methods of invasion against other sovereign nations. 4. We secretly surveil both our own citizens and those of our allies. 5. We arrest, incarcerate, and detain suspects without charge. 6. We torture detainees (be it by proxy or not doesn’t matter; we instigate and finance this). 7. We secretly kill by remote-control plane in foreign sovereign nations (often innocents). 8. We secretly kill without due process those we deem a threat to the US government and are pushing for the right to do this in our own land.  These actions represent our true values. They run contrary to most decent peoples’ personal values, but these—nevertheless–are the values we have endorsed as a nation—either by our complicity or ineptitude. Why would we then expect young or old people in our country to not think they can act in the same ways—in non-egalitarian, non methodically just, and totalitarian ways–taking matters into their own hands, unilaterally and with finality?  

All the reasons I have just delineated are part of why guns are such a source of high violence in America and why they are simply too dangerous for our population in general. So many more of our people–especially the sensitive youth growing up in this nightmare landscape, are thinking and feeling(and perhaps saying to themselves) ‘I’ll fight back’ — the way they have been taught.  

Remember the responsible hunters we discussed at the start? It is ostensibly for their benefit, and for the benefit of defending ourselves against our government, that we make guns so avilable. But these responsible ones are the anomaly–the geniuses, if you will; they are the spiritually mature, the highly stable, the very strong–who keep their guns locked up until it is time to k food. They are not the issue, but what we allow for them is hurting us at the hands of others–others who by the logic of probablity and the conditions of our society–will always be among us!  

The youth raised in this fragmented cage of a culture that we have made in the last twenty-five to thirty years–are breaking out with a trigger in front of their fingers, killing–and sometimes killing themselves–because it is easy and because their world is insane–and worst of all, because it justifies this behavior in the culture. They can’t take it, anymore. And neither can you or I, just for the sake of ubiquitous gun ownership.  

I am willing to bet on scientific studies that given the feelings and conditions suffered by the mentally ill youth in our country–the average person furnished with a gun would shoot at other people, too. This is borne out in how easily we can turn a person into a killing soldier– by training him to disregard human life and filling him with the purpose and fear that military life and war require. On a related note, look at the systematic sexual abuse in the rank-and-file of the US military, which is further proof of the brutal nature of our culture. More relevant, this transition of innocent human-being, to cynical, fearful, unforgiving, controlling, and violent individual is borne out in how frequently gun violence occurs among the youth in this country–who are not military! What is it, now–once a month? (At the time of the most recent edit of this article, there were three gun-related violent acts in the same week–here in the United States.)  

The afore-mentioned proves we are simply not evolved enough–in this society–as it has been devolving—for the ubiquity of ballistic weapon ownership. For comparrison, consider that half all people in Sweden own guns. Sweden has the lowest levels of violence worldwide.   

We should not be able to buy guns at Walmart–given our situation–which is patently and clinically insane. We’re not in Norway, Denmark, or Greenland, either–nor are we South Korea or Japan. These are not perfect countries with perfect societies–but they are enormously more harmonious and thus far less violent. And when their societies do exhibit violence, it is usually not in the form of gun violence–in a school, post office, or park.  

This is America; “the land of the free and the home of the brave” — so brave that we take matters into our own hands and don’t seem to care how grave our reaction—meaning we are not terrified by ourselves–and we should be. We keep trying to eat our cake and keep it, too–and we are choking on it! What is the definition of insanity –the popular one?   We can’t afford to allow for ourselves ‘the ‘joy of killing’ for stable people in the woods—if we cannot change this set of circumstances; or at least we have to make gun acquisition as difficult as getting a pilot’s license.

Unstable people are all around us–as the cracks in our society grow, -due to its dehumanization, mean-spirited government policies, demoralizing and desensitizing entertainment, increasing school and employment pressures, and the stress and hopelessness this all creates among us.   Unstable people will always be among us–and in greater numbers now–perhaps (or fewer, now that millions en masse are acquiring healthcare?). And as long as we continue to sell and make weapons of this nature readily available, death of this kind will be a part of our lives: public shootings.  

We apparently don’t care enough. Once we do, we will all agree that the guns have to go–because we won’t transform the society over night, right? Or we need far stricter background checks. Isn’t that rational? But that line of thinking presupposes that life means so much to us that it can be weighed over this fantasy of gun ownership without consequences, of this desire to be constantly armed, this need for self-defense and protection against our own government. What insane paranoia. Humanize the society, integrate your involvement with government (instead of against it), and those fears will go away–but once again, not over night–and not as long as people are delusional and selfish.

It is really a question of mental health and intelligence, I fear–two aspects of humanity that America is showing the world it lacks in large proportion.   In order to get people to agree that guns are part of the problem, we have to become more rational, but how can we? We cannot even get half the nation to agree with the most talented scientists on Earth about the condition of the environment, the origins of the Earth and life on it, and until very recently–the importance of health care for the the non-wealthy aged, the under-privileged and the unable to work or capable unemployed. How will we get the majority to agree on the dehumanizing aspects of our society and its worsening by easy gun ownership? It is a much more abstract principle.   It seems we’re too proud–and we all want to be right. That’s not possible. Even if it were, there is no time for such selfishness. Just like with the climate: rational and unselfish minds know it is not time for more debate (and this is true regarding guns, as well). It is time for sweeping, solution and emergancy action. We have an almost contagious problem, it would seem.   

Not one more person–especially a child–should die in this country as a result of such stupidity, irrationality, selfishness, and inaction. What honorable, sane, and self-effacing citizen can stand for that? (Since the recent massacre in San Diego, California–this has become the slogan: “Not One More!”)  

Alas, too many Americans apparently love their guns. I don’t. I look upon a gun with embarrassment. As a member of the human species, which is conquering outer space, genetics, and micro-electronics, it is embarrassing to me that we still dependent on centuries-old primitive weapons technology, designed to maim and kill by having people bleed to death by puncture wounds–a revulsion and testament to our lack of civilization, sophistication, reason, and compassion.   Finally–with most people wanting at least stricter laws inhibiting gun purchase in the United States, the NRA, other PACs and politicians keep guns easily available against the will of that majority, and against good sense, decency, logic, morality–and the constitutional provision for the common defense–of individual citizens.   We had better stop asking ‘why’, as the killing continues. We have seen–and are surrounded by–the answers that have been under our noses since long before this all got out of hand. The question is, what are we going to do about it? We are sentient, aren’t we? Don’t we still live in a democracy? We love our children, don’t we? We love ourselves…. Or, do we love our guns more?   It’s high time we got busy solving the problem, or we should be resigned to its escalation–and get busy burying family members without complaints and stupid questions.  

Carl Charles Carroll Atteniese    


Blame And The Fantasy of Justice

The problem with attempting to lay blame on one corpus and cognitive identity for something unconscionable in a perfect world is it ignores that the perpetrator of the unconscionable act is human and part product of a paradigm, and that it takes away from the real causes of such certain tragedies–guaranteeing their continuance and giving us some inane sense of self-righteous justice. There is no justice, only suffering. The question is, are we adding to it or subtracting from it.

New Political Parties

Imagine we had to rename our political parties the ‘Pro-Human’ and ‘Anti-Human’ parties. And then, according to the record of positive and negative affects of each–not opinions and theories–the members from our existing parties had to enter the newly named parties. From which party would come most of the people that would have to enter the Anti Human party–according to their history of behavior, views, and policies? Would it be mostly the Republicans or the Democrats?

Why Women Are Not Treated Equally

There are ten reasons women are not treated equal to men:

1. The Quran & Hadith;
2. The Bible;
3. The Torah & Talmud;
4. There are historically provable errors in the books above;
5. Women expect men to take care of them;
6. Men want to take care of women;
8. Our media & populace are fascinated with medieval primitivism, thinking it is sexy;
9. We are inculcated with all of the above in childhood, school, church, and games;
10. We do not teach Love, Honor, & Science, but a pop-culture versions of them

Carl Carroll Atteniese



Mean-spiritedness in America

I used to think America was kind; after all, when you get to know mentally healthy–even non-mentally healthy–Americans, you often can detect the kindness and basic affinity for egalitarianism–even under the shield of conservatism–but, I think there are far more mean-spirited conservatives in North America–in the USA, especially–than in Canada, Latin America, Europe or Asia-notwithstanding, of course, the mean-spiritedness you would expect to find among desperate people, like Kim Jung Un and his beleaguered population, the mean-spiritedness you find among gangsters all over the world (they are desperate people, too), and the mean-spiritedness you find among fundamentalists (they are more or less insane, or temporarily mentally ill–in my most compassionate estimate).

I cannot make excuses anymore. Too many Americans are heartless, careless, and mean–with the majority of them being conservatives, so how much longer can I pretend Americans are kind? Look at our Congress; look at the Tea-party. The very existence of it and the behavior of these people, their views, their actions, and their staying power means we are mean people in no small numbers–because mean-spiritedness is what keeps them in power. And if we are not mean, why are they and their supporters still there?

The people I am talking about are discriminatory, unforgiving, and pro-global warming that in their pretense of denying it, they support its degrading progression; yes, for the climate change we are already suffering from. Do you really think they don’t believe it is what science says it is? Honestly? I mean, let’s face it, if you are against the 97% of the scientists screaming at the top of their ingenious proverbial lungs that we are damaging the environment irreparably in terms of human comfort and survival, there is something seriously wrong with you–because you are in favor of risking that comfort and survival–at best and you think you know better than NASA. That’s insane, clinically, I would imagine.

Too many Americans are for killing people with remote-control planes, punitive and exorbitantly expensive capital punishments, and fighting against national health-care. They are for exempting the oil, gas, and petrochemical industry from environmental laws they are in favor of rolling back free speech in their gagging the public and keeping them from knowing about the damage they support in the name of profit); and they hate the poor. This is all proven by what they support.

Americans will pay insane prices for a military that has to control the world to maintain the dirty energy they crave, but cry and stomp their feet over social programs that cost a pittance in contrast. Oh, yes–and they are terrified of that same military government they have no problem paying for with huge taxes–so they fight for no gun laws in total disregard of the probabilities inherent in the human condition–paving the way for students to be killed in schools.

I don’t know whether to say our affliction is more stupidity than anything else. You tell me; are Americans not mean, or are they just ignorant of the pain they cause, the consequences they are setting in motion, and image we have in the world?

I have not found a job yet, since returning from Asia, and I am very uninterested in doing so–in certain respects–because, if I cannot get a job wherein I can address this insanity, I feel very uninspired in supporting this apparently mean and stupid nation.

And when I think of people from other nations–unless they are gangsters in Russia, or Kim Jung Un in North Korea, or fanatical Muslim clerics and other chauvinists starving their people of the chance for knowledge–I cannot imagine them being as mean and stupid as Americans seem to be.

I lived in Asia for fifteen years and encountered people from all over the world. I could tell that ninety-nine percent of those people I encountered were liberal-minded to the extent that given the choice, none of them would have voted for the kinds of laws that would make their countries like America, except perhaps in favor of increased open-mindedness and greater tolerance and equality–but we seem to be growing pale in thin those ways. I know they wouldn’t be against sustainable energy, fighting global warming, sensible gun laws, lower defense budgets, and universal health care. And only in the most primitive places to other people of the world resemble Conservative Christian Americans who discriminate against people for how they were born.

America, what in hell is wrong with you?

Denver Post, Stop Climate Deniers

Here is a crucial petition: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-private-campaign-2. It is a call for unity and action more important than any other, because the overwhelmingly monumental issue in our politics is how restrained and financially compromised our elections and representation is. Everything stems from there. After having a free press and an educated electorate, what else is important to democracy besides unfettered participation? Speaking of a free press, what good is it if it panders to non-sense that endangers the entire planet by promoting ignorance and slowing progressive policy that can save us? The Denver Post is rightly the target of a petition addressing this inanity, at http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/to-my-local-newspaper-14/, because this publication gives space to climate deniers. The global scientific consensus on climate change is that it is anthropomorphic. We are near a “tipping point”, beyond which human effort will be moot—taking climate mutation exponentially out-of-control—if we do not initiate sweeping and grossly prejudicial global policy changes immediately.


I watched Ike, starring Tom Selleck, tonight, and was humbled, saddened, and put in awe. The way his good natured discretion, strength, intelligence, leadership, and compassion came to bear should be an inspiration to all men in how to conduct themselves and approach life.

As was said by Churchill, Ike had more power than any man in history, and he certainly had it when the stakes for humanity were the highest.

When he reprimanded Patton on the over-zealous General’s statement that post-war, the world would be run by the Anglo Saxons, his straightforward, elegant, and precisely appropriate words prompted me to think that no one in the world today should think for a minute that she or he does anything less than spit on a World War II soldier’s grave when he embraces “racialism”.

If you can watch this film and remain dry all the way through, I hope it is because you are Spartan, not cold, not unable to appreciate that the monumental horror, risks, courage, and sacrifices afoot in the second world war were instrumental elements we should never forget–their towering significance never to be underestimated in the importance of our free societies, today, in the West, or the East.

Where Do Epiphany And Genius Come From

Comments on a Video That Defends Against The Fundamentalist Manipulations of Ray Comfort…

I am very impressed, Jaclyn, and I learned something from your video–the circular evolution phenomenon.

I understand why you feel this is important to do, and thank you for it, but I think that we have to feel bad for the Ray Comforts of the world; they make us angry, yes, because they spread disinformation, preying on vulnerable minds–which is immoral and dangerous. However, my honest feeling is that these people are more unenlightened, than evil.

Let me explain what I mean. There are cognitive processes that result from mental reasoning, calculation, and deep, almost–linear thought. Then there are moments and periods of what we can only call epiphany and dreaming. Whatever you may think about the origin of the latter, it matters not for what I am about to say, except for the fact that even scientific people have utilized it–not just poets, artists, and extemporaneous speakers.

Einstein said he began to work out his theories of relativity and the behavior of light in the universe, through daydreams. We have all been in meditation, or caught up in a mundane act, like staring out the window of a moving train, or washing the dishes, and suddenly, before we realize we are not actually in the process of conscious thought, we discover a realization, an intact idea–“a thought”–in images, sounds, or words. Some call this channeling. We didn’t “think” of it; ‘it came to us.’

I have no problem with any interpretation of what this is or where this comes from. I don’t even mind people saying it is God, as long as their actions that follow–either in belief or action, are harmless. In fact, it is because I believe that if there were a God, this “process” would be pure and not judged by God–that I know that there cannot be only one spiritual truth, because we are virtually helpless in controlling it–and I believe it is the most honest phenomenon that occurs in our conscious mind! The sad thing is, religious people most of all can not allow this honesty to take them where it would, which is why they are so compromised!

This is–to me–the source of our spirit, our truth, and the source of love.

Whatever it is, I believe it is part of the unconscious abstract functioning of the brain. We can call it our spirit, our heart-mind, spirit-mind, our imagination, and many more things, but what I believe it is…is the true nature of intelligence. Ray Comfort and most fundamentalists lack this. So, rather than get angry at them, I feel empathy. These people–all fundamentalists, lack this, or in the least, have not been able to release and foster this. After all, if it is not a lacking, but a suppression, it is the result of culture, inculcation, and self-denial. This, in an organized and totalitarian dogma, is the basis–or maligned principle phenomenon we find in organized Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (of the strict forms). It is dangerous, because it is completely counter-intuitive and anti-intelligent.

When I was younger, I felt it was unconscionable of the Chinese to outlaw religion, as it is an outcropping of the consciousness. But I am not so sure, anymore (notwithstanding the fact that centralized government is dependent on a state religion), because at least in the form of theistic and totalitarian religions, like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, we are dealing with thought control and repression just as evil as Nazism and totalitarian Communism. And they are built on misinforming children–indoctrination, inculcation of the helpless unwitting youth.

For people who submit themselves to this willingly, I feel pity, not anger. Don’t be mad at Ray Comfort. He is a man who might have other forms of intelligence, other talents and blessings, but abstract intelligence (or it is fettered if he has it, by a mental block set up by dogma and so genius is not one of them, unless of course he is just suppressing it, to deal with a deep, inner pain, or a lie meant to uphold something he cannot escape, such as some relationship or great fear.

Great video.

Carl Atteniese


Douglas Adams on Religious Taboos

Douglas Adams on Religion (and the taboos created around it/by it, which limit our rights):

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That’s an idea we’re so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it’s kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’. 

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking ‘Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?’ but I wouldn’t have thought ‘Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics’ when I was making the other points. I just think ‘Fine, we have different opinions’. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say ‘No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it’.

It’s rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that’s grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that’s a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it. In the case of an idea, if we think ‘Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity’, what does it mean? Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

Illogical Logic

Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins: Brilliant vindication of Why People Are Hostile Toward Religion (from Wikipedia):

Russell’s Original Proposition

In an unpublished article entitled “Is There a God?”, commissioned in 1952 by Illustrated magazine, Russell suggested the following thought experiment to illustrate the burden of proof and falsifiability:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The existence of this teapot cannot be disproved. We can look and scan the skies almost for eternity, and it may always just be the case that it wasn’t in the place we looked; there may be another spot we’ve overlooked, or it may have moved while we were looking. However, given the absurd nature of the specific example, the teapot, we would rightly infer that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Russell’s audacity in the thought experiment was to question why people don’t like to apply the same, sound, logic (remembering that formal logic is independent of the actual content of an argument) to the existence of any particular deity; there is no difference in the evidence base provided, therefore there is no reason to assume a God and not a celestial teapot.

Extension and use by Dawkins:

The Richard Dawkins Foundation professes its belief in the Almighty Celestial Teapot.

Richard Dawkins also used Russell’s teapot argument extensively in The God Delusion and A Devil’s Chaplain. He developed the argument further, to include many attitudes associated with the bad side of religion including fear, oppression and persecution.

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.

My Beliefs


Love is my Religion. But let me explain…

People who know me understand I am adamant about several things:

One thing I am adamant about is appreciation of the accomplishment of life and thus:

Having superlative respect for life; 

I am adamant about the respect that should be engendered by the infinitely fortunate condition of sentience.

Finally, given sentience, we humans should hold that humans and their thoughts & expression are sacred, and thus it should be considered the greatest crime to harm anyone. 

Included in my idea of ‘harm’ is the curtailing of anyone’s freedom, beginning with being dishonest with another person. Yes, being dishonest with someone is a curtailing of his or her freedom.

Being dishonest with another includes teaching children anything that is dogmatic; if a doctrine is dogmatic, it must go beyond theory and it must be provable to be true. If not, it should not be taught to them as true.

Therefore, based on this set of principles I find to be of the highest sense and self-evidence, I find the teaching of religious dogma to children, immoral. 

Anything that is predicated on dictates is maligned. Truths must be experienced, and honest–if not provable, not in conflict with reality–otherwise, how can they be universal and above reproach? 

If we want to teach children that love is the highest virtue and that hate is the sickness plaguing humanity–then we have to strike from their education all prejudice engendered by religion, all justification of violence in the lessons of religion, and all refutations of reality, which engender fantasy–completely pernicious and different from healthy and imaginative flights of fancy and dreams.

People offended by what I have just said should ask themselves these questions:

1. Do you believe what you believe because it was forced on you, or because you came to find it as true through your own enlightenment?

2. Do you believe in a religion that directly or indirectly justifies or justified violence of any kind?

Do you believe in a religion that requires you to gloss over violence in its prescriptions, with justifications or dishonesty?

4. Do you believe in a religion that can be easily used to harm others?

5. Does your religion refute science, putting you against the most honest system of exploration devised by humanity?

7. Does your religion cause you to go against what is best for humanity, whether it is human and compassionate use of technology to reduce suffering, or repair of our environment?

8. Does your religion cause you to be focused on prophesy–a method of selling the religion–rather than on love and forgiveness?

9. Does your religion cause you to create heartbreak, with mental and spiritual rigidity and intolerance?

10. Does your religion promote independent thought and spiritual exploration, or does it promote martial adherence protected by fear and punishment?

The worth of a religion is in its promotion of love, truth, independent spiritual growth and freedom. A religion that promotes the opposite of these virtues, necessary elements for peace, science, and happiness, is a danger to humanity.

These are my religious beliefs.

My religious practice is different: 

1. I love all humanity;

2. I meditate for awareness and the escape of the animal ego;

3. I “pray” without begging, words, or doctrine, by trying to imagine with sincerity communion with righteousness and loving intentions. Any true god or representative of the divine surely requires no language, no worship, no petty use of punishment. Once we eliminate these pernicious elements of ego, we shall all be in heaven.

Carl Charles Carroll Atteniese

Tax by Choice

What if we paid tax by interest and conviction?

In other words, we all decide we have to pay a certain amount of tax to run the government and infrastructure, but we would choose where the bulk of our contribution would go, and how to divide the balance among the other necessary outlays; 

For example, I am steadfastly against killing people with Fly by Wire Planes (“drones”), so I would contribute least to that and the balance of my drone tax would go to my apportionment set up for healthcare, human services, education, public works, the electoral system, foreign aid, and NASA–morally necessary things. The other people who agree with drones or execution, for example–would send more tax money to those outlays and less to education, healthcare, etc.?

The Candle

It took thirteen billion years for the human race to arrive, and here we are on a planet that occupies a “Goldilocks Zone” of miraculous perfection–a planet that has no habitable neighbors for light years.

We are, quite simply, the greatest accomplishment known to us in the universe, and we achieved enlightenment and industry in only the last several thousand years. However, we are steady on a violent and irresponsible course of self-destruction, and causing great pain and suffering along the way.

We inhabit a world that shows a ‘universe-defying’ diversity of life, in a solar system devoid of such. We are just beginning –as a space faring species, but space travel should be for knowledge… however–more and more, it seems it is going to have to be for survival–which is a shame of epochal proportions.

We must save our species and as many others as we can. We must dramatically alert more of the world–China, India, and the already biosphere-tanking mega-polluters: America, Europe, and Australia… to the urgency of this cause, not just its fact of being.

We must garner a level of ubiquitous agreement on the awareness of what I call the Veritas Maximus, or Maximum Truth, and we must dispel the misinformation obscuring it.



We must make it common in most minds–if not all–the inconvenient and devastating reality now apparent to those angels of humanity among us–the honest and ingenious scientists slaving over the data and research; we and our civilization are in grave danger, through over-consumption, over-production, and the production & consumption of the wrong things; and we are fast focused on minutia that is distracting us from our own survival, as the sustenance of that survival is literally going up in smoke.



In fifty years of SETI, no one has reached out to us. In thirteen and a half billion years of universal existence, no race has found the ability and/or interest to be able to travel to this part of the universe, or–they are unknown to us. For all we know, we are alone, however improbable that may seem. Alone, yet magnificent… a brilliant candle in a vast ocean of darkness, and alas, we are about to be snuffed out.

Desk Pilot Killers And Jihadis

A man doesn’t attack his rivals
He does a better job for support

A jealous child attacks his rivals
Feeling small and impotent

Imagine if these people
Strapping bombs to themselves

Had not been raped to believe
That they are heroes

Imagine if they knew the truth
That they are the real cowards
Deluded into believing their rape of others is justified
And that some homicidal god will reward their patent insanity

Imagine we were better, with
Our Fly-by-Wire Death
Nerds in little control rooms
Pressing buttons on a desk

Imagine you, America — were
fair enough to see
You are worse than fanatics
Who kill indiscriminately

For when you send your demons
Buzzing in the sky
Killing women, children, and men

You should wonder why
You are better


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

Bad Words

Erroneous, facetious words

They conjure incorrect meaning
They mislead and legitimize falsehoods

‘Race’ is meaningless
And pernicious

We grow up to stop saying ‘doo-doo’
Why use other, childish words
‘Prejudice’ means a non-thinking state
A state of mindless ignorance

‘Nazi’ holds useful literary power, but
It devalues more pernicious fascism
Like the type ruining America

Words used as cloaks, like
‘Christian’, ‘God’, ‘race’
Conceal real meaning
Perpetuating falsehood
Legitimizing ignorance
Hiding real issues


Copyright © 2015 Carl Atteniese Jr., AKA ‘Mando’, All rights reserved.

Non-NASA Evidence of The Moon Landings

Non-NASA Evidence of The Moon Landings

Several months ago I had written an essay entitled Yes, We went to The Moon (I will create a link to this article, right here in the title, when I have more time). You can find it by search, or by looking below at my list of recent publications, on the right, under my flash galleries.

I discovered writing on this additional evidence whilst exploring another aspect of the lunar missions at Wikipedia (an absolutely fascinating and perception-shattering and highly news-worthy element of the moon missions beginning with Apollo 12 that I was previously ignorant of, known as SEVAs).

The Wiki link I am providing here shows how photo-imagery from Japanese and Chinese spacecraft  details the changes in lunar regolith reflectivity that matches the lurain data of where our astronauts landed on the moon. In simple terms, this means that the rocket engines of the craft we took to the moon were responsible for kicking up enormous amounts of moon dust which changed the features of the moon, and thus how sunlight is reflected into space in the places where the astronauts landed on the moon. Japanese and Chinese crafts have shown this with their photography. (American craft  show the actual landers and I will provide a link to that, but the point of this article is to show the non-American, non-NASA proof, thereby dispelling the notions of a hoax.)

I will write more about this in the future and of course start a link list with important data like this at Yes, We went to The Moon.

Thank you for reading.

Never stop exploring, questioning, and trusting the right sources.

Carl Atteniese


Carl Atteniese by Jonathan Conklin Photography


Instantly, upon waking this morning, I realized that the most frustrating aspect of human society is not inability; it’s inanity.

Humanity is not without high compassion, intelligence, vast creativity, and endless resources (if you choose the right ones!)… on this planet or in our part of the solar system; we don’t have a personal or species-wide death-wish… not consciously, anyway–but we certainly act like it!

Our problem is… we do almost everything… conflict resolution, education, industry, economics, and environmental management; energy procurement & usage… food production, recycling, waste-management and governance; infrastructure, and health & human services, even love and recreation… in inefficient, dangerous, unfair, and plainly stupid ways.

We mean well–but we act unwell. The human race is not collectively working in its own best interest.

We aren’t stupid; we aren’t intentionally cruel (most of us, any way); we are–practically speaking–ignorant, lazy, reckless, selfish, unconsciously unkind… and in a dream world.

As Elon Musk put it whilst  talking about the ways we power the planet and our transportation: ‘Why are we even doing the experiment?’, and by ‘the experiment’, he’d meant the enormously foolish, uncertain, and dangerous practice of taking ‘what was buried deep in the Earth for millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere.’ He is an enormously polite gentleman genius, so he didn’t say it, but he meant, ‘we are really stupid for doing it!’ And he is superlatively correct. He knows the biosphere is not a liberal agenda. It is our space suit. And we are smoking in it and doing doo-doo in it.

Of all the elements.. in our dis-ease… that I just referred to, the most problematic is one I didn’t mention, and it is both what keeps us going and what is killing us. It is belief.

Too many people are kept–and keep themselves–selfish, ignorant, inactive, unproductive and doing the wrong things–things which are literally destroying us (something most of the scientists, poets, and artists have known for a long time), because of their erroneous faith-based notion that “everything is going to be all right”. I and tens of thousands of scientists have got news for you: No, it isn’t. The tsunamis, hurricanes, growing deserts, increasing droughts, melting ice sheets, acidification and deadening of the ocean, over-greenhousing of the atmosphere, advancing evolution of virus mutations resistant to antibiotics, and the petrochemical induced mutations in sea and animal life is the cataclysmic and horrifying proof of that. And those sensationalized, near-pop-culture-level aspects of the environmental crisis which do not comprise the whole list of issues by far…all have interlocking, exponentially digressive and out of control degenerative effects of their own, and so on, adinfinitum. Everything’s connected, dude.

And in the face of the manageable challenges of daily, private, and public life, many people can be heard proving the hopelessness that Dr. Chomsky says the average man feels politically…when he says, ‘there’s nothing you can do about it.’ And need we be reminded that in the most capable nation on Earth, half the government is in active revolution against anything progressive, to the extent that they shut down that government.

Those two obvious fallacies–‘everything is going to be all right’, and ‘there’s nothing you can do about it’, are our enormous hurdles to overcome, and more than anything else, they are made almost monumental next to the problem of over-paid government which is standing in the way of solutions and actively trying to make it worse, because they are afraid of “socialism” and a progressive president.

Some of the richest and most comfortable among us, and some of those in government they influence, have a vested interest in keeping the conversation from commencing, let alone inspiring solutions. Look at the US Congress. Look at your neighbor who buys an SUV, a jet ski, a large car for joy-riding….

These factors–if anything–will contribute more to the very real possibility of ending our species (or at least society in a decent, livable world) more than the biosphere-related challenges we face and must solve if we don’t want to be racing to find another planet to live on before five hundred years passes.

And so, the environmental challenges and these hurdles of ignorance, laziness, fantasy, and obfuscation making them more difficult –will possibly make it so we must seek refuge on other worlds–not out of a sense of exploration, beauty, and righteous curiosity, but to continue our progeny, to survive! Dr. Stephen Hawking thinks so, too! That’s no small-minded or insignificant opinion.

The solution is, we have to get most everyone on the same page in– certain areas of scientific understanding, human potential, compassion, and responsibility… and most of us who are thinking and compassionate know precisely what the titles of those pages are, and the scientists know what’s on them.

The tragic element in all this is, too many people and groups of people either ‘aren’t reading’, or they are spending too much time reading the wrong things (out of fear and ego), or they don’t want to know what the real score is.

And the shame is, many of us who do know what is really critical right now are too afraid to break the truth to those we love or to strangers. We don’t want to look worried, disharmonious, socially disquiet, or rude. As Alain de Botton suggests, ‘we don’t talk to each other’, at least not about what matters. The house is on fire, but we’d rather talk about the drapes. We are too afraid.

When was the last time, upon making a new acquaintance and getting through the small-talk, you asked something like, ‘what do you think of the president’s health care initiative?’, or ‘how do you feel about global climate change?’

In the least, if you don’t want to disturb the decorum (why should such talk do that, anyway?), or the delirium with new acquaintances, can you discuss what matters with friends? You may think, ‘who am I to think about, let alone, discuss such big issues?’ Well, who are you not to?

You are a human being, a member of the most capable species on the planet, that’s who you are, and you have a huge effect–when measured with your fellows–on the planet and other people.

You are a human soul, with a conscious mind. Nelson Mandela pointed out that we must not be small. ‘Who are you not to be great?’ he asked, encouraging us to realize that The Divine did not make us to be small and saying that we validate and encourage no one by doing so. We inspire others to be great in being great ourselves.

I ask you, my dear reader, ‘what are you going to do about it?’ Are you going to finish this article by thinking, ‘this writer is just angry, a complainer, someone who isn’t happy in his life?’ You’d be wrong…

In the words of Peter Gabriel, in the anthem, “Biko”, about assassinated South African anti-apartheid activist Steven Biko, “And the eyes of the world are watching now… watching now.” And now they are the eyes of those suffering, in our time-suffering the ravages of hunger, disease, poverty, war, climate change–and inaction;

They are the  eyes of the children of tomorrow–the eyes of your children and grandchildren.

Take care, and for humanity’s sake, use your imagination, think, and take action, now.

Carl Carroll Atteniese


What Some Prominent People Are Saying to The Children of The Future

Weigh in on Obama Care

Give me the 1s, 2s, 3s, and the The ABCs!

I N S T R U C T I O N S :

  Answer this post ONLY…

  1. if you answer these three questions and their sub-questions.
  2. You can write whatever else you like after the answers.
  3. If you do not answer the three questions and sub-questions, I will delete your comments:

Simple enough? Let’s Begin:

1. If your health care costs have increased, (A) tell me WHY (was it the Insurance claim or your actual premiums that caused it)?

2. Watch the video and tell me (B) if you think these features of the ACA, AKA “Obama Care” are good or bad and (C) tell me why.

3. If you do not support Obama Care, you must give an alternate proposal that conforms with the constitutional mission statement “provide for the general welfare” in terms of health care coverage for all. Keep in mind that under the system we had before Obama Care, Insurance Companies controlled the health care system in America and actively employed people to deny your benefits and health care for a multitude of reasons.