ultimateissues's podcast

We are approaching a tipping point in our world.   A very patient and tireless crowd (ie. the "elites") has influenced the masses into being lulled to believe what the media reports is truth, what the experts say is irrefutable, and what celebrities say is significant and important.  While our society maybe very literate compared to our recent past, it makes no difference because they lack the ability to gain wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.  Many read what they are told to think.  How many people are waiting to form an opinion until after someone else does?  This is why the "polls" are so important.  Not because they influence policy, but because they influence the masses into believing the policies are just and/or necessary. Human beings have free will.  And part of that will is found in our ability to think for ourselves, and make our own logical decisions based on evidence and wisdom.  But the anointed ones have been doing a good job of destroying that ability. Human beings are to be judge by their behavior.  Their behavior is largely influenced by their values and beliefs.  But the anointed ones want us to believe otherwise. Human beings are neither intrinsically good, nor evil.  In general we are intermediaries battling between our inclinations to do good or evil (this goes back to free will.)  Conversely the anointed ones are convinced people are basically good, and no person is evil (rather they are "sick", "crazy", "deranged", "disenfranchised").  Actually to make matters worse, they have doubled down on their efforts to convince us that people are "good", and "evil" ones don't really exist.  The anointed ones preach moral relativism.  Nothing is intrinsically good or bad, its all just a construct from our opinions and paradigms.  Who are you to judge?  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, right? Human beings are to be free to choose the lifestyle and culture that they feel is best, and live with the consequences of their actions.  Their are significant differences in cultures and lifestyles, but not in race.  The anointed ones have determined the opposite.  Gender is mutable, race is not.  Sexuality is fluid, ethnicity is not. Human being are free to decide whether or not they are a victim.  We are free to decide whether or not we take offense.  But the anointed ones peddle victimization and offensiveness to suit their agendas. And this leads us to the anointed ones desire to have us submit to their rule and live strictly by their opinions.  In Dennis Prager's book "Still the Best Hope", he lays out that there are three competing ideologies for world domination.  One is Leftism. Another is Islamism.  And the third is Americanism. Of these three choices only Americanism relinquishes power to the people... allowing them to be full human beings. Leftism necessary demands a LARGE secular government, which necessarily means smaller citizens subject to the rule of the few anointed ones, and is by all means dehumanizing. Islamism also necessarily demands a LARGE religious government, where all are subject to Sharia law and again individuality and liberty are destroyed and people are dehumanized. Americanism (Liberty, "In God We Trust", and "E Pluribus Unum") is still the best for mankind.  It is the only option that allows us to remain liberated humans and free to rule ourselves. Leftism and Islamism dehumanizes the individual into race, class, or creed.  But Americanism leaves us to be judges solely on the merits of our behavior. Leftism and Islamism seek to erase borders so we become live under a one world governance (global totalitarianism).  On the other hand Americanism values holds that each should govern themselves, and we will help to liberate a people but not dominate or rule them.  Each state and country becomes its own social experiment free to do as they wish (so long as its ethical), and each shall reap what they sow. That Leftism is so dominant amongst American youth is mind boggling.  The university system has done an amazing job creating useful idiots. And Islamists have done a fantastic job of instilling fear and terror so that people submit or at least remain silent as they further destroy the middle east and currently infiltrate Western Europe. We must stand and fight and not be silent. Silence is agreement. There is no savior in the form of a politician. Think for yourself. Don't believe the hype and hysteria regarding prophetic crises, and their prophetic solutions. More often than not neither the problems nor their solutions are not as complex as the anointed make them out to be. Use your common sense and wisdom gained from past experiences to make intelligent decisions. Own your decisions and don't rely on anyone to fix your problems.      

This week is a podcast featuring a class I recently taught on the book of Exodus.  In this particular class we focused on Exodus 33:21 -34:7. Exodus 33 (NIV) 21Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.” Exodus 34 1The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain.” 4So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as theLord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. 6And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,7maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” In these short verses many important issues were raised: Anthropomorphism of God God's "face/faces"- panim God's hand Life, Death, and Not living Miracles Behavior/Actions VS. Feelings/Intent Creation of the second set of Tablets Is God good? How do we know? What does it mean? How does God describe Himself? 13 Attributes Compassion VS. Truth Must children suffer the sins of their parents? Macro Micro

Have you ever had to take a step back from your life and look at where you are and where you are going? I've been going through some of that, and so I decided to share that with you on this week's podcast. Sometimes we discover we are not where we'd like to be, or who we'd like to be, or perhaps how we'd like to be.  We take an honest look out ourselves and are displeased with the current outcome and impending consequences should we not change. I've been critiquing my life and behaviors, and have had to reprioritize several key areas of my life.  One has been doing the podcasting.  It was put on the back burner, while more important things were put on the front burners.  And that is what needs to happen in life. It is a good thing for a person to step back and look at where they are in their road map of life.  But knowing where you are is not enough.  You also need to know the direction you are heading.  But that is not enough either.  What is really important is knowing the destination that direction will eventually lead you to.  Do you want to go there?  Or are you just going with the flow?  Or maybe you just don't know where you'd like to land? All of us have boarded the plane of life, but how many are consciously determining our destinations and arrival times.  We do it when we plan vacations, so why don't more people do it for their everyday life... Thinking and planning 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years ahead? Well, for me I realized I need to make some course corrections or else I would be heading towards a destination (aka destiny) I did not want. So, I've had to shift my focus and reprioritize my life.  I've changed many small, daily life details, so that over time my big life's goals will be accomplished.  I've made a course correction, and my hope is that this podcast will help you do the same should you realize that there are things in your life that you need to change as well. Unfortunately, there is much of life which is not in our control.  But fortunately,  there are three things about ourselves we can learn to control... Our Thoughts, Speech, and Actions.  These three things are the rudders for our ship, and can help us change course despite what life throws at us.  Utilize them as best you can, and they will steer you toward your better life.

Sometimes I talk about ultimate issues in the big, global, macro arena and other times it's a small, personal, micro subject.  This week's topic, while a big deal, is more of a micro, personal subject. The Issue is about  Starting Over... Too often people quit before they ever start... and that is definitely a problem (you can check out my very first podcast for more on that subject.) This time lets look at what happens when we start a project or hobby or some life experience, then for whatever reason we stop, and then we realize we need to start again. I've done this more times than I care to admit.  Part of my challenge is that I find so many things fascinating and I get super motivated by the obstacles they present.  But then over time, bloom is off that rose and I might get bored or might just find something new to tackle. Here's a short list of some things I've started but haven't fully followed through on: - Numerous ".com" businesses - Herbal line of products - Patented exercise equipment - iPhone App - Training videos Really the list goes on and on. But believe it, or not, the one thing that I most regret stopping after I had started was bodybuilding. I had been bodybuilding since I was a tiny 13 year old.  I was short, skinny, and weak.  I figured that since I could change my height, I should focus only on changing what I can... my physique and strength.  So I started seriously training around 12 or 13 years old. I was not even 5 feet tall or more than 100 pounds at the time.  I was the stereotypical puny kid. Then I grew.  By the time I was 18 years old I had won the Texas Teenage title for bodybuilding and was successfully competing in powerlifting as well.  For six years I had been working out daily, eating 5 - 6 meals a day, and abstaining from a lot of the partying other kids were into. After competing nationally, moving to Venice, CA, and fully embibing the bodybuilding professional world I became disenchanted.  Nothing was as it seems.  Very few people were making any money.  Because of that, there was a dark side to bodybuilding that I was unaware of, and I'm not just talking about the drugs. So at the ripe old age of 21, I quit bodybuilding and focused my life on martial arts alone.  Obviously I martial arts helped my stay fit and disciplined.  But in time, I was itching to start lifting again.  So I tried to make a comeback.  After I married my first wife I started training hard again, and was looking to get big and strong again.  I was done with bodybuilding, but I thought I could just focus on powerlifting. And here is lesson one: You can never step in the same river twice. Training when I was 16 was nothing like training at 26.  I had already accumulated injuries and now some of the abuse was coming back to haunt me.  My body and my ability to recover were not as great as they used to be.  Also, my life was filled with adult obligations I just didn't have when I was so young.  When you are young it is rather easy to be selfish.  I don't advise that when you get older, and definitely not once you are married.  The truth is that there is a degree of selfishness that is required if you want to be a competitive athlete in general. So this come back led to what others had predicted... a bad injury.  First, I tore my hamstring pretty bad. But I kept training.  Then, not to long after I recovered from that injury... I tore my pec, and that was really bad.  Having no insurance at the time, I did not even attempt to get it looked at for surgery.  Instead, I just stopped training seriously.  I would resolve myself to martial arts and body weight exercises. Now I'm around 40 and realizing my body and my health are no longer in maintenance mode.  No, instead my body has been feeling aged, and I had fat around my mid-section I had never experienced before.  Even worse... everything hurts.   I have been feeling like I was  physically falling apart.  Even though I am getting older, I don't believe that necessarily means my body must degrade and wither away. So, I'm fighting back and starting over. But this time I am trying to go at it in a much wiser manner than ever before. Lesson two: Kill your ego. Nobody else cares anyway. When I tried to comeback last time, my ego was driving the bus.  And my ego drove me right into a wall.  Now, I know I need to do this is in a very different way.  NO EGO.  Just improvement.  Just discipline.  Just persistence.  I am not special, and I don't need to be the biggest or strongest guy in the gym.  Besides nobody else cared about all that anyway.  Now it's simple.  I just love training, and hate feeling like hammered crap.  The better I train the better I feel.  The less I train the worse I feel. Lesson three: Learn from your mistakes and don't repeat them. For me this means no powerlifting. It also means no lifting heavy in general.  Those two things were the source of most of my injuries.  So for me, they are out.  I have changed my perspective to understand I am not a "weightlifter".  The benefits I am looking for are not going to be found in moving more pounds up and down.  No, I need to concentrate on my body and muscles working properly in any given exercise and getting the most from myself everyday.  Again it's simple.  Train correctly and wisely so the body will benefit.  Nothing else matters. Bonus lesson: When starting over, get back to the basics and keep it simple. I've learned a lot since I initially started this journey nearly 30 years ago.  I have gained experience and education in health, fitness, physiology, and philosophy.  But here's the thing... All I need to do is what I first was taught by Vince Gironda back when I was just a 13 year old at Vince's Gym.  Vince taught me pure bodybuilding.  It was based on hard work, incredible form, consistent training, and tenacious dieting.  That's it in a nutshell.  All the fads and new tech stuff or supplements aren't that important.  What is important is your work ethic, discipline, and tenacity.   Photograph of Vince Gironda (November 9, 1917 - October 18,1997) In working with all the incredible people I've trained (from pro athletes to celebrities to housewives to senior citizens) there is one thing in particular that I have realized: What People are Capable of Doing is Amazing.  It's What They Are WILLING To Do that Makes the Difference. Have you quit something you'd like to get back to? Are you willing to start over? Have you already started over? What have you learned? How is it different this time? I'm sincerely curious.  Let me know...

Since we are celebrating Sukkot, and Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles or Festival of Booths) is supposed to be JOYOUS.  I figure I should do a show on happiness.  After all, God commands us to be happy for Sukkot so it must be an ultimate issue. But first, some questions. Why should we be happy?  Should we be happy?  What does it really mean to "be happy"? If you truly are happy, GREAT!  Seriously, good for you.  For the rest of us who have good times and bad, good moods and bad, and don't walk around everyday of our life feeling happy... we should still act happy. Regardless of how you feel, or what your inner being feels, or what life has thrown at you - In general we should ACT happy around others.  As Dennis Prager says we have a "moral obligation to act happy." Why?  Well rather than trying to explain myself, I'll let Dennis speak for Dennis.   And now let's go over some obstacles to happiness First... Expectations. I believe expectations are the key to unlocking life's disappointments.    I learned from Buddhism about the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path.  These deal with suffering and how to end suffering.  After studying the Buddhist philosophy I came away with one thing in particular: Have no expectations. You can have standards and rules for yourself and others, but expectations is where things go array and are the source of tremendous displeasure and suffering.  Letting go of expectations requires a change in thinking and life philosophy that may be difficult for many.  But I think it is necessary for a happier life. Thankfully, I had very few expectations anyway so ridding myself of expectations in general was not that big of a deal.  But still, it helped me relax and enjoy life in a way I could not have imagined before. Take a look at your own expectations and how they have either served you or not, and examine the expectations of others and how that effect them and their level of happiness.  When you find yourself developing an expectation, it may help to remind yourself that ultimately you have little to no control over what happens in much your life.  The main thing you can control is how you deal with life. Second... Stop Comparing. A lot of people get caught up in comparing their lot in life with someone else's.  This is a terribly destructive habit.  It's bad for you and it's bad for the person you are comparing yourself with.  First of all, you have no idea about what is really going on in someones life or in their head.  You only see what is apparent to you, and you see solely from your own perspective.  You are missing sooooooo much. That person who seems to have a great marriage, with great kids, and a great income might be miserable because of some inner "demons" that torment him constantly.  Growing up in Hollywood I found it amazing how often some talent who was just mentioned as having it so great by someone else,  committed suicide.  You never know what is really going on in someone else's life.  Do NOT assume the grass is greener for his life than yours. Third... Missing Tile Syndrome Another Prager U video: I have a lot more to say on happiness, and how important it is for us to cultivate in our own lives.  I hope to revisit this topic again soon.  As Prager titled his book, Happiness is a Serious Problem, and we have a moral obligation to act happy.  Why? Because happy people make the world better and unhappy people make the world worse. Sukkot Sameach! Happy Sukkot!

In a rare moment on television something actually intellectually interesting happened.  It was on the recent Bill Maher show "Real Time" and it involved a debate between Maher, Sam Harris (author), Ben Affleck (actor), Nicholas Kristof (columnist for NY Times), and Micheal Steele (former Republican National Committee Chairman). Below is a link to the video I play and discuss on the podcast. Bill Maher's Real Time Debate with Ben Affleck and Sam Harris Due to short week and my very limited work time (it's more Jewish holiday stuff), I am writing a very short show notes post. The ultimate issues today are about how arrogance, naiveté, idiocy, denial, and wishful thinking can be fused together into a tragic and destructive force.  In the 10 minute segment linked above, is evidence of how these things can combine in someone's thinking, rhetoric, and behavior.  Because their arguments are horribly flawed (relying on emotion and wishful thinking rather than fact), they only make ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. Unfortunately Ben Affleck is the prime example of someone almost solely utilizing several of the S.I.X.H.I.R.B. arguments (ad hominem attacks that primarily based on calling their opponent "sexist", "intolerant", "xenophobic", "islamophobic", "racist", and/or "bigoted."  Dennis Prager came up with acronym which accurately describes the typical arguments coming from the left.) While I do not agree with Bill Maher's presumptions that equality, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are "liberal beliefs" (they are also conservative beliefs, and American beliefs... We just may not agree on what those terms really mean.  Just as an example, historically it was the Republican party that fought to abolish slavery, and years later it was primarily the Republicans fighting for civil rights.)  But for now let's put that incorrect implication aside, this video is really stunning because of the level of arrogance, naiveté, idiocy, denial, and wishful thinking employed by Affleck and Kristof specifically. To their credit, Bill Maher and Sam Harris (two men I typically do not agree with) stayed on point and argued the ideas and did their best to defang the feeble ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies offered by Affleck and Kristoff. That an actor would say such irrational dribble is not remarkable, but when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof remarks: “The great divide is not between Islam and the rest. It’s rather between the fundamentalists and the moderates in each faith.” WOW!  What color is the sky in his world?  I suppose a more intellectually dishonest statement could be made... I just can't think of something right now.  Maybe, "There is no difference between walking, riding a horse, driving a car, or flying in a spaceship.  They are just faster and slower forms of transportation."  No... Kristof still wins. Really Mr. Kristof? The great divide is NOT between Islam and the rest?  Do they (100's of millions of fundamentalist Muslims) know this?  What Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish fundamentalist promotes beheading people who don't believe exactly as they believe?  Does Mr. Kristof believe all (or most, or many) fundamentalists, regardless of religion, approve of murdering apostates (those who leave the faith)?  Or maybe one religion in particular has a particular problem with beheading the opposition, murdering girls for going to school, and capital punishment for apostasy.  Which could it be? It is painful contemplate the lack of clarity and/or cognitive dissonance these men (Affleck and Kristof) must experience. This reminds of a quote from Einstein. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”~ Albert Einstein  Click here for the Washington Post article with the poll results mentioned. Or click here for Pew research  

Jakub Weinles "On the Eve of Yom Kippur"[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Since there seems to be a theme that's developed over the last few podcasts, I figured why not continue the series. So where are we now? Now, we are coming up on Yom Kippur the "Day of Atonement." This is a very special and holy day.   This is the day were we stand before God and atone for what we've done, and He listens.  Now before you tune out, just bear with me.  Once again, regardless of your faith or no faith this ultimate issue can impact your life as well. The issue or issues are: Forgiveness and Atonement. Here is an interesting thing I've discovered: Many people don't recognize a difference between forgiveness and atonement.  Many people think Yom Kippur is the day of forgiveness because they think it's synonymous with atonement.  But they are not the same. I would argue that in talking with folks forgiveness is terribly misunderstood and becoming a lost art for many people. Even worse, atonement is nearly extinct in our modern American society. Think about it. How many people have asked for your forgiveness for a specific wrong they have done? Have you asked forgiveness and been specific about what you did? What about atonement? Do you know anyone who is atoning for the wrongs they have done? The language of forgiveness and atonement is foreign today, and the meanings of these terms are uncertain for many people.  It's a sad loss for our society. So I'm going to try to offer you some explanations and help so as to promote the lost arts of forgiveness and atonement. First lets get a better understanding of forgiveness.  Below is the video of the audio I played on the podcast. Excerpts from UCLA psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Marmer's course on PragerU.com Forgiveness actually embodies three different things, each of which applies to different situations and provides different results. The three types of forgiveness are: Exoneration Forbearance Release Exoneration is the closest to what we usually think of when we say "forgiveness". Exoneration is wiping the slate entirely clean and restoring a relationship to the full state of innocence it had before the harmful actions took place. There are three common situations in which exoneration applies. 1. You realize that the harmful action was a genuine accident for which no fault can be assigned. 2. When the offender is a child or someone else who, for whatever reason, simply didn't understand the hurt they were inflicting, and toward whom you have loving feelings. 3. When the person who hurt you is:• Truly sorry, • Takes full responsibility (without excuses) for what they did, • Asks forgiveness, • And gives you confidence that they will not knowingly repeat their bad action in the future. In all such situations it is essential to accept their apology and offer them the complete forgiveness of exoneration. You'll feel better and so will the person who hurt you. In fact, not to offer forgiveness in these circumstances would be harmful to your own well-being. It might even suggest that there is something more wrong with you than with the person who caused you pain. The second type of forgiveness I call "forbearance." Forbearance applies when the offender makes a partial apology or mingles their expression of sorrow with blame that you somehow caused them to behave badly.  (Your forbearance would be) similar to "forgive but not forget" or "trust but verify." By using forbearance you are able to maintain ties to people who, while far from perfect, are still important to you. But what do you do when the person who hurt you doesn't even acknowledge that they've done anything wrong or gives an obviously insincere apology, making no reparations whatsoever?... Still, even here there still is a solution. I call it "release" - the third type of forgiveness. Release does not exonerate the offender. Nor does it require forbearance. It doesn't even demand that you continue the relationship. But it does ask that you, instead of continuing to define much of your life in terms of the hurt done, allows you to release bad feelings and your preoccupation with the negative things that may have happened to you. Release does something that is critically important: it allows you to let go of the burden, the "silent tax" that is weighing you down and eating away at your chance for happiness. So what about atonement?  As I learned from Chabad: Contrary to popular misconception, atonement and forgiveness are not the same thing.  Yom Kippur is not only about being forgiven by G-d. Forgiveness you can get all year round; Yom Kippur is primarily about atonement. Big difference. Forgiveness - as in the form of exonerations - means that after I make my apology, you forgive me, and I'm free.  Atonement means that I am engaged in hard work to restore the relationship to its original or even better state. The word for atonement in Hebrew is kaparah, which also means "wiping up." If I spill my grape juice on your carpet, I can say sorry and be forgiven. But the stain is still there. Atonement only comes when I get the carpet cleaners to come clean your carpet. And this is exactly what is done in the Ninth Step.  Just like in the last podcast, this is more of the wisdom that people get in a good religion and/or a good 12 step program.  Amends are not apologies. Making amends means trying to remove the stain, making things right again, and eventually... Restoring the relationship to how it originally was or making it even better. If an apology will make the person feel better, then we should include an apology in the amends. But the main thing is that we make it up to the person in a way that is significant to them.  This is where it's good to know the Five Love Languages. Our amends to God are not our apologies, but rather a sincere attempt to restore the relationship on His terms -- the way He likes it. Of course, if you just come to the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, then that's not really an amend either. The making of amends is a long-term project where we show the one we have harmed that we have honestly changed and changed permanently. When we behave differently all year round as a result of our Yom Kippur amends, then we are proving that we really atoned. When we make amends to our friends, family, and others we must work relentlessly to earn their trust and restore the relationship.  Yes it take effort.  Yes it take humility.  Yes it can be painful.  But what is your choice?  You can either dismiss your behavior and how it affects others, or you can take responsibility and do your best to repair the damage you have done. Were our modern American society to rediscover the lost art of forgiveness and atonement, we would begin modeling heaven on earth. G'mar Chatimah Tovah May you be finally sealed for a good year by God.

Are you brutally honest with yourself? Do you maybe sugar coat your short comings or down play some of your transgressions? If you are a little like me then you too are a master at deceit and misdirection. What do I mean by that? It's coming up on what are referred to as the "High Holy Days.  Rosh Hashanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and Sukkot (Festival of Tabernacles... longer explanation needed I'm sure.)  During this time, it is customary for religious Jews to get very introspective and do all they can to repent and return to a holy life.  Hence the impetus for my questions and statement. For me, this is the hardest time of year.  Not because of missed work and income.  Not because of the time spent in synagogue.  No it's the time spent in my head. It is like I get by every year for 9 months fooling myself that I'm doing pretty good and I should feel okay about my life.  And then this time hits. Every year now at this time I tend to get extremely depressed. Why?  Because it become abundantly clear to me how I have disappointed God. Some may think one can't disappoint God.  I don't hold that belief at all.  And there is nothing in the Torah that implies anything otherwise.  Over and over again God is frustrated and annoyed by His people.  Even the story of the very first human family was a disappointment.  As the creation with freewill, we alone have the opportunity to either behave in accordance with God's will or not.  It is totally on us. And for me, when I look at my life I can find many faults and transgressions.  During the other nine months of the year I defend myself or rationalize my transgressions.  But now, I just feel guilty and unworthy of His forgiveness. So what do I do about it? Well obviously one of the things I do is get real with myself and try to express in some way... usually I write.  You get to share in my catharsis as well this year. The other thing I am learning to do came from Reb Nachman of Bretslov.  Here are some of Reb Nachman's essential teaching's on repentance and returning to God from Azamra.com (translated by Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum): TESHUVAHRETURNING TO GOD There is a way that everything can be turned into good. Alim LiTerufah 113 * * * God's greatness is unfathomable: that is why Teshuvah has such power. No matter how far you may have fallen - be it to the lowest depths - never despair, because you can always return to God. With just a little effort you can turn even your worst sins into merits. No matter where in the world you fall, you can easily come back to God. This is because of His unfathomable greatness. Nothing is beyond His power. Just never give up! Keep crying out, praying and pleading to God at all times. Sichot Haran #3 * * * Sometimes a sin can make a person so bitter that he repents completely. Likutey Halachot, Birkat HaReiach 4:2 * * * Stop then and there! You may be in some place when suddenly you have a thought of Teshuvah and a deep longing for God. Stop then and there in that very place and take a moment to focus on the thought and the feeling of longing. Turn them into a prayer. Put your longing into words straight from your heart. Don't wait or move on, even if you are not in your usual place of prayer and study - even if you are going on your way - because if you move on, it could interrupt your train of thought. Likutey Moharan II, 124 * * * The Path of Teshuvah Every person must minimize his own glory and maximize God's glory. For one who pursues glory attains not God's glory but only the glory of kings, of which it is said: "The glory of kings is subject to investigation" (Proverbs 25:2) . For then everyone investigates who he really is, asking: "Who is he and what is he to be given such honor?" People challenge him, saying he is not fit for this honor. But when a person flees from honor, minimizing his own honor and maximizing the glory of God, he attains the glory of God. No-one then investigates to see if he deserves it, for "The glory of God is to hide the matter" ( ibid. ) - it is forbidden to question his honor. The only way to attain God's glory is through repentance. And the true sign of a person who has returned to God is the ability to hear himself insulted and remain silent. He endures even the most murderous abuse with patience, thereby reducing the blood in the left side of his heart (seat of the animal soul) and annihilating his evil inclination. Such a person is worthy of a share in God's glory. Before a person returns to God, he has no being. It is as if he has not yet been created, because it would have been better for him not to have been created at all. But when he purifies himself in order to return to God, he puts himself in order and prepares to become a being. This element of preparation for becoming - coming into being, as it were - explains why the Divine Name associated with repentance is Ehyeh , "I shall be". When a person wants to purify himself and return to God, they tell him "Wait!" ( Yoma 38b-39a) . It is true that he should hurry to free his soul and escape the darkness. But he should not allow himself to become discouraged and dejected if he sees that he is far from true prayer and other holy devotions. Waiting patiently is a necessary part of the process. In the end he will be worthy of making amends completely and everything will be rectified. Repentance never comes to an end: it must be continuous. Even at the very moment that a person is confessing , it is impossible for him to say the words , "I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled." with perfect sincerity free of all extraneous motives. Thus he must repent for his earlier repentance and for the flaw in his previous confession. Even when a person knows that he has repented completely, he must still make amends for his earlier repentance. For what he achieved then was good only in proportion to his perception of Godliness at the time. Now, after his repentance, his perception has undoubtedly been heightened. Compared with his present perception, his earlier perception turns out to have been grossly materialistic. He must therefore repent for his earlier levels - because he degraded the true exaltedness of the Creator to the level of the material. Happy is the man who achieves true Teshuvah. Teshuvah has three aspects: seeing with the eyes, hearing with the ears and understanding in the heart (cf. Isaiah 6:10 ) . A person must use his eyes to look towards the ultimate goal and purpose of this world. He must concentrate on this goal with all his heart, resolving to travel there and nowhere else. And he must use his ears to listen carefully to everything that our holy sages said. Then he will be able to return to God. Teshuvah essentially depends on humility. One must make oneself into nothing, like a wasteland over which people trample: one must pay no attention whatsoever to opposition or abuse from others. One should train oneself to be silent and hear oneself insulted without answering back. Such a person is worthy of the name "wise" and will attain perfect Teshuvah, the "Crown" and summit of the Sefirot. This is the way to true and enduring glory - the glory of God. Likutey Moharan I , 6 * * * Humility Be totally honest when you speak to God. Accustom yourself to talking so honestly that your heart is aroused and the words start pouring forth with fire and passion. As you draw closer to God you will see your own smallness and insignificance in comparison with His greatness, and you will be filled with humility. Until now you cast your sins behind your back and ignored them. But as you start to acknowledge them frankly, you will feel deep shame at having rebelled against the Master and Ruler of the Universe, Source of all the worlds. At first this humility will not actually be discernible on your face, because sin weakens a person's mental powers, preventing them from radiating on the face. Before repenting , his mind is so weakened that he has no conception of the true gravity of sin and the greatness of the One he sinned against. But as he returns to God and puts aside his folly, gaining wisdom and understanding, his shame becomes increasingly visible on his face. The Tefilin are the sign of humility and attachment to God. The light of the Tefilin is a ray of the light of God's inner countenance. When a person achieves this humility, all his sins are forgiven and he becomes attached to the Tree of Life. Likutey Moharan I, 38 * * * The Power of Psalms Everybody wants to revere God's Name but not everyone is able to repent. Sometimes a person feels no arousal whatever. Even one who is aroused to repent may not reach his unique gate of Teshuvah, and even if he does, it could be that the gate is closed. This is why not everyone attains repentance. But through reciting Psalms, even one who feels no arousal can be inspired to repent. The Psalms can take him to his unique gate and open it up, thereby bringing him to Teshuvah. For this reason King David called himself "the man who raised the yoke... the sweet singer of Israel " ( II Samuel 23:1) . Our sages explain that David called himself "the man who raised the yoke" because he elevated the yoke of repentance through his own Teshuvah. David was a great Tzaddik and should not have sinned, but God caused him to sin in order to teach everyone the way of Teshuvah. King David was the prime exemplar of Teshuvah and his pathway is set forth in the Psalms, which he wrote with such a spirit of holiness that everyone can find himself in them and thereby return to God. Likutey Moharan II, 73 * * * God hides in the obstacle When after a life devoted to worldliness a person feels an arousal to God, the attribute of Judgment rises to accuse him and does not permit him to follow God's ways. It does this by confronting him with an obstacle. But God loves kindness and hides Himself within the very obstacle itself. One who lacks good sense sees the obstacle and retreats at once. But one who possesses good sense examines the obstacle and discovers God within it. Likutey Moharan I, 115 * * * Revisiting the past To come to complete Teshuvah you must pass through all the places where you were prior to your Teshuvah. When you encounter exactly the same temptations as you experienced before, you must avert your eyes and control your impulses in order not to repeat what you did earlier. This is the essence of perfect Teshuvah: there is no other way. Likutey Moharan II, 49 * * * Be a new creation If you want to return to God you must make yourself into a new creation. You can do this with a sigh! Man never stops breathing - releasing the stale air and drawing in fresh air. Our very lives depend on this. The physical air we breathe has its root above. There is the good air of the Tzaddik and the evil air of the sinner. The Tzaddik constantly draws air from the holy, the sinner draws air from impurity. Therefore, when a person wants to repent, he must make sure to stop the bad air from coming into him. The way to do this is with a sigh, which is a long, deep breath in and out. The sigh begins when you draw in extra air. This is similar to what happens just before a person dies: he draws in extra air and then the spirit leaves him. Every exhalation is the death of the moment that has passed, in preparation for the birth of the new moment. Thus when you take a deep sigh, you release yourself from the bad air of the sinner and bind yourself to the pure air of the Tzaddik in order to receive new vitality. This is Teshuvah, returning from impurity to holiness in order to gain new life. The very body is renewed, because "Sighing breaks a person's whole body" ( Berachot 58b) , and therefore the body is remade. Chayey Moharan #37 * * * How precious is a sigh! How precious is the sigh of a Jew! The very sigh brings fulfillment of his needs. For the world was created through the breath, which is the life spirit: " . and through the breath of His mouth all their hosts" (Psalms 33:6) . The renewal of the world will also be through the breath: "You send Your spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth" (Psalms 104:30) . The breath is also man's vitality since his life depends on breathing. "And He breathed in his nostrils the spirit of life" (Genesis 2:7) . The essential vitality of all things thus depends on the breath. Whenever something is lacking, the main lack is in that thing's vitality, which is the life-spirit keeping it alive. A sigh is a long breath - the long breath of patience. Therefore when a person is patient and sighs over what he lacks, he draws life spirit to that which is lacking, because the main lack is the absence of the life spirit. But from where does one receive the life spirit? Know that we receive the essential life spirit from the Tzaddik and leader of the generation. This is because the main life spirit is in the Torah, for "the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2) and the "waters" are the Torah. Since the Tzaddkim are attached to the Torah, therefore the main life spirit is with them. When one who is attached to the Tzaddik and leader of the generation takes a long, deep sigh, he draws life spirit from the Tzaddik, who is attached to the Torah, where the spirit resides. Thus the Tzaddik is called "the man who has the spirit in him" ( Numbers 27:18) - because he knows how to relate to each and everyone according to his spirit. Likutey Moharan I, 8 * * * Providence and nature God shows us great kindness by governing the world with individual providence and through the laws of nature. When people are good, God deals with them providentially, in a way that goes beyond nature. However if God were to oversee the life of an undeserving person in accordance with His providence, no good could ever reach him. Nevertheless out of kindness, God leaves this person to the laws of nature, and as a result , through the law of averages, things may then go well for him. If God's only way of running the world were through providence, rewarding good deeds and punishing sin, this could lead to a total breakdown of providence. For if God were to see someone acting im­properly and dealt with him in anger, He might cast him out completely. Instead, God abandons him to nature, and when he improves his ways, He deals with him providentially. But in actual fact we are quite unable to understand what is "nature" and what is "providence", because the truth is that even the laws of nature are really God's providence. However, the human mind is unable to grasp the paradox that what appears to be the law of nature is really God's providence. Likutey Moharan II, 17 * * * I have strayed like a lost sheep "I have strayed like a lost sheep: seek out Your servant" (Psalms 119:176) . When a person sins, it makes a big difference if he comes to his senses at once and repents, in which case it is easy for him to return to his place because he has not yet strayed too far from the good path. For when a person sins, he turns from the straight path and enters a different, twisting pathway. A multitude of wrong turns branch off into ever deeper error and corruption. The person may stray so far and become so entangled that it is very hard for him to turn back and get off the wrong track. God's way is to call a person the moment He sees him straying from the path of good sense, asking him to turn back. He calls each person in the way most suited to him. To some He beckons with a hint. To others the summons is literally a cry. Some people kick, and He must strike them in order to call them. For "the Torah cries out before them: 'Fools! How long will you love foolishness?'" (Proverbs 1:22, Zohar Shemini 36a) . The Torah is God's voice calling and begging those who sin to return to Him. As long as a person has not strayed too far from the right path, it is easy for him to return because he still recognizes the voice. This is because only a short time has passed since he was close to God and heeded His voice, the voice of the Torah. He has not yet forgotten it or strayed too far along those other devious paths. Similarly, when a sheep strays from the path and the shepherd immediately calls it, as long as the sheep has not yet strayed too far, it still recognizes the shepherd's voice and immediately responds. But once the sheep strays far from the path, it forgets the shepherd's voice and no longer recognizes his call. The shepherd also gives up searching because the sheep has been lost for such a long time . Similarly, when a person has been going in the wrong direction for a long time , having strayed far from the true path into all those corrupt, devious and confusing pathways, it is hard for him to repent. But know that sometimes a person journeys so far along those corrupt and devious paths that his very wandering brings him close to his original place and it only needs an easy test to bring him back to his starting point . But when God calls him and arranges the test, the person does not recognize the voice and feels no need to return. That is the difference between young and old people. One who is still young and has not grown old in his sins can return more easily, because he is still closer and has not forgotten the voice that calls. This is the meaning of the verse, "I have strayed like a lost sheep: seek out Your servant" (Psalms 119, 176) . "I have strayed like a lost sheep": I have strayed from the good path like a lost sheep that has strayed from the road. This is why I beg of You: ".seek out Your servant, because I have not forgotten Your commandments". Hurry and search for me as long as I still remember the voice of the Torah and mitzvot. Hurry and search for me immediately, because I have not yet forgotten Your mitzvot: I still recognize the call of the mitzvot of the Torah. That is why I beg You to take pity on me and search me out quickly, as long as "I have not forgotten Your mitzvot" and still recognize the voice of the call of the Torah and the mitzvot. For when a person grows old in his sins, it is very hard to seek him out as he has already forgotten and no longer recognizes the voice of the Torah and the mitzvot. We must therefore beg God to hurry and bring us back to Him before we completely forget the call of the Torah and mitzvot. This was King David's prayer: "Search out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your mitzvot." Likutey Moharan I, 206 * * * And here are the original Twelve Steps I mentioned: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. It is important to appreciate what Rosh Hashanah is all about:  It is about God giving us an opportunity to CHANGE!  We need to truly own that the biggest problems in our lives comes from ourselves.  When G.K. Chesterton was asked "What's wrong with the world", he answered "ME."   Rosh Hashanah (head of the year) is an opportune time to Rosh Shinui  (change the head) (Shinui same root as Shanah "year" and Rosh means "Head".)  It works if you work it. Here's a link to a video you might like. L'Shanah Tovah  

The questions we ask ourselves determine not only what we think about, but also how we think.   And our thoughts impact or decisions.  And our decision impact our behavior.  Over the course of our lives our behaviors impact our destiny.  So way back along our journey we started with questions. Today, you still ask yourself fundamental questions that have tremendous influence over you and your life.  Do you know what they are? When I first started thinking about this stuff (i.e. studying Tony Robbins and Buddhism) I had a hard time confronting my primary questions.  I understood the concept and certainly agreed with the premise - but application was an issue. Ideas from Buddha: The mind is everything. What you think you become. We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. Tony Robbins: Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers. To be clear I am not saying Tony Robbins and Buddha are comparable characters in the theatre of world history... just pointing out ideas they expressed that stuck with me.  To be sure, there have been Rabbi's, priests, ministers, and secular philosophers who have also come to this conclusion: I am what I think. I prefer this to Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum" I think therefore I am (exist) Admittedly, Descartes was addressing a different context. It works out to be a basic truth for all humanity.  What and how we think determines our quality of life.  Sure, it may not change the circumstances but it will determine how we deal with them and this is much more important in our life. Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.~ Viktor Frankl   So if you are in trapped in North Korea and life is a nightmare, your life circumstances won't necessarily get better because you change your thoughts, BUT your attitude could change and therefore you could shift the horrific circumstances by infusing them with meaning.  Remember Viktor Frankl wrote his work "Man Search For Meaning" after surviving and examining the lives and psychologies of his fellows in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.  The ones who asked great question and found meaning behind the tragedy had a better existence and greater chance of survival than those who did not. Hopefully no one reading this is experiencing the horrors like those in the concentration camps or North Korea.  And let's face it, if you are in America or a part of the world that has electricity, running water, and a drainage system - you are starting out much better off the billions of people today and all of humanity until just 150 years ago.  We are blessed and forget it all the time. So what about this primary question? To give an example based on what I mentioned above: One prisoner in a Nazi camp could be primarily asking "Why is this happening to me?".  Now here is the thing with primary questions... we always find answers.  Right or wrong we make up answers to satisfy our questions.  How could someone answer "Why is this (bad thing) happening to me?"  Possible answer:  "Remember when you cheated on your final exam and you didn't get caught so you lied about how hard you studied and your dad said how proud he was and bought you that nice gift.  That's why this bad thing is happening to you." So we need to be super-aware and hyper-sensitive about the questions we ask ourselves.  Your brain will find an answer, and that answer will shape your personality, behavior, and destiny.  It is what we do naturally, so we need to not let ourselves naturally fall into a rut, or make our lives more difficult than they actually are. And remember that most of our thoughts are really just a series of questions and answers.  So all I am suggesting is that you get more aware of your questions (thoughts), and understand how your answers (more thoughts) have brought you to where you are today.  Everyone has a primary question. Interestingly many people have similar questions.  But also interesting is the variegated answers people come up with to solve their questions. So what is a primary question and... How do you determine your primary question? In general, your primary question is typically that question that keeps coming up or "naturally" being answered when you find yourself in a stressful situation.  Or if not stressful perhaps unpleasant situation... as I know plenty of people who enjoy stress.  But when they find themselves in an environment they are uncomfortable with and unsure of how to handle it... that is when they will be asking their primary question. Since I don't know what that stress or discomfort might be for you, I'll give you some personal examples. Many years ago when I was in my teenage and early adult years, and I found myself in a bad situation I would typically ask "What is the point of all this?"  Now this is not necessarily a defeating question.  If I was in a good mood, I might come up with good reasons.  But if I was in a bad mood, you could not convince me there was any point.  So how did this play out? There were many things in my youth that I ended up just not caring about because I determined there was no point to it.  I had a huge problem with authority and doing what I was told... especially if I did not see any point to it.  There were many great opportunities I missed out on, because my bad attitude at that moment only offered me bad answers. This primary question stuck with me for quite a while, but sometimes it would get replaced by another question.  Broadly speaking this was a question of "Am I Enough?"  So I would get caught up in tough situation asking myself "Am I good enough?" , "Am I smart enough?", or "Am I strong enough?".  All those kinds of self doubting questions that are usually answered with a resounding "NO!" Again, this too caused me to miss plenty of opportunities and quit things before I even began them.  As much as I have done and tried to accomplish there was even more I wanted to do... But I convinced myself I wasn't enough. When your primary question gets answered... it really gets answered.   I didn't just ask "Am I enough?" and say "No, probably not."  It was more like "Am I enough?" and I would answer "Are you kidding? No.  And everybody knows it.  Here's why..."  When we answer our primary question, we usually follow up our thoughts with conformational questions which reinforce our decisions and behaviors. So take some time and really think about what your question or questions are.  You may have several questions that pop up depending on the situation.  Learn what they are.  They have been there the whole time.  In fact you are probably asking one of them right now!  These are the questions that have shaped your life up to this point and created most of your outcomes. By the way, you might find some conflict between yourself and your questions.  In other words, you might realize your questions presuppose things that right now you know are not true, nor any good for you.  GREAT!  Now you know.  You know your questions and you know that you don't always think rationally (remember your mind will always find answer to your question -even if its an irrational question.)  For instance, a fairly common one I hear is "What if I fail?"  Well this presupposes you could fail.  But what if you truly believed that even when you don't hit your target perfectly, and yet you still gained in practice, understanding, experience, or something... Then it's not a failure.  Plus, how is not even starting and trying any better than doing your best and not perfectly accomplishing the task?  It makes no sense.  Regardless, that's the question and the made up answer is surely going to convince you to quit before you start. The primary question is simply part of our human nature... But you can use this part of your human nature to help your life rather than hinder it. How?   Ask Better Questions! Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers. ~ Tony Robbins Once you figure out your questions, ask yourself how you can improve them.  Don't get stuck in analysis paralysis trying to concoct the perfect question.  Just work with you nature and make your questions better.  Now that you know them you can keep reflecting on them, and then you can constantly and continually improve your questions as you develop and mature. So for example, my old question "What's the point?", became "What good will this do?"  For me this question, does a couple things.  One, simply replacing the word 'point' with 'good' triggers my mind to be in a different state.  Two, it makes me really try to find something good in all situations.  And three, if there really is no good and instead there is something bad or evil that could arise from my actions then I know to avoid it.  Before I could have still seen the point in behaving badly (i.e. excitement, fun, thrill, etc.) but I know that there is no goodness that comes from it.   I cannot express in words how that question "What good will this do?" transformed my life in extraordinary ways. My other old question, "Am I enough?" has been a tougher one for me.  Initially, I battled it and lost every time because I was trying to either ignore the question or convince myself I somehow am enough. Thank God for the Torah and Moses. In the first parsha of Exodus "Shmot" we read about were Moses meets with God at the burning bush.  Paraphrasing: God tells Moses, "You are going to go to Eqypt and free the slaves" and Moses basically says "What? Who am I to do such a thing?" God answers back, "Okay, I'll be with you and will do all the heavy lifting."  Of course Moses is still not convinced and so God proves Himself and His power... but Moses' doubts remain.  So Moses complains "Look, I can't even speak well enough to go and argue with Pharaoh and convince people to come with me."  "Fine" God says "I'll speak for you."  Finally, Moses just pleads with God and says "I'm not the guy.  Send someone else."  So now God is incensed with Moses and basically says, "You're going.  Your brother is going to help.  And I will be with you both. Now go." So upon reading this the 341st time I finally realized that Moses is not all that different from me... and I'm not different from him.  Moses was also probably vexed by the "Am I enough?" question.  But God doesn't care.   Just go and do His will and what is right and good, and just don't quit.  I have no idea if I'm enough, and I don't really care any more.  All I know is that I have a moral obligation to God to do my best with every opportunity He gives me.  That's it.  So my new question is "Will this glorify God?"  It is a completely different question and keeps me out of the "enough" quagmire.  Everything is from Him and my role is to do what is good and right in His eyes.   He knew Moses was capable of more than what Moses himself believed.  I'm sure the same is true for me... and YOU! What people are capable of doing is extraordinary.  It is what they are willing to do that so often disappointing. ~ Tony Robbins It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it ~Rabbi Tarfon (Avot 2:21) So now I simply try to focus on doing His will and as much good as possible, and that's about it.  I figure if I can do some good in the world and make it more holy... I did well.      

This week we explore an ultimate issue raised during a conversation I was having with a friend who is my elder, and thus has greater wisdom and life experience than I.  I am still of the opinion that respect for elders is a good and necessary thing for society... though that is unfortunately not the current trend. In an interesting discussion this man offered his theory about why America is in the current cultural downward spiral it is in (We had already established in our discussion that in many significant ways America's culture was worse today than 20 years ago, and 20 years ago it was worse than 20 years before that - though we were careful to not romanticize the past nor demonize the present.)  So when I asked him to explain his theory became more and more curious. His theory about our cultural decline is that it is due to "political correctness." While at first I did not agree, I did not interrupt and asked him to further elaborate his thoughts.  He did.  And though I couldn't disagree with anything he said, I also couldn't agree with everything he said. So after our visit I started reading the history of political correctness... and I was shocked by what I found.  Shocked because I had no idea how deliberate and intentional the programming was, and shocked because I had never learned or inferred it before in all my other readings.   Rather than trying to rewrite everything, I am sharing with you some things that I found that are well written in their brevity and clarity. Take what you like and leave the rest. Trust but verify. Fight the Good Fight. Carry on...   NOTE: This column from WND.com and features an excerpt from Dr. Ted Baehr and Pat Boone’s new book “The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World.” In the book, entertainment expert Dr. Ted Baehr and legendary musician Pat Boone urge people to make wise choices for themselves and their families so they can protect their children from toxic messages in the culture. The following is Chapter 10, written by historian Williams S. Lind.   Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values. Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the ’60s feel like it’s a foreign country? Did it just “happen”? It didn’t just “happen.” In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation’s history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way. What happened, in short, is that America’s traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion. To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.” Early Marxist theory Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it. After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed. A new strategy Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered. Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith. Far from rallying to Lukacs’ “cultural terrorism,” the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a “Marxist Study Week” in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs’ cultural perspective on Marxism. The Frankfurt School Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the “Institute for Marxism.” But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the “Institute for Social Research.” Soon known simply as the “Frankfurt School,” the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question “Who stole our culture?” is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School. At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs’ pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology. To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer’s most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse. Advances in cultural Marxism With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society. Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s. Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. “Liberating” everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism’s main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning. Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught. The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful. New developments Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments. Critical Theory To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness. Studies in prejudice The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno’s immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.” Domination The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior. Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.) Media and entertainment Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought “commodified” culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin’s view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism’s most powerful weapon. The growth of Marxism in the United States After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany. But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book “Eros and Civilization” used the Frankfurt School’s crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only “liberate non-procreative eros” through “polymorphous perversity,” we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. “Eros and Civilization” became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s. Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology). The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins. A counter-strategy Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it? We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat. There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture. Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms’ products. If Brave New World’s motto is “Think globally, act locally,” ours should be “Think locally, act locally.” Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a “long march through the institutions.” Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the “inevitable forces of history” were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?   From Wikipedia: Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov (Russian: Юрий Безменов, also known as Tomas David Schuman; 1939 – 1993) was a journalist for RIA Novosti and a former PGU KGB informant from the Yuri BezmenovSoviet Union who defected to Canada. After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and the culture of India, but at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow’s policies. He decided to defect to the West. Bezmenov is best remembered for his pro-American, anticommunist lectures and books from the 1980s.   The Four Stages of Dismantling a Nation/Culture: The KGB way Stage One: Demoralization – Elimination of American Exceptionalism, fundamental change of national identity, structural deconstruction of foundational principles, elimination of religion. Embedding a new societal design upon the psyche of generations through ideological academia. Peer pressure by elites upon academics and society to convince that prior values were inherently flawed, racist, prejudiced etc. National identity is diluted with aspersions toward historical references. National history is re-written, re-defined, and molded to fit the new intended behavioral model and create the new values. Stage Two: Crisis – Creation of economic, financial, and national security crisis. Also includes social crisis and breakdown of previous self-evident restrictions on moral behavior. Cloward Piven approach to overloading the system, ie more takers than producers. The crisis produces benevolent leaders who will promise to deliver “things” (Hope and Change) to meet people’s needs through Social and Economic Justice. False illusions that the situation is under control if certain strategic directions are followed (Bailouts, Stimulus, Jobs Bills, Regulations of industry, Unconstitutional Power Grabs, Dismissal of Historical Laws, Changes in legislative processes, Changes in checks and balances of power etc). Stage Three: Normalization – The uncomfortable feelings of change including losses of freedom are absorbed and accepted. Lost national identity becomes accepted as the norm within the new societal model. A period of national rebranding transition where people are so overwhelmed by the change they become numb and begin to accept a ‘new normal’. This period of normalization lasts indefinitely as the progression is continually advanced and acceptance takes place in small controlled doses. (New limits on behavior, Regulations, TSA Patdowns, Intrusions into privacy, Controls into daily life) These things begin to be accepted as “just the way it is now”.. Stage Four: Destabilization – Unlike the period of “Crisis” the people who helped orchestrate the change are now no longer needed. The new overarching centralized governmental model begins to take control. Leftist usurpers who initially thought they were going to be part of the new power structure begin to realize they were used and manipulated and they themselves become the new enemy. Because they have first hand knowledge of the agenda they are the primary target for elimination. They may simply be disregarded, obfuscated, thrown out, or they may be collected, imprisoned, or worse killed. There is no longer room for dissention. Dissent is only possible within the free system that has now been deconstructed. Therefore the leftist purpose is served once the destabilization is complete. From InfoWars.com:  19 SHOCKING EXAMPLES OF HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS DESTROYING AMERICA #1 The Missouri State Fair has permanently banned a rodeo clown from performing just because he wore an Obama mask, and now all of the other rodeo clowns are being required to take “sensitivity training“… But the state commission went further, saying it will require that before the Rodeo Cowboy Association can take part in any future state fair, “they must provide evidence to the director of the Missouri State Fair that they have proof that all officials and subcontractors of the MRCA have successfully participated in sensitivity training.” #2 Government workers in Seattle have been told that they should no longer use the words “citizen” and “brown bag” because they are potentially offensive. #3 A Florida police officer recently lost his job for calling Trayvon Martin a “thug” on Facebook. #4 “Climate change deniers” are definitely not wanted at the U.S. Department of the Interior.  Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was recently quoted as making the following statement: “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior”. #5 A professor at Ball State University was recently banned from even mentioning the concept of intelligent design because it would supposedly “violate the academic integrity” of the course that he was teaching. #6 The mayor of Washington D.C. recently asked singer Donnie McClurkin not to attend his own concert because of his views on homosexuality. #7 U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer is calling on athletes marching in the opening ceremonies at the Winter Olympics in Sochi next year to “embarrass” Russian President Vladimir Putin by protesting for gay rights. #8 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs.  The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers. #9 The governor of California has signed a bill into law which will allow transgendered students to use whatever bathrooms and gym facilities that they would like… Transgendered students in California will now have the right to use whichever bathrooms they prefer and join either the boys’ or girls’ sports teams, thanks to landmark legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday. The law amends the state’s education code, and stipulates that each student will have access to facilities, sports teams, and programs that are “consistent with his or her gender identity,” rather than the student’s actual biological composition. A male student who self-identifies as female could therefore use the girls’ bathroom, even if he is anatomically male. #10 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic “privacy screens” on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their “right” to watch pornography at the library without children being directly exposed to it. #11 In America today, there are many groups that are absolutely obsessed with eradicating every mention of God out of the public sphere.  For example, an elementary school in North Carolina ordered a little six-year-old girl to remove the word “God” from a poem that she wrote to honor her two grandfathers that had served in the Vietnam War. #12 A high school track team was disqualified earlier this year because one of the runners “made a gesture thanking God” once he had crossed the finish line. #13 Earlier this year, a Florida Atlantic University student that refused to stomp on the name of Jesus was banned from class. #14 A student at Sonoma State University was ordered to take off a cross that she was wearing because someone “could be offended“. #15 A teacher in New Jersey was fired for giving his own Bible to a student that did not own one. #16 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property. #17 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” and to avoid criticizing “anything related to Islam”.  The following is from a Judicial Watch article… The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.” #18 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism.  In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents. #19 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a “disproportionate” impact on minorities.

Amazingly I actually got to catch a snippet of the Dennis Prager show live today (Tuesday Sep. 2, 2014)  I only got to catch a call that really annoyed me, but it inspired this podcast. Call is played on UI  podcast. Dennis had been discussing that there has been another study coming out declaring doctors and scientist are clueless about dieting (eating habits or whatever you prefer to call it.)  The New York Times just published: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet From the article: (click the link above to read in its entirety - or listen to the podcast as I read more than I'm typing out here) People who avoid carbohydrates and eat more fat, even saturated fat, lose more body fat and have fewer cardiovascular risks than people who follow the low-fat diet that health authorities have favored for decades, a major new study shows. So basically once again we have a study debunking a study that said low-fat was better for you which debunked the study that low-carb was better for you... on and on. The truth is that these studies are typically flawed and really of no great significance.  Typically these studies are flawed, because they are  not done in an objective scientific manner with varied control and experimental groups.  We never read about the baseline (i.e. their previous diet) nor genetic factors (i.e. West African or Eastern European) and not even familial factors (i.e. parents and siblings).  Considering a person's past diet is usually a huge factor in regards to their health and fitness, and their genetics play an even bigger role - you'd think they factor that into their "studies."  Then there are the problems regarding the short durations and inadequate samplings for many of these studies.  Plus, how often do they record detailed activity levels of the participants?  Does movement or any activity make a difference at all?  I have yet to see "research" that satisfied these basics... And like I said, these studies are insignificant because in general people don't really care about the results of diet research.  Most of the public is cynical about the whole thing, because they know scientists and doctors can't seem to get it right.  Plus, a great many folks just want a pill or some kind of easy fix so they can have the body and health they desire.  But that pill or easy fix always ends up looking like a lot of self-discipline, common sense, and work.  I have found that even more people have an allergy to these things (especially when considering it for the long term.) If you want to know what works use common sense and think about what works for those who developed physiques and fitness levels over time. The common sense part of weightloss is simple: Eat Less and Do More.  And mainly EAT LESS. In general, American's eat too much.  While plenty claim to eat healthful foods, they still eat to much of them.  If someone managed to eat 10,000 calories worth of green vegetables everyday, it's still likely they'd end up overweight.  Yes, you can have too much of a good thing.  Portion control is a fancy politically correct way of saying take half of what you are served, and put it in a to-go bag for tomorrow or for the homeless guy on your way from the restaurant. Besides the divide and conquer method, here are some more simple tricks to eat less: Drink water before you eat.  And lots of it.  And if you want... drink some more while you eat. Throw out your giant plates and bowls and silverware.  Only use smaller dishes and utensils.  It will help your eyes deceive your stomach. Only eat if you are actually hungry.  Sounds too simple right?  Think about all the times you eat when you are bored or being social.  It's not like your body knows that that food didn't really matter to you.  They are calories regardless of your emotions, thoughts, or mindfulness. Satisfy your taste receptors not stretch receptors.   Basically two things make you feel satiated ("full"):  1. fat receptors and 2. stretch receptors.  Stretch receptors respond to the volume of contents in your belly.  If you are craving some calorie dense sugary food, then first drink some water and have some real, nutritious food and then allow yourself to have a taste of what you were craving.  Your tastebuds can't tell the difference between a lot of ice cream and a little ice cream. Rethink food.  Yes, this involves a lot of mental work, and it's not easy for many Americans.  The main point is to dehypnotize yourself from your old (unhealthy) patterns regarding food, and rehypnotize yourself for new healthful associations with food.  For instance, if you are a sugar addict and diabetic ( a very bad combination) you know you need to stop consuming sugar, so you MUST train your mind to think of sugar as so bad for you, you would never have do it.  How?  Would you ever do heroin?  Or would you, yourself, literally eat your foot off your leg?  NO!  Why?  It's too painful, too scary, too gross, too horrific...  Yes all those reasons.  Now realize that doing sugar (think of it like a drug - stop saying "eating") is for you like doing heroin - it will not work out well.  For many diabetics, it may mean having their feet amputated.   But rather than thinking of it in a sterile surgical way, realize that you are eating your feet off when you do sugar.  Make it graphic and painful.  Make the pain override the pleasure.  The more painful, the more horrendous, the more disgusting - THE BETTER! Some time ago I wrote a book that was never published titled "What Your Doctor Doesn't Know and Your Trainer Won't Tell You... And Vice Versa."  I'm going to look into publishing that again.  But for now, let's just talk about the basic premise behind that book. Odds are your doctor doesn't know nutrition.  Keep in mind, obesity is a new medical problem relative to human history.  He or she received little (if any) education regarding diet for all their hours of medical school.  What they did learn is often antiquated information and not even applicable to many people today.  For one thing, today's American population is sedentary and eats prepared and processed food in ways never imagined before.   What I was taught in my medical training was basically from the 1950's (I was in college from the early to late 90's).  Remember these are the same intellectual giants whose medical training led them to believe exercise was bad, and weightlifting makes a person "muscle-bound."  Also, remember these are modern concerns.  Only 100 years ago many Americans were concerned about having enough food... not too much. Unfortunately, getting diet and nutrition advice from your doctor is about as reliable as getting medical advice from the engineer who designed his stethoscope.   He may have learned something along the way, but it's unlikely he's actually has experience and expertise regarding the subject. So what about your personal trainer? Doesn't he/she do this for a living and therefore have experience and expertise?  Besides, aren't trainers extremely well built... They must know a lot about how to lose weight and look great.  Right? Wrong, not necessarily. On the one hand, we are fortunate to have an unregulated fitness industry.  Almost anyone can be a trainer.  Almost anyone can claim to be a nutritionist.  Yes, I know there are those who actually have degrees in nutrition and dietetics from accredited universities (i.e. Registered Dietitian Nutritionist "RND".)  Most of these folks are either doing research or working for hospitals doing specialized medicinal diets.  The dreadlocked girl at Whole Foods whose tag reads "Nutritionist" is probably not one of those people. And trainers?I've been professionally training people since I was 16 years old (like I said, it's an unregulated industry - anyone can do it.)  So now I have more that 23 years of experience (plus undergraduate and graduate degrees in health related fields) and let me tell you what your trainer probably won't. Training and exercise is at most a 10% determining factor in how you look. First, we are 100% beholden to our genetics.  Some folks were born to be thin, others not so much.  But thankfully, we can do a lot to influence our appearance beyond genetics. Another factor that is a huge determinant are our hormones.  Unfortunately, they still have not figured out a truly healthful way of manipulating these for our benefit either... There are always repercussions. Since we can't easily manipulate our DNA or hormones, and exercise is at most 10% of why we look the way we look... What are we to do? The next most important factor which we can actually have an affect on is our diet.  The food you consume is probably around 80% of the determining factor regarding your appearance.  Everything from body shape to muscle tone to even skin and hair issues are deeply affected by your diet. Your trainer will probably not make this abundantly clear because it makes him less necessary.  The truth is he is not necessary as a "fitness expert" or "exercise physiologist".  The trainers primary function is to make sure you show up and don't get hurt.  That's about it.  Hopefully, he will educate you and teach you knew human tricks and help you get stronger.  But really, trainers are there as leverage to make sure you get off your butt and do some kind of activity. By the way, just because exercise is only 10% of your looks (at most), that doesn't mean it is not extremely important.  IT IS!  Just not for weightloss or looks.  Exercise is important for cardio-pulmonary reasons and psycho-emotional reasons, beyond the obvious musculo-skeletal reasons. And if you're curious... I leave the remaining factor of 10% to account for lifestyle (i.e. stress, work, family, sleep, partying, etc.) ***Don't try to add DNA, hormones, exercise, diet, and lifestyle to understand a total.  Just focus on what you can control: Diet is 80%, Exercise is 10%, and Lifestyle is 10% regarding change in your body's shape. So there you have the big secrets revealed! Trainers are largely unnecessary (regarding training you to change your body), and doctors are basically uninformed on diet and nutrition (again, especially regarding weightloss.) If you really want to change your body: Figure out what is realistic for you.  If you are a short, curvy, overweight woman, you will not look like Gisele.  You will look like you only smaller.  Set realistic, measurable, and time bound goals. Focus on improvements.  Just like small incremental growth in your retirement funds will make you wealthy eventually, so too with weightloss.  Slow, steady and methodical weightless is the way towards creating a better body and life.  The fast approach pretty much always back fires (again just like "fast money.") Eat with your mind and not your emotions.  Ask "Am I really hungry?"  If not, then just don't eat.  Don't worry you can still watch TV or converse with people.  You can even go to a restaurant, just make sure that they bring you a to-go box so you won't feel guilty about "wasting" the food you didn't eat.  You can taste without devouring.  And you can be satisfied without getting "full." Focus on eating nutrient dense foods.  I am not big on telling people what to eat and what to avoid.  Except I do have some basics. It should actually be food.  Not some food like product, that tastes good.  (ex. cookies, cheetos, candy) Develop a hatred of sugar.  I hate drugs.  I would never do drugs.  I think of sugar like a drug... because it is a drug.  It wreaks havoc on your mind.  It wreaks havoc on your insulin levels.  Therefore it wreaks havoc on your cardiovascular system (more on this some other time).  And perhaps worse than all this, Sugar makes you want more sugar.   It is addictive.  And it is destructive. Focus on eating protein and fats at every meal, while avoiding carbs.  Ah, yes.  The truth comes out.  I am low-carb guy myself.  How could it be?  Experience and education.  Before there was Atkins there was Vince.  Vince Gironda owned the first gym in the west coast, aptly named "Vince's Gym".  I started training there the summer I turned 13.  Vince and Nick really taught me more about diet and nutrition than I ever learned in college.  Vince was the one who convinced me that diet is 80% of how we look.  He is also the one who understood carbohydrates were not necessary for the human body, and actually made people fat.  And here's the thing about Vince and Nick... they were pretty much always right!  It would take science more than 50 years to confirm what they had already understood.  Regardless, these guys knew there stuff without university research.  Why?  Because they had to.  They did not use drugs.  They did not have great genetics.  So when they wanted to improve their physique they had to do the hard way... through work and discipline.  They had truth, curiosity, and intelligence on their side.  Vince was always trying to figure things out to see if it really worked.  Plus, there was the element of necessity.  Vince and Nick trained so many of the old Hollywood talent it was mind blowing.  They had to know how to get fat people thin, and thin guys muscular.  And they had to do it all without drugs.  Did people use drugs who trained there? Sure.  Joe Weider sent a young and promising (though chubby) Arnold Schwarzenegger to Vince to lose his "baby fat", basically as soon as he arrived from Austria. Why? Because Vince really knew what he was talking about and told you what to do regarding both diet and exercise. Don't talk yourself into it.  How many times do people talk themselves into eating poorly because it tastes good, or just for tonight, or what ever rationalization people come up with.   If you can talk yourself into, then you can talk yourself out of it.  But you need to be prepared to argue.  Write out all the excuses (a.k.a. "reasons") you eat ONLY Do what you can and will do for a lifetime.   Unfortunately many people do temporary diets, and then expect to go back to their old ways and be fine.  That never works out well.  Start small and adjust progressively.  Own the idea that you are changing your lifestyle and it's something that must be done.  Make it a must.  Celebrate your incremental triumphs.  And develop joy from your new will and discipline. Know that all the infomercials for exercise equipment or DVDs all include a DIET PLAN! Know that excess caloric input compared to caloric output (energy in vs. energy out) makes you fat!  Think of fat as stored energy.  You want to set up your body chemically to use fat for energy.  Which leads to my next point: Know that carbohydrates and particularly high glycemic carbs (i.e. Sugars in all its forms: sucrose, fructose, syrup, etc.) are the other major factor in your diet that make you fat.  So long as you are not starving yourself, your body does not need carbohydrates. Know that most doctors did not get adequate training or education regarding diet and weightloss. Know that most trainers will not tell you how vital a proper diet is for your weightloss.  It is not in their interest, and many really don't understand the mechanisms for losing body fat. Know that of all the factors that determine your body's shape, the one thing you have the most control over will also have the greatest impact on your body's shape...  That is your DIET.   Link to understanding carbohydrates and why they are not necessary - click here.

By Jsjsjs1111 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons While having discussions among friends I've hearing a recurring theme. "Religion is the cause of much of the evil in our world." When I ask them to elaborate and give examples, they come up with the most obvious first: Radical Islam:  ISIS, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Fatah, Iran, Al-Qaeda, on and on. Okay, so lets move beyond the low hanging fruit. Any non-Muslim examples? Answer: "Sure.  Hateful ban on gay marriage.  Pro-life is anti-woman.  Anti-science creationism. "  Basically, it comes down to the notion that the Religious Right are fascist totalitarians conspiring to take away freedoms, rights, and intelligence. These are pretty typical answers from those who are self identified as secular, non-religious people, of which I myself was for much of my life.  But, though I was an atheist, I did not believe religion, nor money, nor greed, nor anything like that was the root of evil.  It seemed like evil was a choice, and man can choose to act evil or not... regardless of their religion (or lack of), money (or lack of), or any other factor.  Ultimately it came down to values.  Regardless of my insistence that values was the determining factor and not religion (nor class, race, sex, etc.) my fellow secularist held fast to their beliefs. In high school and college I debated these issues regularly with a variety of people, and I would frame different arguments and debate either side.   Typically the  thoughtful "believers" had better arguments, than the thoughtful agnostics and atheists.  At times it seemed permissible to allow other people to use the "religion is evil" argument when it served me in a public debate, but privately we would discuss why I found their premise wrong and detrimental. My spiel went something like this: "Look, you should not try to argue that religion is evil or the root of evil, because it is too easy to refute.  Are there religious people who commit evil? Yes.  Are there nonreligious people who commit evil? Yes.  Are there acts of evil that have no connection with any religion what-so-ever?  Yes.  Do you really believe that man did not begin to act evil until religion?  Of course not.  Do you really think that were we to have some kind of cosmic white-out that erased religion from all aspects of human history there would be no evil... or even less evil? No.  So, let's just drop that cliche as an argument against God or religion." Now keep in mind, those were my thoughts from my high school and college years as a struggling atheist.   Why?  It has nothing to do with me being intelligent or special... I'm average at best.  No the main thing is I strive for intellectual honesty and I welcome challenging ideas.  I did not only read atheist philosophers.  I read C.S. Lewis and Maimonides as well.  I listened to people like Dennis Prager who had intellectually sound discussions regarding God and religion.  And I valued truth over my beliefs or agenda. Most of the people I knew then and know today who are outspoken atheists live in an intellectual bubble.  They only read Bertrand Russel, Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, or the like.  While they like to think of themselves as contrarians they don't engage the myriad brilliant authors who hold the opposing view.  It is painful.   "Why won't you read just one theist for every 5 atheists?"  I would ask.  The typical answer, "Because there is nothing intelligent coming from believers." It is the same answer I heard from liberals in college who would never even consider reading a conservative essay or book.  They completely dismiss the other side as "unintelligent."  How open minded is that?  Do liberals really think Thomas Sowell or George Gilder are not intelligent?  Do atheists really believe Maimonides or Abraham Joshua Heschel were not intelligent?  I don't know what they really believe, but whatever it is - their default setting is "If you don't agree with me, my university, or research studies, then you are unintelligent and are to be dismissed."  It's just sad and painful. So, let's try to take an objective look at the alternative.  What would the world be like without any religion? First lets get clear on what "religion" is. While religion is difficult to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system" (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973).  ~ Source Wikipedia  So broadly speaking, A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.  ~ (ibid) Since religion is simply an organized system of ideas relating the human experience to some kind of organized system of existence, then a world void completely of religion would necessarily be chaos. In other words, no religion of any sort means no structure, no organized system, and no standards or rules of behavior or consequences.  It would be the truest form of anarchy. This is actually how Genesis describes the creation of the world. Gen. 1:2  Now the earth was formless and empty... והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃ tohu vavohu:  Everything was without form and void. You could understand this as "without any organization and empty of value"... a world without religion. Ironically, people talk about the far right extremist and the religious right totalitarianism, but they don't understand that the further right a person goes, the less government power they desire.  Hence the extreme right is anarchy (a world without religion or government), and the extremely left is totalitarianism (as the further left one moves on the political spectrum - more government power is desired.)  Interestingly both extremes must hold a fundamental belief to justify their politics: Man is basically good.  The right wing anarchist believes that man can rule himself and needs no outside influence, and the left wing totalitarian believes that man can rule man in a benevolent and upright manner.  I suppose either could also have no care regarding human goodness, and just rely on the strongest surviving.  So it could be argued that both the anarchist and the totalitarian have a similar religion where man is god and determines the system (either for himself alone or for everyone else.) Now if you think the world would be a better place were it to be in total chaos and anarchy, then we are clear on where we differ.  But if you don't think anarchy is a good thing, then maybe we can agree that the world is better off with religion... but we may still not agree on which religion. Maybe you like the religion of the Left.  As Dennis Prager has stated "Leftism is the most dynamic religion."  What does he mean by that?  Well, Leftism is a religion, as stated above, but not one that we can easily define or clarify.  The religiosity of Leftism is constantly changing and morphing to fit its agenda and keep people interested.  Hence the manipulation of language and name changes though out the years. But there are some fundamentals of Leftism: It believes in government power (i.e. More government influence and power is good.)  It believes in rule of law (i.e. Since the other religions are hogwash, man is to regulated by a strict rule of law to ensure politically correct behavior.) It believes in limited freedoms (i.e. Criticisms of Leftist ideology means you are a "hater" and perhaps your free speech is criminal in nature.) .  Actually, there are many beliefs (dogmas) one must hold in order to be a devout Leftist.   The main one though is that your values and standards come from Leftist ideology and not any other religion.  This is why we find so many "Jews" on the left, and so much influence of the Left on religions in general. People in general are inherently religious, but especially Jews.  We Jews need a religion like a fish needs water.  But unfortunately many Jews don't choose Judaism as there religion.  Rather they choose Leftism or some other "ism" (environmentalism, feminism, Marxism, etc.)  All these "ism"s are modern pseudo-religions.  They give people a structure of beliefs and a like-minded culture based on those beliefs with lifestyle standards built in.  Understanding that, we can easily understand why so many Jews are on the Left even though many of the ideologies are directly opposed to Judaism (and even the state of Israel.) So getting back to the original question: Would the world be better of without religion? Since I think anarchy would be disastrous and lead humanity into a descent beyond my imagination. No! The world would not be better if it had no religion. And if you are of the opinion that Left wing ideology, secularism, humanism, or any other modern form of religion would be a better alternative to the classical notion of Ethical Monotheistic religion (One God created everything and demands we act ethically towards one another), then please explain your hypothesis (you can do so in the comment area below.) Bear in mind that every attempt man has made thus far to rid society of God based morality has led to a nightmarish existence.  Whether it be Mao and his torturous slaughter of the Chinese, or Hitler and the Holocaust... Every time man tries to rules as if he were a god tremendous tragedy ensues. Below is from the HuffPo article I read from: In his hilarious analysis of The 10 Commandments, George Carlin said to loud applause, "More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason," and many take this idea as an historical fact. When I hear someone state that religion has caused most wars, though, I will often and ask the person to name these wars. The response is typically, "Come on! The Crusades, The Inquisition, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11. Need I name more?" Well, yes, we do need to name more, because while clearly there were wars that had religion as the prime cause, an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone. History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion. These wars were for territorial conquest, to control borders, secure trade routes, or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In fact, the ancient conquerors, whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman, openly welcomed the religious beliefs of those they conquered, and often added the new gods to their own pantheon. Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. And the Mongol Asian rampage, which is thought to have killed nearly 30 million people, had no religious component whatsoever.   And how does all this compare to "non-religious warfare": Most modern wars, including the Napoleonic Campaign, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, the Russia Revolution, World War II, and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, were not religious in nature or cause. While religious groups have been specifically targeted (most notably in World War II), to claim that religion was the cause is to blame the victim and to misunderstand the perpetrators' motives, which were nationalistic and ethnic, not religious. Similarly, the vast numbers of genocides (those killed in ethic cleanses, purges, etc. that are not connected to a declared war) are not based on religion. It's estimated that over 160 million civilians were killed in genocides in the 20th century alone, with nearly 100 million killed by the Communist states of USSR and China. While some claim that Communism itself is a "state religion" -- because it has an absolute dictator whose word is law and a "holy book" of unchallenged rules -- such a claim simply equates "religion" with the human desire for power, conformance, and control, making any distinctions with other human institutions meaningless. (source: Rabbi Alan Lurie Huffington Post) So in the final analysis, when we set aside our agendas, misinformation, and preconceived notions we find that: Man is a religious creature.  One way or another we will formulate a system to rule and explain our existence. A human world void of religion would be anarchy and chaos, and cease to have any semblance of morality. There are good religions which promote good values and ethical behavior, as well as try to prevent destructive values and immoral behavior. There are bad religions which promote bad values and evil behavior, and go against any opposition. When these collide we see a religious war.  But most wars are far more about power, land, money, and materiality than spirituality. Religion does not guarantee anything.  Neither does being without religion. There are good people who are nonreligious.  There are bad people who are religious.  And vice versa. Ultimately it comes down to a choice on what you choose to believe: A) People are basically good B) People are basically flawed (both good and evil) If you believe A) then you're religion will tend to either be based in Leftism or Libertarianism. If you believe B) then you're religion will tend to be based on the traditional religious notion based on Ethical Monotheism.    

***WARNING*** This Podcast is about violence and so I used some graphic language in describing violence, and some of that has been transcribed in this blog.   What do you think about violence? Let me paint a picture for you and you can think about it. Imagine a young single mother has just put her child down for an afternoon nap.  She makes a snack and sits to relax and watch some television.  As she is sitting on her couch in her apartment, her door is kicked open and a strange man comes in and begins beating her senselessly.  As she screams for her life, the man shoves a screw driver into her throat. At this point the story gets worse because now the man hears the crying child and heads towards her room.  But I can't go there without getting physically ill. This story makes you sick as well right? It's a gruesome and disturbing scenario. (NOTE: If that does not disturb you... then you should really seek some professional help. Seriously.) But why does this make us sick?  Is it the violence? Let's see. Now I want you to imagine the same young mother doing the same daily things. And the same man busting into her apartment.  But this time she throws her entire bodyweight into kicking the man in his testicles, causing one to rupture.  As he buckles in pain, she scrapes her thumbs across the man's nose plunging her her thumbs into his eye sockets.  As he screams and attempts to break her grip, our young mom sees the screw driver she had just used to fix her daughter's toy.  She picks it up and repeatedly drives it into the man's neck and eye until he stops.  She and her daughter are safe, and the cops are dealing with what's left of the criminal. How does that make you feel? I don't know about you, but I'm cheering for this young single mom in the second scenario and glad the criminal was thoroughly defeated. Why? Similar violence occurred, if not worse in the second scenario. So it's not the violence that bothers us. It is EVIL.  Evil, asocial violence, makes us cringe.  Sociopaths, rapists, dictators, murders, kidnappers, all the evil behaviors that people do that cause us to worry about our own safety or the safety of our loved ones disturbs us. And the only way to stop EVIL is to fight it, relentlessly. One way to do so is through violence. Violence is just a tool. Yes, a tool... just like a hammer. A hammer is a tool and can be used to build magnificent structures when wielded by someone who is intent to build with it, or it can be a destructive tool when a demolition crew is intent on destroying.  The hammer is neither good nor bad... it is just an instrument - a tool. But maybe you argue I'm over simplifying it.  You argue, violence is more complicated and esoteric. It's not a simple material tool like a hammer.  Okay then let's compare it to the act of sexual intercourse.  Done in one scenario sex is "love making" and commendable.  But done in a totally different scenario it is "rape" and detestable.   Same basic action with very different results. Violence done to stop evil is good, courageous, and commendable.Violence done with mal intent is evil, cowardly, and must be stopped. CONTEXT MATTERS!  The context of the violence makes all the difference. Trust me, how you think about violence will make all the difference if you were to unfortunately find yourself attacked.  Most people will not get violent even when threatened with death, let alone pain or fear.  Why because while they may try to defend themselves, they won't allow themselves to get brutally violent like the mom I described. Am I promoting violence?  Yes BUT only when it is absolutely necessary. I hate seeing the bumper sticker "War is not the answer."  No, if the question is "what is 2+2?" or "What do you when you're driving and someone cuts you off?".. Then war is not the answer.  But when war is the answer - IT IS THE ONLY ANSWER!  "How do we stop Nazi's from murdering millions?" Answer: Victory through WAR and only WAR! Same is true with real violence.  No, violence is not ALWAYS the answer.  But when brutal, overwhelming violence is the answer - it is the ONLY ANSWER! That is why this is an ultimate issue. I am passionate about people understanding violence.  We need to understand that it can be done to any of us, and any of us can have a fighting chance if we do violence back.  The more targeted and overwhelming our violence is the better our chances of survival. Seriously folks, with what is going on the world I want to do what I can to at least break the trance many people are in and help them understand the necessary usefulness of violence for your own survival. Don't let violence just happen to you and overwhelm you.  Get prepared and train yourself to be the one who will overwhelm your attacker with devastating violence. I am not saying you need to go sign up for martial arts or Krav Maga.  Believe me, I've been fighting and doing martial arts since I was a kid.  In a truly violent situation martial arts will often get you killed. Why? One they train in a social setting, using antisocial violent scenarios, and using non-injurious or life threatening techniques. Sticking your thumb through a man's eye and digging it out is not a technique you will find in 99.9% of dojos or training halls. Why? Well, first of all if you are training at a dojo or dedicated training space they need to make rent and pay themselves.   Training folks how to dismember and cause serious injury due to grotesque actions is not good for business.  That's why people like me train people privately or due seminars.  (You can keep reading as I have no seminar to plug and I am not accepting any new clients... this is not an advertisement!) No, if you want to have fun, learn some super cool techniques, earn a belt, or fight in a cage...  MMA or whatever you do is great... BUT it will leave you terribly prepared for real violence or worse...  It will cause you to engage in a situation you have no business being in. I have seen this more often than I'd like to say. Example: Some college guys are out having some drinks in Austin, TX.  After shooting some pool they are ready to go home, but one guy is chatting up a girl.   Of course, the girl's boyfriend catches this and heads over.  Now our college friend and his buddies all train in MMA (shoot fighting specifically - this was in the late '90's).  Plus, they are all very well built and pretty big guys in general.  The boyfriend however is a short, slight hispanic. After a very brief exchange of obscenities, the guy hustling up the girlfriend takes a swing and hits the little Mexican.  Then all hell breaks loose. The boyfriend who was just hit was a coke dealer and a gang member.  Some of his gang friends were there as well.  As you can guess, they all joined in for a game they are familiar with but our young college boys had never played. I'm not going to go into graphic detail but knives, pool balls, and bottles were used on one side while the other tried to fight the only way they could imagine - fair. Smash cut to the end.  Police arrive, but the gang members had already left.  Our college guys survived, but were severely injured and taken to the hospital.  I don't know anything more than that. My point? Martial Arts training gives many people a false sense of power and security. The violent attacker doesn't need any training to be highly effective against a trained combatant. Most people don't really understand how fast violence can escalate and become lethal. With the high tension I am seeing in people, I wanted to issue a warning and get folks thinking a second time regarding violence. Whether or not you are trained does not matter.   Your physical size does not matter.  Your abilities do not matter. Not to sound corny, but what really matters is your MIND.  Your mind matters because that is the one thing that will determine whether or not you will act with such terrifying force that you throw your entire being into a man's eyeball.  Our minds truly are our most powerful weapons.  They can come up with all kinds of violence. Criminals and terrorists do it all the time.  If you want to have a fighting chance you need to allow your mind to get violent as well.  Done in the right context, violence is the key to survival.  Remember, violence is just a tool.  And used properly it can save your life and the lives of other good people. If you think, "I could never shove my finger into the eye of another man and dig it out as he screams in terror and pain."  Then, my question is "What if you knew that guy had a gun and was intent on shooting you and then raping your wife and daughter as you lay there bleeding out on the floor, helpless to do anything for them?"  Sadly and tragically, that is how certain evil animals disguised as humans act in our world. Again, to be clear! I am only speaking of using violence when it is absolutely necessary.  And when violence is necessary it is the only solution. Before you write and ask "How will I know?"  Let me relate something I learned from Tim Larkin and Chris Ranck-Buhr.  They had the best answer I've heard when asked about this.  Here are two example scenarios to practice: “The drunk just flipped me off and told me to F*** myself, so then I took my thumb and I dug his eyeball right out of his skull.” “As I turned, the gangbanger stabbed me, cutting me in the ribs, so then I took my thumb and I dug his eyeball right out of his skull.”  Seems simple and obvious, correct?  Use some common sense and know that most situations are antisocial situations where people are being rude, discourteous, and/or narcissistic.  On the tragically unfortunate and hopefully rare occurrence there are asocial situations where a violent criminal has no care for social norms, standards, rules, or any regard for your life or welfare. Most violent situations were antisocial violence and originate with words or posturing.  They are AVOIDABLE, and should be avoided.  Just use what ever social tools you have to avoid it, swallow your pride, and walk away (though stay ready.)  Antisocial violence is usually loud, dramatic, and draws a crowd.  School yard fights are anti-social violence.  School yard shootings however are A-social violence. In asocial violence, the violence is unavoidable.  You have no vote whether or not violence is going to occur... It's going to occur regardless.  There is no negotiating.  Talking your way out of a asocial violence will be as effective as talking your way out of moving bullet heading for your brain matter. Quote from the podcast: Negotiating with a serial killer is like arguing with a bullet: if it’s coming your way, words are not going to deflect it. If someone has decided to stab you to death, capitulation only makes their work easier. ~ Tim Larkin, Chris Ranck-Buhr I assume if you listen to a podcast like Ultimate Issues or read these show notes and transcripts then you are probably not the kind of person who thinks violently.  But when it's necessary you must.  You have a choice of whether you will simply allow violence to be done to you, or you can be the one doing the violence to your opponent.  It is a choice you can make and an ultimate issue you should think about. As I said in the podcast I have more opinions and information regarding the issue of violence so this is just part one for now.   If you have more interest, I am including some links to help further articulate the message. Some links from mentions in Podcast: 5 Second Survival Free Membership Defining Violence Target Focus Training TFT Book  (if nothing else... start by reading this)Warning: Graphic Video of what violence looks like: And Here is an example of someone good using violence. 

In the last episode I discussed various hysterias (if that is the plural form... is there a plural for hysteria?), and why they are an ultimate issue (a main point being they distract from real evil and high risk threats). So, I figured in this episode I should tackle WHY people choose hysteria as a mode of operation. I suppose I should first admit my assumption.  Yes, I think hysteria is typically a choice.  More importantly the thinking and behavior associated with hysteria is definitely a choice.  I'll use a current hysteria, Ebola, as an example.  The press has done there job in creating a big dramatic story out of a local tragedy.  Ebola is awful and tragic for Africans and anyone who happened to have contracted it and died from Ebola.  But as I said last week, the press is silent on Malaria or Tuberculosis or diarrhea in Africa - though any of those could kill more Africans in a day compared to the 4 month list of casualties due to Ebola.  So the press decided to report Ebola as a scary predator disease that will spread like wildfire... and there's nothing we can do about it.  AND the people reading or hearing the news also decided to not think for themselves, and question the validity of the news story.   People choose what they believe and who they trust.   Admittedly, some are more thoughtful and discerning than others, but to have so many people willfully give up their common sense, ability to reason, and think beyond stage one is rather disheartening. Whether the hysteria be Ebola, global warming, or racism in America - the root issue boils down to the same principle, Human psychology.  Human psychology is rather simple and easy to predict and manipulate if you just know the rules of the game. First of all humans are human and not Vulcan.  The fictional Vulcans of Star Trek are hyper rational and logic based race.  While they have emotions, they are trained to not be guided by them.  There is even a Vulcan system of Kolinahr which basically purges one of emotions and allows them to become a purely logical being.  But alas, this is not the ways of humans.  We are emotional and logical creatures.   However, similar to Vulcans we too get to decide which will dominate and guide our behavior - reason or emotions. Let's face it, Ebola, Global Warming, and New World Order conspiracies are highly charged with emotions.  They are "shark bite" stories.  Graphic images and tragic scenarios lure your eyes and heart into a trance, and the next thing you know... BOOM! You are caught up in the hysteria.  The hysteria that people needless fall into are at best much ado about nothing or much ado about very little.  Yet, they consume many finite resources, time, and brain power trying to "fix" problems that are not that big.  For instance, we have American leadership who believe the greatest threat to America is Global Warming.  Not terrorism, not the national debt, not Russia, not Iran, not open borders, not a failing educational system, not asocial violence... No, global warming is what's going to get us.  Maybe not this year or next... but in 500 years watch out!  They'll be screaming "I told ya so!"  And because they are so hysterical and convinced this is a real threat, the Federal government is spending their limited time and money (and intelligence) coming up with new legislation to regulate citizens as well as industries (which just further hurts the economy), rather than focusing on balancing the budget and just stopping the massive hemorrhaging of money.  Or perhaps they could secure the borders.  How about immigration reform?  I typically don't want to government to do much, but if they are going to do something it better result in a good outcome (rather than just feeling good.) Emotions are powerful and can't be denied (nor should they be.)  Emotions should be understood, and only in certain personal circumstances should they be your guide. So lets try to understand why we do what we do... even when it is detrimental.  One of my beliefs is that nearly everyone's negative behavior is rooted in positive intent.  Of course, intent only gets you so far.  But it's important to understand most folks are not evil, rather they may be naive or misguided. So when I reference the press or a politician, and the hysteria they defend... I am not saying they are evil or doing it to cause harm.  Actually, I assume their actions are rooted in positive intent. Another belief I have is in regards to Human Needs Psychology. Everyone, from every culture, from every generation operates off six basic psychological needs. As taught by Tony Robbins and Cloe Madanes they are: Certainty: The need to feel safe, secure, or certain about things Variety: The need to feel change, uncertain, or challenged Significance: The need to feel important, special, or needed. Love/Connection: The need to feel a part of a community, family, or bond to another. Growth: The need to feel development emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, or physically. Contribution: The need to feel we have or are more than enough and have something to offer others. Once you really understand how these six needs play out in your life, you will also be able to see how others are also driven by them.  In general, all human behavior and beliefs can be linked directly to one or more of these six needs.  And it doesn't matter if the behavior is "good" or "bad", people act because of these needs. So how does hysteria work within the framework of Human Needs Psychology. Let's start with the most obvious, VARIETY.  Remember that if you have too much certainty you will get bored and seek out some excitement and surprises.  You need to add some variety  to your unvaried, extremely certain life.  Hysteria is an easy way to do so.  Suddenly you don't know if your Big Mac is contaminated with Mad Cow disease.  Or did that mosquito have West Nile?  As odd as it may sound to some of you, people actually enjoy the uncertainty hysterias bring.  Hysteria can shift a boring life into a challenging and exciting  life - never knowing when disaster will strike.  Hysteria creates uncertainty in an otherwise certain and routine life. Does hysteria fulfill any other needs? You bet. Everyone needs to feel significant or special.  I find it fascinating how what start out as dietary restrictions become fads.  The most current one is "Gluten Free."  While I have family members who actually have been diagnosed with gluten allergies and have severe reactions when they consume gluten (so to be clear I am not dismissing gluten allergies/intolerances), I am also very wary of all  the people who now claim to need a gluten free diet.  Really?  You were just eating subways and pizza last year, and had no digestive or health problems... But this year you became allergic and can only eat gluten free?  Look I don't really care one way or the other (actually I'm grateful because the popularity has made it much easier for us to buy groceries - a few years ago it was rough.)  My point is that people who latch on to diet fads and hysterias feel significant and/or special.  When they go eat at restaurant they have to ask if this or that on the menu has gluten... and then explain the can't have gluten.  Or if they are going to a friends for a party, they need to make sure they request gluten free choices... again, because they are significant and special (but not so much so that they could just eat prior to going.) The reason I am on the diet fad thing, is because that is really where I see the hysteria - significance game played most often.  My theory is its due to the social aspect of eating, so its an easy way to show how special you are every time you eat which occurs every day and several times a day. Another scenario is in regards to the Global Warming hysteria.  How does some get significance through buying into anthropocentric climate catastrophe?  Cars.  While someone can claim they are buying a hybrid because it saves them money on gas... the math just doesn't add up.  First of all there are great cars (some I have owned) that get 40+ mpg on petrol.  I've had several Volkswagen diesels (TDI) that got over 40 mpg, and known were more than $5000 used cars.  Even new they are typically much cheaper than hybrids.  Or I could use my old Toyota ECHO as an example.  That car got just over 40 mpg and was not a hybrid.  The first Prius (hybrid) was basically an ECHO with a hybrid motor... and it cost about $15,000 more.  But it only got about 5 t0 10 more miles per gallon (the biggest difference being city driving).  Well sales apparently not so hot with the first generation Prius, so Toyota got smart and made a new one that looked nothing like the ECHO.  And that is still the Prius you basically see today.  Oh, and they got rid of the ECHO.  My point is that having a noticeably hybrid or electric vehicle is a way for folks to feel significant and special.  If car manufactures were to make hybrids or electric cars without any insignia or special designs... sales would likely fall as they would no longer be an overt status symbol. Are there any other needs fulfilled via hysteria?  Actually I can show example after example of how each psychological need could be met via hysteria.  For instance, Love/Connection: The hysteria over the environment creates a connected community of like minded individuals.  It has grown to the point that they love one another, and should you differ with them then you are a "denier" (akin to a holocause denier  I suppose.)  You really saw this with the Occupy Movement.  We all witnessed victim hysteria and the love/connection they satisfied as they culminated together to fight their conspiritorial "oppressors".    When pressed on what their purpose was, or even in hind-sight what they accomplished... once again we see the hysteria was much ado about nothing.  We also see they power of social proofing and confirmation bias.  Love and connection is a powerful need that cannot be underestimated. Growth is simple to see.  Look at the lives of many trust fund kids or super wealthy celebrities.  They're psychological need for growth is stymied by the lack of need to produce, so they try to achieve growth through their "awareness" of whatever hysteria is the current fad.  Ever notice how celebrities with little background or education in science become experts about disease, climate, or diet? By the way this is also an example of how hysteria fulfills the need for contribution.  The attention given to hysterias is staggering considering all the real and significant threats to peoples' existence.  People are giving time and money to fight Ebola, but not malaria or tuberculosis.  Why?  Because Ebola is a big, scary monster and a person can feel their contribution to fight Ebola is more significant than one for something as boring as malaria (even though Ebola has claimed probably around 1000 lives over the last five months versus the more than 500,000 African children every year who die of malaria.) What about Certainty? One of the weird parts of hysteria that I have noticed is that it lulls many people into a false sense of security.  For instance, people think that since they recycle and drive a hybrid, they are helping save the planet and are good people.  Maybe they are, maybe they are not... Look if someone irresponsibly abuses and trashes the environment or animals that person is a problem, but just because you care for the environment and love animals doesn't mean you are a good person.  The Nazi's were extremely eco-conscience and "green" building parks and animal sanctuaries when not engaged in slaughtering Jews.  Plus, Nazi's were against animal cruelty even banning vivisection on animals, though they performed vivisection (and worse) to Jews.  Just because you recycle, ride a bicycle, or drive a hybrid, don't be so certain it reflects your upright moral character. Also don't be so certain you are making any impact.  Even if we all reduced our "carbon footprint" to nearly zero, that would meaning nothing to our climate.  A volcano could erupt and blanket our skies for years, or any number of naturally occurring phenomena could occur and be disastrous at any moment.  Hurricanes, tornados, fires, earthquakes, and asteroids will continue to threaten our Earth despite your reduction in carbon emissions.  But regardless, for some environmentalists, that emotional need for certainty is fulfilled every time they plug in their car. I am NOT saying that hysteria fulfills all human needs for all people.  But I am saying that for some people, buying into hysteria fulfills one or more psychological needs.  The more needs a hysteria fulfills, the greater a person latches onto and commits themselves to the hysteria.  Also it become more difficult to convince them otherwise, as this would mean filling those needs through some other unknown means. Regardless, we must think with our minds and not be led astray by our eyes or hearts.  We must be diligent and guard how we go about satisfying our six psychological needs.  Ultimately, these needs should be fulfilled through worthwhile means... Doing the most good for ourselves as well as others.  While the intent maybe good, the outcome is more important.

Every week or month there is a new hysteria, and people love it.  Why? Why do people seem to actually enjoy and thrive on hysterical claims, conspiracy theories, and the like? And why does it seem like most if not almost all hysteria are based on false prophecy? Since I was a child, I have not only not been caught up hysterics... I actually have an aversion to hype and hysteria.  When people or the press go gaga for whatever the hysteria du jour is, I just assume they are making much to do about very little or much to do about nothing. The latest hysteria is Ebola. I hear about it everyday now, where as just a week or two ago it was a blip on the news radar.  Now that there have been over 800 deaths out of over 1500 cases in Africa... the media is treating this like a global pandemic waiting to wipe out humanity.  Why? While the 800 deaths are each individually tragic and should not be dismissed... To be clear, as I stated in the podcast, I am NOT dismissing in any way the tragedy of each individual death and any family's loss.  I am however dismissive of the hype and hysteria from the press and so many people.  Why hasn't the media been concerned about the other diseases that are more devastating in Africa which are on going? Here are some of the articles I mentioned: Michael Fumento's article from 2001 can be read here: "There is a crisis brewing in the world that we ignore at our peril. The Ebola virus is back, and it’s spreading." So declared the opening line of a December Business Week article: "Ebola Could Soon Be the West’s Problem, Too." Soon? Ebola fever is already sweeping the West. But this pathogen is hysteria. And clearly initial infection confers no immunity, because we’ve been through all this before. Five years ago, after an African epidemic in the Congo, the disease spawned the hit movie Outbreak, with an Ebola-like virus threatening to wipe out the United States, and a TV movie, Virus, starring Ebola itself. CNN gave us a special report, "The Apocalypse Bug," while Newsweek’s cover blared: "Killer Virus."   And this is from Michael Fumento's latest article in the NY Post: Here’s a rule of thumb about diseases: The rarer and less likely they are to kill you, the more hype they get. The New York Times ran more than 2,000 articles on SARS, which ultimately killed zero Americans. This is only the deadliest outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease because past ones were so tiny. At this writing, there have been 1,603 reported cases in Africa and 887 deaths. That’s too many. But every day about 600 sub-Saharan Africans die of tuberculosis, and contagious diarrhea claims the lives of 2,195 children, the vast majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria, syphilis, AIDS and probably dozens of other diseases each year kill Africans at higher rates than Ebola is killing right now. And, should Ebola come to America, it’s vanishingly unlikely to “break out.” Read the full article here. Here's a review of some of the hysterias many Americans have engaged in... Ebola Swine Flu Avian Flu Silicone Breast Implants DDT Second Hand Smoke Bullying Anorexia Fat Free Diet Carb Free Diet Gluten Free Diet Hunger in America Homelessness in America Marijuana Kills Global Cooling Global Warming Next Ice Age Climate Change Illuminati Elders Of Zion New World Order American Colonialism American Government Conspiracies in general etcetera... Generally speaking all of these hysterias have been much ado about very little or much ado about nothing! We need to get our heads screwed on right and start using some common sense.  Think rationally rather than emotionally. Yes!  There are real threats and real risks and real evils which could do great harm and even kill you and your loved ones.  That stuff I just listed above is not likely one of them if you live in America! In our own country we could focus on: Drunk Driving Fatherless Homes Out of Wedlock Birth High School Graduation Rates Heart Disease Addiction Asocial Violence If you want to help Africa, then start killing mosquitos.  Bring back DDT!  Send mosquito nets.  Use your money and brain power for actually doing good. You can go to 3rd world nations and provide wells for potable water. You can fight totalitarian governments who starve their people. There is so much good we can do, but instead the masses of people end up burning calories worrying about nonsense like a global pandemic of Ebola. Get it together.  Tuberculosis is far more virulent and rampant and NEAR!  But TB is boring so no one focuses on it. Focus on what DOES good rather than what FEELS good, and maybe we can start to significantly help people and save lives.

  Francesco Hayez [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.  The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Is the world catching fire or is it simply back to normal?  For most of human history mankind has narrowly survived.  Sure some individuals thrived as rulers, but the general populations suffered for their benefit.  Whether it was us killing each other, or disease, or the environment... It seems like mankind survived by some miracle or chance opportunity.  Then, there were brief moments of promise which seems to have culminated in the rise of the idea that is America. Suddenly with America, man had the most liberty ever in history.  Yes, America was/is imperfect but it is still the best hope for the world.  It is not about the land, or the people, but rather the ideas which have made and can continue to make America exceptionally good (i.e. Declaration of Independence, a constitutionally limited government, and the American Trinity "Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, and IN GOD WE TRUST"). The freedoms of America allowed innovation and production by diverse people with an incredible range of knowledge and abilities.  Yes, there have been primitive cultures who were technologically advanced... but 1) primarily the elite benefited from the technology, and there was rarely an opportunity of the workers to benefit 2) many cultures were specialized in their technology and lacked the variety 3) most cultures were solely focused on material advancement, while America has been focused on material and immaterial advancement (i.e. abolition of slavery, equal rights, voting rights, etc.) and  4) other advanced cultures simply wanted to conquer less advantaged cultures, while America has used its advancement to benefit others. America not only advanced technologically, but morally as well.  America was once a force fighting for goodness and liberty.  America was not going to be an isolationist or colonialist empire, rather America was going to be a liberating force for good beyond her own land.  Europe, Japan, and South Korea all ultimately benefited from America's victories in their wars.  Now things seem to be going back to normal. Another World War, epidemic disease, economic collapse, and even Biblical prophesy are actual news topics today.  In looking for a movie to watch the other night, my wife and I previewed a bunch of trailers and it seemed like 80% were either apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic based stories.  I am not sure if this current Zeitgeist has always been lurking in the deep waters of our culture, or if it is returning after a brief hiatus.   Either way, many people are fearful, faithless, and totally uncertain.  And all of that is very understandable. It is very easy to lose perspective about our own lives, our own futures, and our own state of minds.  Worse, people are more divided amongst themselves than they have been in many years.  And even more tragic, is what this division brings with it. And I think this divisiveness is a root to many of our problems. Why do people fight? Why do people hurt one another? When I read stories of terror or listen to the horrors of a Holocaust survivor I question "How can someone act that evil?  Why did they do that?" James Tissot [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Artist vision of the 2nd Temple before destruction In thinking about Tisha B'Av (9th of Av,which this year begins the evening of Aug 4, 2014 - On that day throughout Jewish history: 12 scouts calumny about the land of Israel, 1st Temple destroyed, 2nd Temple destroyed, destruction of Betar, and further destruction of Temple site... And then there have been more post Biblical tragedies associated with this day: Initiation of first crusade, Jews expelled from England, Jews expelled from France, Jews expelled from Spain, WW1 began, approval of "Final Solution" in Nazi Germany, mass deportation of Warsaw ghetto began, and as recently as 1994 there was the bombing at a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires), I am reminded of what the rabbis of the Talmud famously said regarding the destruction of the Second Temple on the 9th of Av 70 CE. The Temple was destroyed because of “sinat chinam.” literally "free hatred", or hatred for no reason. What do they mean by "sinat chinam"?  Literally it can mean "free hatred", but it is commonly understood as "baseless hatred" or "hatred for no reason."  Fascinating that the Sages would point to that as the reason for destruction.  By the way, the hatred was in reference to each other... Jew hating Jew.  What happened?  Why would that cause our destruction?  Haven't we always argued and quarreled as a nation? Well I think there is tremendous insight into the Sinat Chinam theory.  First of all, if there is "hatred for no reason", then there should also be in contrast "hatred for good reason" ("sinat sachar").  There are way to many baseless reasons people hate someone (i.e. skin color, religion, finance, etc.), but what are legitimate reasons to hate? The primary reason one person could legitimately hate another is due to evil actions.  Now how one person defines evil and another defines evil will be subjective (as not everyone recognizes the one objective morality from the one God who is the author of morality... which I have discussed at length in previous podcasts.)  Regardless, the only hatred for good reason would be due to evil acts.  The good person should hate the evil actions of another person.  And to the extent that one person is categorized as "good" due to their behavioral account, so to someone else may be labeled "evil" due to their behavior account. If you don't think a person should ever be labeled as "evil" due to their behavior, then you should be consistent and hold that no other person is "good" due to their behavior.  By that rationale, Hitler was as good or evil as Mother Theresa.  Or, the wife and mother who takes care of her dying husband and autistic child while keeping a smile on her face is morally equivalent to the the mother who drowns her children and accuses her husband. So assuming some people are evil and we are justified in our hatred of them, then how do rationalize our baseless hatred. Just because the Rabbis speak of baseless hatred 2000 years ago does not mean it no longer exists.  It still exists within the Jewish nation, and seemingly every other nation as well.  Not only within a people, but more the baseless hatred is directed outside their own. Why? Why does a person do this?  Why does a nation do this? In studying "Heichaltzu" (a maamar from 'Rashab', which as of the podcast and this transcript I have yet to complete and fully understand) I began to grasp a better understanding of why we do this. The simple and short answer is the term "yeshus." From Chabad.org, an excerpt from The Second Ladder Up: The Hebrew word “yeshus” is a concept in Torah difficult to define and translate. The word connotes a perverse sense of self, an over-embellished focus on one’s needs to the exclusion of those of others, feelings of inflated centrality. The word describes an exaggerated sense of ego and heightened self importance. This ego and self important attitude is a chief reason why baseless hatred occurs. If one person can't stand another person for no real reason, it is because their ego sees their Self as better, superior, or more significant than the other person.  Not only that, their ego is directing their mind to find all the differences between their Self and every other self that exists. Divisiveness becomes the mode of operation for the person whose mind is driven by "yeshus".  Every person who is not themselves or within their own venn diagram of life is the "other."  Their ego only sees the differences between their Self and every other person. Understanding that state of mind you can see how some one can easily go from view another person as not only "different", but worse inferior, or even worse non-human.  Once that happens, evil actions are inevitably going to occur. So whether it was tribes in Africa who saw each other as the "other", or the Nazi's against the Jews, or North Korea versus South Korea, all one needs to understand is that once a person, or people see themselves as inherently different from another, then the hostilities and warring can began. And of course, this happens within a people as well.  The Jews hated each other for no real reason at the end of the Second Temple, and today many American's hate one another because of politics.  America is more divided today, than any other time in my lifetime and perhaps my parents lifetime.  Thankfully, the hatred is confined to words and emotions.  But we are in a Cold Civil War nonetheless.  We should learn from history and understand that baseless hatred does not end well for anyone. So what is the solution? If baseless hatred is caused by the self-important ego's intellectual determination that "I" am different from "you", then we must find the antidote.  The antidote is based on the same poison... the intellect.  Yes, the intellect is correct in determining one person is in many ways different from another person, but the intellect can be used further to realize that in other ways one person is exactly like another. How we are different is self evident, but how are we exactly the same? The simple spiritual answer is we are all created in the Lord's image.  Every person is a spark of the Divine.  Every person comes from the same exact Divine origin.  Spiritually speaking we are all connected and entwined leading back to the same exact Source. Imagine someone upsets your ego (e.g. they cut you off in traffic).  Your ego could get you irate enough to act hateful towards that person, or  humility could take over and help your mind further realize that person was made by the same Creator as you.  Would that cause you to think and act different? Maybe you are not spiritual, as I was not for many years.  So how else are exactly the same? Life.  We are both trying to get through this human life and all the problems associated with it.  Do you realize that your life and problems are not unique to you in essence?  Yes you have specific people, job, or circumstances to your problems, but everyone has problems to one degree or another.  Our problems are not the same, but we are all the same in that our lives have myriad problems. What if you were to imagine what problems that driver who cut you off may be facing?  Would that change your behavior? Utilizing our intellect to think beyond how we are different from one another and realizing how similar we all are is a key to unlocking the chains of baseless hatred in human civilization. This is why so many great teachers such as Rabbi Akiva or the Dalai Lama site the idea expressed by God in the Torah "to love the stranger like yourself, I am the Lord." One way many people read that is that we should feel love for other just like we love our own Self.  That is not wrong, but another understanding (very literal to the Hebrew) is to "love the stranger, who is like you!" God made us and knows our ego's tendency to divide our Self from other selves.  So, God commands us to think beyond our ego's limits and humbly understand that "the stranger is just like me."  He has wants, desires, pains, and memories just like I do.  He is human, just like me. He is made of Divine sparks, just like me (or star dust if you don't prefer the spiritual stuff.) This is more than just a good idea, we have a moral obligation to act lovingly towards the "other" with the understanding that the "other" is like myself. If we cultivate this attitude in ourselves then we may begin to act in baseless love "ahavat chinam" towards each other.  This is doable.  It just takes humility, patience, and understanding.  If a person or culture can go one direction, then why not the other. Does all this mean that we should be pacifist and never fight? NO.  As I said, if there is illegitimate hatred, then therefore there is legitimate hatred.  We need to be very clear and careful how we understand and combat real evil in this world, but combat evil we must! For the most part though, many people act hateful towards another for no real reason.  The ego of one person simply fights the ego of another.  Were they to act with humility towards one another an entirely different scenario would play out. This is the essence of the entire Torah.  We need to utilize our gift of intellect to think past division and into unification. The Visionary Ezekiel Temple plan drawn by the 19th century French architect and Bible scholar Charles Chipiez [Public domain or Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons As the famous story goes Rabbi Hillel was approached by visitor who mockingly asked the great Rabbi to teach him the Torah while standing on one foot.  Rather than becoming upset with the request, Rabbi Hillel simply answered, What is hateful to you, do not do to others.  That is the entire Torah.  The rest is commentary.  Now go study And so impressed was the visitor by Hillel's answer that he actually did take up the study of Torah. There is much we can learn from teachers like Hillel.  Humility, kindness, and baseless love are a good start.  And all of this is framed in behavior which does not allow us act toward others in ways we would not desire for ourselves. Here are 7 suggestions for cultivating Ahavat Chinam "Baseless Love": Begin each morning affirming your moral obligation to act lovingly towards others, and understand they are like you Follow Hillel’s golden rule: “If you would NOT like it done to you, do NOT do it to someone else.” Avoid evil speech and gossip. Speak only good about others. Don’t even listen to a bad word, unless some real benefit will come through your conversation. Care for other's property and possessions as you care for your own. Always be on the lookout for opportunities to do someone else favor. Bring people together. Tear down the false barriers of age, affiliation, and "race". Study God's word and invite others to study as well.  The Torah is available to all who seek it.

When you see evil, whom do you blame? If you see a seemingly innocent person murdered whom do you blame?  The murderer or the person.  Or perhaps society.  Maybe you just blame God. How you determine culpability says a lot about you. Primarily it may determine whether or not your moral compass is broken or not. And what exactly is a moral compass?  Just as a navigational compass helps you determine the cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West) your moral compass helps you determine moral behavior (i.e. Good, Evil, Justice, and Compassion). If your navigational compass is broken then it will be telling you the wrong direction nearly all the time.  You are looking to head North, and your compass says "North", but since it is broken you eventually realize you were heading Southwest the whole time.  A broken navigational compass is frustrating and problematic, but a broke moral compass is tragic. A broken moral compass confuses whom you vilify and whom you glorify.  A broken moral compass can lead you to act compassionate to the cruel, and cruel to the compassionate.  Unfortunately, because you are being navigated by a broken moral compass you will have not only no idea your behavior is morally wrong, it will cause you to actually think you are morally correct and so you continue the immoral behavior.  Tragic. I'm sure some are saying, "Okay, but a compass has a North and South pole to work with - objective markers magnetic or otherwise which can be used a reference for the compass.  If the navigational compass is broken you can compare it with other indicators (i.e. GPS, constellations, Sun position, other compasses, etc.) to be sure your compass is broken or not.  But what about the 'moral compass'?  How do you determine what is good or bad?  Who says?  And is it an objective truth for everyone?" Great questions, and I had them myself.  The simple answer is God.  God is the giver of morality.  The God of the Torah teaches us how we are to behave in a moral and just way.  God also indicates what is universally immoral and unjust behavior.  If you do not have God as the basis of morality, then you have no objective morality... And therefore your moral compass is less likely function properly at all times.  Hopefully it will function properly enough so that you yourself don't act evil in the world, obviously.  But it has been my experience that with rare exception, those who do not base their morality on the Judeo based concept of Ethical Monotheism, their ability to morally judge others behavior is tragically skewed.  To be clear, I am not implicitly making an argument that all who do see God as the giver of morality act moral and judge morally.  No doubt, people can use their freedom of choice to take things out of context, make incorrect inferences, and/or simply be mistaken regardless of their belief in Ethical Monotheism.  That said, eliminating God as the sole giver of morality makes it far more difficult for a person to make correct moral judgements. If my hypothesis is correct, why would that be?  Well most people who reject God based objective reality site several reasons and answers to the question... What is moral?  Typically the answers range from moral relativism (e.g. What is moral for John is his morality , and what is moral for Mike is his morality.  It is all relative, and no one should judge).  In the final analysis, moral relativism breaks down to there is no morality. If you were to try this logic in other areas of life it would prove just as problematic.  Just because I believe 6=7 and you believe 6=6 doesn't matter, there is no objective truth on what the number 6 really represents.  6 is 7 for me and 6 is 6 for you, and maybe 6 is 0 for someone else... it is all relative.  So in this scenario numerical values do not really exist in any objectively defined or universal manner.  So what's the point?  That is how moral relativism works out... Morals are pointless constructs. What are the other options? Some claim their "heart" or conscience is their determiner of morality.  But ultimately this theory boils down to moral relativism.  Your "heart" tells you A is moral and B is immoral, but my "heart" holds just the opposite view.  Who are you to say your "heart" is morally correct, while mine is not?  Of course, the other problem is that our "hearts" can easily be swayed.  Fear, pain, selfishness, guilt, and other reactions to life's complexities can cause your "heart" to shift it's morals quite rapidly.  Sure, in time of peace and tranquility you say you would safe guard Jews were you in Nazi Germany, but when reality hits and you know that you and your own family will be massacred for hiding Jews how long before you have a "change of heart."  Besides this example, your "heart" may simply be wrong. An example from Dennis Prager illustrates this profoundly.  "If you saw your dog, your beloved pet, drowning and a stranger who was also drowning; and you knew you could only save one or the other - Who would you save?"  A surprisingly high percentage of people answer their dog. Why? Because they love their dog, and they don't even know the stranger (Some try to add to the scenario in their mind, and think the stranger could be a bad guy.  But he's a stranger... you know nothing about him... he is just another human being.)  Ethical Monotheistically based morality clearly makes the case that one should save the stranger. Why? Because Man alone is made in the image of God, and is of infinite value.  The dog, loved and valued as he may be, is just a dog, just an animal.  A creature of God to be respected, but nowhere near the value of a human being. Now something I find amazing, is that today's religions have become so afraid of teaching objective morality or so influenced by moral relativism that many religious kids would also answer they would save their dog.  God based morality must be actively taught, and reinforced by society's behavior.  Otherwise, it will decay. And that leads me to another point. Many people think that people are basically good, and therefore (sense people are basically good) all we have to do is avoid evil.  They may criticize religion for having so much intolerance, or make the false claim that "religion is responsible for all the wars, or all the deaths of innocents..."  Besides the problem of them denying the facts that the 20th century, the least religious century of historical record, far greater and more tragic wars have been fought for non-religious reasons.  Also, in the 20th century we saw tremendous horrors and mass genocide in times of peace from non-religious/anti-religious movements (i.e. Mao and Stalin.)  The numbers of casualties are astoundingly more than that of historic religious wars, and the atrocities committed are even more horrific. So besides being factually inaccurate, they are basing their assumption on a parasitic existence. They witness people basically acting good because they have a religious based morality at the root of their civilization.  If you completely cut off the religious soil which fosters a moral society, you will eventually end up with an immoral society.  This is what Will Herberg called "Cut Flower Culture" in his book Judaism and the Modern Man. The attempt made in recent decades by secularist thinkers to disengage the moral principles of western civilization from their scripturally based religious context, in the assurance that they could live a life of their own as "humanistic" ethics, has resulted in our "cut flower culture." Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance, but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now-severed roots; after that is exhausted, they wither and die. So with freedom, brotherhood, justice, and personal dignity — the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung, they possess neither meaning nor vitality. Unfortunately, history has proven his theory correct.  As Christianity lost its power in Germany, Nazism flourished.  As Mao destroyed the religions in China, his terror grew.  And while some may think goodness is a natural human tendency, reality seems to differ.  Rather, people are naturally selfish, narcissistic, ungrateful, and not courageous in the face of evil.  Good religion helps foster and cultivate courage, empathy, gratitude, and moral behavior.  Humanism encourages survival of the fittest, which is amoral at best. So how does this work out in your life? When you witness something morally troubling like someone harming an innocent person, how do you determine who was right and who was wrong? You may think this is easy... the person doing the harm is wrong, correct? But what if the innocent starts fighting back?  Does it change things? What if the innocent person starts overtaking and defeating the one who was doing harm initially?  Is he wrong in continuing to fight since he seems to be winning?  Or should he stop? What if the attacker continues to provoke and throw punches at the now dominating victim? What if all the attacker's efforts seemed ineffective?  Is the victim morally wrong to continue his own assault on his assailant? By now I'm sure some of you know why I am using this scenario and what I think it is analogous to. Israel, though not innocent and certainly not perfect, has been repeatedly and incessantly attacked by multiple assailants.  Miraculously, Israel continues to defeat and thwart all but one of her enemies numerous attacks.    While Israel is successfully combating many of the military and terrorist attacks, they are failing at the media attacks.  The one attack that Israel is not winning the battle for public opinion. The media has effectively swayed the "hearts" of many, if not most, of the world's opinion against Israel.  One of the most efficient ways they do this is by shifting blame. Rather than Hamas being blamed for dead Gazans, Israel is blamed. Hamas orders the civilians of Gaza to remain there, and they are not allowed build or utilize bunkers.  Why?  Because the Hamas officials know that loss of civilian lives  pulls the "heart" strings of the world.  Here is an actual order from the Interior of Hamas ordering to claim that any and all Gazan casualties be reported as "Gaza/Palestinian civilians" or "Gaza/Palestinian citizens". So when I hear from people that I know that they blame Israel because Israel is killing so many Palestinian civilians, I just shake my head in disbelief.  I don't know whether my friends are ignorant, naive, or operating with a broken moral compass. I have been questioning myself as well.  Am I biased because I am a Jew?  Perhaps I am.  It would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim otherwise.  Yes I could show more evidence proving why I am right (like the letter from Hamas Interior or any number of videos and articles from MEMRI.org) but I may simply be engaging in confirmation bias. So lets objectify the whole thing and make it unemotional. And while I had developed my own analogy... Dennis Prager just wrote this article doing a better job than I. The Jewish State in a Morally Sick World "Let’s drop the names “Hamas” and “Israel” and make a list of the characteristics of two imaginary warring entities. We’ll call them Entity A and Entity B. Entity A: Declares that its raison d’etre is to annihilate Entity B. Sends missiles to explode in the most populated parts of Entity B in order to kill as many civilians as possible. Uses families and individual civilians as human shields to protect its own leaders from attack. Tortures and kills domestic political opponents. Has no political or religious freedom and has no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, and no independent judiciary. Is a theocracy. Violently oppresses gays. Saturates its education and airwaves with a demonic hatred of Entity B. Rated a “6″ by Freedom House in its 2013 report on freedom in the world. Seven is the worst possible rating. Entity A ranks 6 in freedom, 6 in civil liberties and 6 political rights.   Entity B: Recognizes the right of Entity A to an independent existence. Has never begun a war with Entity A. Has never targeted civilians in Entity A. In fact, it has sacrificed soldiers in order to avoid killing Entity A civilians. Domestic political opponents — including even supporters of Entity A — not only have freedom of assembly, press and expression; they have political parties with representatives in Entity B’s parliament. Has freedom of the press, assembly, religion, and a completely independent judiciary. Allows gays full civil rights. Has innumerable human rights groups dedicated to the welfare of people belonging to Entity A. Has no education or broadcasts comparable to the daily hate in Entity A. Freedom House rating for 2014 is 1.5 in freedom (“1″ is best possible); 2 in civil liberties; 1 in political liberties. So, then, with which entity does nearly every government in the world side? Entity A. And what is the primary concern of the United Nations, nearly all the world’s media, and nearly all the world’s intellectuals? That Entity B, while hundreds of missiles are launched at its most populated cities, not kill any of the civilians among whom Entity A’s leaders hide."  Read the entire article here. The one other reason he does not explicitly state is that due to the secularization of the Western world, the Islamization of the Eastern world, and sheepish mentality of the masses in general... Israel categorically demonic because the world's moral compasses are reading "Evil" when it should read "Good" and vice versa. Somehow Earth has been transformed into "Htrae" and we are all living in Bizarro World.  Unfortunately only a minority of us know, and worse... only a minority who are self aware are willing to speak out and battle real evil. And battle we must!  Goodness is not come naturally.  Goodness is in a constant battle against evil. As Edmund Burke said and JFK quoted: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. And in regards to creating a more morally upright, just, and wise society: Psalm 111:10 ראשית חכמה ׀ יראת יהוה שכל טוב לכל־עשיהם תהלתו עמדת לעד׃ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To Him belongs eternal praise.  

So this week's podcast was based on an essay I recently read by a woman who has taught me a tremendous amount, Cloe Madanes.   Here is her bio in case you don't know of her: Cloé Madanes, HDL, LIC is a world-renowned innovator and teacher of family and strategic therapy and one of the originators of the strategic approach to family therapy. She has authored seven books that are classics in the field: Strategic Family Therapy; Behind the One-Way Mirror; Sex, Love and Violence; The Violence of Men; The Secret Meaning of Money; The Therapist as Humanist, Social Activist and Systemic Thinker; and Relationship Breakthrough. She has presented her work at professional conferences all over the world and has given keynote addresses for the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, the National Association of Social Workers, the Evolution of Psychotherapy Conference, the Erickson Foundation, the California Psychological Association, and many other national and international organizations. Madanes has won several awards for distinguished contribution to psychology and has counseled outstanding individuals from all walks of life. She has been featured in Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. Her books have been translated to more than twenty languages. (source: www.CloeMadanes.com) The essay is titled: The 14 Habits of Highly Miserable People How to succeed at self-sabotage. and you can click here or above to read the full essay. The premise is simple enough.     Sure, people say they want happiness and fulfilled lives, but they act contrary to those words.  The reality is that many, if not most, people behave as though they really, truly desire misery rather than joy.  To be clear, I am referring to the vast majority who actually have tremendous amounts of free choice and free will.  I am not referring to those with brain trauma or organic (ie. congenital, biological, chemical) pathologies.     The truth is that most of us have the freedom to determine our state of mind and our behavior.  But unfortunately, in general people live their lives as if they have no ability to determine or direct their reactions to life.  They are simply helpless subjects guided by the environment.  They claim a desired destination, but do little if anything effective to get them to where they say they want to go.  Actually, they do a lot to make sure they are no where near where they say they want to go.    Sounds odd perhaps, but once you take an objective view of how people behave in contradistinction to their words, and make your decision based on their actions rather than rhetoric... it will all make sense.   So maybe what they really want is a miserable life and not a happy one.  If someone said "I want to be wealthy" but did none of the things required to earn wealth (basics like: graduate high school, get a job, work tenaciously, get married before having kids, etc.) and instead did the antithesis... Wouldn't you assume what they really want is a life a poverty?   If based on their actions, what people really desire is misery, then what is the best way to go about?  And why?  Why would someone (even yourself perhaps) actually want to be miserable?  There must be some benefit right?   Well of course there are many benefits to acting miserable such as: Attention and Care: People feel sorry for you.  They might actually feel guilty because somehow they are at fault.  If so, you may have hit a jackpot, and now you can manipulate that person to do all kinds of things for you. NO Hopes, NO Desires, NO Cares, NO Disappointment: When you and your world are all worthless and meaningless then there is nothing to gain or lose.  You are NUMB.  Misery can be a powerful anesthetic allowing you to disconnect and check out from the world.  And the more disconnected you are... the more miserable you can act. You are brooding and intelligent: People will assume you are a profoundly deep thinking intellectual.  The shallow, happy people could never understand or appreciate the burden of your insight and existential wisdom and understanding of the world.  If you are not miserable, then you are not paying attention... So if you really want to perfect the art of misery, then lets learn how to do it effectively. The 14 Habits of Highly Miserable People (List from Cloe Madanes.  Edited by me for brevity.  For my full commentary please listen to the podcast, and you can read her comments by clicking here.)   "1. Be afraid, be very afraid, of economic loss. The art of messing up your life consists of indulging these fears, even when there’s little risk that you’ll actually suffer such losses. Concentrate on this fear, make it a priority in your life... Fearing economic loss has several advantages. First, it’ll keep you working forever at a job you hate. Second, it balances nicely with greed, an obsession with money, and a selfishness that even Ebenezer Scrooge would envy. Third, not only will you alienate your friends and family, but you’ll likely become even more anxious, depressed, and possibly even ill from your money worries. Good job! 2. Practice sustained boredom. Cultivate the feeling that everything is predictable, that life holds no excitement, no possibility for adventure, that an inherently fascinating person like yourself has been deposited into a completely tedious and pointless life through no fault of your own. Complain a lot about how bored you are. Make it the main subject of conversation with everyone you know so they’ll get the distinct feeling that you think they’re boring. Consider provoking a crisis to relieve your boredom. A side benefit of being bored is that you inevitably become boring. Friends and relatives will avoid you. You won’t be invited anywhere; nobody will want to call you, much less actually see you. As this happens, you’ll feel lonely and even more bored and miserable. 3. Give yourself a negative identity. Allow a perceived emotional problem to absorb all other aspects of your self-identification. If you feel depressed, become a Depressed Person; if you suffer from social anxiety or a phobia, assume the identity of a Phobic Person or a Person with Anxiety Disorder. Make your condition the focus of your life. Talk about it to everybody, and make sure to read up on the symptoms so you can speak about them knowledgeably and endlessly.  4. Pick fights. This is an excellent way of ruining a relationship with a romantic partner. Once in a while, unpredictably, pick a fight or have a crying spell over something trivial and make unwarranted accusations. The interaction should last for at least 15 minutes and ideally occur in public. During the tantrum, expect your partner to be kind and sympathetic, but should he or she mention it later, insist that you never did such a thing and that he or she must have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Act injured and hurt that your partner somehow implied you weren’t behaving well. Another way of doing this is to say unexpectedly, “We need to talk,” and then to barrage your partner with statements about how disappointed you are with the relationship.  5. Attribute bad intentions. Whenever you can, attribute the worst possible intentions to your partner, friends, and coworkers. Take any innocent remark and turn it into an insult or attempt to humiliate you. ...The idea is to always expect the worst from people. (...And if a) person asks what’s wrong, don’t say a word: let him or her suffer. 6. Whatever you do, do it only for personal gain. Sometimes you’ll be tempted to help someone, contribute to a charity, or participate in a community activity. Don’t do it, unless there’s something in it for you, like the opportunity to seem like a good person or to get to know somebody you can borrow money from some day. Never fall into the trap of doing something purely because you want to help people. Remember that your primary goal is to take care of Numero Uno, even though you hate yourself. 7. Avoid gratitude. Research shows that people who express gratitude are happier than those who don’t, so never express gratitude. Counting your blessings is for idiots. What blessings? Life is suffering, and then you die. What’s there to be thankful for? 8. Always be alert and in a state of anxiety. Optimism about the future leads only to disappointment. Therefore, you have to do your best to believe that your marriage will flounder, your children won’t love you, your business will fail, and nothing good will ever work out for you. 9. Blame your parents. Blaming your parents for your defects, shortcomings, and failures is among the most important steps you can take. After all, your parents made you who you are today; you had nothing to do with it. If you happen to have any good qualities or successes, don’t give your parents credit. Those are flukes. 10. Don’t enjoy life’s pleasures. Taking pleasure in things like food, wine, music, and beauty is for flighty, shallow people. Tell yourself that. If you inadvertently find yourself enjoying some flavor, song, or work of art, remind yourself immediately that these are transitory pleasures, which can’t compensate for the miserable state of the world. The same applies to nature. If you accidentally find yourself enjoying a beautiful view, a walk on the beach, or a stroll through a forest, stop! Remind yourself that the world is full of poverty, illness, and devastation. The beauty of nature is a deception. 11. Ruminate. Spend a great deal of time focused on yourself. Worry constantly about the causes of your behavior, analyze your defects, and chew on your problems. This will help you foster a pessimistic view of your life. Don’t allow yourself to become distracted by any positive experience or influence. The point is to ensure that even minor upsets and difficulties appear huge and portentous. You can ruminate on the problems of others or the world, but make them about you. ...By ruminating not only on your own problems but also those of others, you’ll come across as a deep, sensitive thinker who holds the weight of the world on your shoulders. 12. Glorify or vilify the past. Glorifying the past is telling yourself how good, happy, fortunate, and worthwhile life was when you were a child, a young person, or a newly married person—and regretting how it’s all been downhill ever since. ... Focus on what you could’ve and should’ve done, instead of what you did. This will surely make you miserable. Vilifying the past is easy, too. You were born in the wrong place at the wrong time, you never got what you needed, you felt you were discriminated against, you never got to go to summer camp. How can you possibly be happy when you had such a lousy background? It’s important to think that bad memories, serious mistakes, and traumatic events were much more influential in forming you and your future than good memories, successes, and happy events. Focus on bad times. Obsess about them. Treasure them. This will ensure that, no matter what’s happening in the present, you won’t be happy. 13. Find a romantic partner to reform. Make sure that you fall in love with someone with a major defect (cat hoarder, gambler, alcoholic, womanizer, sociopath), and set out to reform him or her, regardless of whether he or she wants to be reformed. Believe firmly that you can reform this person, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. 14. Be critical. Make sure to have an endless list of dislikes and voice them often, whether or not your opinion is solicited. For example, don’t hesitate to say, “That’s what you chose to wear this morning?” or “Why is your voice so shrill?” If someone is eating eggs, tell them you don’t like eggs. Your negativity can be applied to almost anything. It helps if the things you criticize are well liked by most people so that your dislike of them sets you apart. Disliking traffic and mosquitos isn’t creative enough: everyone knows what it’s like to find these things annoying, and they won’t pay much attention if you find them annoying, too. But disliking the new movie that all your friends are praising? You’ll find plenty of opportunities to counter your friends’ glowing reviews with your contrarian opinion." ----- So these are just 14 habits, there are many more.  But the truth is you can succeed in being miserable with just few of the habits done on a consistent basis. On the other hand, if you do NOT want to be miserable then you should evaluate your life and see if you perhaps practice any of these misery habits.  Maybe you have your own particular method of developing misery and destroying your chances of happiness.  Write it down and decide if that is something you'd like to continue... or not. It is up to you.  In the final analysis, in general people have the ability to determine their mindset and behavior, they simply may not be aware or willing to put in the effort.  And yes, it does take effort. I learned at a very young age that anyone can be a jerk.  It takes no effort to be angry or miserable.  However, it takes tremendous effort to act happy despite circumstances. As Dennis Prager says "Life is Relentless", and it can feel overwhelming. Life keeps happening to us and there is no pause button allowing us to regroup or catch up.  And there definitely is no rewind button to fix our past transgressions.   But what we have been given is the gift of the present day, and the freedom to determine how we will live it.  We have little control over how life unfolds, but we have tremendous control over how we deal with it.   I argue that should you become keenly aware of avoiding these 14 habits of misery and instead do the opposite, then you will find the faith and happiness God has always intended for you. Determine if you have any of these habits.  See how they have served you.  Decide if they are worth it to you.  And if not, how can you transform them into habits of happiness. Just like you can change your habits to go from being an overweight and/or unhealthy person to a fit and healthy one, so to can you change your habits for misery into happiness. Become as focused on improving your character as you may have been in improving other aspects of your life (appearances, money, etc.). Start now.    

By http://www.flickr.com/people/45644610@N03 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/idfonline/8194572552/) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons -------------------------   This is part of Israel's remarkable "Iron Dome"   There is so much I want to talk about.  We just celebrated July 4th, Independence Day, and while I am overjoyed and grateful for being an American, I am also saddened and dismayed by the lack of meaning the 4th of July now has for many young adults.   As Dennis Prager recently cited on his show, there is a sharp decline in young adult Americans (up to age 35) who feel a sense of "patriotism" for America.  Many are more focused on being citizens of the world, on America's faults, or other European values rather than American values (e.g. equality of result vs. liberty). I have a lot to say about this, and have some solutions in mind.  Yesterday I had the rare opportunity to listen to Dennis live when he raised this subject again, and so I called in.  Maybe I will do another show just on this, and play for you our exchange.  I think American patriotism is vitally important and must be fostered.  Right now, I feel a sense of obligation to follow up on my last podcast, UI 58: Israel - An Ultimate Issue.  Sense I aired that much more has  transpired regarding Israel.  They seem to be on the brink of another war.  And everyone in the media seems to have an opinion regarding this mess. Let's start out by understanding what is happening. To a large extent these most recent engagements are a direct result of the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers.  No doubt, Israel was angered and there was a heightened level of hostility towards its enemies (Hamas in particular as they appear to be the ones responsible.)  Unfortunately, there was a horrific retaliation from supposedly 6 Israeli citizens who murdered a Palestinian teen, Muhammad Abu Khdeir (16).  In relation to this story, here is an article for the New York Times which provides more info (and was read on the podcast.) (on the podcast I also play what Prime Minister Netanyahu had to say in his own words) Now to be clear about this.  In general, Jews around the world are horrified and shamed by the murder of that Palestinian boy.  Not because it could mean more war in Israel, but because the Jewish culture believes the murder of anyone by anyone as among the most evil, terrible, horrific, nightmarish, shameful, and destructive actions.  Again, the Defense Minister of Israel said those Israeli's acted as terrorists!  And all of Israel and the Jewish nation in diaspora explicitly condemn the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir. Now contrast this with the Palestinian and Hamas reaction to the kidnap and murder of the three Israeli teens. The media is so focused on featuring the acts of violence between Israel and its enemies, that they lose focus of what matters even more... How do the cultures differ in the reaction to violence? How can we judge a culture or society? If we do it through whether or not evil is done in or by that society, then all cultures and societies are awful.  Unfortunately, there will always be people in every society who will do evil. So then how are we to judge? It is not by whether or not evil exists in it.  It is how the society or culture in general REACTS to evil. In the Palestinian culture murderers of Israeli youths are honored and celebrated.  Streets, plazas, and squares are named after them.  The Palestinian society reacts with pride when they learn that Israeli's or Jews have been killed by them. Contrast their reactions (and many other Anti-Jew cultures in the middle east and elsewhere) with that of the Israeli's and Jews around the world.  For a people who are rarely unified, we find unity in condemning the Israeli terrorists who murdered Abu Kheider.  There is no justification for their actions, no forgiveness, and no atonement for the murderers.  The Jewish and Israel culture think murder is horrific regardless of who is murdered or who the murderer is. A major Orthodox rabbi, Rabbi Elyakim Levanon: head of the Elon Moreh yeshiva, said that the murderers of Muhammed Abu Khdeir should be given the death penalty. “Unfortunately, it appears that Jews were involved in this matter..." and “Jewish law has no mercy for the perpetrators of crimes like murder, whether of Arab or Jew, whether by Arab or Jew.” Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi David Lau said “Individuals do not have the right to take revenge for the death of the innocent. Revenge is not a license given to the hot-blooded for ‘action.’ Revenge is a strong, destructive weapon, and if there is such a concept in the world, it does not belong to humans.” Meaning only God could avenge the murder of the three Israeli teens who were recently murdered (Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Frenkel and Gilad Shaar.) So if what I say is true, then how should you judge the cultures?  The Islamist, Anti-Israel, and Palestinian culture reacts with indifference at best and celebratory pride at worst when it learns of the murders of Israeli teens by a Palestinian.  While in contrast the Israeli and Jewish culture at large reacts with nearly unanimous disgust, shame, and remorse for the murder of the Palestinian teen by Israelis. Assuming you judge the Israeli or Jewish culture to be on a higher moral plain than the Palestinian or Islamist culture, then what should Israel do when they are under attack? According to a recent interview with former Ambassador Micheal Oren there have been more than 400 rockets launched at Israel in the last two weeks alone.   Hamas openly states their desire to annihilate Israel and the Jews.  But whenever Israel engages militarily against Hamas they are condemned by the world's press. So Israel has to fight two battles.  One they have to fight those who wish her liquidated, and the second is that Israel has to fight the media.   Hamas knows this.  Hamas uses not only military strategy in fighting Israel, but also media strategy.  How quick was everyone to learn of the Palestinian who was horrifically murdered?  Within a day, I had people at work asking me about it.  But when the Israeli boys were kidnapped there was virtual silence in the mainstream media.  Even after they were found murdered... silence.  When I mentioned it to friends (as I was going to show support at a synagogue) they did not even know what I was talking about.  It had been over two weeks at that point. Then there is the video of Abu Khdeir's American-Palestinian cousin being beaten by the IDF.  The teen claims he was just watching protests... but of course the officials say he was one of the many masked protesters attacking the IDF.  All that is shown on the video is the end of the violence, not the beginning.  The context matters.  But all that the video is used for is Anti-Israel imagery and rhetoric. Another question I have is why has our American government decided it will now recognize Hamas and Fatah as governments?  Read the article from Breitbart. OBAMA RECOGNIZES TERRORIST GROUP HAMAS AS LEGITIMATE PALESTINIAN GOVERNING PARTNER "The White House announcement that it would break with existing US policy and work with a new Palestinian government which includes the terrorist organization Hamas has stunned and outraged Israelis and emboldened radicals in the Arab and Muslim world.  Defending the controversial decision Wednesday in Beirut, US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed the decision to keep funding the Palestinian Authority, now jointly run by Hamas terrorists, does not violate US prohibitions against supporting, funding, or recognizing terrorist groups because no senior Hamas officials have formal cabinet posts."~ by THOMAS ROSE 6 Jun 2014 So I want you to imagine that you state is surrounded by other states who think it has no right to exist and must be annihilated.  How would you want your state to act? If your state fights back and does so effectively, but is condemned by world opinion for disproportionate violence... How would you want your state to act? These are the dilemmas Israel and Israelis face.  They have to fight terrorists, the media, and much of the world's opinion. So what should Israel do? No doubt, Israeli citizens should do as they have done and outright condemn any murderers and terrorists.  And they also must do a sincere moral inventory to understand if those murderers were an aberration of current Israeli society or an underlying unspoken spirit (God forbid.)  If there is any truth to the latter, then there must be a return to the Jewish values that have made Israel upright with its moral clarity and stance.  My guess is that the outrage, shame, and embarrassment felt by every Jew will help ensure such evil does not become the norm within Israel.  Israel must not lose its moral high ground. Also, in listening to the Israeli defense and Michael Oren it would appear that continued strategic airstrikes done with surgical precision are the best course of action.  I know that the world will still condemn Israel because of the effectiveness of the strikes.  But so what? Again, it is that "disproportionate force" argument.  If the capabilities were reversed, Israel would have already been annihilated.  Israel's "Iron Dome" is 90% effective in reducing massive damage from Hamas rockets.  But that doesn't mean Israel isn't affected by the attacks. The only way to restrain Israel's enemies is through force.  I wish peace agreement worked.  Israel wishes peace agreements worked.  They gave up the entire Sinai Peninsula (rich with oil and strategic positioning) to Egypt for a sheet of paper that promised peace.  But once there was a regime change in Egypt... the peace ended... and of course Egypt still has the Sinai Peninsula. Making peace would be great if both sides would agree, but since only one side wants peace it is a naive sentiment. So with all that said... What Should Israel Do? Source Articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-muhammad-abu-khdeir.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/05/Obama-Recognize-Terrorist-Group-Hamas-As-Legitimate-Palestinian-Governing-Partner-First-World-Leader-to-do-so http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/world/middleeast/israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-next-gaza-war-1404863155 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/israel-steps-up-offensive-against-hamas-in-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news ***Update*** Related Article from Dennis Prager in the Jewish Journal "When Jews Murder"     from Biblegateway.com Psalm 59 New International Version (NIV) Psalm 59[a] For the director of music. To the tune of “Do Not Destroy.” Of David. A miktam.[b] When Saul had sent men to watch David’s house in order to kill him. 1 Deliver me from my enemies, O God;    be my fortress against those who are attacking me.2 Deliver me from evildoers    and save me from those who are after my blood. 3 See how they lie in wait for me!    Fierce men conspire against me    for no offense or sin of mine, Lord.4 I have done no wrong, yet they are ready to attack me.    Arise to help me; look on my plight!5 You, Lord God Almighty,    you who are the God of Israel,rouse yourself to punish all the nations;    show no mercy to wicked traitors.[c] 6 They return at evening,    snarling like dogs,    and prowl about the city.7 See what they spew from their mouths—    the words from their lips are sharp as swords,    and they think, “Who can hear us?”8 But you laugh at them, Lord;    you scoff at all those nations. 9 You are my strength, I watch for you;    you, God, are my fortress,10     my God on whom I can rely. God will go before me    and will let me gloat over those who slander me.11 But do not kill them, Lord our shield,[d]    or my people will forget.In your might uproot them    and bring them down.12 For the sins of their mouths,    for the words of their lips,    let them be caught in their pride.For the curses and lies they utter,13     consume them in your wrath,    consume them till they are no more.Then it will be known to the ends of the earth    that God rules over Jacob. 14 They return at evening,    snarling like dogs,    and prowl about the city.15 They wander about for food    and howl if not satisfied.16 But I will sing of your strength,    in the morning I will sing of your love;for you are my fortress,    my refuge in times of trouble. 17 You are my strength, I sing praise to you;    you, God, are my fortress,    my God on whom I can rely. Footnotes: Psalm 59:1 In Hebrew texts 59:1-17 is numbered 59:2-18. Psalm 59:1 Title: Probably a literary or musical term Psalm 59:5 The Hebrew has Selah (a word of uncertain meaning) here and at the end of verse 13. Psalm 59:11 Or sovereign      

What you think about Israel is it a litmus test for what think regarding many issues in life.  Many people would rather not think about Israel, and therefore have no opinion on the matter.  And my guess is those people are probably that way on many other controversial issues in life.  But what is it about the tiny Jewish state of Israel that makes it so controversial?  How could a country the size of New Jersey with a population smaller than the state of Virginia or NY City be the center of so much controversy and debate?  If I said "Spain, France, El Salvador, Guam, Zimbabwe, or any other nation (other than Israel and the United States of America) was an Ultimate Issue", no one would have a clue what I was talking about.  So why is the smallest, freest, and most democratic state in the Middle East supposedly the cause of so much of the world's problems?  Why are Israeli citizens (not military)  regularly targeted as the enemy and terminated or captured as if they were soldiers? Just recently we learned of the tragic fate of three Israeli teenage students who were kidnapped, murdered, and their bodies dumped in the desert.  Hamas, while not claiming responsibility, cheered the news. Who does that?  What kind of thinking conduces a person, let alone a people, to cheer upon hearing the news of the murder of three teenage students?   My best guess is those who are filled with hate and disgust towards certain people.  Actually that is not even enough, they have to believe the Jews are not human, or subhuman, or perhaps a demonic form that only appears human. ***Just Released*** Below is the final phone call to the police from one of the boys phone.  You can hear the murderers speaking in Arabic, praising Allah, as well as cheering, singing, and rejoicing over their victims fate:   Everyone knows there is "tension in the Middle East", but few people want to say why.  Everyone knows the Middle East problem is complicated, and requires a complicated solution.  But perhaps, once again everyone is wrong.   The masses of minds do little critical thinking, and even less inquiry into facts or history. So rather than discussing the Middle East problem in my own words, please allow me to let Dennis Prager do it far better than I could: So if the problem is so easy to understand, then why do people, seemingly much of the world - not just Arabs or Muslims, primarily hold Israel accountable.  Why is there a strong movement for "BDS Israel" (boycott, divest, sanction) in American universities where many Jews proudly send their children?  Why does the news constantly and consistently report Israel as morally equal or morally guilty of terrorism or apartheid? As I have learned from Dennis Prager and further from George Gilder: A huge dilemma Israel faces is in regards to how the media and much of the world does NOT divide reckoning based on  GOOD vs. EVIL.  In fact, when leaders like Reagan or George W. Bush used the term "evil" they were panned and ridiculed by the press and university professors.  No, the media and much of the intelligentsia divide the world based on: Rich vs. Poor White vs. Black Oppressor vs. Underdog Once you realize this mindset is what dominates much of the determinations of those who voice their opinions then it all becomes clear.  By the way, this formulation for judgement of the world holds true for Marxism and Leftism in general.  So if you are a Marxist or simply a Leftist, then you should have no issue with the current bias or my allegation.  Rather, you should agree that that is a better determinate than some immaterial "values" system based on some preferred religion over another. Again, to be more clear what I mean by all this let me play another course from Prager U, and lets see if you "pass" the "Israel Test": Unfortunately our news sources and politicians have horrifically failed the Israel test.  For those of you who are only recently becoming aware of the Israel vs. World issue, understand that this has been going on since the current Israel's founding just over 60 years ago.  And it transcends the State of Israel... it holds true for Jews outside the land as well. There are so many false reports and allegations about Israel it is mind boggling.  For instance a more recent incident (probably within lifetime for most of you listening) was the "Jenin Massacre" of 2002.  Basically the press made headlines claiming a "Horrific massacre beyond belief" occurred when the Israelis attacked Jenin and supposedly slaughtered all the innocent people living there to one degree or another.  Even the UN (not known for being an allied with Israel) claimed that in fact there was NO MASSACRE in Jenin.  But of course the correct story was rarely, if ever, reported. Or the Muhammed Al-Durrah video that turned out to be a fraud.  This was the famous video of a boy and his father shown hiding on the streets and mercilessly gunned down by the IDF.  The whole thing was a hoax.  Philippe Karsonty completely exposed the faked video.  How much press did that get? Events that happen here in the United States have a similar fate.  In 1991 a religious Jew was driving a car in a motorcade and was involved in a car wreck which resulted in the death of a seven year old black boy, Gavin Cato.  Rather than labeling this tragic incident as an "accident" or "negligence", the people and the media begin painting a scenario of events based on racism.  For instance, the New York Times reported it as a "race war".  And people who are supposedly black leaders like Al Sharpton spurred on the malicious allegations against the large Chasidic Jewish community in Crown Heights.  The result of these slanderous reports and rhetoric included the murders of: Yosef Rosenbaum - for being a Jew, and Anthony Graziosi - for being mistaken as a a Jew (as he also had a long beard and wore a black suit.)  According to wikipedia: "Twenty years after the riots, Sharpton regretted some aspects of his involvement. He insisted that his marches were peaceful, although his language and tone 'sometimes exacerbated tensions'." Once again, actions, and not intentions, are what matter most.  Sure, there are people who say they like Jewish people, and they like Jewish food, or they like Jewish humor, but they don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish nation.  How do you explain this?  Well, this is still a form of what is called Anti-Zionist, but that term is a bit misleading in most cases.  Most people who are against the Jewish State of Israel are in fact anti-Jew (Typically mislabeled as anti-Semitic as Arabs are usually also of Semitic ancestry, and they are not "anti-semitic". Many are however anti-Jew.) Why would I say they are anti-Jew? Prager makes a great point about this.  "If you say you love Italians, or Italian food, or Italian operas but you don't think Italians have the right to their own sovereign Italian nation, then wouldn't you think that ultimately that person is anti-Italian?" It is a simple question, DOES THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST? In the Middle East there are 22 Arab nations, and 1 Jewish nation the size of the state of New Jersey... And the Jewish nation is the one whose existence is threatened.  It is the Jewish state whose founding is constantly questioned.  Tell me... why do they question the legitimacy of Israel and not Pakistan?  There are many parallels between the two nations in terms of when they were founded, and that they were both for religious reasons.  But the world is silent regarding the horrendous treatment of the Muslim Pakistani forces against the Pakistani Hindus throughout the years.  There is nothing analogous between the genocide and ethnic cleansing done in Pakistan and the reality of the freedom enjoying Arab-Muslim living in Israel, or those who live in Judea -Sumaria (West Bank) or Gaza. Here is another course from Prager University discussing exactly this issue and why Europe in particular has a problem with Israel: As rabbi Daniel Gordis makes clear, much of Europe and many Europeans fail the Israel test, but what about our American government? How are they currently responding to the Middle East problem and Israel? A recent article in the Daily Beast by Josh Rogin clues us in on one issue America's leader seem to have with Israel.  Below is an excerpt: (Secretary of State John Kerry's statement to the Trilateral Commisssion) “A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. “Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.” According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994. Former president Jimmy Carter came under fire in 2007 for titling his book on Middle East peace Palestine: Peace or Apartheid. Carter has said publicly that his views on Israeli treatment of the Palestinians are a main cause of his poor relationship with President Obama and his lack of current communication with the White House. But Carter explained after publishing the book that he was referring to apartheid-type policies in the West Bank, not Israel proper, and he was not accusing Israel of institutionalized racism. “Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it’s based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land,” Carter said. So is Israel an apartheid state? Once again let's take a course from Prager University and decide for ourselves: And if that wasn't enough and you need more convincing here is Kenneth Meshoe a black South African who survived apartheid and is not a member of the South African parliament.  He too taught a course regarding Israel and apartheid for Prager U. I know that if you scan the internet you will find all kinds of videos and posts trying to debunk the facts I've presented here.  For instance, if you go on youtube you will find all kinds of propaganda akin to Nazi Germany's which demonizes Israel, Jews, and/or proves there is a global conspiracy where the Jews are supposedly plotting a demonic world take over.  So here is the deal, look for facts.  Cold. Hard. Facts.  Not emotional arguments.  Not graphic  imagery.  Not brooding music.  Strip them of their theatrics and then... strip them of their adjectives.  Look only for the objective truths and not subjective opinions or passionate desires.  I think that once people think with their minds regarding Israel (rather than being lead astray by their hearts or eyes), they will finally begin thinking clearly about this ultimate issue, and stand on the side of the only free, democratic nation who happens to be Jewish, and wants the right to exist as a nation. In the final analysis, if you are still on the fence or know someone who does not think clearly about Israel, ask this: Do you really think that if the Jews left Israel and created their own little paradise in Antarctica would there:  (A) Be Peace in the Middle East, (B) Be Peace regarding the land of Israel or Jerusalem, and (C) Be no more desire from certain Arab nations, Muslim sects, or other anti-Jew groups to destroy the Jews?   Really,  do you think if the Jews left Israel completely... then all would be peaceful and fine in the Middle East and no one would ever bother the Jews again?  Really?  

Sometimes I am stunned by peoples behaviors.  Do they think about what they are doing?  Do they think before, during, or after they choose to act a certain way?  Do they really think about the results and aftermath of their choices? Do I? Seriously, it is fascinating to think about myself and others in regards to how we choose to behave.  I know I am presupposing we have a choice.  Others believe people are simply "hardwired" to act certain ways.  Maybe their neurotransmitters and hormones direct their actions... or direct their decision making - so ultimately people have no free will.  Rather, they just do.  Like animals driven by instinct and desire to live, so too with people. I know I have talked about whether or not we have free will (Check out UI 20), but I suppose there is a subtle distinction between having free will and the freedom to choose.  For instance, a person may have the free will to walk this way or that, but he doesn't have the freedom to fly like Superman.  Our free will is bound by the choices available or perceived. On the other hand, if someone is given 1,327 choices of deodorant, they will likely limit themselves to 2-3 options because that is what they are willing to deal with.  We have all had times where our decision making abilities have been stymied by too many choices, and studies may show the similar findings. (ref: http://www.scheibehenne.de/ScheibehenneGreifenederTodd2010.pdf)So lets just say for the sake of argument that in general people have the freedom to choose (as the counter arguments ramifications create a scenario where it would be unjust to hold people accountable for their actions.)  Why do people choose they way they do? In the last few decades experts in psychology and philosophy have been exploring and experimenting with that very question.  Theologians and ancient philosopher's (i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) were trying to explain this thousands of years ago.  So, "why do people choose what they choose?" is not a pointless question, rather it is an ultimate issue. It is an ultimate issues both in the macro and micro realms.  On the macro scale there are social contracts, taboos, and legalities which hinge on choices.  For instance, why is it illegal to go 40 mph in a 35 mph limited zone?  If it is 4am and no one is about and the streets are empty, and I am driving a vehicle with far more advanced safety mechanisms and maneuvering capabilities than when the 35 mph limit was enacted (let's say in back in the 1960's for my neighborhood)... why is it still illegal?  The powers that were presumably arbitrarily chose that number years ago, and the current powers that be have chosen not to change it.  But perhaps you will answer pragmatically (e.g. "statistics show...").  So what about a societal taboo like incest.  Why has one society or one generation decided it was fine and the same society of a later generation say it is revolting?  If you say religion, then I'll ask why secular atheists also believe incest is wrong?  If you again give a pragmatic answer like, deformity or retardation in offspring of such relationships, then I'll ask "so is it okay if one or both are sterile and absolutely incapable of producing biological offspring?"  Again, society had made a choice at some point to label that behavior as wrong, and most modern western people still abide by that choice regardless of their religion or lack of.  Why? Do they simply not question it?  Or perhaps is it because of confirmational bias?  Once we have chosen to see something a certain way, we will seek out confirming opinions to back up our own.  And as far as conflicting opinions, people will dismiss, mock, or demonize. And here is why I am asking all this.  It pertains to an article I heard about from Dennis Prager (an opinionated man who once was a challenge to many of my opinions, and now is admittedly a beloved source of confirmation.)  The story is about how back in 2010 a woman was driving down a Montreal highway, saw some ducklings, stopped her car, parked her car in the left lane, and proceeded to try help these helpless, motherless ducklings.  Cute story right? She made micro choice to show kindness to cute ducklings.  One problem though. A motorcyclist also traveling down the highway slammed into the parked car killing both the rider,Andre Roy, 50, and his daughter, Jessie, 16.  Here is the report I played on the Podcast: From CBC News:   And here is the article with more details also from CBC News: Quebec motorist accused in two deaths said she was helping ducks So what I find so fascinating is both how the woman who killed the father and daughter chose to behave and rationalize it, how the surviving wife/mother has chosen to behave and rationalize it, and how people who have commented on the story have chosen to opine about it. This story makes a strong case for what I say more or less in the beginning of every podcast, "We have to think about the ultimate issues." People need to think about these issues and scenarios and understand how best to behave in the world.  I think that if you earnestly deal with complicated and difficult dilemmas before they actually occur you will be better equipped to deal with it. Why did Emma Czornobaj chose to stop her car on a highway for ducks?  Was she weighing the risks to herself and others for the sake of ducks?  Does she believe, as some do, that there is no difference between the value of human life and animal life?  What exactly was she hoping to accomplish for herself in the best case scenario? Perhaps, she would feel good about herself and brag on Facebook with some pictures of the ducklings she daringly rescued.  I don't know... and I don't know if she knows any of the answers to these questions.  But regardless, she voluntarily decided to do what she did on that Montreal highway. As the story reads, many people seemed concerned about her intent.  But if malicious intent only means deliberate intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another, and/or it is simply the intent to harm or do some evil purpose.  Then we have a huge dilemma for all those people who do not seem to think through their decisions before they act. I would argue her intent was only as good as her decision (or ability) to think about the outcomes of her actions.  This goes for all of us by the way.  Do we decide to think beyond Stage One? Or do we chose to stop thinking once we have confirmed our beneficent intent (as Thomas Sowell call it "Stage One Thinking"? Again, the words we use hold weight and are heavy with meaning.  So when someone says "it was an accident", did they mean it was "an unavoidable and unforeseen consequence"? Or did they mean simply "It was an act of negligence. Had I though through my actions it may have been foreseen and avoidable." I would argue the Czornobaj case was at least an act of negligence.  And though I don't think the laws has this term yet I submit it for those who can influence our justice system... The Czornobaj guilty of passive malicious intent (malicious intent due preoccupation with the self alone.)  True she was not deliberately trying to harm someone, but it would also seem as though she was not thinking at all about anything else but herself and how rescuing those ducklings would make her feel.  Because she decided to focus solely on herself, and therefore chose to pay no attention to the welfare of other human beings on the highway she is guilty of passive malicious intent.  In general, when people focus only on themselves they engage in behavior that benefits them even though it may cause harm to others (though it may not be their intention to harm others.) Let me give another example on how this choice to think and behave works out in the macro.  WAR. There is a current zeitgeist that is staggeringly naive.  Many people simply believe "war is not the answer."  Often I'll hear people say that unless we are attacked directly we should not have any military engagement in any foreign affairs.  They say it costs too many American soldier lives.  They say it costs too much money.  They say it causes other nations to hate us.  Rather, we should only use our military to protect us if/when we are invaded. Okay, so I understand stage one... Only use military force when there is an obvious domestic threat, that way we minimize costs and perhaps America will be held in higher esteem by others.  Right?  So lets go beyond stage one.  Stage two is a world whose many varied governments and sovereign nations are inevitably attacked by totalitarianism and dominant forces who don't wish to liberate but rather annihilate or enslave other nations (If you see how history proves otherwise, I sincerely would like to no where and when in human history freedom and peace reigned uncontested.)  At what point in some further stage, would the stage one thinker begin to understand they are not able to defend themselves anymore?  At what point will the well intentioned stage one thinker, realize that in their effort to save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of American soldiers lives, they have done so at the expense of millions if not hundreds of millions of non-combatant civilian lives through the world and eventually the U.S. as well. Again, I see this as passive malicious intent. They are only thinking of themselves, at the expense of the welfare of others. While they had the opportunity to act in such a way that all could benefit, they chose to act in such a way that necessarily put others in harms way. For instance, I had virtually no opinion about whether or not we should have begun engagement in the recent conflict in Iraq, but once we did engage we needed to commit to fighting until we won and remain a strong presence to maintain civil conditions and stability in the region.  However others disagreed, and felt that the best thing we can do is "send our troops home."  So after it looked like we were winning - we surrendered, and came home.  Now Iraq is, as anyone who thinks beyond stage one already assumed, a worse disaster than before. Iraqis who aided the US are targeted, tortured, and murdered.  Now Iraq as a country and it's people are in a predictable crisis. Perhaps proving confirmation bias... this is from Krauthammer's Washington Post article on Iraq and Syria: The result was predictable. And predicted. Overnight, Iran and its promotion of Shiite supremacy became the dominant influence in Iraq. The day after the U.S. departure, Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president. He cut off funding for the Sons of Iraq, the Sunnis who had fought with us against al-Qaeda. And subsequently so persecuted and alienated Sunnis that they were ready to welcome back al-Qaeda in Iraq — rebranded in its Syrian refuge as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — as the lesser of two evils. Hence the stunningly swift ISIS capture of Mosul, Tikrit and so much of Sunni Iraq. I am not sure what really motivates the powers that be, but it seems clear that based on the information know they come up with decision on how to act which are antithetical to many others like myself.  Are they choosing freely or are they not?  Did the woman who attempted to rescue ducks choose freely to do so?  Do these actions in both the macro and micro bear the responsibility for not foreseeing what would have only required another step in the thought process? So what is the ultimate answer to these ultimate questions?  Do any of us really have free choice?  I'd argue yes, and ironically it is based on how we deep and clear we decide to think.  By think, I mean question.  What we think about, and what we focus on, are up to us.  The  gap between an emotional trigger and our actions are up to us.  Depth, clarity, and deliberation are acquired as inherent characteristics of each individual's mind, and can be influenced for better or worse by their actions and experiences throughout life.  This all argues for why we should be so careful with what we feed our minds, and how on guard we should be regarding our neuro associations. Ultimately the meanings we associate with things or ideas are highly determinative of how we will decide.  Change the meaning, and you may change your decision.  Think beyond the first stage's well intentioned meaning and you may find yourself at on the opposite side of your first choice.  Perhaps simply thinking through "war is not the answer" will lead one to conclude in the inevitable results of tremendous war and horrific devastation.  Perhaps acting with the intent to help (because it will make you feel good), will actually not do good and ultimately bring harm to others. Whenever possible we must develop and refine our abilities to reason, empathize, lengthen the fuse of our emotional triggers, and challenge our current mindset to develop our character as well as become more morally demanding of our own behavior.  For me Torah study, reading diverse opinions, debating with a variety of people, and writing help me tremendously. And I hope in discussing these issues with you, you find benefit as well. In the final analysis, choice in and of itself is just a tool, it's neutral.  How a tool is used determines it's beneficence or maleficence.  Like a hammer, choice can be used to build or destroy - it is up to the operator.  How you and your ego, emotions, reason, and intuition handle this powerful tool is the determining factor of whether or not it is a blessing or a curse.  I think people have extraordinary potential to choose wisely and do tremendous good.  But unfortunately, this must cultivated in most folks (including myself).  Thankfully there are many people who can help us discover our If you are interested in learning more about why we choose what we choose you may also enjoy reading:    

I think words are powerful.  The words we use effect ourselves and others.  This phenomena happens all the time.  Whether spoken or written, words carry tremendous meaning, and those meanings have profound impact on the human mind and soul. When my wife expresses her love for me, and uses words that cause me to feel loved, admired, and appreciated my whole being is lifted and elevated.   It is as though those words renew my soul for further action and striving. On the other hand, loved ones can use words that can cause us to feel worthless and pathetic. Words can hurt, and words can heal. In the Torah, the last book is named Devarim... which in Hebrew means "words" - the second word of the first verse in the fifth book "These are the WORDS" "Eilah HaDevarim".  But Devarim can mean something else in Hebrew -  BEES (devorim).  Yes, like bees that collect pollen and make honey.  Why?  How are "bees" and "words" related?  Well, just as I mentioned bees can produce wonderfully delicious honey and they also have magnificently organized colonies "adas devorim" (bees nest) - Judges 14:8 - (adas is usually translated as "nest" and has the same root as eidah the Hebrew word for a "congregation" or "community").  There are many wonderful qualities to bees, just as there are many wonderful qualities to words.  And also just like words, bees can hurt.  They sting, and when they attack they swarm.  Bees can use their organizational skills to swarm and destroy a large animal.  Words can also be used to sting or even destroy if used effectively. (Thanks to R' Lapin for first making me aware of this midrash). I have already done a podcast and some writing on Lashon Hara "Evil Speech"  (Episode 45: The First Step to Doing Good).  So please listen to that podcast as I discuss the perils of gossip, ad hominem rhetoric, and other harmful speech.  I have received some great feedback from folks who have really took that ultimate issue to heart and began applying to their daily life.  Thanks for your feedback, and making the world a better place. But no, Lashon Hara in that regard is not the subject today rather I just want to focus solely on profanity because I was: 1.  Shaken by the Los Angeles Mayor's use of it deliberately and publicly on a live broadcast after the Kings Stanley cup victory. 2.  Even further shaken by some of the heat Dennis Prager received on air for his making note of the Mayor's language and denouncing it publicly. I, like you perhaps,  basically expect profanity in most PG and up rated movies.  I expect it in rap music.  I expect it in certain establishments or arenas (like a pub or sports stadium).  And i think that is sad and disappointing. It was only a few decades ago that profanity was considered "profane".  That is to say: vulgar and obscene, and not for use in public or in the proximity of children.  Profane language was understood to be irreverent and indicative of poor manners and inappropriate social skills.  Foul language actually brought about an automatic nonverbal expression of disgust upon many listeners, as if they had just smelled something foul.  Of course people my guess is that people were more religious and less secular then.  The ubiquity and normalcy of profanity is necessary a consequence of secularism.  If there is no God, then there is no concept of holy.  And if there is nothing is holy, then nothing is profane.  I understand why it happened, and why individuals engage in profanity (I was typical atheistic offender), but now I don't agree with it and I'd like to help other overcome it.  Today it seems as though profane or vulgar language (e.g. sexual terms, bathroom terms, or blasphemous terms) are so normative that now it takes a bit of courage to stand up against.  And I am thoroughly against... I am curious.   For those who think profane, vulgar, or obscene language is a good thing to answer a question... What good does it do? Or if you are unsure answer this: Is a society better or worse for no longer recognizing there is appropriate and inappropriate language? If you answer is liberty driven, meaning you think it's great people are free to express themselves in any manner, then: Is there anything someone can do or say to express themselves publicly that you find inappropriate and should not be allowed? The argument Dennis Prager made on his show to one caller was something like this (paraphrased and condensed, not verbatim ~ the whole exchange is on the podcast.  For more subscribe to pragertopia.): Caller:  Dennis you are religious hypocrite and should forgive and tolerate this language. Dennis:  Is there any language the Mayor could have said that you would have found inappropriate? Caller: No.  The mayor was excited and expressing himself. Dennis: So if the man went up on stage naked, you would be okay with that? Caller: No.  But now you are taking it too far. Dennis: No.  I find obscene language too far, and you find nudity to far.  We agree that in public expression there are lines that should not be crossed, but ours are set at different points. Dennis is correct.  Prager's question is not a reductio ad absurdum argument.  Rather it truly illustrates the point that most people have standards they have set for public behavior, and one of our problems stem from the fact that our society has lost it's civil agreement on where that line is now.  Regardless, almost everyone will agree that at a certain point someone's words or actions can be harmful to themselves and/or others.  No we have to determine where that line should be drawn... otherwise we will have no idea what should be avoided. The rabbis say: The first step to doing good is to avoid evil. And Psalm 34 teaches us: 11Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. 12Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, 13keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. 14Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. So again, the main question is: What good does your language do?  If you are using language that does no good, then it may simply be benign... but profanity, it could be argued, is labeled as such for a reason.  Profane language is vulgar and obscene and potentially harmful. Maybe you disagree.  Maybe you think it does no harm.  So then would you speak with profanity when addressing a judge in a court of law?  Or would you use vulgar language to express yourself on a job interview?  If you were trying to gain the admiration of someone on the first date, would you do so by using foul language? Of course not.  So then how can you say profanity does no harm.  If you say it in the private, then harm to others is averted (temporarily), but I would argue that it still pollutes you, your thinking, and your experiences. If you use vulgar language (even alone) then it affects your state of mind and alters your reality.  For instance, I could be alone in my car and furious about someone driving rudely.  I have a choice: I could scream to myself in the car about this "F___g A_____le M____r F_____r!"  Which will only get me further riled up about the situation and when I replay it my mind that scream and that language will be color of the memory (hence it is "colorful" language.) Or I could angrily say this person is "Rude and inconsiderate and probably narcissistic".  At which point, I typically start to realize that the rude driver is also another human and not all that unlike myself at times... and besides I'm sure I've cut someone off before and did not even realize it. So which language (which only I could hear) will bring about a better state of mind?  Which one will remember the situation more vividly and emotionally?  Which results in mental images that will be brighter, louder, and more disturbing?  Which language will escalate were it to happen again? Let's face, the words we use to describe ourselves and our world have an element of self-fulfillment.  The way you describe yourself, your experiences, and the world around you determine and predict your likelihood of success and happiness.   I can only think of two ways obscene language can do possibly good, but the risks are great in both cases for making things worse: 1. When used to strike fear in your enemy or assailant (i.e. You see a man attempting to mug someone and use foul language to get his (as well as others) attention and/or to scare him off.) 2. When used with delicate precision to shift a persons mental state (e.g. Like an Ericksonian technique used often by Tony Robbins to "scratch the record" being played in a listeners mind) Now both of these situations require caution and should not be used as guidelines for every day life.  Don't go around thinking everyone is a threat and barking vulgarities at them.  IF you do see something be careful like a mugging, be aware that your language may actually cause the situation to escalate.  And definitely if you are not trained, experienced, and KNOW ( I mean know - not feel, guess, or hope) that your use of profanity will shift your listeners mind in a helpful direction, then do not do it!  You will likely lose your audience, and he will lose respect for you. If you were to think of profane language as though it were another taboo action, then perhaps you would no longer be cavalier about it.  Maybe it would help to think of using obscene language as if it were smoking crack.  My guess is that you would not find it okay to smoke crack in public.  Hopefully you also realize it is not wise or beneficial to smoke crack in private.  Why?  Forget legalities.  Why would you not do it, nor would you want to witness anyone doing it?  First of all you would lose respect for that person.  They are not acting in any way that is descent nor are they acting with dignity.  We all know (the crack smoker included) that smoking crack is terrible for a person.  And this is also why you would never do it in private.  Folks lose their lives to this drug.  Sane and intelligent people lose their minds to a drug.  Human beings lose their soul to this drug and become only a shell of their former self. The same can be said of profanity, though albeit in a more subtle and socially acceptable way. Can you go for 24 hours without saying one word of profanity?  Can you go a week?  If not, then you have a problem.  Just as an alcoholic cannot help himself from taking a drink, so to with those who have lost control of their speech.  I used the same argument when speaking about lashon hara (as learned from R' Telushkin). If you have lost control and use vulgar language even when you are trying not to, then I can almost guarantee you think using profane words as well.  The words have corrupted your mind like a drug.  And once they have done that, then your speech is impeded.  How many times have you had to stop yourself from using obscene language?  Well, for those to whom you were speak to at those times... they likely noticed. There are slight pauses where I catch people trying to correct their word choice mid sentence.  They are so accustomed to thinking in vulgarities to describe their experiences or thoughts that they find it difficult to express themselves fluently.  Our brains work at a certain speed and pace, and when it is joggled to catch, eliminate, and substitute certain words that are routine - it breaks the pace of your thinking and speech.  Often times people hear this as insincerity, deceit, or unclear thinking.  None of these traits you want associated with yourself should you be on a date, job interview, or sales meeting. For folks who think they are successfully filtering out their vulgarities, and especially for those who have no filter what so ever, I would argue their entire human experience is peppered with obscenities and vulgarities.  This is not a path to a deep and meaningful life.  Like the crack addict, the profanity addict loses their ability to think with clarity and depth, articulate their thoughts fluently to others, and inevitably will they will likely feel a loss of dignity. I could go on, but hopefully you are convinced at this point to no longer engage in profane language. So lets look at solutions: 1.  Become Aware. Just like in the Twelve Step programs you must recognize you have a problem. When do you use profane language? What vulgar words do you use? Why did you use them? How has it limited you to this point? How has it harmed you up to this point? Who else has been harmed? So after you make your list of words, the context of their use, and why you should not use them: 2. Create Compelling Alternatives Next to each vulgar expression write at least two new expression you can use as substitutes. Practice.  Really, put yourself in the situation... and rehearse.  Yes it will feel awkward, because it is new.  If you were to rehearse using your boring old vulgar and obnoxious vocabulary you wouldn't find it nearly as awkward - evidence you need rehearsal time. Yes you may be at a loss on how to express yourself without profanity.  That's okay, we already know you have a problem. So do the best you can with the limited lexicon you have and: 3. Research and Development Research, learn, and adopt new words.  You will find there is an ocean of undiscovered words waiting for you to reel them in and utilize them. HOW?  Here's how you expand your vocabulary: Read.  Read often.  Only read quality literature.  And routinely Read ALOUD. You don't need to read aloud all the time.  But at least 3 times a week set aside some time 10, 20, or 30 minutes to simply read some great classic literature aloud. Suggested writings and authors: The Bible or at least Psalms (No profane words in Hebrew) Shakespeare Dickens Dostoevsky Poe Melville's "Moby Dick" and I love the creativity and insight of Mark Twain. Read and learn how to pepper your language and create drama without the use of profanity by reading classic literature. Now that you are actively guarding your speech (shmiras halashon),  you must also learn to actively guard what you hear (shmiras oznayim). 4.  Guard Your Ears Just as I said in episode 45, if you hear gossip you should redirect or leave the conversation.  Same is true for when you hear profanity. Prepare and rehearse what you will say in redirecting or exiting such situations. Avoid music, movies, or even literature which that has profanity 5.  Just Start To make any change, any improvement you must simply start.  Many people quit before they ever even start.  Don't be that person. If you wanted to improve your body and make it strong and healthier you would likely start with diet and exercise. Now, in theory after a few months of diet and exercise you would think you would be dying to just be lazy and binge eat.  But anyone who has committed to a program knows the opposite is true. Its hard in the beginning, but once you get started... Build up some inertia... And begin to realize the benefits of your follow through... You not only lose many of those old desire - YOU HAVE AN AVERSION TO THEM! Guarding what goes in you mouth is very similar to guarding what comes out of it. Be patient, and merciful, and honest with yourself.  Stick with it and you will improve. Just as diet and exercise can make your body healthier and stronger, so to ridding your linguistic diet of profanity and gossip and exercising your mind and vocabulary you will build a better, healthier, and stronger character. Your ability to speak is a gift.  Nothing else on Earth can do what we do.  Nothing else can create the pain or the pleasure we can through simple utterances.  Realize your gifts and do your best with them to make them a source of goodness, decency, and dignity - for yourself and others.  

I have been a comic book and superhero fan since I was a young boy.  My comic book experiences were almost entirely due to my friends generosity.  My friends bought them (or their parents did) and I got to benefit from their libraries.  I especially liked Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Captain America, Wonder Woman, X-Men, and the Hulk (just to name a few.)  And what made the fantasy even more fun was when the comics came alive - being made into kitchy television shows, animated series, and of course the major motion pictures.  These comics weren't just entertainment for my friends and me, they were so much more. These Superheroes and the stories in the comics were a source of debate and conversation regarding many of life's ultimate issues.   Is there good and evil?  If so, what is the best way to deal with evil?  Does  good always really triumph over evil?  What about the evil who may be mightier? Is everyone equal in terms of abilities or contribution?  Can people change?  Are some cultures better than others?  These and many more issues were debated by us as young boys. These superheroes were not just fluff fictional stories designed to be fillers of our time, or keep us occupied so we didn't annoy the adults on a rainy day, nor were they just eye candy.  NO. These comics were filled, like I said, with super yet normative human dilemmas.  For instance, Superman was an alien who was fostered by an American couple in Kansas.  They taught him humility, responsibility and that he had a moral obligation to act good.  Though he was different he could fit in with the American culture.  We also learned what Superman thought of most human men.  To him they must have seemed typically meek and mild mannered, as that was his personality when he acted like Clark Kent.  And he may be right.  Many men unfortunately will not stand up and fight for what is right, and that is a real problem.  We need men to be strong, and strong willed to battle those who have chosen to act viciously towards our fellows.  Superman had ideals and he was not going to let them be swayed by peers or media.  He wanted people to focus on battling real evil and not petty differences among friends and neighbors.  Oh, and something else Superman did - He was always encouraging people and showing them that they are stronger and more capable than they think... they just have to be willing. And then there was the Hulk.  I loved the Hulk.  Here's how I identified with the Hulk: I too have another side of me, and I must battle it constantly.  Bruce Banner was a calm, thoughtful, articulate scientist... but don't make him angry!  Yes!!! I could totally identify with this character.   The Hulk rage was like a tantrum I would throw as a child (perhaps even as an adult), but it is up to me.  And when it is happening it is ME who is doing it.  It's a choice.  And by the way it is not easy to act on the choice.  It takes tons of effort to control your emotions, and not let triggers set you off.  The Hulk taught lessons that our youth today terribly need to hear - THE GREATEST BATTLE YOU WILL FIGHT IS WITH YOURSELF! Another great lesson, was that if you can learn to control your emotions rather than your emotions controlling you, then you can also learn to harness that energy and use for good.  What a concept! And Spiderman...  Look Peter Parker was also a lot like me and many of my friends.  Not cool among the guys, not popular with the girls, and nothing about him seemed extraordinary or special.  Plus, he lived alone with his Aunt (after his Uncle Ben is murdered).  Because of these reasons, I could totally resonate with Peter Parker.  I was (perhaps still am) a geeky dork who is average at best in the talent department, plus I lived much of my childhood alone with a single mother.  So we seemed to have some circumstantial similarities.  But of course Peter Parker became AMAZING once he was bit by the radioactive spider... where's the great lesson in that? For me the lesson was in knowing that we all have something to offer.  Often times, our amazingness comes from adversities we have faced.  And most often these are tough circumstances for which we had no responsibility for their occurrence - they happened to us. And though they happened to us, we can decide how we will react to them. My spider bite was in the form of severe migraine headaches.  At least that is what they were diagnosed as, I am not clear what they are or were.  But my point is that these "headaches" that I have had for as long as I can remember (meaning my earliest recollections include these things and I believe they were diagnosed when I was 5 or 6) became a part of me like the venom from that radioactive spider. But Peter Parker gained spider like abilities, what did I gain from migraines?  One cool thing I gained... a tremendous tolerance for pain.  This has proven to be extremely beneficial throughout life (e.g. sports, bodybuilding, martial arts, trauma).  Where others would restrict themselves for fear of pain, I could charge forward.  Therefore it allowed be to excel in many physical and mental venues, and do things most people would never dare to do.  I learned that pain is just pain... How I deal with it is up to me. Severe migraines also forced me to deal with something many people never deal with until much later in life if ever... Fear of death.  For a long time, since I was a kid, a boy, I remember over and over again when a particularly bad migraine would happen I would simply think "This is it."  Like a Californian expecting a catastrophic earthquake, I kept in mind that with every great migraine, it could be the end of my life, or worse a catastrophic stroke leaving me incapable yet alive.  This constant reminder was at times depressing, but I learned to get over that and instead cultivate a spirit for life.  I developed the attitude that I want to live as much life as I could before I die.  So I live fast.  I don't procrastinate, and I battle "wasting" time.  Thus, I have lived a very intense, intentional, and purposeful life ~ knowing that at any moment it could all go "poof." I could go on and on about the lessons I have learned from comics and superheroes, perhaps I will do another part of this as a series.  But here is why I started thinking about this... There was something else that these comics did for us as kids, or at least of me... It was an indoctrination into Americanism.  These comics helped foster a patriotism in my young mind.  They made me feel a love of country, and sense of pride, and sense of gratitude for being an American. Why?  Well there was a lot of overt patriotism in the characters themselves.  Superman and Wonder Woman's costumes for example seemed joyfully patriotic.  And then you had the unmistakable Captain America - Steve Rogers who really looked like a superhero version of the American flag personified.  Even the casual admirer of these superheroes would be influenced by these patriotic suggestions and narratives. And then just a day or so ago I read this from the Wall Street Journal and it really got me thinking about a silent loss that has occurred for our youth. How Liberalism Became Kryptonite for Superman A graphic tale of modern comic books' descent into moral relativism.   By CHUCK DIXON And PAUL RIVOCHE    I read the whole article on the podcast, but as it is a WSJ article for subscribers I am only including the link above.  Though other sites may have it up.   This article by these two men who are involved with that industry got me thinking about why I stopped engaging with comics in general.  They lost their way over time.  They become more and more watered down and politically correct.  To a secular kid who was obsessed with morality and figuring out good, evil, truth, justice, and other major issues addressed explicitly or implicitly by these Superheroes - promoting everyday folks to develop super character development and understand super ideals.  Slowly the tide shifted and these moral giants were vanishing and being replaced by characters I couldn't or chose not to identify with.   Thankfully, from what I have seen in the 21st century movie versions, they seem to be coming back to some of the ideals that were promoted early on in the comics.  And that is great since kids are more likely to watch a movie than read a comic.  But once the movie is over... what is there to reinforce the character development.  Hence, we need a come back in the comic world of wholesome, values driven Superheroes who battle Evil villains.   The authors of the WSJ article mentioned the Comics Code Authority (CCA).  Interestingly, I believe that was created as a reaction to potential government censorship in the 50's due to a theory that comics may contribute to inappropriate behavior in kids or criminality. Below is from the original CCA.  Judge for yourself if they are "liberal" or "conservative" in nature:     The Comics Code Authority (as Adopted in 1954)Code of the Comics Magazine Association of America. Inc.Adopted on October 26, 1954, the enforcement of this Code is the basis for the comic magazine industry's program of self-regulation.PREAMBLE The comic book medium, having come of age on the American cultural scene, must measure up to its responsibilities. Constantly improving techniques and higher standards go hand in hand with these responsibilities. To make a positive contribution to contemporary life, the industry must seek new areas for developing sound, wholesome entertainment. The people responsible for writing, drawing, printing, publishing and selling comic books have done a commendable job in the past, and have been striving toward this goal. Their record of progress and continuing improvement compares favorably with other media in the communications industry. An outstanding example is the development of comic books as a unique and effective tool for instruction and education. Comic books have also made their contributiuon in the field of letters and criticism of contemporary life. In keeping with the American tradition, the members of this industry will and must continue to work together in the future. In this same tradition, members of the industry must see to it that gains made in this medium are not lost and that violations of standards of good taste, which might tend toward corruption of the comic book as an instructive and wholesome form of entertainment, will be eliminated. Therefore, the Comics Magazine Association of America, Inc. has adopted this Code, and placed strong powers of enforcement in the hands of an independent Code Authority. Further, members of the Association have endorsed the purpose and spirit of this Code as a virtual instrument to the growth of the industry. To this end, they have pledged themselves to conscientiously adhere to its principles and to abide by all decisions based on the Code made by the Administrator. They are confident that this positive and forthright statement will provide an effective bulwark for the protection and enhancement of the American reading public, and that it will become a landmark in the history of self-regulation for the entire communications industry. CODE FOR EDITORIAL MATTER General Standards Part A 1. Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals. 2. No comics shall explicitly present the unique details and methods of a crime. 3. Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority. 4. If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity. 5. Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates the desire for emulation. 6. In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds. 7. Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gun play, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated. 8. No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be shown. 9. Instances of law enforcement officers dying as a result of a criminal's activities should be discouraged. 10. The crime of kidnapping shall never be portrayed in any detail, nor shall any profit accrue to the abductor or kidnapper. The criminal or the kidnapper must be punished in every case. 11. The letter of the word "crime" on a comics magazine shall never be appreciably greater than the other words contained in the title. The word "crime" shall never appear alone on a cover. 12. Restraint in the use of the word "crime" in titles or sub-titles shall be exercised. General Standards Part B 1. No comics magazine shall use the word horror or terror in its title. 2. All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted. 3. All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated. 4. Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly nor as to injure the sensibilities of the reader. 5. Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism and werewolfism are prohibited. General Standards Part C All elements or techniques not specifically mentioned herein, but which are contrary to the spirit and intent of the Code, and are considered violations of good taste or decency, shall be prohibited. Dialogue 1. Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden. 2. Special precautions to avoid references to physical afflictions of deformities shall be taken. 3. Although slang and colloquialisms are acceptable, excessive use should be discouraged and wherever possible good grammar shall be employed. Religion 1. Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible. Costume 1. Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure. 2. Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable. 3. All characters shall be depicted in dress reasonably acceptable to society. 4. Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities. NOTE: It should be recognized that all prohibitions dealing with costume, dialogue, or artwork apply as specifically to the cover of a comic magazine as they do to the contents. Marriage and Sex 1. Divorce shall not be treated humorously nor represented as desirable. 2. Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at or portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable. 3. Respect for parents, the moral code, and for honorable behavior shall be fostered. A sympathetic understanding of the problems of love is not a license for moral distortion. 4. The treatment of love-romance stories shall emphasize the value of the home and the sanctity of marriage. 5. Passion or romantic interest shall never be treated in such a way as to stimulate the lower and baser emotions. 6. Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested. 7. Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden. CODE FOR ADVERTISING MATTER These regulations are applicable to all magazines published by members of the Comics magazine Association of America, Inc. Good taste shall be the guiding principle in the acceptance of advertising. 1. Liquor and tobacco advertising is not acceptable. 2. Advertising of sex or sex instruction books are unacceptable. 3. The sale of picture postcards, "pin-ups," "art studies," or any other reproduction of nude or semi-nude figures is prohibited. 4. Advertising for the sale of knives, concealable weapons, or realistic gun facsimiles is prohibited. 5. Advertising for the sale of fireworks is prohibited. 6. Advertising dealing with the sale of gambling equipment or printed matter dealing with gambling shall not be accepted. 7. Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals. 8. To the best of his ability, each publisher shall ascertain that all statements made in advertisements conform to the fact and avoid misinterpretation. 9. Advertisement of medical, health, or toiletry products of questionable nature are to be rejected. Advertisements for medical, health or toiletry products endorsed by the American Medical Association, or the American Dental Association, shall be deemed acceptable if they conform with all other conditions of the Advertising Code. (text source: Comics Magazine Association of America. Facts about Code-Approved Comics Magazines. New York: the Association, 1959.)   Were publishers of our current children's television, internet, video game, and comic hold themselves to these same rules and standards, I would argue we would have much better behaved and morally thinking youths in our society.   Therefore it is our task to support those who are fighting to bring these ideals back to media that is enjoyable, educational, and influential for our kids.  It is good for our kids, mostly boys, who really need these kinds of ideals and lessons... and role models.  Our society desperately needs morally thinking, action oriented, ambitious boys.   In fact, I will argue that another thing I learned from these Superheroes is that girls like amazing men.  No super hero's mild manner alter ego ever wooed any girls, but his super-amazing side sure did.   Look, if you were like me and did not grow up religious and did not have a constant male role model then these characters were invaluable for male maturation.  What boy didn't want to be Superman?  Honorable, honest, generous,thoughtful, romantic and yet strong, aggressive, ambitious, confident, and best of all courageous.   When Lex Luther would beat him down and weaken him with kryptonite the Superman knew that it wasn't just himself he was fighting for - NO, he felt a moral obligation to defend the rest of the good people and fight for noble principles - like truth, justice, and the American way.   We all have a choice in how we behave and live our lives.  We all have a choice in the attitudes we hold for ourselves, others, and our general philosophy of life.  These Superheroes taught me to be ambitious, think big, do good, and keep battling my greatest enemy - MY SELF!   Till next time...  

This weeks parsha Beha'alotecha (Numbers 8:1–12:16) brought to mind an ultimate issue I'd like to discuss. Numbers Ch. 9 (NIV) 1The Lord spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, 2“Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. 3Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations.” 4So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover, 5and they did so in the Desert of Sinai at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. The Israelites did everything just as the Lord commanded Moses. 6But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 7and said to Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be kept from presenting the Lord’s offering with the other Israelites at the appointed time?” 8Moses answered them, “Wait until I find out what the Lord commands concerning you.” 9Then the Lord said to Moses, 10“Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover,11but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. They will bear the consequences of their sin.  This situation and the conflict presented is not exclusive to the people or the times.  No, it's a universal conflict.  What is it?  Often times in life we feel a conflict between Standards and Compassion. Usually I I do an issue in order to find clarity myself, or I'm trying to help others clarify an issue.  But this is an instance where I don't just prefer clarity over agreement... I really do want agreement.  If we can agree on the ideas I am presenting in this Ultimate Issue, then I think we can create a better society the more we adopt this philosophy. And that idea is: We should have Standards dominate the Macro (Public, Societal) Life, and Compassion dominate the Micro (Private, Personal) Life ~ ideas adopted and learned from Dennis Prager and inferred from Judaic teachings Understand the differences between: Standards vs Compassion: Standards = Rules, Standards, and Regulated ways of behavior so as to bring about a better society Compassion = Doing kindness, Behave lovingly, and feeling empathy for other individuals Macro vs Micro: Macro = Big picture, Global view, Society, Public matters Micro = Close up & Magnified picture, Anecdotal incidence, Individual, Private matters   Compassion should dominate the workings of our personal life.  For instance: How we personally deal with others transgressions. (i.e. adultery) How we personally deal with those we do not particularly like or understand. (i.e. the "other") How we personally deal with those whom we do not agree. (i.e. the brotherly dispute) Standards have to dominate the workings of our societal life.  For instance: How we societally deal with other transgressions.  (i.e. court rulings on adultery) How we societally deal with those we do not particularly like or understand. (i.e. the "other")   Case 1: Same Sex Marriage:  You should personally love and have compassion for homosexuals and empathize with their desire for marriage.  And have standards for the society that don't falter due to the personal emotions.  With such understand and empathy it is logical to necessary to set up a workable scenario where a same sex couple can still live with the rights and obligations similar to that of a married couple (i.e. civil union). Case 2: Peanut allergies: The popular policy banning peanuts (any and all forms) because someone may have an allergy is an example of one sided, micro compassion dominating the macro workings of a society.  It shows compassion for the child who may have an allergy, but what about compassion for the rest of kids who love peanut butter and it serves as an inexpensive and enjoyable choice for kids to get fat and protein in their diet. Case 3: Adultery: Often standards in the macro when applied to the micro end up being cruel.  For instance, if the standard for a society rules adultery is bad for families and ultimately the civilization, then it is a macro issue.  But if the individual has no compassion for the adulterer and treats it as automatic grounds for divorce or denies the humanity of the parties involved then that is an example of a macro standard which has been abused in the micro workings of life.  The individuals in a society should keep perspective regarding micro/personal/private issues and macro/societal/public issues.   Thus, this should lead to an admonishment of the action, but compassion for the individual.  Typically the over zealous standards in the micro life tend to occur in religious lives.  Which is not quite so common in most of Western society as it has become more and more secular. Stringent standards ruling Personal/Macro issues denies: Dignity Empathy Humility Generosity Compassion Ruling Society/Macro issues denies: Truth Wisdom Character development "Fairness"   Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society. Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves. ~ Dennis Prager read full article here

So in listening to a recent Dennis Prager show on his podcast, I was struck by the opportunity Dennis had to make it clear to his listeners how morally confused many people are despite (or because of) their great intentions or great education. On the podcast I play the actual snippet, but since doing this podcast Dennis Prager used this exact same call for his own article this week: A Young College Grad Calls My Show Below is the abridged transcript from the show and his article cited above: JEFF: I wanted to respond to your question about America being feared in the world. You brought up Syria. I think it’s a little naive, and maybe that’s not even the right word, to boil down such complex international issues into just good and bad. Like to say that America, for you, represents good. And to just boil down the Syria situation into good and bad is to underestimate the complexity of the situation. Because if the United States were to get involved there, you know, there might be consequences for us in that region that I think would be definitely more bad than good. DP: Like what? JEFF: If we were to depose Assad, there could be a power vacuum and that could create more problems than we intended. DP: There are two separate questions here. One is: Should the United States be feared by bad regimes? The other is: What should the United States do? They’re not identical. So let’s deal with the first: Would you acknowledge that it would be good if countries like Putin’s Russia, Iran or North Korea — though I don’t compare Putin to North Korea — feared us? And do you think they do? JEFF: I think that’s a really good question. If I had the answer to that I think I’d be secretary of state. DP: It’s not that tough a question. What we should do is a tough question. But whether America should be feared by bad regimes is not a tough question. Let me just throw in a tangential comment that I think is important: I presume you went to college. JEFF: Oh, yeah. DP: The reason I presume that you went to college is that you were taught — and this is no knock on you whatsoever since anyone who takes liberal arts courses, in political science in particular, is taught — what you just told me: You can’t divide between good and bad, because it’s too complex. But that’s not accurate. There is a good and bad. Yes, sometimes there is bad and worse — in Syria today, for example. But between Syria and the United States the difference is between bad and good. Would you agree that it’s between bad and good between Syria and the United States? JEFF: As an American, absolutely. DP: Wait a minute. That’s a terrible answer. I don’t want you to answer me as an American. I want you to answer me as a moral human. JEFF: I can only answer you as an American. I can’t answer you as anyone else. DP: That’s not true. If I asked you how much two and two is, you wouldn’t answer me as an American. JEFF: Here’s my only comment, I would just, you know, hesitate to boil down international issues of such complexity, with multiple variables, to, “It’s simply good or bad.” And that’s my only comment. DP: Thank you for calling. The way Dennis handles this call is an outstanding example of how he exercises his philosophy of "preferring clarity over agreement."  He was not going to sway this caller (and I doubt that is his typical intention, rather I presume his objective is to sway the minds of the listening audience.)  But what he does do is help get clarity about how he and his dissenting callers truly differ. So what do you think?  This one call brings up several major issues. Can we make moral judgements?  Are there better and worse people - ethically?  Can we morally judge leadership of countries? Are there good ideas and evil ideas?  Do these ideas shape the culture of a nation into ones that acts good and/or evil?  So therefore, can we say some cultures are better or worse than others? Or is it too complicated to judge the righteousness of a nation or culture?  In other words... Since culture are complex can we never deduce that one culture is morally superior to any another? If we can clearly conclude better or worse in terms of cultures or leadership moralities into "Good and Evil".. Should the Good battle the Evil?  Or should everyone tolerate one another - to each there own... which is not logically possible considering the nature of evil. Assuming America is a force for good, should America be feared by evil regimes?  In other words... Is it good for America and/or the rest of the world that other nations (particularly those whose regimes explicitly state their desire to end America and Americanism) have a genuine fear of American intervention in their affairs (whether it be through military, financial, or other actions?  Is the world a better place when America and nations like America are feared? All of these questions hinge on the first one: Can we make moral judgements? Another interesting thing for me is how correct Dennis is in assuming this caller went to college.  I routinely heard this "complexity" mantra when I was in college.  Sadly, many parents send there kids to college to learn skills for a profession, but unless there kids go into the sciences - their education is centered on how to "think" like Leftists.  This young caller may or may not think of himself as being on the Left, regardless his mind is thinking like a Leftist.  I have seen this in many Libertarians, who think they are centrists or even on the right, but the fact is that regarding foreign affairs their values are identical with the Left's. While I don't want this to be a political topic, politics is part of the topic. Some major topics and issues are wrapped up with politics.  This is one. But lets just take morality out and speak to something that people may feel more comfortable with: economics and freedom. Do you think any one economic system is better or worse than another?  Do you think free economy is better or worse than a state dictated economy? The hard truth that people don't like to confront is that if a free market economy is not fought for, it will not remain a free market.  What will it become?  It will become a State run economy of one sort or another.  So in other words, if capitalism (free market economy) is not fought for, then the economy will naturally fall into a State run program such as socialism or communism.  Neither socialism nor communism have done good for their people historically (Maoist China, Lenin's and Stalin's Russia, as well as the current collapse of Europe.)  Capitalism on the other hand has done tremendous good, despite its reputation.  Ironically many of the woes it has suffered have been due to the State trying to "fix" the economy, rather than letting markets work it out on their own. Capitalism has become a dirty word, so I often use free market economy so as not to turn off listeners ears.  The Left's dominant influence in the universities has effectively demonized "capitalism", again perhaps one of the strongest forces for goodness in our world. Capitalism has enabled industry, technology, medicine, literacy, energy, and nearly every other facet of human advancement to move at the most rapid pace and on the broadest of scales ever in human history.   Judge a free market economy such as the U.S. verses any other economy in history and they all pale in comparison.  Judge economies by the fruit that it bears.  The America's "poor" have higher living standards than many of the middle class in many parts of western Europe (large homes, air conditioning, tv, cable, smart phones, computers or game consoles, cars, etc.)  Compared to much of Asia or Africa - America's poor are living the American dream by their standards. Because of the idea that is America, we have witnessed the greatest prosperity and freedom of upward mobility ever. So what is this idea all about.  Is it just about the economy?  NO! It is about what drives the economy.  And what drives people to take great risks to come here from their homelands.  And what gives parents pride when their children decide to join our heroes in uniform. It is all about VALUES! Dennis Prager has articulated this idea best in his book "Still the Best Hope."       American values (or as Prager calls it Americanism) are bedrock of our success in all areas.  And as the subtitle of Prager's book states "... the World needs American Values to Triumph." What are these American values?  Prager refers to them as the American Trinity: Liberty - Freedom is the Essence of the American Idea, and it must be constantly fought for. In God We Trust -  God is the source of liberty, and everyone should feel morally accountable to God.  We are to be a religious people with a secular government. E Pluribus Unum (From Many - ONE) - Though originally this motto referred to the 13 colonies making One Nation, the motto also has been understood to mean that from the many variegated peoples that comprise America they are united in the idea and one culture that is American. All three of these values are in a constant losing battle at the university.  The universities (and increasingly more and more in public schools) are attacking these values and indoctrinating students into the Left's ideologies: Political Correctness, Diversity, Multi-Culturalism, Moral Relativism, Secularism, Socialism, and many other forms of radical ideas which are fundamentally opposed to Americanism. Why and how the Left took over our universities (and education in general - globally) is a subject for another Ultimate Issue.  But it is tough to argue against the fact that the Left dominates college faculty and administration - never mind the students. Source: Washington Post, NY Times, RationalWiki, and of course, you can read Still the Best Hope for more sources. But the Left does not only dominate universities, Leftism dominates nearly all non-religious educational systems in the world.  Leftism dominates nearly all non-religious media in the world.  From entertainment to news, television to newspapers... the Left has organized itself to dominate the airwaves, theaters, and newsstands.  Again, the exception would be media produced with religious conservative affiliations as well as much of American talk-radio.  That is about it... And now here is how I see how all of this is connected.  Leftism is fundamentally opposed to religion and God. Leftism is the most dynamic religion in the world. ~ Dennis Prager Because Leftism is a "religion" and part of the nature of Leftism is totalitarian, then it is completely understandable why it would war against traditional religions and any notion of Ethical Monotheism. Traditional religions (Judaism, Christianity, etc.) are typically vehicles used to elevate people above and beyond their animal natures and help make them better and more holy individuals.  Ethical Monotheism (like in Judaism and Christianity) holds all people accountable to One God who makes moral demands on them (e.g. do not steal, do not murder, etc.) Leftism however is a secular religion, and therefore has no room for such beliefs in creating what it holds as an ideal society.  All one needs to do is read Marx or about Marxism and this will all become clear. A god of Leftism is the State.  The further left one goes the the bigger the state and control they demand.  The bigger the state gets the closer we get to Utopia. A god of Leftism is Material.  Dialectal and historical materialism is a dogmatic belief in Leftist philosophy (the philosophy of how things change, and the background of how society has changed in the past).  This is not "materialism" in the sense of love and desire for material things.  Rather this is materialism in the sense that only matter is real. So there is no God.  There is no holy or sacred.  There is no reality beyond this material world. And this materialistic philosophy made famous by Marx is a huge source for all the moral confusion we have today.  Basically, the idea is that all of human behavior can be summed up by relating it back to complex material relations.  That is to say that Marxism holds that people act according to the relationships they have with material reality.  Hence, we have the notion that Race, Gender, and Class are the answers to why people do what they do.  And it also why VALUES, is never cited as the source for human behavior. Also, if the humanity is comprised of complex relationships between material states of existence then no one can judge another, because you can not possibly understand the complicated struggles that involve his history, class, race, and lifestyle. Here's the deal... Whether you like it or not, or agree or not with Marxism or Leftism - the Marxist ideas have spread like an invasive plant introduced to a new environment.  All it takes is the introduction of an invasive plant, and it can overtake a well established forest. Marxism, promoted via Leftism (formerly known as Liberalism, formally known as Progressivism) invades, overtakes, and corrupts the moral culture of a society like America. If you think "Who am I too judge?" or "We are not to judge other cultures", it is highly likely you have been indoctrinated into Leftism. If you think "No nation is any better or worse than any other nation", the Marxist propaganda has worked. If you think "There is no such thing as objective morality", then your moral compass is broken and in need of repair. Why?  Because if you cannot discern between good and evil behavior then you can not possibly help fight evil.  Evil, immoral behavior based on the ethical values given to us by God, must be fought - otherwise it grows.  In order to fight evil, you must be able to recognize it.  And fighting evil is the most important task a person can tackle.  The future will be Leftist, Islamist*, and Americanism.  Do you have the moral clarity to decide which is better and which is worse?  And why? The only proven way to achieve this (ending evil) on any large scale is the American value system. (...) Liberty In God We Trust E Pluribus Unum ~ Dennis Prager "Still The Best Hope" * Islamist refers to those who feel the need to fight and conquer the world in order to establish Sharia Law.  I am not referring to all 1.3 billion Muslims.  I am referring to the self admitted 10%  of the 1.3 billion who do desire Muslim world domination and universal Sharia law.

Tattooing in process. Artist: Damien Bart of Bruce Bart Tattooing. Model: Cary Bass. Photographer: Michael Deschenes. Why do people get tattoos? Why are they becoming more and more popular throughout American society? Why does the Bible prohibit tattoos? Why should a person who doesn't believe in God not get a tattoo? I have thought about these questions since I was about 4 or 5 years old, a time when we briefly lived in Japan.  I remember how cool I thought these tattooed Japanese men were.  And thats the best way I can recall that feeling... they were cool.  So since I wanted to be cool, I always wanted to get tattooed.  Plus, my mom was vociferously against it, which meant I had to do it right? But as I matured and was of age to legally go get a tattoo I really questioned the whole thing. Why tattoos?  What is the appeal?  Why are so many against tattoos (at least 20 years ago)?  What is wrong with tattoos? Well I have come up with my own hypothesis over the years, and I feel like I am at a vantage point were I can say with a good amount of clarity regarding: A) The Reasons Why People Get Tattooed B) The Reasons Why People Should Not Get Tattooed First let's talk about the easy part, Why People Get Tattooed I can explain this desire and behavior based on Human Needs Psychology: Every person has six basic psychological needs and will think and act in a way to fulfill them. They are: Certainty: The need to feel safe, secure, or certain about things Variety: The need to feel change, uncertain, or challenged Significance: The need to feel important, special, or needed. Love/Connection: The need to feel a part of a community, family, or bond to another. Growth: The need to feel development emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, or physically. Contribution: The need to feel we have or are more than enough and have something to offer others. So with a basic understanding of these six needs, we can begin to understand what motivates human behavior (good or bad.)  And we can certainly begin to understand the psychology behind why people get tattooed.  To be clear, I am not suggesting every person with a tattoo gets one for every reason I am discussing... but I am fairly sure they get tattooed with at least two needs being fulfilled strongly.  And the more tattooed they are the more psychological needs are being met - and with greater intensity. So let's just work down the list: Certainty One the arguments people make against tattoos actually feeds desire to get one.   "You know that's permanent right?"  I remember people saying this kind of nonsense to me.  Occasionally I had to be a smart ass and quip back, "NO? Really? I was just going to get one to impress this girl I'm takin out on a date tonight.  Geez thanks for the intel!" Not many things in life are "permanent." Most things are obviously transient in our life.  But now I can own something that will last me the rest of my life.  I can put it on a credit card and not worry about someone taking it back if I don't make payments.  It won't ever be forever lost in the abyss between my sofa cushions.  Wow!  Sounds pretty good.  Finally I have lifetime guarantee that I can be certain of. Do you see how getting tattooed can invoke strong feelings of certainty for some folks?  That simple act of paying a guy to put ink in your skin can cause a person to feel certain and secure - fulfilling that need. Variety But what about Variety? So in case you didn't catch it in the list, there is a paradoxical relationship between our 6 psychological needs.  This tension is what we all experience when we feel conflicted or confused by our actions, desires, or decisions.  Even though we need to feel certain, if we felt absolute certainty we would be bored and miserable - so we crave variety. If you hear the way many people describe their tattoos you will understand how they are fulfilling their need for variety.  Often they use metaphors like "my skin is a blank canvas."  Well if you think of your skin as just a boring unused canvas (just wasted potential) then a great way to change things up is to start painting on it.  And for many that is exactly what happens.  And then once they have one piece of art, the realize all the other real estate available and wide variety of art they can install on their body throughout their life.  Hence, the issue of "tattoo addiction".  Often people can't just settle for one.  Many tattooist can recognize these folks as soon as they sit in the chair for the first time. And leads me to that is the other part of variety that tattooing fulfills. If you are bored and want a state change, tattooing will do it instantly.  No longer will today just be another day.  No, the day you go get your tattoo is filled with anticipation and excitement.  No matter if its your first or your tenth, the feelings remain though the intensity may lessen.  There is a rush, a release of endorphins, that comes with the tattoo itself.  The body has an amazing response to the pain.  For some, like myself it is actually relaxing.  For others, it is terrifying.  Regardless of the response... EVERYONE has a reaction to the sound, the vibration, and the penetration of the needles rapidly piercing the skin.  So what ever you were feeling before, it has changed. Significance Significance may be the most common psychological need fulfilled by tattoos.  Everyone needs to feel they are special.  Tattoos are a very simple and relatively easy way to feel unique, special, or distinct from others.  You could by clothes and try to appear different,  but someone else will likely have bought the same exact thing.  Or you could by try to fulfill the feeling significance by driving a particular car, but someone else will also be driving that model.  However, that tattoo is special and unique to you. If a person lives with "significance" near the top of their list, tattooing may be an outlet for them to fulfill that need easily.  I think there are many people in the Gen-X and Millennial crowd who do place significance as their number one or two psychological need.  This is why so many are trying to become famous for fame's sake alone.  And it explains why tattoos are exploding in our society, as each person is trying to make himself look different and special. Love and Connection Again we have a tension between becoming so significant that we become a total outcast and our need to connect to another.  Virtually no one gets tattooed in such a way that they cannot connect to any one else.  From people with swastikas tattooed all over their bodies, to a guy with a skull tattooed over his entire face, to the guy that is tattooed like a big cat - they all have a niche they now belong to.  Yep, like tends to like. Even though the people who have what you may deem outlandish tattoos fit in to a community that appreciates that.  They too have fulfilled a fundamental psychological need. But what about the rest of the tattooed population? Well the fact is that same tribal mentality for the "freaks" extends to everyone else with tattoos (the definition of "freak" is extremely subjective).  On the grand scale, many with tattoos feel they are kindred spirits with anyone else with a tattoo ( I really wish someone had informed me of this before I started getting tattooed.) There is a tremendous sense of bonding that occurs through the tattoo.  People believe they bond with the tattooist.  People feel they bond with friends or lovers with similar tattoos.  People feel they bond with loved ones, living or dead, with tattoos.  People feel they bond with others with similar tattoos  (e.g. military, gangs, athletes, musicians, activists, etc.) There is no doubt that some people fulfill their need for love and connection through tattoos. Growth Okay maybe you have followed my up to this point, but now you may be asking "How in the world does a tattoo make someone feel 'growth'?" Have you ever heard of a 'rite of passage'? For millennia humans of various cultures including modern Americans use tattoos to fulfill their need to feel growth, maturation, status change, or (ironically in the case of the older crowd who begins getting tattooed) - to feel youthful. Our subconscious knows that if we are not growing we are dying.  We will find all kinds of ways to fulfill this need even if it actually is to our detriment. For many people getting tattooed marks a passage in their journey through life.  As Johnny Depp says it "My body is my journal, and my tattoos are my story."  This feeling is true for many with tattoos. The tattoo for many people is not just a tattoo.  Rather at the time they are getting it is a powerful symbol that, for them, marks a significant shift in their life.  Whether its motherhood, manhood, or the Marine corp the tattoos people get fulfill that need to feel like they have grown and improved. Contribution There is no way tattoos fulfill the need to feel like a person is contributing, right? Wrong. Remember when I mentioned people metaphorically refer to their skin as a canvas.  Well believe it or not, there are people who feel their tattoo contributes to the world, like an artist does when he paints a masterpiece. For the tattooed person, they are partners with the tattooist.  In their minds, he couldn't do the work without their canvas, their willingness, their fortitude, their finances, and their ideas about what the art should look like. Seriously, just as an painter, sculptor, or musician feels like their work contributes to the world by adding beauty or even just controversy - so to is the case for some folks with tattoos. They even refer to their tattoos as their "art collection."  They feel that they are living, breathing, walking art galleries.  They are sharing their art with anyone and everyone around them. For this person, they feel they are contributing to society like an art collector does when they donate works to a museum. Yep that's me and my arms. Sometimes we have a constant reminder of our past transgressions, so be careful how you act today. Why NOT to Get Tattooed Everyone experiences these same six human needs, but not everyone does so in the same way.  Regardless, everyone will find ways to satisfy these needs.  Some ways are good, healthy, and productive.  Other ways are bad, unhealthy, and destructive. I am of the opinion that tattoos are an unwise, unhealthy, and potentially destructive method to satisfy these basic psychological needs. Now to be clear, I do NOT think tattoos are immoral. I do NOT think tattoos are determinative of someone's character. There are good, ethical people with tattoos.  There are disgusting, evil people without tattoos. So with that said... As a person who has been tattooed for decades, and who has worked in the tattoo industry let me be candid about brutally honest about tattoos. As a young secular man, no one could offer me any valid reasons why I shouldn't get tattooed. I started because A) I thought they were cool. B) I thought they made men look intimidating. C) I thought they would make me feel powerful. D) Girls thought they were sexy. E) I wanted to get out of bodybuilding, but still feel special - Tattoos seemed perfect at that time. Like so many young men, I had 'Significance' as my number one psychological need I was constantly trying to satisfy.  Tattoos seemed like a great (or at least easy) way to do it.  While it was easier than going to the gym, I won't say it was greater. All they did was feed my significance monster and boost its metabolism.  Rather than focusing on my accomplishments or doing something of merit to feel significant, I found a very easy medium that made me feel significant. This is the trap that so many of our youth fall into.  The easy way is rarely if every the good way. What if I had never begun getting tattooed? What more empowering and meaningful ways could I have satisfied my desire to feel significant? Perhaps, I would have realized sooner that significance should not be number one in my list.  After all, I can look back and realize that what I really wanted was t0 ultimately feel growth and contribution.  But my stubborn arrogance kept me focused on ME, and trying to be something special. Tattoos, piercings, crazy hair color, or whatever people do to make themselves stand out in a crowd are all distractions from their real issues.  And worse, they are meaningless in regards to making you special or significant.  So you have fire engine red hair - so what?  Any one can do that.  So you have a tattoo - Big deal - while you may think it has tremendous meaning - no one else really cares. If you want to feel special, then go out an do something that deems you special, important, or significant.  Give to others in a way that really impacts their lives.  Invent something that will change lives.  Accomplish something of merit that you and other can recognize as good. What good does your tattoo do?  None. What I am saying for myself and my reasoning behind getting tattooed will hold water for anyone else and their reasons. Everyone who is going to get a tattoo is trying to fulfill one or more psychological needs.  First figure out what needs are not being met.  Then get honest about what can really satisfy those needs in ways that foster long term benefits and meaning.  Outside of cosmetic reasons (ie. post trauma) I can not think of one legitimate argument for getting tattooed. However, I can think of all kinds of reasons not to get tattooed. For instance: Employment.  If you were hiring someone, and all things were equal about two applicants, but you know that one was tattooed and the other not - who would you hire? Prejudice.  Both those with tattoos and those without will judge you because of your tattoo.  And guess what? Many with tattoos will think your "art" is hideous. If you are a female, you will necessarily be thought of as "easy" and promiscuous regardless of your actual behavior or meaning of your tattoo You will get older and your tastes will change. What is cool today, is laughed at tomorrow.  Don't believe me, go check out what was cool in your old high school yearbook.  Why do you think your taste now is any better than then - or will be en vogue in another decade?  Or if you are to young for that, then go ask your parents to show you pictures of themselves when they were in their prime - tell me how cool you think they look. Have you driven the same car, day in and day out, for the last twenty years?  Would you want to?  Even if it was your favorite car at the time, in five years won't you want the newer model?  Besides your old model is fading and looking pretty worn.  This is what it feels like when you get a tattoo, and then you see someone else who has something similar but much better quality than the one you are stuck with.  It will happen. Why do you trust this guy to do a good job with your tattoo?  Having worked in tattoo shops, let me say there are great tattooers and there are TONS of awful ones (ie. terrible outlines, disproportion, misspellings, etc.)  Even the great ones blow out lines and make all kinds of mistakes.  Plus, as in the last example - the artists, machines, and ink keep getting better.  So what ever you get today from that guy, would have been worlds better had you waited 5 years for him and the technology to improve.  And 5 years later, it would be even better. Tattoos are dissatisfaction, disappointment, and regret waiting to happen.   I know a lot of people with tattoos.  Some are covered and some have a single patch.  With enough time, and maturation - nearly everyone I know regrets either being tattooed or at least one or more tattoos. Unless they want you to join the tribe, they will be honest with you and discourage you.  Don't do it. Learn from my mistakes.  I can't wash my mistakes off, but hopefully I can aid you in never getting them. I've tried to make a compelling case against tattoos, and how they play on the human psyche.  And I've have made an effort to do it without invoking God or the Bible.  I know that there are many for whom that is irrelevant in their lives.  I was once one of them. But now I realize the wisdom in the Biblical prohibition: Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. ~ Leviticus 19:28 (NIV) If you want to honor the dead or make yourself feel significant or change your state of mind, God has given us many healthful ways to do so.  One of the best ways in through service and contribution to others. Spare yourself the futile and vain attempts to find a better way to satisfy you psychological needs via tattoos.  Rather do good for someone else.  Accomplish something of merit.  Learn something new.  Create and be productive in a meaningful way, not a superficial way.   Connect to others on a deep and meaningful level, rather than just on the surface.  Everyone has something to offer. Don't do what is easy or trendy.  Do what is good and right. Remember your actions will influence someone else.  How do you think your tattoo will influence your children or the kids who look up to you?  What good will you do by getting that tattoo?  

Is it wrong to discriminate? Is it good to tolerate? Why should we celebrate? I don't want to say I told ya so, but I did.  I've mention several times on this podcast, and in my class that is featured in Torah Means Teacher (my other podcast) that the greatest issue I have with same-sex marriage is the blurring of distinctions between the sexes.  While males and females are of equal human value they are still not the same.  Males and females have inherent differences.  One is not better or worse than the other, just different.  To negate that is to argue against logic, common sense, science, facts, and fundamental truths.  Yet there are those who do argue against the facts, and they use their beliefs and feeling to argue the facts.   So while, there is nothing immoral about redefining the term marriage from only meaning male - female marriage to also meaning same-sex marriage, there is the fundamental problem of uprooting truth to justify an agenda.  This basic untruth (that male and female are the same and interchangeable) will undoubtedly have damaging ramifications for individuals and society. Now, I am sure some people listening may be saying "Oh come on, what difference does it make whether or not the  sexes are kept distinct from each other?" Well one problem that is already happening is in regards to tolerance and discrimination.  If a person does not agree with notion that male and female are the same, they are considered bigoted or sexist.  So it also goes with virtually every major world religion or civilization - ever.    Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Baptists, and Jews who take there religion seriously will be considered sexists, bigots, or homophobes because none of these major religions (at least in their relative Orthodox streams) deny that male and female are distinct and different.   So if  an Orthodox Synagogue does not want to host a wedding that is fundamentally oppositional to their marriage doctrine, they will likely be sued for discrimination.  If a Catholic adoption agency is bias to male-female married couples who are looking to adopt compared to same-sex married couples - they are guilty of discrimination.  On and on this goes.  And has already happened: Quick Examples From: The Huffington Posts LGBT section: click here The Catholic Charities' site: click here The feminist movements greatest achievements were in demonizing men, masculinizing women, and confusing everyone about gender roles and identity.  Ironically what the feminist movement did not do was celebrate women's femininity.  I remember being taught as a kid to open doors for women, then by the mid eighties I was routinely scorned for doing what before helped me feel like a man, and show respect for women.  Many girls and women were very forthright about their ability to open a door for themselves.  Somehow my subtle polite gestures and offerings were found to be offensive and disrespectful.  Way to go Betty Freidan. Now to be clear I am all for the 19th amendment, and like I said earlier male life and female life are of equal value. But where the neo-feminist rhetoric or current gender equality arguments and I disagree is in regards to simply acknowledging that the sexes are different from one another and should be kept distinct. Why? As Dennis Prager puts it: The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings’ personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn’t matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters. Some examples of this war on gender: –This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed. –In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country’s largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service. –Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination. –When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other. –Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory. Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant. –The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words “mother” or “father.” Only the gender-neutral term “parent” will be acceptable in France. –And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed. And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities. It will mean that those who, for religious or other reasons, wish to retain the man-woman definition of marriage will be legally and morally as isolated as racists are today. And it will mean that teachers and other adults who ask little boys and girls who they would like to marry, will, in order to be in sync with the morality of our times, have to make it clear that it might be a someone of the same sex. “Will you marry a boy or a girl?” will be the only non-bigoted way to ask a young person about their marital plans. (...) It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing. What good will come from dismantling the distinctions between male and female? How does society benefit from confusing the sexes and basically rendering them meaningless? For an example read this from The Washington Post.  The legal definition of mother and father (being gender based) are about to become meaningless in California. I am sure they mean well, but what good will this do? And this brings me to the impetus for this weeks episode... Conchita Wurst a.k.a. Thomas Neuwirth. He/She (for the sake of brevity and some clarity I'll use the pronoun "she") is the now global superstar singer who won the 2014 Eurovision Award just a couple days ago. Here the acceptance speech and winning performance: So for here we have an personification of the issue I opened up with.  Thomas Neuwirth / Conchita Wurst is a great example of blurring the lines between male and female.  To be clear she is still a he as far as genitalia, but rather than simply dressing up as a woman and taking on as many feminine aspects as possible, she still wears his beard.  In effect she is the bearded lady in an age of political correctness - an age where it is a social taboo to openly judge someone based on their appearance. Of course, reality does not care about political correctness.  Reality is real and true, where as political correctness is fake language made up to obfuscate what is real and true.  The reality is that people do judge others by theirappearance.  What would this Utopia they suggest be like, a magic land where people don't pre-judge others by their appearance?  If you saw a clean cut man wearing a blue and black uniform with badge, gun, and boots would you not assume he is an police officer of sorts?  Or if you saw someone wearing hospital scrubs would you not assume they probably work in medicine?  If you were walking down a dark alley in Houston, and heard footsteps behind you, would you not feel relief when you realize it is a group of young men all wearing nice business suits carrying brief cases?  On the other hand would you not feel perhaps anxiety were you to realize it is a group of young men sloppy dressed in low hanging shorts, tank tops, and bandanas? Perhaps we prejudge based on appearance for good reason.  Perhaps this notion of everyone else tolerating the new and abnormal is not a good thing.  Perhaps it should be the other way around. If you want to do your own thing and act abnormal, be a nonconformist, challenge the prejudices... go right ahead.  But you should be tolerant of the reasonable prejudices the rest of the world will have. For example, I am tattooed.  Not proud of it, but it is true.  And it's not just that I have one or two patches or stickers on my body... No, I entire limbs and much of my torso covered.  Like I've said in other episodes... I wasn't always religious.  I've got proof. So having had these tattoos for about 20 years now, I can speak with a bit of personal insight into the world of a "freak."  I knew when I was getting them that people would judge me different.  Though not the primary cause, it was still a cause more than a deterrence.   I wanted them to not think of me as if I were like everyone else.  My guess is that this simple truth holds water for everyone who alters their appearance in such a way that the general public sees them as abnormal. Here's another example for you. Before I was getting tattooed, I was getting huge.  Not with fat, but with muscle.  I was a competitive bodybuilder and lifted weights religiously from the age of 13 to 20.  By the time I was around 18 I had won Mr. Teen Texas in bodybuilding, and the following year I was fourth in a Mr. Teen USA bodybuilding competition.  Before I quit bodybuilding to focus on martial arts I was 5'5" and 245 pounds of muscle.  Back then, I was definitely seen as an oddity and a freak.  And that was exactly what I wanted.  Again not a primary force, but an affirming one none the less. Now that you know some of my history, let me say that not once did I choose to feel offended when someone prejudged me for being a moronic gym rat.  Nor have I ever taken offense when people assume I am a criminal misfit because of my tattoos.  I have to tolerate what my behavior logically induces in the mind of the observer.  Nearly everyone saw me as a threat, and though they were wrong - their reasoning behind that judgement was correct and useful.  The hard truth is I would have thought the same had I seen someone like me... and so would he.  That is part of why we look that way, and carry it out into the world. Was I discriminated against?  I have no idea.  I also don't care. How would I know? Maybe that person just doesn't like people in general. Why would I care?  I know how I appear to others, they have the right to not like it... So what.  I move on. My attitude with discrimination in America today is let the free-market work this out.  There was a time and place where civil rights and anti-discrimination had to be fought for, virtually no moral thinker denies America's past transgressions.  But to America's credit that age is our past.  So much so that now people have to invent new ways of defining discrimination (ie. micro aggression and institutional discrimination).   Pretty much whenever they start adding adjectives to a term, you can be sure they are fishing to feed there agenda. But here is the real problem with people who call for tolerance and supposedly battle discrimination, what they really want is everyone to celebrate their abnormalities.  It is not enough that no one cares about the gay guy in the NFL, we are supposed to celebrate him.  Why?  What is courageous about coming out in 2014 as a gay man?  Seriously?  Ironically today the courageous person would be the one who says "While I don't think homosexuality is idea or normal, never the less I respect and value him and his partner as fellow human beings and wish them the best." In fact, I am sure that at some point someone is going to call me out as intolerant because I have the audacity to call a behavior abnormal.  So there is nothing normative in human civilization.  Or American civilization. Or within the communities we live in. There is normal, and that is exactly what these people are out to shake up.  They think they are doing a noble cause.  They are fighting for rights.  They are enlightening the close minded.  They are bringing redemption, peace, and unity to the world. But with all their great and noble intentions they failed to realize the ultimate consequences of their actions and demands.  They engaged in what Thomas Sowell calls "Stage One Thinking."  There are consequences for teaching untruths and rendering terms meaningless.  Male is not female, and generalizations are necessary for understanding and wisdom.  I don't think they realize they are creating a world of chaos, confusion, and ultimately destruction. Yes destruction.  I am not being hyperbolic.  Whenever I hear "unity" my spidey senses tingle. What they mean by "unity" is "Unite in my way alone."  They probably don't realize that, but that is the case none the less.  And so this is the cry of the adolescent totalitarian.  They want everyone to agree with their way, and follow their rules, and believe their truth.  Notice that those who cry for unity rarely debate or take critical challenges of their views. They resort to logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks or emotional appeals.  They dismiss their critics as bigots, but never argue the point. Again, I deal with this in my personal life as religious Jew.  I know plenty of Jews who cry for "unity."  Because I live in an Orthodox community I regularly here this on behalf of Orthodoxy.  But I also here it from the other sects who I am friends with as well.  So everyone wants unity?  No... they everyone to do it their way. That is not my ideal.  In fact, I think one of the contributing reasons to Judaism survival and ability to grow and be a beneficent influence for the world has been our disunity.  Each sect has its role and purpose.  Choice is typically a good thing.  It allows people to fit in where they can and then adjust accordingly. If, on the other hand, everyone were to try to fit in the same one size fits all hole - that would be catastrophic. No.  God set us up different.  We had  twelves separate tribes, and to this day we have three fold division within the Jewish people (Israelim, Leviim, and Kohanim.)  Their is a gradation of status which comes along with added prohibitions and obligations. This separation provides order and structure to the people. God set up this world in an ordered and structured manner. Our entire existence, in a purely secular physics sense, hinges on very particular orders and structures. Our sanity requires order and structure. To value the dream of unity and tolerance over the necessary reality of order, structure, and separation, is worse than foolish - it is destructive. I know they mean well and have good intentions, but in the final analysis what matters most is does it do good.

This last week a murderer and torturer was put to death.  Executed by lethal injection because he of his monstrously cruel behavior.    He and his thug accomplices cruelly and merciless savaged two innocent teenage girls, a father, and his 9 month old son.  Fortunately he apparently suffered as there was a problem with the lethal injection.  Unfortunately the media, our President, and many in our society think he should have never had the death penalty anyway.  They are especially distraught over the supposed pain he endured.  Though he and his thug accomplices were wickedly cruel to those who deserve compassion, the left and many distorted people think the courts and the state should show compassion for the cruel.   Here's the record of events in brief from Dennis Prager's article: June 3, 1999: Clayton Lockett, 23, Shawn Mathis, 26, and Alfonzo Lockett, 17, planned on robbing Bobby Lee Bornt, 23, at his house in Perry, Oklahoma. They tied up Bornt and beat him in front of the man’s sobbing 9-month-old son. At the same time, Stephanie Neiman, 18, was dropping off her friend Summer Bradshaw at Bornt’s home. All three robbers raped the two girls, and then drove the girls, Bornt and his baby son to a rural area. They forced Mathis to dig a grave over which Lockett shot Stephanie Neiman twice. Unfortunately, she did not die from the gunshot wounds, and so she cried and begged not to be buried alive. But Clayton Lockett ordered her buried. “I could hear her breathing and crying and everything,” Lockett said nonchalantly in his videotaped confession. And here's more of the story from TulsaWorld.com: Neiman fought Lockett when he tried to take the keys to her truck. The men beat her and used duct tape to bind her hands and cover her mouth. Even after being kidnapped and driven to a dusty country road, Neiman didn't back down when Lockett asked if she planned to contact police. The men had also beaten and kidnapped Neiman's friend along with Bobby Bornt, who lived in the residence, and Bornt's 9-month-old baby. Lockett later told police "he decided to kill Stephanie because she would not agree to keep quiet," court records state. Neiman was forced to watch as Lockett's accomplice, Shawn Mathis, spent 20 minutes digging a shallow grave in a ditch beside the road. Her friends saw Neiman standing in the ditch and heard a single shot. Lockett returned to the truck because the gun had jammed. He later said he could hear Neiman pleading, "Oh God, please, please" as he fixed the shotgun. The men could be heard "laughing about how tough Stephanie was" before Lockett shot Neiman a second time. "He ordered Mathis to bury her, despite the fact that Mathis informed him Stephanie was still alive." Related story: Officials refuse to say if they tried to revive Clayton Lockett Related story: Execution scrutiny rages after botched execution Bornt and Neiman's friend "were threatened that if they told anybody about these events, they too would be murdered," court records state. "Every day we are left with horrific images of what the last hours of Stephanie's life was like," her parents' impact statement says. "We were left with an empty home full of memories and the deafening silence of the lack of life within its walls. ... We feel that the only thing left to do is let Clayton Lockett serve out the sentence of death that a jury sentenced him to. Anything less is a travesty of justice." And in case  that was not enough it gets worse. From KFOR.com:He (Clayton) confessed to raping one of the women, shooting Neiman twice with a shotgun and ordered his two co-defendants to bury her in a shallow grave while she was still alive. From the Washington Post:After the trial was completed in August 2000, the Associated Press reported that “Lockett was found guilty of conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear. The charges were after former convictions of two or more felonies, according to the court clerk’s office.” Clayton Lockett was sentenced to death for first-degree murder, and more than 2,285 years in prison for his other convictions from that night. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the death sentence in April 2013, after the case was appealed for errors made in the initial trial, which the appeals court classified as “harmless errors.” In March 2014, Clayton Lockett filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent his execution, along with Warner’s, until more information was revealed about the new drugs Oklahoma was using for executions, the ones that eventually led to his drawn-out death. An Oklahoma County District Judge denied the request. Clayton Lockett also filed for clemency with the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board in March, which would have commuted his planned execution into a life sentence. That request was also denied. Alfonzo Lockett and Shawn Mathis are currently serving life sentences. So far this story is tragic, but it would as though justice has been served.  But like I said there was a glitch with Lockett's execution. This is from AP via Fox News: The head of Oklahoma's Department of Corrections told Gov. Mary Fallin on Thursday that he needs more oversight of execution procedures and said it took officials 51 minutes to find a suitable vein before the botched execution earlier this week. Clayton Lockett died of an apparent heart attack 10 minutes after prisons director Robert Patton halted the execution. The prisons chief said Lockett had an intravenous tap placed at his groin because suitable veins couldn't be found elsewhere. That vein collapsed, and Patton said Lockett didn't have another vein that was suitable — and that the state didn't have another dose of the drugs available anyway. The IV line was covered by a sheet because it had been placed at Lockett's groin, Patton said in his letter to the governor. Its becoming dislodged wasn't discovered until 21 minutes after the execution began and all of the execution drugs had been injected into the line. "The drugs had either absorbed into tissue, leaked out or both," Patton wrote. "The director asked the following question, 'Have enough drugs been administered to cause death?' The doctor responded, 'No.' After the doctor attending the execution found a faint heartbeat, Patton ordered the execution stopped. Lockett died anyway. Now, I don't know about you, but it does not bother me in the least that there was a problem with his execution and he supposedly suffered. But there are a lot of people who desire to show compassion and mercy to the cruel.  There is an uproar once again against capital punishment.  And it's an absolute argument for many.  By that I mean, they argue no person should ever be executed - regardless of their behavior. But nearly all of the anti-death penalty crowd is preoccupied with the "suffering" Lockett felt for what may amount to an hour or so. Of course this is ironic considering they created the problem in the first place.   The death penalty could be administered a number of different ways that are likely to be less problematic or painful.   Plus, they (the anti-death penalty mob) have harassed and disrupted the drug manufactures enough that they no longer make or distribute drugs that would make the lethal injection more surefire and "humane." Other options like firing squads, hanging, or the guillotine are strictly off limits - even though they may actually be more efficacious and there is likely less suffering. Nope, ultimately these folks feel so much compassion for convicted murderers that they have made it there mission to save them from the most powerful and meaningful sentences. I am discussing all of these recent events just to illustrate a point that was made time and time again in Jewish thought. From the Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16: כל מי שנעשה רחמן במקום אכזרי סוף שנעשה אכזרי במקום רחמן   Kol mi shena`asa rahaman bimqom akhzari Sof shena`asa akhzari bimqom rahaman   All who are made to be compassionate in the place of the cruel In the end are made to be cruel in the place of the compassionate This saying could also be translated: Those who are kind to the cruel, in the end will be cruel to the kind. You get the idea. There is appropriate kindness and inappropriate kindness.  There is appropriate vengeance and inappropriate vengeance.  It depends on context. Once again... Context matters.  And values matter! If your values are along the lines that people are not responsible for their behavior, then therefore you should also think they should not be punished for them. Or if you think punishment does nothing to deter undesirable behavior, then you are likely to act with kindness where punishment would have otherwise taken place. I find that people who think this way have a hard time in general with the concepts surrounding accountability.  They tend to focus on their "rights", or to others "rights" - rather than on people's obligations. These concepts are not just academic.  It spills over into nearly all aspects of life. Parenting definitely is affected by this tension.  Will you reward or punish bad behavior?  Will you show "kindness" to your child when they behave cruelly towards their sibling?  Every good parent should struggle with finding the balance for teaching their child there are negative consequences for negative actions.  But today there are many parents who have lost their moral bearings, and operate out of cowardice.  They will never punish their child.  They will only "love" them and show them "compassion." Unfortunately these parents do not realize they will inevitably "in the end show cruelty to those in need of compassion."  For instance, Johnny has taken all of his sister's beloved dolls and cut off their heads..  Mom and dad find out and ask Johnny "what is troubling you?"  When Johnny shrugs them off, they figure they should spend more time with the young boy.  So Dad takes him to a baseball game, and mom cooks him his favorite treat. But what about little Susie and her dolls?  She is witnessing her parents reward Johnny's bad behavior, while she is still mourning the loss of her dolls.  She feels betrayed, hurt, and that there is no justice in her home. I know this may be a quotidian example, but I'm using it again just to illustrate the point on how big this issue can be in our lives. How a person and a society treat bad behavior has serious ramifications in the long run.  I don't think all those who oppose the death penalty or who are upset with Lockett's suffering are thinking clearly regarding this topic. And just to provide evidence that I am not proposing a straw man argument, here are some comments from these stories: diatomic_jones 5 days ago So you think it's okay for the state to kill people? It's weird to me that people who think the least of our government think it's competent enough to flawlessly determine guilt and appropriate punishment.Thanks to the efforts of the Innocence Project, we've seen people who've been in jail for very long periods of time released because DNA evidence showed they were innocent. Can we definitively say that every person on death row is guilty of the crime that put them in jail? Every innocent person executed is the state committing murder, in my name, your name, in the name of all of this. Supporting the death penalty in a flawed system is tantamount to supporting murder. or RickyRoe 5/2/2014 3:38 PM CDT     So what about the literally hundreds of people executed that were actually innocent? Is getting your revenge really worth innocent lives? Is spending the rest of your life in prison not enough for you people that you want them tortured and killed as well, even if there is a chance they could be innocent? It costs less to keep them in jail; Europe, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and most industrialized countries have gotten rid of it; there are undeniable biases against minorities and the poor; and it has not been proven to be a deterrent. So what is the argument for it, except to satisfy some sort of blood lust?   Fredrick.E 4/30/2014 10:34 PM CDT Number of death penalty executions around the world:1 China2 Iran3 Saudi Arabia4 Iraq5 USA6 Yemen7 North Korea8 Somalia9 Sudan10 JapanNoticed any industrialized western countries. Well, maybe Japan?   JoeMaf 4/30/2014 11:27 PM CDT I don't understand Americans.Rotting in jail for the rest of your life is a lot worse of a punishment than execution.With execution the criminal wins and gets a get out of jail free card.    Aaron Darc 5/1/2014 3:55 AM CDT     And what would Jesus do?America is weird. Savage hypocrites. So there is a sampling of various comments and the "logic" they are using.  (My verbal replies are in the podcast.)   And yes, I understand the comments on news sites are not from the best and the brightest.  Again, this is just to show these people do exist and they really do engage in unclear, immoral thinking.   They think emotionally.  They think legally perhaps.  Or maybe they are looking for social proofs, but none of this is from a source of morality clarity.   And just so you don't think they are alone... Headline from the LA TIMES: White House says Oklahoma execution 'fell short' of humane standards   I seriously doubt any of these people have read Maimonides, the RaMBaM. in his book The Guide of the Perplexed. Referring to the verse (Exodus 21:14), “If a person willfully schemes to kill his neighbor – he shall be (even) taken from my altar and put to death”, Maimonides writes that: the wicked and calculating person (who killed intentionally and was sentenced to death) – if he seeks sanctuary among us, we must not provide him with asylum and not have mercy upon him...because compassion towards the wicked – is cruelty to all beings.   Do those who are upset about Lockett or the death penalty even consider the victims, and the aftermath in the lives of their families and loved ones?   Stephanie Neiman's parents made this statement: “Every day we are left with horrific images of what the last hours of Stephanie’s life was like. Did she cry out for us to help her? We are left with the knowledge that she needed us and we were not aware of it therefore unable [to] help her. “We go through the motions of living, we eat, we sleep, Steve [the father] goes to work and comes home again. We do what we have to do to make it through the day and we start all over again the next. We exist.” No one argues that the death penalty brings somehow brings the murdered victim back to life.  Because that is not the issue. The ultimate issue is understanding when it is appropriate to respond with compassion and when it is appropriate to respond with might.  These two forces, strength and compassion, are in constant tension with each other. Whether we are talking about parents raising children, civilization's justice systems, or the internal conflicts we find within our selves as we critique our own life.  We must battle the evil inclination to simply offer love, compassion, and mercy to all regardless. A society built on unconditional love and compassion to all is necessarily unkind and cruel to those who are the victims of the merciless and savage. Our love and compassion should be with the victims, their surviving loved ones, and not with the predatory murderers. We can NOT forgive them for their murder, as only the murderer can offer that.  You can only forgive someone for what they did to you.  Otherwise it is not yours to give. I ask that all those who have argued against the death penalty, ask forgiveness from the families of the murdered. And for those who have used this case and execution as a platform to voice your opposition to capital punishment, you can begin by showing appropriate compassion and mercy by apologizing to the families of the victims and utilizing your talents for creating a more just society, rather than strictly a more compassionate one.            

While part of me wants to talk about this Sterling deal that is all over the news .  Another part of me does not even want to engage in it.  But since I've already brought it up... In case you are listening to this episode months or years later, I'll briefly give an overview of the situation that everyone is in a tizzy about.  An owner of an NBA basketball team has been the subject of ridicule, hate, public scrutiny, and backlash because he was recorded saying racist remarks in a private conversation with his ex-girlfriend. Okay, so there is the story in a nutshell.  My big problem with this story is not what the man said, but that it was made public.  This was a very private conversation, actually an argument, and somehow it was made public.  What makes it even worse is that the news made it a headline story and virtually no one cares that this was a private conversation!  That is to say no one cares that this is gossip, and we should not be engaging in someone else's private thoughts and trivial private conversations.  The lack of decency on the part of our news media is far more disgusting than what this man has said.  And lastly, I couldn't care less about what you, the president, or some arbitrary owner of an NBA team thinks, or says privately.  I do however care about what leaders say publicly, and how people behave in general. Okay, enough about that. The real issue (not that public vs. private / thoughts vs. action is not a real issue... but I'll save it for another time when people aren't so emotionally wrapped up in the story - besides this keeps happening more and more often now) I wanted to discuss with you today is about attitude. And what I mean by attitude is the way you think about a person or a thing.  You know the expression "attitude is everything"?  Well, typically that is in reference to your person attitude, meaning the way you express yourself to others, and the way you interpret that which you could be judging.  And let's face it there is a lot of truth to that generic aphorism. The attitude we hold towards a person or a thing will greatly, if not entirely, effect our ability to connect with him or it.  Whether or not we find it important is based on attitude.  Whether or not we listen in general is based on attitude.  Who we present ourselves as to the rest of the world is a product of our attitude. And if we shift our attitude, we can open up new worlds of insight and possibility... or vice versa of course. So here's the deal.  I want to illustrate for you how a shift in my own attitude changed my life. As I've mentioned in the past, for the first few decades of life I was an atheist.  For as far back as I can remember regarding this issue, which is probably around 5, I have never accepted the God idea as it had been presented to me.  It seemed flawed when I was very young, and as I grew older I found only more problems, contradictions, and intellectual vacuity regarding people's "proofs" or "evidence" of God's existence or pathos. Of course, looking back on it now... My attitude was all wrong if I really wanted to learn, or at least have my own assertions challenged.  The moment I realized someone's dogmatic belief (theist, atheist, whatever) I would do my best to break down their arguments.  Not to be argumentative so much as just to show that they don't really know what they are talking about.  My attitude was that if a person had "proofs" for or against God, then you were fair game to challenged in my obnoxious ways. And then I had an attitude shift.  Or shifts (plural).  Certain people whose intellect and reasoning I truly admired, started penetrating my thick skull.  Maimonides was one of the first really.  I really like him.  It's a shame that I studied philosophy in college, but he was not one that we ever focused on.  Truth is that, I don't think I really started learning philosophy until after college... So Maimonides, and then I very clearly remember working through a tiny book, Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism - by Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager.  That little book was really, truly transformative.  I had experienced Prager growing up in Los Angeles and listening to his radio show "Religion on the Line".  While I thought it was interesting, my bad attitude prevented me from really engaging with the show.  My dad, whose was not a religious Jew but believed in God nonetheless, and I would debate topics from the show occasionally.  And it was fun... but that was about it.Nope, I needed to have that mysterious thing known as an attitude adjustment for me to grow, mature, and open up to new thoughts.  Really, I don't know exactly what happened... but it did. Thank God it did because slowly and gradually my life changed because of it.  Actually it's more like my old life died, and a new life I could not have imagined was revealed. Why am I bringing this up as an ultimate issue?  Well, it's because of this week's Torah portion, Emor. My old attitude towards all "sacred" texts was filled with so much mockery and ridicule that I could never appreciate any of them.  I liked Shakespeare, and I liked Plato, and I liked the Dhammapadda, and I liked some Bible stories... they were all just stories... all man made... of no real significance. But at least regarding the Torah, I had an attitude adjustment and I started reading it with the idea that it is somehow Divine.  I can't explain it fully... but suffice to say, I was working on reading it as a book that transcended other books. So here was the fascinating thing; the more serious I took the Torah - the more serious I took the Torah.  Literally within a matter of weeks I was obsessed with learning the Torah.  Still am.  And yes it's an obsession - I really love learning from it and being challenged by it.  It's like the feeling you get from working out and eating a healthy and nutritious meal... you feel like you are getting stronger, and better... and in regards to Torah learning it was that I was finally getting clarity of thought I had never had before.  It just feels right. Anyway, one of the great attitudes I adopted from Dennis Prager is that "When I disagree wight the Torah, it is my task to figure out why the Torah is right and I am wrong."  This idea has made Torah study so much fun!  Really, try adopting for yourself.  Where ever you disagree with the Torah, think "Okay how am I wrong? What am I missing? Why else would it say this?"  Ask yourself those kinds of questions and just be relentless.  Don't given and just say the Torah is sexist, masoginistic, antiquated, chauvinistic,  bigoted, xenophobic, filled with hate, or any other dismissive idea.  NO!  Just engage in it, and allow it to challenge YOU!  Let yourself not know all the answers immediately, and see if maybe you are answering the wrong question. For instance, this week I ran into a line that I had forgotten about: Leviticus 21:9 (NIV) "'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. What the hell?  Seriously?  Wait a second, how can the Torah be saying this when just last week it was teaching us to love our neighbor who is like us (Lev. 19:18) actually it says:  ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (Lev. 19:18 NIV) Doesn't this seem a particularly cruel and harsh - perhaps vengeful - punishment for prostitution? After all prostitution is not that big of a deal in the Torah.  And if you think it's about premarital sex, the truth is that is not a that big of a deal in the Torah either.  So what is the big deal? Is the Torah being cruel?  Is the Torah wrong?  Well, since my attitude in learning  Torah won't tolerate that kind of escapist dismissal, then I must search for a meaningful answer. So here we go: This is what I've come up with so far. First what is troubling about this decree?  Well like I said, it seems harsh.  Just because a girl is born to a Kohein (Priest), she is subject to being burned alive if she prostitutes herself?  Elsewhere in the Torah and the Tanakh, prostitution is mentioned with little if any recourse.  And besides, why is she subject to such a harsh penalty since she had no choice regarding which family she was born into?  Why is it so important to make this familial problem (ie. her father she profanes)?  Shouldn't it say she profanes herself?  And if it is her father she profanes, then why isn't he thrown in the fire as well?  And why fire? Though neither option sounds pleasant, given the choice between the typical execution - stoning, and this one - burned alive... I'll take the former thank you.  And what's the deal with the specificity of death by fire anyway? Thankfully my attitude to these questions is that God gave us the Torah with this information for a reason, and it is useful somehow, someway... And it's my task to figure it out... Lesson 1: None of us choose our parents, or the circumstance which we are raised.  But all of us have a responsibility to honor and respect our parents and an obligation to represent our family well to the rest of the world.  The daughter of a priest was no different than any other person, except that her family is from Aaron, Moses' older brother, Moses' prophet, and the First High Priest.  All of these are huge deals, not to mention that God had a personal relationship with Aaron.  Aaron is too often a lost character in the story of the Exodus, but make no mistake, Aaron was extremely significant to us coming out as well as for the establishment of the Temple, let alone the religion Judaism.  Remember that the entire line of priests solely comes from the sons of Aaron.  To this day, 3300 years later, a Jewish man who is a Kohein is literally a descendent of Aaron.  And to this day, Aaron's descendants carry with them special prohibitions and obligations.  They have no choice in the matter they are born into it.  It is their inheritance that they are the most Holy  of the Jewish people, and with that comes added responsibilities and a higher standard.  And think about it... isn't that true today in many ways.  Don't we demand more of certain people based on their familial relations than others.  The Presidents' family should behave better than the average America, or the Royal family ought to behave better than the average British family.  They should be role models.  They should be elevating our standards and inspiring us to be better people.  This is ideally how it ought to be... and this prohibition and punishment described for the daughter of a priest, a descendent of Aaron, is one example. By the way, what about Moses's descendants?  Moses was in a realm even higher than Aaron, so why aren't his sons or daughters mentioned?  Do you even know who the sons of Moses were?  Or what become of them? Well we know he had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer.  But they basically disappear from the biblical texts.  Unlike Aaron who priestly duties were passed down to his sons, Moses' leadership role went to Joshua, instead of one of his sons. Which brings me to lesson 2: Unlike today's mindset where parents try to save their kids from harsh punishment, the more holy, influential, or elevated the people - the harsher the consequences for behavior.  So while Gershom and Eliezer may not have done anything wrong, it is also likely that they did not assert themselves to become better than who they were.  Which in any other case, would not be a big deal... but for the descendants of Moses - that's problematic. Same case with Aaron's descendants.  His first two sons, Nadav and Avihu, were set to be among the very first priests.  Then they made a mistake in relating to the Lord, and He struck them down with fire immediately.  Seems like a harsh punishment... but again, the context is the same.  But just like in lesson 1: With greater holiness, comes greater responsibility.   And bear in mind Aaron, does not argue with God about it.  Though he mourns their death, Aaron understands the stakes.   Parent's who have an elevated influence among the people, also have an added responsibility to teach their children beyond the norm.    Whether their kids like it or not, they too have an a greater influence.  People are watching and are influenced by their behavior.  And the kids behavior is a reflection on them and on the parents. And that's lesson 3: How your children behave influences the public's perception on you as a parent, and on your home. I am not saying that the public will make the correct inferences and assumptions, but for many, many people... they judge parents by how their children behave.  Right or wrong, young or old,  most people go back to the source of the person... and that is the parents and the home in which they were raised.  Nothing about that has changed in 3,300 years. To be clear, I am not saying the judgements are correct.  Is it nature or nurture?  I believe it's 100% nature and 100% nurture.  Both are extremely significant.  Either way you do the best you can with what you got. And what about the deal with death by fire for prostitution anyway? Lesson four: Ethics is not enough. What is unethical about prostitution?  Assuming no one is getting hurt, and everyone involved is responsible, safe, and agreeable... where is the ethical dilemma? There is none.  But ethics is not enough, you must be holy! Literally just before Lev. 21:9 where we are told about the priest's daughter it says: Lev. 21:8 (NIV) "...Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy—I who make you holy." This is a holiness issue, not an ethical one.  And I just mentioned an instance where someone acted unholy and was struck down by fire.  Added hint... they too are descendants of Aaron - Nadav and Avihu!  They did nothing unethical... just unholy. And regarding specifically sex, there are other sexual acts that have the same punishment: Lev. 20:14 “ ‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. Again, there maybe nothing unethical about this... but it is unholy. The descendants of Aaron are to be Holy to the Holy nation of Israel.  They are the personification of the Holy of Holies.  And so yes, the daughters of the Aaron's descendants also have a role in the world and they too are held on a higher standard for holiness.  Should they defile themselves, their fathers, and the Lord through their unholy actions then the consequence is like others in the same regards. These four lessons, are extremely important and I am only scratching the surface.  I am sure there is far more to be learned as we keep turning and turning the pages. But we have to be in the right attitude for learning.  He have to humble our ego so that it can receive information.  We have to empty our cup, so that it may be filled with wisdom. And perhaps most significantly we have to soften our minds to have the attitude that where we disagree with the Torah we think: I am wrong and the Torah is right.

This file is a work by emijrp. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons Click Here to Donate to CURE. If pain were water the world would drown. ~ Dennis Prager Ever since I learned of CURE International from Dennis Prager, they have become one of my favored charities.  I am one of those people who has a hard time giving charity, and deciding what is the best way to give my seemingly small amounts to give.  Who will make my dollar go the furthest?  Who will do the most good with it?  Today I have several to choose from who make that list. And among the top of the list is CURE. CURE International is not only a good charity (meaning they actually make a tremendous amount of each dollar go a long way toward doing good for those you wish to help), they are a COURAGEOUS charity.  They go to parts of the world where others fear to enter.  They don't just go there, they build hospitals and stay there so they can treat the local people and train the local doctors so as to further there outreach and aid.  It is a brilliantly run organization, and it is no surprise that they are a Christian charity.  I love my Jewish charities, but let me just say for the sake of being open and honest... we could learn a lot from charities like CURE.  As a religious Jew, I have to say that this Christian charity CURE is undoubtedly doing the Lord's work, and doing Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying God's name here on Earth.) So what does all that have to do with it being an ultimate issue? The ultimate issue is this:  It's the issue of courage versus cowardice.  Courage is among the most powerful, needed, and unfortunately rare traits in humans.  Courage is the act of doing what is good and right in the eyes of God despite fears, pain, and/or futility.  Courage is a tragically rare human character trait, and yet it is the most necessary trait for goodness to triumph over evil. So lets talk about evil.  Evil has an exponentially more powerful affect in the world than good.  One act of evil seeming counters thousands of act of goodness.  Think about it.  Whether you think about in a macro-global perspective or micro-personal perspective, despite all the good that happens one horrendous act of evil seems to blanket our perspective in darkness. For example in our personal lives, if an otherwise kind and trusting person is suddenly the subject of a violent crime and robbed or worse... Their trusting and kindness will be tainted by that single act.  They often will carry that experience with them and look at the world and strangers differently.  Circumstances that were never threatening before, now become sources of fear and anxiety. Or in the more macro arena... Thousands of planes safely fly our skies and departures and arrive at their destinations remarkably on time and without incident.  But after 9/11, we completely altered our the way we traveled and how we perceived the safety of air travel.  The act of some Muslims, altered the perspective many had for all Muslims. My point is simply to show how powerful evil actions are. I just learned of one such action, and it was not only against innocent people... but even worse courageous people. Just earlier this week 3 people (a doctor, and a father and his son) were murdered at a CURE international hospital. Here is the story from NBC's Today Show: Here's the deal: Because this one man acted evil and murder three people of courage, it will highly likely have the consequence of those in need of care in Afghanistan not getting the care the would have otherwise received.  One act of evil impacts numerous acts of goodness. and the other part of this equation that is an ultimate issue... While courage is necessary to combat evil, cowardice necessarily enables evil.  And I am ashamed at the cowardice the leadership of our country.  I don't mean this to be political (and it really is not so much a democrat vs. republican debate anymore... as the libertarian movement in the republican party has the same foreign policy regarding military action as do those on the left in the democratic party.)  But that our President has ordered the withdrawal of our troops in these middle east conflicts is mind numbing... actually it's sickening. It should be no shock to anyone that as we lose our influence in these areas of the world unjust violence will increase dramatically.  And to be clear, I am by no means whatsoever saying our troops are acting cowardice - NO! That is not to be inferred at all.  However, I am explicitly stating that our federal government's leaders are acting with cowardice and are necessarily enabling the evil such as the murder of these three courageous Americans in Afganistan. I love and yearn of acts of courage... and I equally hate and am disgusted by acts of cowardice. If you want to do something in opposition to the evil and cowardice then you can join me in donating to CURE.  I get nothing for this.  I just want to do whatever I can to help the courageous in any way I can, and this is one.  Tell a friend.  Do what you can. We are all in this together, and we have the freedom to choose how we respond to these events.  You can act on behalf of the good and courageous, or you can be act on behalf of the evil and do nothing, say nothing, and enable through cowardice. Again, a single act of evil requires exponentially more acts of goodness to battle it.  So do what is good and right in the eyes of God, and together we can help burn the evil from our midst. Click Here to Donate to CURE.

So it's Passover and once again I found myself happily having enjoyable conversations and debates with my friends and neighbors regarding the big issues. Almost without fail, if there is a large group of Jews gathered and discussing God, Exodus, and Judaism... there will be at least one person who feels the need to try to use science to discredit religion. Typically the argument goes something like this: There is NO EVIDENCE (for God, for the Exodus, or for the Bible stories) There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE (the Torah is not from Moses at Sinai, Judaism has changed and evolved since its man-made creation)   The truth is that over the last few decades or so, there has been a growing movement within Judaism to get away from the centrality of the Exodus story and it's impact on Judaism.  Basically, since there is no archeological evidence confirming the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt, let alone came out in the miraculous way as described in the Torah, then the logical assumption is to presume none of it happened as described in the Torah. And to be clear, it is not just college professors, atheists, and archeologists making this argument.  No, there are clergy who publicly make this argument too.  A rabbi whom I deeply respect has written and spoken on this matter and helped to promote doubt about the Exodus account (as well as God's authorship of the Torah.) So what's my problem with it?  Aren't they  just being honest and telling the truth based on the evidence? Yes, but why does lack of proof mean that something did not happen? How does lack of evidence prove something does not exist? I'm sure plenty of you are screaming back, "You cannot prove a negative."  Yes, I too, have enjoyed using this line from the "Amazing Randi." But also true is the aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Long before my time, people much smarter and wiser than myself have debated these issues in matters of faith and religion versus science and knowledge. Bertrand Russell wrote of the celestial teapot (aka "Russell's Teapot"). Bertrand Russell From Wikipedia... In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmasrather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. 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 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.  So Russell is trying to equate the inability to prove or disprove the existence of his revolving celestial teapot with that of God.  But that analogy fails if God is immaterial, and supra-natural. And regarding the lack of archeological evidence for the Exodus... what exactly are the expecting to find.  Even in the Torah, the Hebrews were only in the desert for 40 years (a number that should be considered for it's symbolism and use as a literary device, rather than it's numerical value.)  In other words, they were temporarily nomadic wandering through the desert.  They didn't build cities and live there for generations.  So what are they expecting to find 3,300 years later?  Some debris left along the way?  Really? Recently the entire world has been trying to find evidence of what happened to a giant 777 plane that has seemingly disappeared.  As of this date (Apr 17, 2014) some 30 plus days since its last recorded transmission... there is still no evidence.  All our sophisticated satellite and radio equipment can't seem to find it.  So should we assume it is still just flying around?  There is no evidence it has crashed or landed. Now some may be arguing that "logic suggests" the Exodus didn't happen just as the plane is no longer in the air.  But does logic also suggest there is life beyond our little third rock from the Sun?  Many say yes.  Is there any evidence for life outside our planet? Nope... So what is my logic behind my belief in the Exodus, despite a supposed lack of  archeological evidence?  One, it is pragmatic.  As Prager has written, If the Exodus did not occur, there is no Judaism.  Then I read from the article. Here are Dennis Prager's main points: There is no parallel in human history to the Hebrew Bible’s negative depiction of the Jews’ national origins. I do not believe that a nation tells a story for 3,000 years that has no experiential basis. Moreover, the text has allusions to Egypt that only contemporaries could know.  I choose to believe the story despite the archaeologists’ (subjective) claim of no evidence just as, despite the powerful arguments of history and of archaeologists of the past generation, some archaeologists   —   and those who trust archaeologists more than the biblical narrative   —   choose to believe the exodus never happened. As for the argument of some Jews that they do not depend on the veracity of the Exodus for their faith, from a Jewish standpoint this is destructive nonsense. If the Exodus did not occur, there is no Judaism. Judaism stands on two pillars   —   creation and exodus. Judaism no more survives the denial of the Exodus than it does the denial of the Creator. Creation and Exodus are coequal Jewish claims. A creator G-d who never intervened in human affairs is Aristotle’s unmoved mover, not the G-d the Jews introduced to the world. Moreover, any Jews who believe the Exodus did not occur should have the intellectual honesty to stop observing Passover. They should spend the week studying the truths of archaeology   —   that is their haggadah   —   rather than what they regard as the fairy tales of the haggadah and Torah. ~ Dennis Prager Now in regards to the other part of the debate: There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE (the Torah is not written by God, Judaism has changed and evolved since its man-made creation) These arguments border on either the absurd and/or lack of understanding of Torah and Judaism.  First of all, the notion is that the Torah is from God but not "written" by Him.  "From the 'mouth' of God, to the hand of Moses" that is how it is written.  Did God write the "Ten Commandments"?  Yes, according to the Torah that was written by the 'finger' of God... but that is different that saying the entire instruction manual.  So when they try to mention how there is overwhelming evidence that men wrote the Torah and it has changed over the years (i.e. the Wellhousen hypothesis) then I suggest they re-examine the Torah with the understanding of scholars like Jacob Milgrom. Is every word exactly as it was written 3300 years ago... apparently not.   Even when you read a Torah scroll you will mind an occasional mark of a word that was unclear.  But aside from benign phrase   for more go to Ultimate Issues.       revelation means something was previously hidden

Diogenes in Search of An Honest Man In a previous episode (UI 032) I dealt with religion and spirituality.  And that was more about pointing out the benefits of religiosity in response to the notion that spirituality is all that is necessary (or perhaps better than religion.) This weeks topic is different though.  What if you don't have religion and you are seeking one out?  Where do you start?  How do you choose? Or what if you are losing your religion?  Your faith and spirituality may be intact, but your opinion of your religion is diminishing. Or may be you say you are part of a religion, yet do nothing religious in your life? These are the questions I have been working on this last week.  And here is why... Last week (4/4/14) on The Dennis Prager's Show a caller called in to ask Dennis a question on his "Open Lines Hour". *The snippet from the Dennis Prager Show is on the Ultimate Issues Podcast 046. Subscribe to Pragertopia to download the Dennis Prager Show.  It's among the most rewarding ways you can spend $5 a month. Basically the caller is having a very hard time finding a perfect religion.  He's 48 years old and has been searching, but never been able to find one he fully agrees with. Of course, Dennis responds with kindness, wisdom, and clarity.   Dennis first commends his caller for actively searching.  Then he wisely tells his caller: "The only religion you will fully agree with will be the one you make up." ~ Dennis Prager Exactly!!! Bravo!!! So often people get hung up on something not perfectly meeting their standards or expectations, and rather than settling for good enough... they settle for nothing. Quick aside... This notion of "never settling" is moronic and destructive.  We must settle.  Either we are settling for good enough (i.e. momentarily satisfactory) or we settle for nothing or I suppose some people settle for terrible, but thats is still somehow satisfying them I suppose.  Anyway, those are your choices in life.  We rarely if ever get to choose between perfect or beyond our expectations and pretty good.  There is always an issue!  And when things exceed your expectations, be EXTREMELY grateful and thank God - your are blessed and lucky! Back to Prager's point. "The only religion you will fully agree with will be the one you make up." Brilliant point!  And at that point, you are engaging in a religion of one (because no one else will fully agree your religion... they too will have to make up there own.)  So you are back to just being spiritual. Without the standards that can only be fulfilled through religion, you will be left creating your own rules and standards.  And they may be fine, and you may be a good person who creates good rules and standards for yourself.  But rare is the person who can hold themselves accountable and take an honest inventory of their behavior and how it corresponds with their own rules. Look at how easy it is for people to justify, rationalize, and lie to themselves even with a religious book (like the bible) and with a community (like a church) and with leadership (like a minister).  How much easier would it be to bend your own rules, justify violating your own prohibition, or excuse yourself from adhering to your own obligations! Good religions should produce good people.  So if you are confused or disenchanted by the world's major religions practice, doctrines, or theology... Then just ask yourself which seem produce the most goodness? Which religions seem to help people overcome their evil inclinations? Which religions seem to help people treat others (and "the other") with kindness, decency, and respect? Which religions seem to produce the kind of person you would like to become? Study the religions and religious communities that are available to you and judge for yourself how they perform based on the people who practice that particular religion.  Then ask the people why they are what they are (Methodist, Baptist, Reform Jew, Orthodox Jew, Catholic, Muslim, etc.).  Ask them if someone else should become a part of their religion? Why and why not? Now in general, my first advice is for folks to explore the religion of their family or the religion they grew up with.  But... If you have really examined your root religion as an adult already.  And if you have earnestly done your root religion religion recently... and it just does not fit you, then do what I am talking about.  Study, shop, and compare other religions. People spend more time and effort researching their next car, than they do their religious affiliation or place of worship.  I'm a comparative shopper in most aspects.  Actually I am particularly so regarding the big issues and major purchases.  Small stuff not so much.  I have noticed that many folks are the opposite. The will spend far too much time choosing toothpaste, and not nearly enough time finding a good roofer or repair shop.  They will just use the first one recommended... No, slow down, breath, and be patient.  If you allow yourself to choose a good religion and then do it... you will change your life for the better in ways you cannot currently imagine.  A whole new world will be unveiled that you previously did not know existed. That definitely has been my own experience. I used to be one of the naysayers of religion. I believed Bertrand Russell when he wrote: Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines. I worshipped reason and logic.  I thought the religious were committing a form of intellectual suicide.  They gave up on understanding the world.  But I was the fool.   Science can explain a lot, but it can't explain everything. The human mind can understand a lot, but not everything. But more perplexing were the questions of morality, values, and why are we here?   Good religion is here to teach us how to treat each other, why we are here, and how we are to behave while we are here. Science can't do that.  It is not science's role to do so.  Science has it's very important role and religion has another very important role.  Good science should value truth.  Good religion should value truth.  They should be able to coexist peacefully, and perhaps (if anything) help each other rather than contradict each other. Eistein said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. And MLK, Jr. said: Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control. My attitude shifted tremendously when I began studying extremely good and intelligent people who utilized their minds to argue the values of good religion.  People like Maimonides, Heschel, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, and obviously Dennis Prager have heavily influenced my ideas about the role and benefits of religion.   And then it was Jacob Milgrom and his Torah commentaries (Leviticus primarily) that really got me convinced that this is not some modern dilemma (man vs. religion).   Since the dawn of my own religion Judaism, God knew that a religion of one does little to no good for the one, let alone the world.  So when He set out to to create a people who were to be religious God gave us many rules, rituals, guidelines, and purpose.  All these help to refine the person, and because it is codified it can be passed from one generation to the next and to any new people who are interested in joining.  There was nothing hidden or secretive or mysterious.  Quite the contrary.  The Torah is extremely open about the foibles of the people, and what God's demands of us as people.   And that really thing I keep coming back to, good religion DEMANDS OF YOU.  It demands you behave decent - regardless.   Regardless of your mood or what society thinks is right... good religions are here to set the standards for decency and moral behavior.   Yes there may be rituals you don't like or understand.  So what?  Rituals are the physical manifestation of an idea of belief (~a Prager line).  So rather than you burning calories getting annoyed with prayer or Passover or Easter or Ramadan... figure out the meanings and beliefs that are expressed by the rituals.  Focus on the meanings and make them meaningful for you.   As Prager has noted:  God poured new wine into old bottles. And what he meant by this was: In regards to Judaism, we do lots of rituals throughout the day, week, month, and year... and lifecycle events.  We are rich with rituals.  And yes you could examine them and discover quite easily that often these rituals were likely rooted in ancient pagan ceremony.  So what?  What matters  is that God utilized the rituals that people understood and were accustomed to, Ethical Monotheised them (or Judaised) the practices, and filled the old rituals with new meaning.   Why?  What's the big deal with ritual anyway?   Well as I said, all ritual is a physical expression of an idea or belief.  So if you want to perpetuate the idea or belief, it would be wise to attach a physical expression to it.  If you want to cultivate an idea or belief in a person, again it would be wise to attach a physical expression to it.   We do this in our daily lives and never think about it... partly because it has become to ingrained in the culture we don't feel the need to focus on it.  But irrespective of our awareness, the beauty is that the rituals still takes place, and they still have an effect on us.   The most common example is the handshake.  It was once a pragmatic way of revealing you were unarmed. The salute is another example.  It originated as a pragmatic movement to raise a knights visor. Or the bow.  It seems to be a universal sign of respect, probably originating from the acts literal lowering of a person in relation to another who is considered superior or deserving of respect.   Ritual is everywhere in your life. You simply may, or may not realize it.  It is a natural form of hypnosis.  Typically it is referred to as "anchoring".  Think of an intense feeling and then do a particular behavior (snap your fingers and clap your hands for example).  Repeat this over and over, and do it repeatedly throughout the day for a few days.  Before you know it you will simply be able to do the behavior and  create the intense feeling in yourself.  Why? Because the physical behavior is so strongly associated with the idea that simply the act will create the intense feelings.   Ritual utilizes a very powerful part of the human psyche.  Good religions give people rituals to help develop their character, and focus on deeper more meaningful aspects of life.   Yes you could create your own rituals... and some do.  But good luck maintaining them alone.  It has been my experience that unique spiritual rituals don't last long.   I suppose I should also mention that you could try the ala cart method of religion and cherry pick ideas and lines here and there to formulate you own cafeteria religion.  But again, there will be no standard to which you will hold yourself.  And it will only be a matter of time until some value you once liked is in conflict with your new mindset.  You alone are the author of your "sacred" text, and it's just as dangerous as those who cherry pick the Bible to suit their beliefs.   No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means. George Bernard Shaw   Again this where a good religious community helps tremendously. Feeling religious is not enough.  You have to DO religion.  And it makes sense that it would help to have a community who does the same religion you do.  There is a power and influence that simply cannot be fostered by oneself. A) You have people to whom you are accountable, and B) You have people who can amplify your religiosity.   Think of it this way.   Imagine your favorite sports team is in the championship.  You could stay home and enjoy watching the game on your big 4k TV, listening to crystal clear surround sound, eating your own good food, and comfortably lounge on your couch.  To say the least, this solitary experience has its benefits over driving to the game and sitting in stadium seats.   But what if instead you went to the actual game where your team was playing in the championship.  Despite the hassle of traffic, or the hard plastic seats, or the public restrooms... how much more intense and enjoyable would that experience be for you in the final analysis.   Sure you may stand up and cheer at home, but it would nothing like what you would do were you at the game and had all the other fans around you cheering as well.   That is what a good religious community can be like.  There is a tremendous power in having a people to who share similar values, beliefs, and practices as you.  The simple addition of like minded human souls to your experiences will heighten them and amplify them in ways that solitude can never do.   Why?   Well I'll end on this.   Good religion will fulfill all over your six human needs. The Six Human Needs (as taught by Tony Robbins) 1. Certainty: assurance you can avoid pain and gain pleasure 2. Uncertainty/Variety: the need for the unknown, change, new stimuli 3. Significance: feeling unique, important, special or needed 4. Connection/Love: a strong feeling of closeness or union with someone or something 5. Growth: an expansion of capacity, capability or understanding 6. Contribution: a sense of service and focus on helping, giving to and supporting others And the truth is that you could do your own thing and maybe fulfill the first three.  But you will likely run into issues with the last three. And particularly the last two. Good religion and a good religious community helps us grow and contribute in subtle yet profound ways.  In fact, I think many people lose track of it, because so many others are growing and contributing right along with you.  A good religion should cultivate a culture of growth and contribution because these last two needs are truly spiritual needs. If you try to be an island unto yourself religiously, then it may unfortunately result in you finding unwise ways to fulfill these needs. Good religion offers the wisdom, guidance, and opportunities to fulfill these needs so that you and others benefit. So go out there and start shopping, questioning, and doing the religion whose produces the most fruits of goodness. God bless. A religious man is a person who holds God and man in one thought at one time, at all times, who suffers harm done to others, whose greatest passion is compassion, whose greatest strength is love and defiance of despair. Abraham Joshua Heschel            

In my intro I read: Psalm 34 starting with verse 11 from the NIV version (34+11=45).  In the Jewish Bibles it would be 12 -15... but then that would't work to equal 45... Ps. 34 (NIV) 11Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. 12Whoever of you loves life (hebrew "chafetz chaim") and desires to see many good days, 13keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. 14Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. The most recent Prager University course is "Are People Born Good?"  Okay, so Prager and I  agree that people are not born good.  They are born innocent, but not basically good nor evil.  And we have free will to develop our character in whichever fashion we choose.  We can choose to do good or not. So how do we do that? How does one begin to do good? Well the rabbis answered that question like this: The first step to doing good is to avoid evil. So now you must ask yourself, "Do I avoid evil?" I am going to venture a guess that you are not a murderer, rapists, kidnapper, torturer, thief, or criminal.  Great!!!  So far you have avoided some pretty serious evils. But are there any major evils are you not avoiding?  I'll bet there is at least one. I will argue that many people not only do not avoid this evil, but they actually take pleasure in it.  Some even justify it and claim that it is purposeful and a good thing. What is this ubiquitous evil? In Hebrew it is called Lashon Hara and literally means "evil tongue" or "evil language", but in English it is usually just equated to "gossip."  And yes lashon hara does pertain to gossip, but really it pertains to so much more. People greatly underestimate the amount of lashon hara they engage in. Here is a great test I learned from Rabbi Telushkin: Can you go for 24 hours without saying any unkind words about or to anyone (assuming you are around people much of the day)? If not then you likely have a real problem.  You are not in control your own words and are addicted to lashon hara.  And as rabbi Telushkin says: "If you can not go for 24 hours without drinking liquor, you are addicted to alcohol. If you can not go for 24 hours without smoking, you are addicted to nicotine. Similarly, if you can not go for 24 hours without saying unkind words about others, you have lost control of your tongue." And if you think you can, then really try this test out for yourself.  Or try these: Next time you are going to be around people (family, synagogue, church, restaurant, dinner party, etc.) see for yourself whether or not you can go for just those few hours without saying anything unkind about or to anyone. Or over the next two days, become hyperaware of the your conversations.  Make note of how often either you or someone in your presence says something negative about someone.  Write it down and also record your emotional state at that time. And really the restrictions get more stringent the more you study lashon hara.  Over the year of reading the "Chofetz Chaim", I found myself not wanting to say a word to anyone ever.  Though I am again talkative now, there was a significant portion of that year where I was almost afraid to speak.  His book really made me rethink the way I speak, what I speak about, and what I will even allow myself to listen to. Another great book was Telushkin's "Words that Hurt, Words that Heal."  Again a great book that further refined my speech and behavior. Now some of us are sicker than others.  Surely I was not the best or worst person out there in regards to lashon hara.  Regardless, I personally have a lot of work to do regarding it, and I don't even enjoy talking about people.  I honestly cannot imagine how hard it must be for those who truly enjoy talking about people. I'm sure many folks believe I'm overthinking lashon hara or take it too serious.  But it is terribly serious.  In Judaism we are taught that evil speech or public humiliation should be as detestable to us as unjust violence. Rabbi Telushkin writes: "An old Jewish teaching compares the tongue to an arrow: "Why not another weapon--a sword, for example?," one rabbi asks. "Because," he is told, "if a man unsheathes his sword to kill his friend, and his friend pleads with him and begs for mercy, the man may be mollified and return the sword to its scabbard. But an arrow, once it is shot, can not be resumed." This comparison is more than a useful metaphor. Because words can be used to inflict devastating and irrevocable suffering, Jewish teachings go so far as to compare cruel words to murder. A penitent thief can return the money he has stolen; a murderer, no matter how sincerely he repents, can not restore his victim to life. Similarly, one who damages another's reputation through malicious gossip or who humiliates another publicly never fully can undo the damage." So this is why I may appear rude to some when I cutoff their conversation if it goes into lashon hara or I may simply walk away.  Sometimes I have found myself in a catch-22 of sorts, where getting them to stop speaking evil of another will necessarily cause public humiliation for the one speaking.  Both are serious evils I should avoid. Anyway, the point is that while you and most people in general may think they are good people (as I stated earlier: You don't violate any major offenses, and you probably avoid many other obviously evil behaviors) you still must avoid a tremendous evil which is subtle and accepted by much of society. To do good, you must also work to avoid evil speech (lashon hara.) Sure you are good in all other kinds of ways, but you really should do a self inventory and figure out how much of this plays into your life.  I know for some this is no big deal, and lashon hara so easy to do - and hard to avoid.  And besides everyone does it.  BUT regardless its still evil!  If you found out your kid was cheating on tests and he answered back, "Look the teacher doesn't seem to care, and all the kids are doing it.  Plus, look I'm learning valuable lessons on how to outsource."  My dream is that you would still be deeply disappointed in your kid's behavior, and you would still prohibit cheating... along with administer some form of punishment for past transgressions.  Why?  Because cheating hurts so many people along with your own child.  It is a form of theft and deception.  Cheating corrupts the soul.  You don't think so?  I remember cheating in school.  The first time I did it, I felt sick.  Then after getting away with it, and rationalizing it (i.e. "everyone is doing it" "no one seems to care" etc.) it got easier and easier, until I did not even recognize when I would do it. This weeks parsha is Metzorah, and the rabbis have a field day relating how the spiritual "disease" of tzaraat and tamei are related to lashon hara.  First, we have the word play that is lost in translation.  The rabbis teach that Metzorah is related to "motzi shem ra" which roughly means "bringing evil to a name."  Today, the term metzorah is understood as a "gossiper." And we see that when our characters in the Torah speak lashon hara or gossip they seem to be afflicted with the spiritual disease of tzaraat or even worse.  I can appreciate how this would be helpful today.  Can you imagine that if you or anyone were to gossip or speak ill to someone then your skin would transform into white flaky scales?  No dermatologist or steroid would help, only ritual purification and your cessation of evil speech would be the cure. Pretty cool right?  That would help deter our current mindset regarding evil speech. It would definitely help if we had such physical examples of how powerful and impactful our words are.  The Torah is adamant about this subject.  God uses "speech" to create the whole Universe!  And regarding this subject of lashon hara just 2 verses before one the most famous verses "...Love  your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord." (Lev. 19:18) we have told "You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people..." (Lev. 19:16).  But what does that really mean? Well again we have a play on words that is lost in translation.  The word translated as "talebearer" is rakhil which can be related to the word regel which literally means "foot" but in this context would mean "peddler".  So we can understand it to mean "don't go about peddling gossip or tales about people."  And let's just look at these verse in context because it is fascinating: Leviticus 19 (JPS): 11Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another. 12And ye shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 13Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him; the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.14Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 15Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. So you see how among all these great sins God includes lashon hara.  He takes it seriously and so should we! Okay so maybe now you are onboard regarding the need to avoid lashon hara. What is next? Well in order to avoid something we must first know what we are to avoid. So in a nutshell lashon hara refers to "any derogatory or damaging statement against an individual. In Hilchot Deot 7:5, Maimonides supplies a litmus test for determining whether something is or isn't Lashon Hara: Anything which, if it would be publicized, would cause the subject physical or monetary damage, or would cause him anguish or fear, is Lashon Hara." (torah.org) The Five Categories of Lashon Hara: Rechilut: Speech That Causes Disputes Lashon Hara: Harmful or Derogatory Speech Motzi Shem Ra: Harmful or Derogatory Speech that is Untrue  Ona’at Devarim: Speech That Causes Pain Avak Lashon Hara: Speech Bordering On Lashon Hara  So now that we have an idea of what constitutes lashon hara how do avoid it? Not so fast, I have learned the hard way that just knowing a behavior is wrong and trying to change it doesn't often work well.  It is extremely important to acknowledge why we do the negative behavior.  I believe all negative behavior start with a positive intent - though obviously the results are not positive.  In general I will say that people's positive intent with lashon hara begins with the desire to entertain, seem interesting, falsely elevate themselves, or feel important. Below are more reasons for lashon hara (from morashasyllabus.com): Negativity – a negative attitude toward others means that one will always find faults to mention. Arrogance – if a person is arrogant and feels that he is superior to others, he will be moreinclined to speak negatively about them. Hatred – causes one to speak negatively about even the positive actions of the other person! Anger – causes one to be less careful with what he says. Jealousy – as long as we are bothered by another person’s accomplishments, we will findsomething negative to focus on. Excessive empty talk – people can end up talking about other people and their weaknesses ifthey have nothing constructive to discuss. And so now with that understood, we can start to think "If I never stop speaking lashon hara what will I be like in another year?  How about if I change nothing about my speech and lets be real it's only getting worse, what will my character be like in 5 years of speaking even more lashon hara?  How many people will I hurt in the process?  How many souls will be affected by my lack of control of my speech over if I continue the way I have for another 20 years? And get real with yourself.  Imagine yourself one, five, ten, and twenty years later and all the souls you have harmed and all the destruction you have caused if you never change.  Imagine that every person you spoke about found out!  If you are having a hard time empathizing, then imagine all that is being spoken about you by others and how that would make you feel.  Lies, rumors, allegations, attacks, and the like over the next 10 or 20 years... But it doesn't have to be that way.  You can only control you and that is HUGE.  You can be an example for others, and you can take yourself out of the equation.  You can now begin to stop committing one of the greatest evils TODAY! You ready? Here's how... First we have developed a huge why. All this stuff I have spoken about over the last hour is why we must stop.  If you have a big enough why you will figure out the how. Next here are some tips to avoiding lashon hara from morashasyllabus.com: 1. Focus on the positive in others – it is the way of the wise to focus on the positive in everyone, especially since each person is made in the image of God. 2. Develop humility – being humble means that one speaks gently, avoids arguments and is a pleasure to be around. 3. Love others as yourself – just as you wouldn’t want someone speaking lashon hara about you, don’t do it to someone else. 4. Control anger – speaking gently and responding patiently, even for just fifteen minutes a day, will change a person’s speaking habits. 5. See yourself as a soul, not as a body – identify oneself as a soul living in a limitless world, instead of as a body competing for limited resources. When one does this, one is less inclined to criticize someone else’s success. 6. Develop constructive and productive speaking habits, because we are prone to speak lashon hara when engaged in idle chatter. Practice remaining silent if one has nothing positive to say. 7. We pray that God assist us in our ongoing effort to improve our speech. 8. Study Torah in order to help refine one’s character and understand the significance andguidelines of proper speech. and here are some helpful hints from Prager and Telushkin's  book Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism: "Speak as much as possible about issues rather than about detail's of people's lives. Sometimes it is important to speak of a person's negative qualities - as, for example, in a letter of recommendation. Otherwise, don't do so.  The general rule is: Do not transmit negative information about a person unless it is essential that someone have this information. Since speaking about other people's lives is so tempting and difficult to stop entirely, confine gossip to one intimate friend (such as your spouse) and end it there. Try to avoid spending time with people who gossip.  Either choose the company of people with elevated taste, or, if you cannot avoid being with gossips, try to change the topic.  If necessary, tell them why you are doing so.  Don't be offensive, but if it is unavoidable, offend them.  It is better to offend the perpetrators of gossip than to conspire in destroying people whose private lives are being dissected.  Besides, in all likelihood.  You too will soon become a victim of these gossips." And if nothing else, keep it simple and remember what the Talmud teaches about lashon hara: Lashon hara kills three: the person who speaks it, the person who hears it, and the person about whom it is told.  ~(Talmud Arachin 15b) Make lashon hara as evil as murder in your mind and you will work just as hard to avoid it and prevent it. You may not be involved in killing them physically, but you are involved in character assassination. Finally I will conclude with one of my favorite stories regarding lashon hara: A Jewish folktale, set in 19th-century Eastern Europe, tells of a man who went through a small community slandering the rabbi. One day, feeling suddenly remorseful, he begged the rabbi for forgiveness and offered to undergo any form of penance to make amends. The rabbi told him to take a feather pillow from his home, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the wind. The man did as he was told and returned to the rabbi. He asked, "Am I now forgiven?" "Almost," came the response. "You just have to perform one last task: Go and gather all the feathers." "But that's impossible," the man protested, "for the wind has already scattered them." "Precisely," the rabbi answered. The rabbi in this story understands that words define our place in the world. Once our place--in other words, our reputation--is defined, it is very difficult to change, particularly if it is negative.  We speak thousands of words every day. Our words have enormous power and we should exercise tremendous power over them. With God's help, I pray we learn to use them only for the purpose of goodness.  

So this week's Ultimate Issues has been inspired by the New York Times.  While I am not a fan of them in general, they occasionally put out articles worthy of mention.   Plus, I know that many others are reading the Times so I figure I should at least be as informed as them... The first article deals with a Jewish couple who are getting a divorce and the man has refused to grant her a get.  And for those of you who don't know (and I don't expect you to know) a get is a religious document necessary to release a woman from her Jewish marriage bonds to her husband.  So, while one may legally get divorced, if the Jewish couple does not also formally complete the get, then in the prevue of Judaism they are still considered married - and typically neither can get remarried (as polygamy is prohibited in Jewish law.)  But this guy found a loophole, and has gotten remarried.  But the shmuck still will not grant his ex-wife a get, leaving her stuck and imprisoned by the very system meant to protect her.  In the past, such cases (while not common, also not unheard of) were dealt with within the community.  The pressure on the husband to grant the get varied in severity from public shame, to intimidation, to full on violence.  Basically the other men of the community (often relatives of the ex-wife) made sure such passive aggressive cruelty did not exist against women, nor did they want an otherwise decent system and one set up with the intent to strengthen families, marriage, and women's status was not abused to the point of not only being unholy but also immoral. Here is a link to the article. Unwilling to Allow His Wife a Divorce, He Marries Another And then there is this other article also from the New York Times, not at all on the level of the last one.  But let's see if you can spot the similarity and common theme... and why I'm presenting this as an ultimate issue. Illusion of Safety at Afghan Haven Is Shattered   So have you figured out the link.  While the story from Afghanistan is far worse than the one from Vegas, both deal with a tremendous subject: Doing evil in the name of God. Whether or not a person explicitly states they are doing evil in the name of God, or if they are just obviously religious and repugnant either way it is the ultimate in sin. WHy? Because evil done in the name of God or on behalf of religion make God or the religion guilty by association. It desecrates God's name "Chillul HaShem".  This is from Dennis Prager:“Do not take the Lord your God’s name in vain” is how the King James Version translates what Jews call the third commandment (Jews and Christians number the Ten Commandments somewhat differently). This translation is understandable, but it is a serious mistranslation.Literally translated, what the commandment states is: “Do not carry [or “lift”] the Lord your God’s name in vain.”And who is it that carries God’s name in vain? The person who commits evil in God’s name. The proof that this is the correct translation is not only linguistic. The very fact that God says that this is the one commandment whose violation He will not forgive makes it clear that this is the worst sin, and that it cannot possibly mean one who says “God” in a non-religious context — such as saying, “God, that was a terrific movie.” It brings ill repute to otherwise good religions:  Like it or not, good religion is our greatest hope for creating a decent society.  Societies void of religion fall into a moral abyss within a generation or two.  Who is to determine right and wrong, or good and evil if not the God of Ethical Monotheism?  A person, a government, a culture, a tribe... This predictable moral decay will lead to two things: Moral relativism: There is no absolute, objective morality.  All is relative to the one's own judgement at any given time. Moral darwinism: The biggest and strongest "morality" will prevail.  As in the case of murderous tribes of Africa, old Germanic tribes, Maoist China, or Nazi Germany. Either way nothing good will come from this.  Regardless of which dominates the moral compass will be broken, and depravity will inevitably ensue to the point of a hedonistic, violent, animalistic nightmarish existence for humanity. Good religions produce good people.  Good religions teach people that there is one God who judges everyone, and holds every person accountable for their actions.  Good religions have the courage to stand up to moral degenerates and declare their evil to the world.  Good religions disavow anyone who commits evil in their name.  Good religions work tirelessly to fight evil and promote goodness among all people... and especially within their own followers.  Good religions are marked by the good fruit they produce.  People who become more religious should become 'gooder' people.  Yes they should become more preoccupied with the spiritual behaviors involved with a religious life,  BUT far more important is that they become even more obsessed and passionate about their moral behavior toward their fellow man as  religious person. God cares faaaaaaaaar more about how we treat each other than how we treat Him.  And God is extremely explicit about how wrong it is for a person to behave evil in His name. And I'm talking about evil.  I'm not talking about sinning.  Sinning is typically an act against God.  And yes it's wrong.  But what is more important is not harming another person, especially if you are religious. When religious people act indecent they do more to promote atheism than any university professor, atheist comedian, or Hitchens book.  Religious people have special obligations areligious people do not.  They are obligated to be act good towards others.  They are obligated to act honest.  They are obligated to act kind, generous, and lovingly.  Basically they have a religious obligations to operate in the world with a good mood, cheerful disposition, and high degree of maturity and decency. If every religious person realized that they (each individual) is the most powerful tool for promoting goodness, decency, and Godliness then they would walk through life with a very different demeanor. When I was in high school and junior high I played football.  Growing up in Texas, that is just what you do.  Anyway, on days we had a game the football players wore their jerseys in school.  Doing so meant that you had to be on especially good behavior.  Were one to act disrespectful while wearing the jersey... then one would have brought disrespect to the whole team. I once got in trouble in junior high, and the coach pulled me aside before practice and made it very clear that I was no longer alone.  That since I was a part of the team, anything I did, anywhere I went, I representing the team.  And there were rules of conduct and expectations he had for his team... and because he knew how hard I worked to get on, and how much it meant to me  - Coach made it very clear that being apart of the team for me came with raised standards and obligations.  For a young man growing up in a single parent home alone, this was enormously impactful. When I started returning to Judaism, I started changing my whole life pretty much.  Why? Because I did not want the character flaws of my old self to in any way impact someone else's opinion of my team.  I love Judaism, and I want to be deserving of what it has given me.  I love God, and I want to begin to deserving of His love.  I know that, yes God is judging me constantly... but also that others are judging me as well... and if I act indecent they will not only think poorly of me, they will think poorly of God and Judaism (God forbid.) So you bet I am extremely careful how I behave now. That is the power of good religion. Also, good religion must openly and unequivacly denounce and condemn those who claim to be religious and yet act evil. Here is an example of what I am talking about. From the guardian: Pope Francis to mafia: repent or 'end up in hell' Francis's stance on organised crime in contrast with church's perceived former reluctance to criticise mafia bosses   This is the purpose of religion. Today people are all about religion being comforting and nonjudgmental. Today people think that "God is love." But those theological models do nothing (if not harm) to a society.   "God judges" should be on the banners inside churches, mosques, and synagogues.  And the world's major religions should be intolerant of evil done in their name.  Openly and loudly the leaders and followers of these religions should do as Pope Francis did ands stand courageously against those who defame their religion and carry the Lord's name in malice.   Jews need to stand up and fight what inequities within Judaism.   Incontrivertable problems like the agunah - get issues I raised at the beginning need to be resolved.  In Israel they have been able to make a new ruling that "a husband has 45 days maximum to provide his wife with a get once a rabbinical court has ruled that one is needed. If the husband refuses to do so within that time frame, the court must hold a hearing to arbit whether to impose punitive sanctions, which can include preventing the husband from traveling abroad, confiscating his driver's license, and even incarceration."(Jewish virtual library)   In Islam they must have reform from within against Islamists (those who desire and work for Islam to conquer the world and have everyone under Shariah rule.)  I know many wonderful and good Muslims who are angered, embarrassed, or amazed by others who as they same "claim to be Muslim."  For my friends they think the Islamists are evil and have no legitimate basis for their claims or movement.  While I appreciate their candor with me in private, I always make a point that they and their Imans should be saying this publicly... constantly and consistently.   Reform typically MUST happen from within.   Take a note from the playbook of today's Catholic church.  Thankfully, Pope Francis is working to reform old customs, tradition, mentalities, and simply evil behavior done under the auspices of the church.  From confronting the mafia to confronting child molestation... change is beginning to take form. And it is to the Pope's credit.   Courage may be the rarest of human traits.   And that is unfortunate because it is the trait most necessary to battle evil and promote goodness in this world.  In years past the courageous were heralded.  They went against the grain, and focused on what will do the most good, rather than what feels good.  For instance Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel... they acted with defiant courage and faced evil in the face.   Today however people confuse courage for demagoguery.  What is courageous about speaking to a group of college kids about your life as homosexual and the rights for same-sex marriage?  That is demagoguery.  Be courageous and speak to them about the need for Judea- Christian values and how they currently benefit from them, despite their aversion to religion. Or what is courageous about a high school student giving a speech about the environment and what you can do to save the Delta Smelt?  Nothing.  However were that kid to stand up and give a speech demanding an end to cheating and that students are obligated to treat their teachers, administrators, and other school employees with respect and courtesy (not to mention honor their father and mother) - Now that kid is courageous.   We have a duty to be example of courage for the next generation. We have a duty to our religion to be an example to others of its goodness. We have a duty to God to glorify Him in all that we do and say. And we are obligated to correct our own errors along the way, as well as help others realize their errors and they grandness of their errors regarding the desecration of God and/or religion. Then, hopefully each of us can help lead an individuals toward a better paths - a way of life which is focused on goodness of character, ethical treatment of others, and deeper connection with the Almighty.        

Kurzweil's predictions are becoming more and more mainstream apparently.  There was a time, a few years ago, where mentioning "The Singularity" or "Nano-technology" or "AI" would have made you an: A) Geek B) Sci-fi/Comic con nut C) Modern cultist D) All of the above Now, however, it's not such a big deal.  You might just be a scientist or simply a reader of the Wall Street Journal. Ray Kurzweil has been writing and speaking about reverse engineering the brain, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, Moore's law, and "The Singularity" for quite some time. (The technological singularity was first noted by mathematician John von Neumann in 1958.) If you are a musician you may recognize his name from his pioneering work with the synthesizer.  Yep, same guy. Or perhaps you know him from his reading machines for the blind. If neither of those ring a bell, then how about a little company called "Google"  where he is employed as the Director of Engineering. Ray Kurzweil is obviously smart, ambitious, inventive, powerful, and influential.  So when he started talking about the Singularity, I listened (0r to be more accurate read.) And his books are intriguing.  I am not a professional tech guy or neuroscientist, and yet I could grasp a great amount of his writings and theories. It goes something like this:  We are exponentially increasing our technological power and ability to record, analyze, and transmit data.  With this ability we have the benefit of greater understanding of our material world and our own organic tool of understanding, the brain. Much like what has happened in the complex field of DNA, we are (relatively speaking) rapidly approaching a time when our brain will be mapped and effectively reverse engineered. As we learn more, and develop better and more efficacious modalities medicine and technology will merge almost seamlessly. So eventually, the human brain will merge with technology to create a hybrid organic computer brain.  And according to Ray Kurzweil this will become a necessity simply to keep up with the rapid advancement we are already witnessing today in 2014. According to Kurzweil's prediction by 2045 human intelligence and all data will merge into a "Singularity" (yes, like the nomenclature in physic signifying a gravitational field becoming infinite.)  Artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence, and human intelligence will transform into super-human intelligence becoming a hybrid with technology.  Organic intelligence entwined with synthetic intelligence... and vice versa. Yes, if you are thinking about "The Matrix" or "Terminator" you are on the right path.  It is that kind of sci-fi fantasy technology that is becoming recognized as a real possible reality in the near future.  Remember if Kurzweil is correct, 2045 is just 31 years away for those of us living today in 2014. Okay, so why is this an Ultimate Issue? Well like I stated earlier this is not just science fiction, it is becoming science fact.  The very well respected and well read Wall Street Journal recently published this on March 14, 2014: The Future of Brain Implants How soon can we expect to see brain implants for perfect memory, enhanced vision, hypernormal focus or an expert golf swing? (click on Heading or here for full article.)  Below is the beginning.  I read more in the podcast and throw in my comments as well. By GARY MARCUS and CHRISTOF KOCH March 14, 2014   What would you give for a retinal chip that let you see in the dark or for a next-generation cochlear implant that let you hear any conversation in a noisy restaurant, no matter how loud? Or for a memory chip, wired directly into your brain's hippocampus, that gave you perfect recall of everything you read? Or for an implanted interface with the Internet that automatically translated a clearly articulated silent thought ("the French sun king") into an online search that digested the relevant Wikipedia page and projected a summary directly into your brain? Science fiction? Perhaps not for very much longer. Brain implants today are where laser eye surgery was several decades ago. They are not risk-free and make sense only for a narrowly defined set of patients—but they are a sign of things to come. Unlike pacemakers, dental crowns or implantable insulin pumps, neuroprosthetics—devices that restore or supplement the mind's capacities with electronics inserted directly into the nervous system—change how we perceive the world and move through it. For better or worse, these devices become part of who we are. And near the close of the article: Will these devices make our society as a whole happier, more peaceful and more productive? What kind of world might they create? It's impossible to predict. But, then again, it is not the business of the future to be predictable or sugarcoated. As President Ronald Reagan once put it, "The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave." Actually I will argue that the future is predictable, because human behavior is so predictable.  The authors presume that these advancements in people or society have never happened before, but they have. Whether historic, allegoric, or etiologic - it does not matter, the Torah has a story in it that is applicable to our arguably impending future. Go back to the first book, Genesis, and read about the city and tower of Babel.  It is a story of hubris and uniformity.  But just in case you went to grad school and don't know this important story...  How is it that so many people who are considered "educated" are also Biblically illiterate? Even if you think its just literature, please respect its influence on the world.  And know that the book you consider literature is largely responsible for America's founding, and the values systems you benefit from. But I digress... Here are the verses: Genesis Ch. 11  (NIV) The Tower of Babel 1Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2As people moved eastward,a they found a plain in Shinarb and settled there. 3They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” 5But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 8So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babelc —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Okay, I am not going to write my recorded Torah geek out rant, but here is the summary from the podcast: The whole land was of one mind. They became a collective. instead of building a society comprised of unique individuals (stones) who support one another directly, they built a society where every one is the same, interchangeable, and therefore disposable (bricks) who are bound by material. Their motivation was to become gods, and gain fame, influence, and power. God knows what is going on, and knows it is not good for man to have such power (remember this is shortly after the flood story) because mans use of the world for evil is very easy and extremely destructive. So, God confuses them and scatters them all over the land so that they cannot conspire together as a singular intelligence and force. So, since I believe the Torah is Divine, and Torah means "teacher" or "instructor" then I see this as an instruction from God not to build ourselves up to be gods, and not to become a singular mind melded together with each (or for that matter artificial intelligence.)  God created an amazing universe of order and separation despite the random chaos we sometimes perceive. Man is man and machine is machine. Should man utilize machine?  Yes of course, so long as it is for the good and ethical. Should we allow for technology to be implanted in us?  Again, yes so long as it is for the good and ethical.  Technology is a tool just like a machine, or a hammer.  If you go purchase a hammer with the intent to murder someone with it, then we have a problem... But if you purchase it to build shelter for someone, then that is obviously wonderful.  To be clear I think it is perfectly reasonable to utilize technology to allow a heart to beat regularly, an eye to see, ear to hear, and so on.  And we are obligated to utilize technology to save a life.  But the problematic issues is when people will routinely implant technology to enhance otherwise normative life. The fact is that humans are very predictable.  Those who utilize technology for goodness, will likely utilize whatever advancements are achieved with the same motivation and results.  And those who utilize tools for selfish or evil purposes will also do the same regardless. We have better weaponry than ever before.  More sophisticated, precise, and powerful than ever.  So we should feel very protected right?  But we don't, why?  Because while weapons in the arsenal of a good guy protect, free, and rescue; we know that those same arms in the arsenal of a wicked villain torture, destroy, and enslave. I am fairly certain that this future Kurzweil and others predict is immenent and will likely happen within my lifetime, and for sure within our children's lifetime (remember technology is also allowing longevity to perpetually increase.) I am also certain that it will create a world of problems people cannot fully imagine today.  Imagine what hacking will be like.  Imagine a virus that infest the data cloud where nearly every person's brain is linked into.  Thank about a system crash, whether it be malicious or simply an act of extreme solar activity (i.e. EMP's from flares.) Think about today's internet porn and all the problems that it raises (porn addiction, shame, antisocial behavior, disconnect, and desensitization) and now imagine that at any moment a person could enter a virtual world and have virtual sex but the experience feels better than real.  Fantasy and reality will become insignificant... because everything will be experience in the mind as real (like a dream.) Also, realize that just like all other technology the wealthiest will have access to the best technology available.  True, others will also have a version of it... but there will be a new class distinction.  We don't need any additional class warfare rhetoric. But even still, the worst scenario I believe will be what I call the "Borg" scenario.  Yes, like the Borg from Star Trek TNG... and like the people featured in the Babel narrative... I can foresee when one person,  AI, or government gets the novel idea of creating a single minded collective.  A human machine hybrid linked and synced so that all involved become one who serve their collective, and then it only makes sense they will foolishly desire to grow in numbers and power for unholy purposes. There is no reason to not think this is what will become of the technology in the pipeline. So, I guess ultimately I say A) Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. (For all of you who have been dreaming of a day where man becomes super human - machine hybrids.) B) Tools and technology are amoral, but the people who utilize them determine the final moral outcomes and holy/unholy results.  

How do you connect with the Divine? This has been something I have struggled with since I began seriously questioning my atheism.  That a transcendent Creator actually created our natural world ex nihilo was logical enough, but that He cares about His creation? Or that He desires we communicate with Him?  These were beliefs I struggled with deeply.  And still, I struggle with the way to connect with God. This week we are beginning the Book of Leviticus (Vayikra.)  For many people, this is their least favorite of the Torah books.  I get it, there's a ton of detail, repetition, formula, and references which are lost on our modern ears. But for me, Leviticus has been among the most transformative works I've ever read.  Really, I am a Leviticus-phile.  Much of my love is because of the teaching from Dennis Prager and Jacob Milgrom. I have studied Prager's biblical commentary every year for many years now.  And for the last 4-5 years I have reviewed Jacob Milgrom's books on Leviticus every time we reach it in our Torah reading cycle (In Judaism, we read the entire Torah set to an annual schedule.) And this is why I am raising this issues for this segment of Ultimate Issues. Leviticus could be read as an antiquated text filled with meaningless ritual and pagan practices, but it is anything but that. Rather Leviticus opens as a statement that beyond God creating every thing (Genesis), and His continual care and remembrance  regarding His creations (Exodus), God also knows that while we want to connect with Him we don't naturally know how to do so.  So in Leviticus God teaches the people in a context that they can grasp and apply meaningfully. So, God pours "new wine into old bottles" (a Prager line).  The rituals and practices that are described throughout Leviticus are old frames of reference the people of that time could easily receive and understand, but then God put new meaning into them and transformed them into ethical, monotheistic practices and rituals. So for instance, killing and offering food to satiate or propitiate the gods was normative and universally accepted thousands of years ago.  Had God simply said to early man "just meditate and focus on your breath and you will eventually connect to me" that would have meant nothing to them.  So God worked with man so that both could benefit and eventually progress to the point were blood and "sacrifice" was no longer necessary. God knows that it is better for man to elevate and progress via evolution versus revolution.  Revolution rarely works.  And even then it is under very certain circumstance (i.e. the American Revolution occurred after a long period of evolution, and it had the benefit of the Atlantic dividing them from whom they are revolting against.)  As we have witnessed in the 20th century, revolutions often lead to societal degeneration.  Concepts may be revolutionary, but to apply them to life requires evolution.  Ethical Monotheism itself is revolutionary in concept, but the practice and rituals that surround had to evolve with its people. Here is proof regarding the concept I am talking about.   In Leviticus a tremendous amount of detail is used in describing the "sacrificial" system for the Israelites.  But a HUGE problem is the word "sacrifice."   I know that in our easily hypnotized minds we instantly conjure up gruesome imagery of savages "sacrificing" in order to please the gods, like in an Indian Jones movie.  And yes that did exist... probably still does exist to an extant. But that is NOT what is described in the Torah. The word in Hebrew for "sacrifice" is korban. Korban means "get close to."  The korbanot ("sacrifices" pl.) were a means for this new society to connect and get closer to God.  They were entirely for their benefit!  For the first time in human history there is no indication what so ever that God "partook" in a meal, or dwelt in His chambers, or even demanded a sacrifice. This concept is revolutionary.  I am sure for the people at the time, when they read Leviticus (Remember neither the Torah nor Leviticus were exclusive gnostic texts hidden from the masses. NO! Quite the contrary, the entire Israelite public could hear these words and instructions every year... Revolutionary!)  I am sure they heard these instructions in Leviticus and said "Wait a second?  God is not going to eat any of this?  The priests eat the bread?  The entire animal is burnt?  Other animals are to be eaten by people?"  Not only that, but God makes it clear He doesn't need anything... rather He is responding to their need to give something in order to connect. If you have a bull ~ you bring the best.  But if you can only afford a sheep - thats fine.  And if you can only afford a pigeon - thats fine too.  And if all you can really afford is grain - then bring some cereal and make sure it means something to you. So again to be clear on this, not only does God ban sacrificing humans way back in the book of Genesis (again a revolutionary idea considering this was a universal and accepted practice thousands of years ago); He also makes it clear that even blood is not necessary!  You don't need to kill to get close to Him or connect with Him.  And it seems quite clear to me that the system God sets up for the Israelites (ie. Kashrut, Korbanot, and all the rules surrounding slaughter) are designed to eventually have a people who do not kill animals unless necessary. With all this in mind Leviticus and its idiosyncratic laws and rituals start to make sense.  First of all, if and when you want to sacrifice to get close to Me  this is how you are allowed to do it.  These are the only circumstance in which you are allowed to do it.  Second, everyone has the same rules and everyone knows them.  This should end the still common practice of: A) Someone claiming they have special or secret knowledge of what God wants (Everything is revealed to all the people.) B) Someone desiring to do more in order to get even closer to God (He demands your best and your undaunted intent.) C) Someone officiating who demands more and more for his own personal benefit  (Priests can't demand extra gold or chickens, there is a very specific amount for all.) D) People thinking that God benefits from the material world.  (The only notion of God benefiting is in regards to the immaterial odor being pleasing... but this still was just a euphemism that was understood in that day.) And what this sets up is a system of pouring new wine into old bottles.  Infusing new meaning into old rituals.  Creating a society whose primary concern is in regards to moral human behavior rather than the preoccupation with pleasing capricious gods. Of course it also sets a precedent for the future that eventually we, the people, will no longer require sacrifice to get closer to God.  Rather, we can focus our minds, or our behaviors, or our words in a way that elevates us and draws us closer to God. For those who know me, they know that I have a difficult time with prayer.  Prayer is a way for many people to connect with God.  And I am not saying it doesn't do anything for me... it does.  But my prayer is more true to the Hebrew word for prayer, lehitpalel, which really is a reflexive verb meaning "to judge oneself."  So prayer is introspective for me, much more so than communicative with God. So how do I end up connecting and communing with the Almighty? Primarily its through deep study of the divine text, Torah... the first five books of the Bible.  I actually do believe that the Torah is a divine text (perhaps the only one) and it is therefore unique in its power, insight, and influence.  The Torah for me is somewhat like a love letter from God, or an advice manual... or a human behavior manual straight from the Manufacturer.  God wants us to do good, and so He gave us a book to learn how to do so.  He wants us to act good toward one another, and so He gave us a book to learn what that means.  He wants us to love the stranger, our neighbor, and God, Himself... so He gave us a book teaching us how to act lovingly.  In general, none of this comes naturally to people.  Some seem to be born on a higher plane than others.  I was not. From the mouth of God, to the hand of Moses, to the mind of the Torah reader.  I see Torah as great connector for those who choose to connect with it. Nothing has changed my life more, or connected me more to the Ineffable than the words that are found in that ancient scroll.  And of the five books, Leviticus may have had the most impact in my daily life and ability to connect with God. Oh and regarding Leviticus and sacrifice, keep this in mind.  If you want to get close to anyone or have a deeper connection sacrifice is often required.  Sacrifice of time.  Sacrifice of money.  Sacrifice of resources.  The more I sacrifice for those I love, the deeper my love for them grows.  The more I sacrifice for God, the more my connection with Him strengthens.  Obviously I'm not referring to chickens or bulls or even grain.  I mean time.  I mean effort.  I mean mental focus.  I mean moving into a religious community.  Putting my children through religious school.  Raising them with a religious identity.  These all require a great deal of sacrifice.  But it is all worth it, because it is done in order to praise and show gratitude to God. I hope that may help some of you.  If it does let me know. And if you have your own insights on how you connect with the Divine, please share in the comments below.

Somedays I have a hard time.  But really, it's not my problems that upset so much as when I dwell on the problems others endure. We are moving and have had a hell of a year dealing with our kids, selling the house, sick family, and all the struggles that are normal for so many families.  But when I put in perspective to the struggles other families are facing I feel... I feel like a shmuck and I should realize how blessed I am, and therefore do what I can to help others who are worse off. Bryan Stow.  He could have been any number of men you or I encounter on a weekly basis.  A seemingly normal guy who liked his team and wanted to hang out with his buddies and watch a game.  But on March 31, 2011 two monsters disguised as humans willfully decided to take his life from him, seemingly because he was a San Francisco Giants fan in the rival Los Angeles Dodger stadium. Here is the story and interview from Youtube courtesy John Fund: Bryan Stow on Rock Center. What gets me upset is not just the brutality and banality of the attack, but the aftermath. I consciously put myself in Bryan's position and try to imagine that life. One day life is yours, and you have autonomy and free will. And the next you are utterly dependent, and in the least dignified ways. Your cognitive abilities are diminished so I am unsure how well you can control your state of mind. Your physical abilities are almost diminished so normative ways of physiologically transforming your mental and emotional states are confined to small gestures and fantasy. Rather than being a son who will take care of your parents in their senior years they take care of you. Instead of providing for you son and daughter, they will be working to provide for you. No one wants to be a burden. No one wants to feel purposeless. No one wants to lose dignity. No one wants to wake up to this nightmare. So much of what you and I take for granted was stripped away from Bryan Stow because two thugs wanted to act out, cowardly attack him, and continue to beat him while he was defenseless. Had it been a disease like ALS or the like I would find it calamitous, yet not at all on par with horrific tragedy Bryan Stow and his family endure. Plus, when you think it couldn't get worse... IT DOES.The two Amalekites who mercilessly beat Bryan Stow were sentenced just 4 years and 8 years in prison. That's it!? People get more for theft of material goods or drugs. How the hell is this all these degenerates get for the theft of Bryan's life, dignity, and all that goes with it. His children lost their dad. His parent's lost their son. His sisters' lost their brother. Society lost a good and productive man. And the "just" result is 4 years in prison for one assailant and 8 years for the other? Here is the judge's reaction and words to the convicted criminals at their sentencing: Yes, one of the thugs is smiling and laughing as the judge is speaking. Incredible. And a great reminder that there really are people out there who are evil. There are monsters. They appear human. And they must be stopped. These two monsters deserve just punishment. Yes I'd emotionally prefer a literal lex talionis ruling, and see them beaten until they are brain damaged and need a colostomy bag.  But that won't happen (nor do I intellectually think it should happen.)  The least they or "justice" system could do is sentence them to a "life sentence" each as they have take the life of Bryan Stow and those of his loved ones. As Dennis Prager said in his show regarding this case, sometimes our justice system is criminal.   Below is a modified Mi Sheberakh prayer I mentioned in the show (for those like myself who have a difficult time with prayer, but want to say a prayer on behalf of those who are ill and in need of healing): May the One who blessed our ancestors -- bless and heal Bryan Stow May the Holy Blessed One overflow with compassion upon him, to restore him, to heal him, to strengthen him, to enliven him. The One will send him, speedily, a complete healing -- healing of the soul and healing of the body -- along with all the ill, among the people of Israel and all humankind, soon, speedily, without delay, and let us all say:  Amen!   NOW we can help and support Bryan and his family though support4bryanstow.com. Give what you can and spread the word. It takes a world of good to counter a single act of evil. So step up! Do good! And help Bryan and his family live a better life.Blessed is the True Judge  

So last week I had the rare opportunity to actually catch a live Dennis Prager show.  I got in my truck and happened to turn on the radio (I usually just listen to podcasts) and there was Dennis asking listeners who are themselves addicts or close personal experience with addicts to call in.  So I called.  Shockingly I got through immediately, the woman on the line asked "Why are you calling?" and I answered simply enough, "Dennis just asked for anyone who is/was an addict or has experience with addicts to call in... so I'm calling as I am a loved one of addicts, who went on to marry an addict, and eventually became an addiction medicine specialist." Her, "Okay, and what would you like to say?" Me, "Well hold on, Dennis is asking the question now" Dennis the proceeds to ask the tough question "Is addiction a disease, or choice, or both?" Then I quickly explained to her that "...it depends on how you define disease, and that in general it is a behavioral decision based on the basic psychological need to avoid pain and gain pleasure."   Moments later I was on the line with my mentor in-absencia and undocumented rabbi, Dennis Prager. Here is a clip from the show (from my Pragertopia Subscription. Go get one.  It's the best $4.53 a month you may ever spend.) *The clip is played in the podcast.* Hopefully no copyrights were infringed.  There was no intent to do so, rather just to elaborate the background for this topic. So yeah, I had (have) family who are addicts.  And I eventually married an addict.  I myself could be called an "addict."  Perhaps you are an "addict"? I understand what the word 'addict' connotes in most of your minds.  Alcoholic, drugs addiction, or some sort of deviant behavior which one engages despite their better judgement or sense of propriety is "addictive behavior" right? But what the heck does that really mean? Is it an addiction or an obsession or simply a habit? Where do you draw the line in terms of defining an addiction or labeling someone an addict? Typically the label of an addict is defined by someone with an addiction. This tautological definition has troubled me for some time now, as it should you. What is an addiction?  What is addictive behavior? Well typically it's defined as habitual behavior beyond the subject control which has deleterious effects on his life.  Perhaps the effect on one's life are in respect to his family, job, psyche, intelligence, health, or abilities.  But in general, people believe that for something to be considered an addiction then it must some how be a denigrating force in someone's life. So for instance, breathing in smoke on occasion is considered an addictive behavior.  But, meditative breathing is not considered addictive behavior.  Can one be addicted to smoking?  Seems obvious.   Can one be addicted to meditation? What if that person leaves her family and job to go sit in and meditate all day long?  This is not an absurd argument.  I personally knew people who did this. What about exercise?  At what point does exercise go from being a hobby, to a habit, to an obsession, to an addiction? Dennis mention that his wife may be addicted to books?  I understand that problem, my wife complains about all my books.  And now that we are in the process of moving I realize that perhaps I do have a lot of books.  I also have a lot of guitars and other musical instruments.  But when does something go from a joy to a passion to a collection to an addiction.  Who is to determine the severity of the "addictive behavior"? Well maybe you will answer, when it impedes on your quality of life then its an addiction.  But what if you can afford it, and no one else is affected?  You simply enjoy yourself, and no one else is bothered and your health is unaffected.  Perhaps I could argue that your health benefits because of the joy that you have brought to yourself. And these leads me to the realization that I mentioned to Dennis. All people have a deep drive to avoid pain and gain pleasure. By the way, I believe the drive are in that hierarchical order. In general, people will fight harder or work harder to avoid pain than they will to gain pleasure. The best lesson I've heard about this was from Tony Robbins. To paraphrase his example, he speaks extensively on what he call the "Two Controlling Forces in Life": Pain and Pleasure. Why act? To seek pleasure.  We will act on a desire to seek pleasure, but... Our body is biologically programmed to avoid pain. So we will do whatever it takes to avoid pain. The need to avoid pain is a greater motivator than to obtain pleasure. You will fight harder to keep $1,000 dollars someone is trying to take from you, than you will to earn a $1,000. If you have two pains that come up side by side, then you will avoid whichever produces the greatest pain.  Which answers... Why do we procrastinate?Because we think taking action will be more painful then if we do nothing. Even if we think getting the job done will create pleasure, the more immediate feeling is pain. As such, we remain immobilized.Sometimes if you wait too long, then it’s too painful not to take action and you start moving toward the goal. Or why do we behave inappropriately when we know better? Because we still link more pain with not engaging in the foolish behavior than we associate with the pleasure of doing what is wise. The reason humans don’t change is because their internal links to pain or pleasure haven’t changed. Most people do not analyze their internal links and so they are constantly “reacting” to things. So this leads me to my basic point about the confusion regarding addiction. Since basically all people have these pain - pleasure forces at play in their lives, and all people act based on these forces.  Then anyone's actions could be considered addictive behavior simply if someone else does not operate under the same guidelines. In other words,  Sam likes exercise and feel tremendous pleasure from working out and tremendous shame and discontent from not working out.  But Sam's brother Joe likes beer, and takes tremendous pleasure in enjoying a six pack every night and experiences tremendous discomfort and annoyance when he doesn't get to wind down with some cold ones.  Meanwhile, Joanne loves to read and has 30,000 ebooks on her kindle.  She would very upset if she couldn't read her latest download.  And Mandy goes salsa dancing three nights a week for hours, and sometimes misses work the next day from exhaustion.  Her boss tells her that if she misses work one more time she'll lose her job.  But Mandy is convinced that life would be a nightmare without her salsa nights. Who is the addict? Or all they all just human? I believe humans have free will. A major purpose of that free will is to be utilized to self determine what we find pleasurable and painful.  For some getting high is quite pleasurable and they associate little to no pain with it.  Others, like myself, hate losing cognitive function and getting high.  Many like myself associate terrible pain to it.  Why?  Because we choose to. We are all anchoring beliefs about things constantly.  The metaphors we use.  The advertisements we watch.   The songs we listen to.  The company we keep.  The memories we experience. These things are constantly affecting how our minds associate A with B. I learned this at an early age when I knew two brothers who came from a broken home. The mother was struggling with drugs and their dad was in prison. One brother decided that he would get out of that life. The other decided he couldn't escape it. These brothers led very different lives and created very different associations for nearly everything. One saw the police as the enemy and he was a victim. The other saw the police as people who risked their lives to help. One brother ended up in prison, while the other ended graduating high school and going to college. Both blamed their circumstances for their outcomes. Viktor Frankl's book "Man Search for Meaning" describes similar phenomena regarding human psychology. We may lose all our liberty, yet we are always free to determine what we choose to believe about any given thing. You choose your victimhood. You choose to feel offended. You choose to act reactionary. You choose how you represent memories and ideas in your mind. You choose your behavior. The more you understand this the clearer many issues regarding humanity become. So long as you or others believe that they are simply a product of neurotransmitters, chemicals, or hormones who lack any free will then humanity will continue to act horrific. But once people awaken to the understanding that they determine how they respond to circumstances and that happiness is a decision and that just as advertisers manipulate you into needing what you never wanted before so to you can alter you pain - pleasure associations. Are there people with real chemical problems or neurological problems for whom this does not apply.  Of course!  But they are not the vast majority. In general, peoples neurotransmitters and hormones are as affected by their behavior and consistent actions as those chemicals affect their behavior. In the words of Anthony Robbins:Motion Creates Emotion Act happy and you will start feeling happy.   And in regards to behaviors you want to change... Figure out your values. What do you really value most? How does your behavior fit in with those values? If you find your behavior conflicting then you must start changing your actions so that they are congruent with what you value.  Also, you must change your association with your negative behaviors. Acknowledge that it was trying to benefit you. And it had the greatest of intentions.  But it's had it's turn, and you are not satisfied with the results so you are going to try a different approach. This new approach is to be rooted in your values and held accountable by someone (i.e. friend, family, God, etc.) This is to serve as a constant reminder for you of your values and your commitment and the pain you would experience should you deviate from your new identity.  A lever by which you can be moved into doing the right thing. We all need that. So is addiction a disease or is it a choice or is it some odd combination (a disease of choice)? Well it all depends on how you want to define "disease."  If you want to use a very broad and literal definition "a state of dis-ease", that is to say a state of not feeling well then fine, it is a disease.  And though I know people who actually think of health this way, I find it absolutely a worthless definition because then we are all "diseased" much of our life.  In fact, you could say that life itself is a disease since it seems to cause so much discomfort and by the way it has a 100% mortality rate. Or perhaps you define with the mysterious term "abnormal."  Yes, disease is an abnormal health condition.  Okay, so who's health is "normal"?  Is it normal to be addicted, obsessed, or habitual to some degree or another?  Who determines where to draw the line in the sand separating normal from abnormal, healthy from diseased? That brings up another topic that is the other side of the coin.  Who is healthy?  Who is normal?  Who is diseased?  Who is an addict? These are identities that people utilize to define their lives and their behaviors.  If a person walks through life identifying himself as diseased do you think he will act different than if he believes he is healthy?  How will it affect his choices?  What good will the label of disease do for an addict? This gets to the heart of what Prager was asking, "Is disease a pragmatic description of addiction?" and I answered "Yes." Yes, because it is only used to convey to people "you have a problem and it needs treatment by professionals."  That is it basically.  There is no drug or procedure (outside of a dehumanizing lobotomy) that will effectively treat it.  There is only a set of behavior skills, philosophy of living, and values that will work to change the addict condition. Cliches like, "Let go and let God" "It works if you work it" "Fake it till you make it" "One day at a time" "You didn't break it, you can't fix" and the like are more than just hypnotic tools for the addict... they are a necessary part of the treatment plan. In my experience in working with addict the greatest "medicine" at their disposal is the 12 step program.  In fact, I cannot think of an "addict" who has cleaned himself up without working the 12 steps in some form or fashion. Why?  Well lets look at these 12 steps: THE TWELVE STEPS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. While AA is a non-religious movement, they are fully aware that the most effective treatment plan for an addict is admit they are not in control of what they are addicted to.  But is that due to some medical condition or genetic predisposition?  Perhaps, but had they never chosen to use the substance then they wouldn't be in this current state. Yes some drugs are more "addictive" than others.  The way they affect the brain and alter peoples perception of pain and pleasure is real.  Yet, I also must admit that in general people choose to take that addictive substance believing either they are different, they can handle it, or it's worth it.  They create that chemical state in their mind voluntarily.  If you want to call it a disease, then recognize that in general it is a disease by choice. The choice is in regards to values decisions. I don't mean values like honesty versus deception or justice versus compassion.  No I mean values in the sense that in general everyone chooses what they value and believe in terms of what will provide them with PAIN and PLEASURE. Again this was another great insight from Anthony Robbins.  I wish they taught this in medical school.  Fortunately for me, I learned these principles just prior to going to medical school. Here's the Robbins' idea in a nutshell: • We learn to give levels of pleasure and pain to things and those are what we value. For example if you had to pick only one of the states below, what would you pick? A) Success B) Adventure C) Love D) Comfort E) Security People select different things. We don’t value all those states at the same level. We all have a hierarchy of values. What we focus on in life is what we value. There are two types of Values:1. Moving towards values – love, attraction, success, security or states thatcreate pleasure. 2. Moving away from values- anger, pain, depression or state that you avoid. Your brain is always evaluating experiences—will this action lead to pleasure or pain? If you have gotten rewarded for being entertaining, for example, then you will link being entertaining as a positive value. People’s values create their destiny. Our wholes lives are shaped by what we want most and by what we fear most. Most people have conflicting values. For example, they may want to be successful but they fear rejection. These two different value systems conflict with each other. There are MEAN and ENDS values.A means value would be having a great family. That is not a feeling. The family is a means to an end. It is what you get out of the family.The ends value are the emotional states. For example, freedom, love, support, etc. Where did your values come from?Values come out of pain and pleasure. If you got rewarded, you valued the action. Thus, parents, other people, etc. contributed to creating your values. Some people change their values because they do not want to experience pain. The beliefs are generalizations or rules as to what has to happen in your life to feel successful. Thus, if one values success, then the belief is what one needs to achieve to feel successful.  You're rules about your values determine your perceived state regarding said value. How all this ends up working with an addict: There are six fundamental needs that everyone has in common, and all behavior is simply an attempt to meet those six needs. Robbins - Madanes Theory of Human Needs Psychology: The Six Human Needs: 1. Certainty: assurance you can avoid pain and gain pleasure 2. Uncertainty/Variety: the need for the unknown, change, new stimuli 3. Significance: feeling unique, important, special or needed 4. Connection/Love: a strong feeling of closeness or union with someone or something 5. Growth: an expansion of capacity, capability or understanding 6. Contribution: a sense of service and focus on helping, giving to and supporting others "The force of life is the drive for fulfillment; we all have a need to experience a life of meaning. Fulfillment can only be achieved through a pattern of living in which we focus on two spiritual needs: 1) the need to continuously grow; and 2) the need to contribute beyond ourselves in a meaningful way. All dysfunctional behaviors arise from the inability to consistently meet these needs. When our attempts to reach fulfillment fail, we will settle for comfort—or for meeting our needs on a small scale. Look to replace any dis-empowering ways of meeting your needs with things that empower and support you and others. ...Understanding these needs, and which ones you are trying to meet in any given moment, can help you create new patterns that lead to lasting fulfillment." ~Robbins All people should ask themselves: 1. Which of these six needs do you tend to focus on or value the most?2. What are the ways (good and bad) you meet these needs? For example, in your relationships, work, eating, exercise, etc.?3. How can you increase your focus on growth and contribution? What are some things you can do, or new experiences you can participate in? And for those looking to change negative behavior: Does it fulfill the need I value most? How many needs does it fulfill in total? How strong is it's level of fulfillment? How certain am I that it (negative behavior) will fulfill my needs?   Virtually anything that strongly fulfills just three of your human needs will become a habit or addiction. The more needs the behavior fulfills the stronger the addiction. It is amazingly simple, and amazingly true. I've had the opportunity to work through hundreds of cases and the Robbins - Madanes theory holds true in a all cases.  Nothing I learned in university, grad school, med school, or CEU's have benefited me more than this simple understanding. So if you want to change your behavior, habit, or addiction you must get clear and acknowledge how it is currently benefiting you by fulfilling your human needs. Beyond this understanding of human needs psychology you should also understand what Robbins calls the "Crazy 8." By Katarrhaktes (www.katarrhaktes.com) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons The "crazy eight" is an emotional pattern that resembles a figure 8 or infinity symbol. People trek from one end of the pattern the other only to circle back again, oscillating from one extreme of emotions to the other: Anger Sadness Mania Depression Bored Thrilled People will stay locked in this crazy eight pattern until they are pushed out.  They either descend with use of drugs, alcohol, etc. Or they ascend with the use of prayer, counseling, meditation, etc. Many people alter their state of mind with the use of chemicals, but unfortunately this often creates a temporary "fix" and creates another pattern problem.  Obviously the preferable method would be through an introspective inventory of self and empowering insights and actions to draw a person up and out of the cyclical pattern of destruction. People can change.  We never deny they can change for the worse.  So why so much aversion to believe they can change for the better. Elevate yourself.  That is why we are here. We were created in a holy image, and we are to be holy. The more holy we try to become the more we elevate ourselves out of the material, animal world we so often find ourselves confined in. Get out of your secular prison.  There is more to life.  There is meaning to life. Shake yourself free, rise from the dust! That's why I always close by saying... "STEP UP!   DO GOOD!   LIVE YOUR ULTIMATE LIFE!" I know I've covered a lot of ideas and topics on the podcast, and that's because this is such an important, complex, and misunderstood topic. In general everyone deal with addiction issues to one degree or another.  But how to define it is not nearly as important as learning how to deal with it. God willing, I'll cover these topics individually in the future.          

This topic was brought to my attention by  "Mary" of Houston.  So thank you Mary! She sent me a recent article from "The Atlantic".  The article was about quitting. I have a lot of opinions about this subject as it has been a major dilemma I've repeatedly faced in my life. I grew up developing many ideas about quitting. Sayings like: "Winners never quit and quitters never win."  Or "only a coward quits."  Or "there should be no quit in you".  "once a quitter always a quitter." "Quitting is easy and the more you do it the easier it gets." Yes there are many metaphors and programmed thoughts about "quitting." But I was always a little torn regarding these ideas, because can't quitting be a good thing. Examples: An alcoholic who quits drinking. A smoker who quits smoking. Or an athlete who is good at many sports but quits some to focus his talent and effort on just one or two. I mean really if one were to never quit, then we would have a very difficult time progressing as individuals with talents and goals.  Quitting one thing allows us to focus more intently on something else. So, there are times where quitting is necessary for improvement.   But once again it all depends on the context. What are you quitting? Why are you quitting? These are the questions that seem more important than whether or not someone is willing to quit. Some things are obvious like smoking or drinking.  Some are less obvious like obsessing over email or social media.  Some are truly significant but go unrecognized like watching television. I would argue these are all great things to quit for many adults. But what about kids.  Should kids be allowed to quit?  This was the topic The Atlantic article addressed. Below is the article: Teaching Kids to Quit Persistence is a virtue, but there's no need to fetishize it. NOAH BERLATSKYFEB 10 2014, 10:13 AM ET   My quote to revise her final one was: God grant him the serenity to persevere regarding things that do him good, and the courage to quit the things that do him no good, and the wisdom to know the difference. While I don't want to be hyperbolic about this author's attitude and his affects on his son, I do think that this attitude about quitting in general is changing in our American culture. As Dennis Prager has often noted "We live in the age of feelings."  Thanks to his generation, the youth of the sixties have developed a cultural age whose behavior is rooted in how they feel about something.   It's like we live in the Anti-vulcan world.  If Vulcan, a world based on reason and logic supposedly, were to have a counter part... Earth could be it... Maybe we would be called "Nacluv"...  But here's the point.  Letting your emotions or how you feel about something guide your decisions about whether or not you should quit is foolish.  It is foolish because it presumes that if you don't enjoy something then you shouldn't do it.  No one, except a fool, would adhere to that.  Even if I were to modify the idea, and say it is foolish to presume that if you experience more pain than pleasure in something... then you should not do it.  This is beyond foolish or childlike thinking... it is the thinking of a bratty narcissist. As  I have stated in other podcasts, the important question is not "how do I feel about this or that?"   The important questions really are: "How does this affect me?"  "Does it do good?"  "Does it contribute?"  "How does it do good or contribute?"  "How does it fit in to my human needs?" The Six Human Needs 1. Certainty: assurance you can avoid pain and gain pleasure 2. Uncertainty/Variety: the need for the unknown, change, new stimuli 3. Significance: feeling unique, important, special or needed 4. Connection/Love: a strong feeling of closeness or union with someone or something 5. Growth: an expansion of capacity, capability or understanding 6. Contribution: a sense of service and focus on helping, giving to and supporting others Figure this out to figure out whether or not you should, or perhaps must, quit. Let me close by mentioning a pet peeve that comes up on occasion regarding this topic.  Just because you "LOVE" something does not mean you should continue doing it, and it is a mistake to focus all of your attention, time, and resources towards something that you are simply not good at and yet love. The notion that people should relentlessly pursue what they love or they are passionate about is also foolish. Take the movie "Rudy" for example. I'm sure you've seen it.  It's a movie that everybody loves (as do I, but I had an issue with the premise.)  The movie is based on the real life of Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger and his saga with Notre Dame football.  Rudy is a small guy with big dreams.  His whole life is focused on playing football for Notre Dame but of course there is hardly any chance for his dreams to come to fruition.  Rudy eventually earns a spot as a tackling dummy for the team.  He shows up everyday with a can do attitude, and smash-cut to the end of the movie where Rudy finally gets to a chance to play and does so gloriously.  The team carries him off on their shoulders triumphantly. Morals of the story:  Never quit.  Dream big.  Exercise your indomitable spirit as an underdog.  If you dream it you can achieve it... Poppycock.  I argue that Rudy would have been better served by focusing on what he was naturally good at and what would do him the most good.  Maybe he would have been a great writer or mathematician or engineer... but instead Rudy focused his college career on a sport he would never play professional (and that is what college was supposed do... teach you the skills and knowledge necessary for becoming an effective professional.) In preparing for this show my suspicions of what happened with his life after Notre Dame were confirmed.  As I has guessed, he went on to be a motivational speaker.  But unfortunately in 2011 Rudy found himself in trouble with the SEC as he was charged with stock fraud. Another example is what I call the American Idol syndrome.  People really think they can sing or perform and focus their entire life on it... only to be told "you are no good..." (and they aren't)... But unfortunately these kids who are desperate for fame have heard the stories of success from the resilient artist or actress who preaches that "no matter what pursue your dreams and you too can be an American idol."  No! You cannot!  Get real.  Get honest with yourself.  And if you know one of these youths, be honest with them before they build false hopes, and lose their dignity on national television.  Parents should be focused more on telling their kids the truth about the kid's lack of talent, rather than being so concerned about hurting their kid's feelings.  Their feelings are going to be hurt either way!  So do what it right.  You are raising adults.  Teach them to not focus on a fantasy. It's ridiculous.  No.  If you have little to no talent, then pursue things that are in your wheelhouse.  Try new things and figure out where you exhibit the most talent and do that.  Among the things that you seem predisposed to be naturally good at, figure out which ones will do you the most good (i.e. health, money, education, etc.)  Also, figure out among the things you are good at  - which are most likely to become great at.  FOCUS ON YOUR STRENGTHS!  Do what you are good at.  Focus your time and resources on that and become great at it.  Get fascinated with your talents (they are gifts from God.)  Have many passions.  Many hobbies.  But focus on what will do the most good. And stop relying on your feelings as a guide for success or happiness. In real life, happiness is not just an emotion... it's a decision.  And success is found by doing good (for yourself and others) and hopefully also doing well financially.  Neither are based on a feeling.  Both are based on goodness.        

Due to some recent events in my own life... some well intentioned, good, and kind hearted friends have offered the theoretically consoling words "Everything happens for a reason."  Or my more religious friends say, "Well you know God has a plan for you, and this is part of his plan." So that sparked my idea for this week's show. Do you believe everything happens for a reason? And what does that mean for you? When you know someone is suffering do you tell them "everything happens for a reason"? Is it only when bad things happen you need to rationalize the events?  Or do you spend equal time contemplating the reason good things as well? Do you just assume that the reason is a good one?  Is it good for everyone? What about bad people? And regarding about God's plan... Do you believe that all events that occur in a person's life is part of God's plan for them? Are we predestined to march through life on a set course filled with so many rewards and so many traps simply awaiting our arrival? Amazingly you don't have to believe in God to hold that view. An atheist can argue that we are just random chemicals brought together by chance, and because of our accidental birth we engage in a trajectory that leads to our ultimate destination.  Like a comet darting through space.  Anything that happens along the way, was a cause set in motion regardless of our existence and there was nothing we could have done about it anyway. In the words of Dennis Prager, "Life is Relentless."  There is no pause button for life so you can catch up on an email, take out the trash, pay some bills, or run upstairs to stop your kids from fighting.  Life and all it brings with it just keep coming.  Life truly is relentless.  It keeps delivering both the good and the bad, and there is nothing you can do to control the delivery system.  Nope, try as we might, and delude ourselves as we do, ultimately life happens as it happens and all we can do is deal with  its relentlessness. So, since there is no remote control for life available so we can change channels, rewind, pause, or fast forward (or even hit the mute button) - how is one to deal with life's ups and downs? Well one way is to remind ourselves that everyone else has a life similar to yours in the sense that they too suffer, and they too celebrate.  You are not alone.  No one has a life free of suffering, pain, or misfortune.  Never assume that anyone has perfect life or a life without problems.  This reminds me of another line from Dennis where he cites rabbi Telushkin's mother.  I think the story was had something to do with them discussing people who they assumed had happy or charmed lives, and Mrs. Telushkin chimed in "The only happy people I know are people I don't know well."  Her point is that we should not be envious of others lives, nor should we ever assume that we know the extent of suffering in others lives.  All of us exist with problems. So for instance, just to be open with you... I was recently lied to and it has cost me a lot of money.  And it's more than the money.  They stole my trust.  They stole my wife and children's hopes.  They were intentionally deceitful, but at least it was caught in time before anything major had happened.  This is all in reference to me selling my house, and I don't want to get into the gory details.  Lets just say that I have learned a rather expensive lesson in real estate. Now, I was mad.  Still am actually... again about the lying.  But one of the ways I calmed myself was I just kept thinking this stuff must happen all the time in real estate.  I asked some realtors and they confirmed my suspicions.   But most people don't talk about it.  Perhaps they would feel embarrassed?  My point though is that simply knowing that I'm not the first or last this will happen to helps me cope. Also, along those same lines I personally hold the philosophy "this too shall pass."  Both good and bad in life is fleeting.   Associated with the wise King Solomon, this reminder can help keep you from living life to high or too low.  But it is for you to determine for yourself, and not for you to suggest to someone else.  Also, I think this saying is often misunderstood.  When I remind myself that "this too shall pass" it is not that so much that I am thinking about the situation (because the truth is the situation may remain unchanging as in the case of a loved one's death.)  Rather it is too keep my mind aware that the way I feel about something will change (as in the way I feel about the loved one's death.) The other coping method I use is to change my perspective.  "It's just a house."  "It's just money."  "It's just frustrating."  "You still have your family." "You still have your health."  "You caught it fast enough to not be out to much." "You just paid a small fee for a good education in real-estate."  So on and so forth.  I turn down the volume and intensity of the situation and reframe it in ways that empower me.  Again this helps me cope with life's relentlessness.  But it's me that engages in my perspective change.  I would not try to change someone else's perspective without their permission.  If they are looking for change then that's a different scenario. So yes, I personally try to find meaningful and empowering reasons behind what are considered otherwise misfortunes in my life.  But, again I do it for myself.  I don't go to someone else who is suffering and say "Well you know everything happens for a reason." First of all I don't know if that is true. I believe some things happen for a reason.  But everything? Do I think God has a plan for us?  It would seem like he has a plan for some.  Namely those who look to Him sincerely and consistently for guidance.  But do I believe Hitler was part of God's plan?  No.  Do I believe that Stalin and his aftermath in Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. were simply living out God's plan for them? No. Sometimes evil simply happens.  It was not that God willed it or that it was part of his plan.  Rather it was due to the people who committed the evil.   They alone are responsible for the horrors they inflicted.  And neither is it God's job to thwart their plans and actions.  Rather it is ours.  We are fight evil and burn it out of our midst.  Were God to constantly intervene then we would quickly lose our free will and truly everything (including the will of Man) would be dictated by the Ineffable.  Life as we know it would no longer exist. And sometimes seemingly random accidents with tragic results happen.  Actually everyday, and probably at every moment somewhere something life altering is happening to someone.  Everyday a dad leaves for work in the morning and is killed in a car wreck on the freeway.  Or someone's child is diagnosed with cancer.  For someone today, February 6, 2014 will be a day they will never forget because it changed the rest of their life. That is life. And this leads me to a TED talk I wanted to share with you from Joshua Prager.  Joshua Prager is a writer and journalist whose works can be found in Vanity Fair, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  He has written two books "The Echoing Green" and "Half-Life."  In 1990, Joshua was paralyzed in a road accident in Israel when a truck driver rammed into the minibus in which he was riding.  He is the son of physician and medical ethics expert Kenneth Prager, and yes he is the nephew of the oft-cited Dennis Prager. Here's Joshua Pragers story... The philosophy he gained from Viktor Frankle is among the most beneficial mindsets one can have. Where Prager states "what makes most of us who we are most of all is not our minds and not our bodies and not what happens to us, but how we respond to what happens to us."  That is what we are to do for ourselves when bad things happen. But that does not mean that we should push others into that mindset when they are not ready for it. When your loved one is suffering simply be there for them.  Perhaps when the time is appropriate you can plant seeds of encouragement and help them come to a meaningful understanding for the problems they are facing.  But I urge you not to simply belch out the cliche "Everything happens for a reason!" when ever you witness someone suffering.  If you are uncomfortable and do not know what else to say... then say nothing... be silent... listen... or simply be present with them. Know that your well intentioned "God's plan" or "happens for a reason" or "this too shall pass" statements may be heard as dismissive or even foolish to those who are in pain. It is up to the individual in pain to find meaning for their suffering.  If they invite your help, and you have the tools to aid them... then do so.  But perhaps we can learn from Joshua Prager and tell a story that explains this life philosophy in a way that brings dignity to the person and their situation. Again to reiterate from Prager's story: "...that what makes most of us who we are most of all is not our minds and not our bodies and not what happens to us, but how we respond to what happens to us. "This," wrote the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, "is the last of the human freedoms: to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances."". "Herman Melville wrote, that "truly to enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold, for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast." So ultimately you get to choose for yourself whether or not there is reason underlying every brush stroke that eventually paints the canvas of your life.    

President Obama courtesy Pixabay.com I understand this may not be as meaningful if you are listening to this a year from now... or perhaps even a month from now.  But the point is to talk about the issues President Obama raises in this years State of the Union (SOTU) speech which was given last night.  He raises some BIG issues.  That is to say there are some ultimate issues worthy of this podcast which he brings up and I will give my two cents regarding what I think about those issues.  My goal is that the issues discussed within his speech are what can make this episode timeless. Also,  I truly am appreciative and happy to see so many listeners and subscribers to Ultimate Issues all over the globe.  Thank you!  My hope is that my commentary on the issues President Obama raises is beneficial to you as well.  I understand that many of these challenges and debates are, at their essence, universal.  Adjust the names and numbers and you will find that America faces many of the same dilemmas as other nations.  Our people struggle with leadership, as do yours.  There is a constant tension within the government and between the people who elect them, as is the case almost everywhere.  Thankfully, we Americans are free to fully comment on our leadership without fear.  To be clear, I plan on doing this in years to come irrespective of who is in office.  Also, I try to restrict my comments to just the ideas mentioned in his speech.  Nothing I say is meant to attack or promote the President as a person.  Regardless of who is in office or controls legislature... I care about the values,  ideas, and actions our government promotes. Below is the full transcript and video of President Obama's speech with some fact checks (courtesy of The Washington Post), but as this is already a 8,500+ word post... Please listen to the show for my comments. Feel free to post your thoughts below in the comment box. Thank you for listening! FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address President Obama delivered his 2014 State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2014, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. Transcript courtesy of Federal News Service. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, my fellow Americans, today in America, a teacher spent extra time with a student who needed it and did her part to lift America's graduation rate to its highest levels in more than three decades. An entrepreneur flipped on the lights in her tech startup and did her part to add to the more than 8 million new jobs our businesses have created over the past four years. (Applause.) “The more than eight million new jobs our businesses have created over the past four years.” The president is cherry-picking a number that puts the improvement in the economy in the best possible light. The low point in jobs was reached in February 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 8 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. (Obama, saying “businesses,” appears to be referring to private sector growth of 8.2 million; adding government jobs reduces the total to 7.6 million.) But the data also show that since the start of his presidency, about 3.2 million jobs have been created — and the number of jobs in the economy still is about 1.2 million lower than when the recession began in December 2007. An autoworker fine-tuned some of the best, most fuel-efficient cars in the world and did his part to help America wean itself off foreign oil. A farmer prepared for the spring after the strongest five-year stretch of farm exports in our history. A rural doctor gave a young child the first prescription to treat asthma that his mother could afford. (Applause.) A man took the bus home from the graveyard shift, bone-tired but dreaming big dreams for his son. And in tight-knit communities all across America, fathers and mothers will tuck in their kids, put an arm around their spouse, remember fallen comrades and give thanks for being home from a war that after twelve long years is finally coming to an end. (Applause.) Tonight this chamber speaks with one voice to the people we represent: It is you, our citizens, who make the state of our union strong. (Applause.) And here are the results of your efforts: the lowest unemployment rate in over five years; a rebounding housing market -- (applause) -- a manufacturing sector that's adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s -- (applause) -- more oil produced -- more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that's happened in nearly twenty years -- (applause) -- our deficits cut by more than half; and for the first time -- (applause) -- for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world's number one place to invest; America is. “A manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s.” The low point for manufacturing jobs was reached in January 2010, and there has been a gain of 570,000 jobs since then. But BLS data show that the number of manufacturing jobs is still 500,000 fewer than when Obama took office in the depths of the recession — and 1.7 million fewer than when the recession began in December 2007.  The gain in manufacturing actually has begun to stall a bit in the past year.  The only reason Obama can tout a gain in manufacturing jobs “for the first time since the 1990s”  is because, before the recession, manufacturing had been on a slow decline for many years. “Our deficits — cut by more than half.” The federal budget deficit has declined in half since 2009, from $1.3 trillion to about $600 billion, but that’s not much to brag about. The 2009 figure was not just a deficit Obama inherited from his predecessor, since it also reflected the impact of decisions, such as the $800 billion stimulus bill, enacted early in the president’s term. Moreover, the deficit soared in the first place because of the recession, so as the economy has improved, the deficit naturally decreased.  The United States still has a deficit higher than it was in nominal terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product than it was in 2008 and a debt much greater as a percentage of the overall economy than it was prior to the recession. (Cheers, applause.) That's why I believe this can be a breakthrough year for America. After five years of grit and determined effort, the United States is better-positioned for the 21st century than any other nation on Earth. The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress. For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government. It's an important debate -- one that dates back to our very founding. But when that debate prevents us from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy -- when our differences shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States -- then we are not doing right by the American people. (Cheers, applause.) Now, as president, I'm committed to making Washington work better, and rebuilding the trust of the people who sent us here. And I believe most of you are, too. Last month, thanks to the work of Democrats and Republicans,Congress finally produced a budget that undoes some of last year's severe cuts to priorities like education. Nobody got everything they wanted, and we can still do more to invest in this country's future while bringing down our deficit in a balanced way. But the budget compromise should leave us freer to focus on creating new jobs, not creating new crises. And in the coming months -- (applause) -- in the coming months, let's see where else we can make progress together. Let's make this a year of action. That's what most Americans want, for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all, the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America. (Applause.) Now, let's face it: That belief has suffered some serious blows. Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on. Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all. “Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled.”  Close readers of the president’s speeches might have noticed an interesting shift in the president’s rhetoric. Just in December the president gave a speech on economic mobility in which he three times asserted that it was “declining” in the United States. But earlier this month, renowned economists Raj Chetty, Emmanuel Saez and colleagues published a paper based on tens of millions of tax records showing that upward mobility had not changed significantly over time. The rate essentially is the same now as it was 20 years ago. Still, the same study confirmed that income inequality had increased in the same period. “Hence, the consequences of the ‘birth lottery’ — the parents to whom a child is born — are larger today than in the past,” the paper said, offering the analogy of a ladder in which the rungs have grown farther apart but the children’s chances of moving upward from one rung to another had not changed. Both Chetty and Saez are recent winners of the biennial John Bates Clark Medal, for distinguished economist under the age of 40, and it’s a mark of their esteem that their paper would lead to such a swift change in presidential rhetoric. Even so, some might argue that Obama is stretching the use of the term “stalled,” since the main point of the research was that the trend was constant, not that it halted. So our job is to reverse these trends. It won't happen right away, and we won't agree on everything. But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still, and neither will I. (Applause.) So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do. (Cheers, applause.) As usual, our first lady sets a good example. Michelle's -- (applause) -- well. (Chuckles.) (Cheers, applause.) Yeah. Michelle's Let's Move! partnership with schools, businesses, local leaders has helped bring down childhood obesity rates for the first time in thirty years, and that's an achievement -- (applause) -- that will improve lives and reduce health care costs for decades to come. The Joining Forces alliance that Michelle and Jill Biden launched has already encouraged employers to hire or train nearly 400,000 veterans and military spouses. (Applause.) Taking a page from that playbook, the White House just organized a College Opportunity Summit, where already 150 universities, businesses, nonprofits have made concrete commitments to reduce inequality in access to higher education and to help every hardworking kid go to college and succeed when they get to campus. And across the country -- (applause) -- we're partnering with mayors, governors and state legislatures on issues from homelessness to marriage equality. The point is, there are millions of Americans outside Washington who are tired of stale political arguments and are moving this country forward. They believe, and I believe, that here in America, our success should depend not on accident of birth but the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dreams. That's what drew our forebears here. It's how the daughter of a factory worker is CEO of America's largest automaker -- (applause) -- how the son of a barkeeper is speaker of the House -- (cheers, applause) -- how the son of a single mom can be president of the greatest nation on Earth. (Cheers, applause.) Now -- (sustained cheers and applause) -- opportunity is who we are. And the defining project of our generation must be to restore that promise. We know where to start. The best measure of opportunity is access to a good job. With the economy picking up speed, companies say they intend to hire more people this year. And over half of big manufacturers say they're thinking of insourcing jobs from abroad. (Applause.) So let's make that decision easier for more companies. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes that punish businesses investing here, and reward companies that keep profits abroad. Let's flip that equation. Let's work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs right here at home. (Cheers, applause.) Moreover, we can take the money we save from this transition to tax reform to create jobs rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes -- because in today's global economy, first- class jobs gravitate to first-class infrastructure. We'll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. (Cheers, applause.) That can happen. But -- but I'll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. (Applause.) We also have the chance, right now, to beat other countries in the race for the next wave of high-tech manufacturing jobs. And my administration's launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Youngstown, Ohio, where we've connected businesses to research universities that can help America lead the world in advanced technologies. Tonight, I'm announcing we'll launch six more this year. Bipartisan bills in both houses could double the number of these hubs and the jobs they create. So, get those bills to my desk and put more Americans back to work. (Applause.) Let's do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped "Made in the USA." (Applause.) Listen, China and Europe aren't standing on the sidelines; and neither -- neither should we. We know that the nation that goes all-in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow. This is an edge America cannot surrender. Federally-funded research helped lead to the ideas and inventions behind Google and smartphones. And that's why Congress should undo the damage done by last year's cuts to basic research so we can unleash the next great American discovery. (Cheers, applause.) There are entire industries to be built based on vaccines that stay ahead of drug-resistant bacteria or paper-thin material that's stronger than steel. And let's pass a patent reform bill that allows our businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly and needless litigation. (Applause.) Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The "all the above" energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. (Applause.) One of the reasons why is natural gas. If extracted safely, it's the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change. (Applause.) Businesses plan to invest almost a hundred billion dollars in new factories that use natural gas. I'll cut red tape to help states get those factories built and put folks to work, and this Congress can help by putting people to work building fueling stations that shift more cars and trucks from foreign oil to American natural gas. (Applause.) Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we're at it, I'll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.) Now, it's not just oil and natural gas production that's booming; we're becoming a global leader in solar too. Every four minutes another American home or business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can't be outsourced. Let's continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don't need it so we can invest more in fuels of the future that do. (Cheers, applause.) And even as we've increased energy production, we've partnered with businesses, builders and local communities to reduce the energy we consume. When we rescued our automakers, for example, we worked with them to set higher fuel efficiency standards for our cars. In the coming months I'll build on that success by setting new standards for our trucks so we can keep driving down oil imports and what we pay at the pump. And taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. (Applause.) But we have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods. That's why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air. The shift -- (applause) -- the shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require some tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.) Finally, if we're serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, law enforcement -- and fix our broken immigration system. (Cheers, applause.) Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted, and I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: When people come here to fulfill their dreams -- to study, invent, contribute to our culture -- they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everybody. So let's get immigration reform done this year. (Cheers, applause.) Let's get it done. It's time. The ideas I've outlined so far can speed up growth and create more jobs. But in this rapidly-changing economy, we have to make sure that every American has the skills to fill those jobs. The good news is, we know how to do it. Two years ago, as the auto industry came roaring back, Andra Rush opened up a manufacturing firm in Detroit. She knew that Ford needed parts for the best-selling truck in America, and she knew how to make those parts. She just needed the workforce. So she dialed up what we call an American Job Center; places where folks can walk in to get the help or training they need to find a new job, or a better job. She was flooded with new workers, and today, Detroit Manufacturing Systems has more than 700 employees. And what Andra and her employees experienced is how it should be for every employer and every job seeker. So tonight, I've asked Vice President Biden to lead an across- the-board reform of America's training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now. (Cheers, applause.) That means more on-the-job training, and more apprenticeships that set a young worker on an upward trajectory for life. It means connecting companies to community colleges that can help design training to fill their specific needs. And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs. I'm also convinced we can help Americans return to the workforce faster by reforming unemployment insurance so that it's more effective in today's economy. But first, this Congress needs to restore the unemployment insurance you just let expire for 1.6 million people. (Cheers, applause.) Let me tell you why. Misty DeMars is a mother of two young boys. She'd been steadily employed since she was a teenager, put herself through college. She'd never collected unemployment benefits, but she's been paying taxes. In May, she and her husband used their life savings to buy their first home. A week later, budget cuts claimed the job she loved. Last month, when their unemployment insurance was cut off, she sat down and wrote me a letter, the kind I get every day. "We are the face of the unemployment crisis," she wrote. "I'm not dependent on the government. Our country depends on people like us who build careers, contribute to society, care about our neighbors. I am confident that in time I will find a job, I will pay my taxes, and we will raise our children in their own home in the community we love. Please give us this chance." Congress, give these hardworking, responsible Americans that chance. (Cheers, applause.) Give them that chance. Give them the chance. They need our help right now, but more important, this country needs them in the game. That's why I've been asking CEOs to give more long-term unemployed workers a fair shot at new jobs, a new chance to support their families. And in fact, this week many will come to the White House to make that commitment real. Tonight I ask every business leader in America to join us and do the same because we are stronger when America fields a full team. (Applause.) Of course, it's not enough to train today's workforce. We also have to prepare tomorrow's workforce, by guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education. (Applause.) Estiven Rodriguez couldn't speak a word of English when he moved to New York City at age 9. But last month, thanks to the support of great teachers and an innovative tutoring program, he led a march of his classmates through a crowd of cheering parents and neighbors from their high school to the post office, where they mailed off their college applications. And this son of a factory worker just found out he's going to college this fall. (Applause.) Five years ago we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance. Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C., are making big strides in preparing students with the skills for the new economy -- problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, math. Now, some of this change is hard. It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test. But it is worth it -- and it is working. The problem is we're still not reaching enough kids, and we're not reaching them in time, and that has to change. Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child's life is high-quality early education. (Applause.) Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every 4-year-old. And as a parent as well as a president, I repeat that request tonight. But in the meantime, 30 states have raised pre-k funding on their own. They know we can't wait. So just as we worked with states to reform our schools, this year we'll invest in new partnerships with states and communities across the country in a race to the top for our youngest children. And as Congress decides what it's going to do, I'm going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K that they need. (Applause.) It is right for America. We need to get this done. Last year, I also pledged to connect 99 percent of our students to high-speed broadband over the next four years. Tonight I can announce that with the support of the FCC and companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sprint, and Verizon, we've got a down payment to start connecting more than 15,000 schools and 20 million students over the next two years, without adding a dime to the deficit. (Cheers, applause.) We're working to redesign high schools and partner them with colleges and employers that offer the real-world education and hands-on training that can lead directly to a job and career. We're shaking up our system of higher education to give parents more information and colleges more incentives to offer better value, so that no middle- class kid is priced out of a college education. We're offering millions the opportunity to cap their monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of their income, and I want to work with Congress to see how we can help even more Americans who feel trapped by student loan debt. (Applause.) And I'm reaching out to some of America's leading foundations and corporations on a new initiative to help more young men of color facing especially tough odds stay on track and reach their full potential. The bottom line is, Michelle and I want every child to have the same chance this country gave us. But we know our opportunity agenda won't be complete, and too many young people entering the workforce today will see the American Dream as an empty promise, unless we also do more to make sure our economy honors the dignity of work, and hard work pays off for every single American. You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. (Cheers, applause.) “Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.” There is clearly a wage gap, but differences in the life choices of men and women — such as women tending to leave the workforce when they have children — make it difficult to make simple comparisons. Obama is using a figure (annual wages, from the Census Bureau) that makes the disparity appear the greatest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for instance, shows that the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages — it is 14 cents — but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers. In other words, since women in general work fewer hours than men in a year, the statistics used by the White House may be less reliable for examining the key focus of legislation pending in Congress — wage discrimination. The weekly wage is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does not include as many income categories. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed economic literature and concluded that “research suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers are compared with male workers who have similar characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap.” They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar. You know, she deserves to have a baby without sacrificing her job. (Cheers, applause.) A mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship. (Applause.) And you know what, a father does too. It is time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a "Mad Men" episode. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) This year let's all come together, Congress, the White House, businesses from Wall Street to Main Street, to give every woman the opportunity she deserves, because I believe when women succeed, America succeeds. (Cheers, applause.) Now, women hold a majority of lower-wage jobs, but they're not the only ones stifled by stagnant wages. Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and we don't resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. That's what America's all about. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. (Applause.) In the year since I asked this Congress to raise the minimum wage, five states have passed laws to raise theirs. Many businesses have done it on their own. Nick Chute is here today with his boss, John Soranno. John's an owner of Punch Pizza in Minneapolis, and Nick helps make the dough. (Laughter.) Only now he makes more of it. (Laughter.) John just gave his employees a raise to 10 bucks an hour, and that's a decision that has eased their financial stress and boosted their morale. Tonight I ask more of America's business leaders to follow John's lead. Do what you can to raise your employees' wages. (Applause.) It's good for the economy; it's good for America. (Sustained applause.) To every mayor, governor, state legislator in America, I say, you don't have to wait for Congress to act; Americans will support you if you take this on. And as a chief executive, I intend to lead by example. Profitable corporations like Costco see higher wages as the smart way to boost productivity and reduce turnover. We should too. In the coming weeks I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour because if you cook -- (cheers, applause) -- our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty. (Sustained applause.) Of course, to reach millions more, Congress does need to get on board. Today the federal minimum wage is worth about twenty percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here. And Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. It's easy to remember: 10.10. This will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend. It does not involve any new bureaucratic program. So join the rest of the country. Say yes. Give America a raise. (Cheers, applause.) Give 'em a raise. There are other steps we can take to help families make ends meet, and few are more effective at reducing inequality and helping families pull themselves up through hard work than the Earned Income Tax Credit. Right now, it helps about half of all parents at some point. Think about that. It helps about half of all parents in America at some point in their lives. But I agree with Republicans like Senator Rubio that it doesn't do enough for single workers who don't have kids. So let's work together to strengthen the credit, reward work, help more Americans get ahead. Let's do more to help Americans save for retirement. Today most workers don't have a pension. A Social Security check often isn't enough on its own. And while the stock market has doubled over the last five years, that doesn't help folks who don't have 401(k)s. That's why tomorrow I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA. It's a -- it's a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg. MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in. And if this Congress wants to help, work with me to fix an upside-down tax code that gives big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but does little or nothing for middle-class Americans, offer every American access to an automatic IRA on the job, so they can save at work just like everybody in this chamber can. And since the most important investment many families make is their home, send me legislation that protects taxpayers from footing the bill for a housing crisis ever again, and keeps the dream of homeownership alive for future generations. (Applause.) One last point on financial security. For decades, few things exposed hard-working families to economic hardship more than a broken health care system. And in case you haven't heard, we're in the process of fixing that. (Scattered laughter, applause.) Now -- a pre-existing condition used to mean that someone like Amanda Shelley, a physician's assistant and single mom from Arizona, couldn't get health insurance. But on January 1st, she got covered. (Applause.) On January 3rd, she felt a sharp pain. On January 6th, she had emergency surgery. Just one week earlier, Amanda said, that surgery would've meant bankruptcy. That's what health insurance reform is all about, the peace of mind that if misfortune strikes, you don't have to lose everything. Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents' plans. (Applause.) More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage -- 9 million. (Applause.) “More than nine million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.” Obama carefully does not say these numbers are the result of the Affordable Care Act, but he certainly leaves that impression. But the Medicaid part of this number — 6.3 million from October through December — is very fuzzy and once earned a rating of Three Pinocchios. The ACA expanded Medicaid to those who earn less than 133 percent of the poverty line — about $15,000 for an individual — to 26 states (and the District) that decided to embrace that element of the law. But no one really knows how many of the 6.3 million are in this expansion pool — or whether they are simply renewing or would have qualified for Medicaid before the new law. Indeed, the number also includes people joining Medicaid in states that chose not accept the expansion. The private insurance numbers — about 3 million — are also open to question. The troubled federal exchange counts people as enrolled if an individual has selected a plan, but it does not know if a person enrolled and paid a premium because that part of the system has yet to be built. And here's another number: zero. Because of this law, no American, none, zero, can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or back pain or cancer. (Cheers, applause.) No woman can ever be charged more just because she's a woman. (Cheers, applause.) And we did all this while adding years to Medicare's finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors. Now, I do not expect to convince my Republican friends on the merits of this law. (Laughter.) (Chuckles.) (Laughter.) But I know that the American people are not interested in refighting old battles. So again, if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more people, increase choice, tell America what you'd do differently. Let's see if the numbers add up. (Applause.) But let's not have another 40- something votes to repeal a law that's already helping millions of Americans like Amanda. (Cheers, applause.) The first 40 were plenty. We all owe it to the American people to say what we're for, not just what we're against. This is where I end the podcast as I was already well into two hours, but the President continues... Of course I have plenty of commentary regarding what he has to say regarding military and war (i.e. "ending a war" does not mean a war is over, it just means we have stopped our involvement.  And quitting like this will predictably create further problems and disharmony for the people we were fighting to help.)   And if you want to know the real impact this law is having, just talk to Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky, who's here tonight. Now, Kentucky's not the most liberal part of the country. That's not where I got my highest vote totals. (Laughter.) But he's like a man possessed when it comes to covering his commonwealth's families. They're our neighbors and our friends, he said. They're people we shop and go to church with -- farmers out on the tractor, grocery clerks. They're people who go to work every morning praying they don't get sick. No one deserves to live that way. Steve's right. That's why tonight I ask every American who knows someone without health insurance to help them get covered by March 31st. Help them get covered. (Applause.) Moms, get on your kids to sign up. Kids, call your mom and walk her through the application. It'll give her some peace of mind, and plus, she'll appreciate hearing from you. (Laughter.) After all, that -- that's the spirit that has always moved this nation forward. It's the spirit of citizenship, the recognition that through hard work and responsibility, we can pursue our individual dreams, but still come together as one American family to make sure the next generation can pursue its dreams as well. Citizenship means standing up for everyone's right to vote. (Applause.) Last year, part of the Voting Rights Act was weakened, but conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are working together to strengthen it. And the bipartisan commission I appointed, chaired by my campaign lawyer and Governor Romney's campaign lawyer, came together and have offered reforms so that no one has to wait more than a half hour to vote. Let's support these efforts. It should be the power of our vote, not the size of our bank account, that drives our democracy. (Cheers, applause.) Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say "we are not afraid," and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook. (Applause.) Citizenship demands a sense of common purpose; participation in the hard work of self-government; an obligation to serve to our communities. And I know this chamber agrees that few Americans give more to their country than our diplomats and the men and women of the United States armed forces. (Extended applause.) Thank you. Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure. When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America's longest war will finally be over. (Applause.) After 2014, we will support a unified Afghanistan as it takes responsibility for its own future. If the Afghan government signs a security agreement that we have negotiated, a small force of Americans could remain in Afghanistan with NATO allies to carry out two narrow missions: training and assisting Afghan forces and counterterrorism operations to pursue any remnants of al-Qaida. For while our relationship with Afghanistan will change, one thing will not: our resolve that terrorists do not launch attacks against our country. (Applause.) The fact is that danger remains. While we've put al-Qaida's core leadership on a path to defeat, the threat has evolved as al-Qaida affiliates and other extremists take root in different parts of the world. In Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Mali, we have to keep working with partners to disrupt and disable these networks. In Syria, we'll support the opposition that rejects the agenda of terrorist networks. Here at home, we'll keep strengthening our defenses and combat new threats like cyberattacks. And as we reform our defense budget, we have to keep faith with our men and women in uniform and invest in the capabilities they need to succeed in future missions. (Applause.) We have to remain vigilant. But I strongly believe our leadership and our security cannot depend on our outstanding military alone. As commander in chief, I have used force when needed to protect the American people, and I will never hesitate to do so as long as I hold this office. But I will not send our troops into harm's way unless it is truly necessary, nor will I allow our sons and daughters to be mired in open-ended conflicts. We must fight the battles -- (applause) -- that need to be fought, not those that terrorists prefer from us -- large-scale deployments that drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism. So even as we actively and aggressively pursue terrorist networks, through more targeted efforts and by building the capacity of our foreign partners, America must move off a permanent war footing. (Applause.) That's why I've imposed prudent limits on the use of drones, for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence. That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world. You see, in a world of complex threats, our security, our leadership depends on all elements of our power -- including strong and principled diplomacy. American diplomacy has rallied more than 50 countries to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands, and allowed us to reduce our own reliance on Cold War stockpiles. American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria's chemical weapons are being eliminated. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve -- a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear. As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in the difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the state of Israel -- a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side. (Applause.) If you want to hear a leader really lay out the issues regarding Israel and the world, listen to this recent speech from Canada's Prime Minister. And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran's nuclear program -- and rolled back parts of that program -- for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium. It's not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify every day that Iran is not building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we're engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) These negotiations will be difficult; they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and we're clear about the mistrust between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these negotiations don't rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. (Applause.) The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed. (Applause.) If Iran's leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon. But if Iran's leaders do seize the chance -- and we'll know soon enough -- then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war. And finally, let's remember that our leadership is defined not just by our defense against threats but by the enormous opportunities to do good and promote understanding around the globe, to forge greater cooperation, to expand new markets, to free people from fear and want. And no one is better positioned to take advantage of those opportunities than America. Our alliance with Europe remains the strongest the world has ever known. From Tunisia to Burma, we're supporting those who are willing to do the hard work of building democracy. In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully and to have a say in their country's future. Across Africa, we're bringing together businesses and governments to double access to electricity and help end extreme poverty. In the Americas, we're building new ties of commerce, but we're also expanding cultural and educational exchanges among young people. And we will continue to focus on the Asia-Pacific, where we support our allies, shape a future of greater security and prosperity and extend a hand to those devastated by disaster, as we did in the Philippines, when our Marines and civilians rushed to aid those battered by a typhoon, and were greeted with words like, "We will never forget your kindness" and "God bless America." We do these things because they help promote our long-term security. And we do them because we believe in the inherent dignity and equality of every human being, regardless of race or religion, creed or sexual orientation. And next week the world will see one expression of that commitment when Team USA marches the red, white and blue into the Olympic stadium and brings home the gold. (Cheers, applause.) My fellow Americans, no other country in the world does what we do. On every issue, the world turns to us, not simply because of the size of our economy or our military might but because of the ideals we stand for and the burdens we bear to advance them. No one knows this better than those who serve in uniform. As this time of war draws to a close, a new generation of heroes returns to civilian life. We'll keep slashing that backlog so our veterans receive the benefits they've earned and our wounded warriors receive the health care -- including the mental health care -- that they need. (Applause.) We'll keep working to help all our veterans translate their skills and leadership into jobs here at home, and we will all continue to join forces to honor and support our remarkable military families. Let me tell you about one of those families I've come to know. I first met Cory Remsburg, a proud Army Ranger, at Omaha Beach on the 65th anniversary of D-Day. Along with some of his fellow Rangers, he walked me through the program, the ceremony. He was a strong, impressive young man, had an easy manner. He was sharp as a tack. And we joked around, and took pictures, and I told him to stay in touch. A few months later, on his 10th deployment, Cory was nearly killed by a massive roadside bomb in Afghanistan. His comrades found him in a canal, face down, underwater, shrapnel in his brain. For months, he lay in a coma. And the next time I met him, in the hospital, he couldn't speak; he could barely move. Over the years, he's endured dozens of surgeries and procedures, hours of grueling rehab every day. Even now, Cory is still blind in one eye. He still struggles on his left side. But slowly, steadily, with the support of caregivers like his dad Craig, and the community around him, Cory has grown stronger. Day by day, he's learned to speak again and stand again and walk again, and he's working toward the day when he can serve his country again. "My recovery has not been easy," he says. "Nothing in life that's worth anything is easy." Cory is here tonight. And like the Army he loves, like the America he serves, Sergeant First Class Cory Remsburg never gives up, and he does not quit. (Cheers, applause.) Cory. (Extended cheers and applause.) My fellow Americans -- my fellow Americans, men and women like Cory remind us that America has never come easy. Our freedom, our democracy, has never been easy. Sometimes we stumble; we make mistakes; we get frustrated or discouraged. But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress: to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice and fairness and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen. The America we want for our kids -- a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us -- none of it is easy. But if we work together; if we summon what is best in us, the way Cory summoned what is best in him, with our feet planted firmly in today but our eyes cast towards tomorrow, I know it's within our reach. Believe it. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)

The President's recent remarks about marijuana in The New Yorker has sparked the debate about marijuana's criminal status once again.  With 20 states and DC having decriminalized or legalized marijuana, there is a real possibility that this drug may become legally obtainable in all states within my lifetime. Is this a good or a bad decision? When people vote to decriminalize or legalize marijuana is to better society, better their personal lives, or to simply enable liberty? I have heard and read many arguments on both sides of this issue.  Not to my surprise, people site conflicting facts and studies and science.  So my guess is that once again common sense is one of our better tools in assessing the risks and rewards. I guess I'll begin by questioning the sole defense of marijuana.  Why should marijuana become legal while other drugs remain illegal?  If you say "because it is just a plant"... Then what about opium?  It's just from a plant.  Why is somethings origin a significant argument for its legal status?  Cocaine is from the coca plant, so should it be legal as well? Look, my practice revolves around herbal medicine and one of the first things... actually the first thing we start learning is that just because its a plant, or natural, or organic, or whatever... does not mean it is safe or good or nontoxic.  There are formulas and herbs I will not carry because they could really do damage to someone who mistakenly abuses it.  That something is a plant is a non sequitur.  Remember... hemlock is just a plant, and yet it killed Socrates.  There are many plants which are deathly poisonous (i.e. hemlock, oleander, wolfsbane, and the dreaded castor oil plant to name a few.) Okay, so why have people chosen marijuana as their legalization mascot.  My guess: Because it is the puppy dog of drugs in most peoples minds.  You know, the one that seems cute and harmless.  Everyone has either had one, or know some one who has had one.  And really, other than there being some silly stories to tell about that goofy puppy, there is nothing malevolent about it.  This is in contrast with cocaine or heroin who are about as loved by the public as the AIDS virus or cancer.  We instantly associate death, addiction, loss of health, and character degeneration to these and other "hard" drugs.  Even the common euphemistic language for cocaine, meth, and heroin as "hard" drugs means conversely that drugs like marijuana are "soft." But if you want to be intellectually honest about it, then any argument for the legalization of marijuana from strictly an argument on behalf of liberty should also include the legalization of all drugs... hard or soft.  And in fact, many libertarians, to their credit, hold this view.  At least they are consistent. Then you have those who argue that marijuana really is not all that bad.  This was basically what President Obama was saying.  When I've asked people "what is bad about marijuana?", they typically answer back with a joke like "munchies" or "cotton mouth" or "giggles." That is it.  So if you have a friend who is adamant about his cannabis and it's legalization, please ask him "Is there anything bad about marijuana use?" So lets just assume that marijuana is not so bad.  Let's just say that getting high on marijuana is no different that getting drunk... or even better than drunk because of marijauna's uncanny ability to turn a mean guy into a giggling cheetos fiend (the antithesis of the proverbial angry drunk.)  Would you agree that the mind is impaired on marijuana?  Would you agree that decision making skills are slowed?  Would you agree that a sense of propriety is diminished?  All of these are pretty bad scenarios. If you want to compare alcohol to marijuana, then be honest about their intoxicating effects.  You can drink a glass of wine over dinner and have virtually no measurable difference let alone degeneration in mental or physical capabilities.  However, one joint, or for many one "hit" of marijuana, and the effects are obvious and noticeable, not to mention nearly immediate.  Not that I promote the abuse of alcohol, but at least there is a cumulative effect in alcohol consumption lets say from 0% change from one glass over an hour to 100% dysfunctional after 5 glasses in an hour.  One hit of marijuana however and many people get a 20+% shift almost immediately.  I know that people build up tolerances, but that is true on both accounts.  My point is simply make the distinction in regards to the gradation of intoxicating effects of alcohol versus the immediate and severe effects of marijuana.   Second, if you admit that the intoxicating effects of alcohol is bad, and there are negative intoxicating effect from marijuana as well, then why would you want to condone through legalization another societal problem?  When else would this logic make sense?  Chopping off my finger is bad, so might as well chop off my toe as well... (even if its just the pinky toe.) And yes this is a societal problem.  If you want to legalize marijuana and reduce its societal impact then you must also drastically reduce or eliminate the welfare system.  It takes either a very naive view of reality or one in which the Sun is purple to believe that there is no correlation between the welfare state and drug and alcohol problems.  If you want to add more drugs like marijuana, then reduce the ability to be an otherwise able human being getting drunk and high as well as being a drain on society, instead of being a sober productive working member of society. Also, if you want to legalize marijuana and reduce its negative societal impact then you must also vote for severe and mandatory incarceration for first offense convictions of driving under the influence.  Again, what color is your sky if you believe that legalizing marijuana will have no effect in increasing the risk of people driving under its influence. Now if your argument is based on the idea that it is immoral to incarcerate someone who does no harm to another individual (ala Milton Friedman), then you should be consistent and be for the legalization of prostitution as well as any and all other drugs.  Once again, intellectually honest libertarians hold such views.  If no one is harmed then it should not be illegal.  This should extend to all such behavior between consenting people.  Otherwise, you are picking your mascot based on your opinion that yours is the morally right one, but the others are still immoral... although no one else is harmed in those cases either. Common sense suggests that legalizing something which is already in demand and used readily will likely lead to its increase of use.  Perhaps not indefinitely, but so what?  How long is long enough?  One year, 10 years, 50 years?  The tides of peoples desires ebb and flow, and the only thing I can predict with some surety is that legalizing marijuana will be a direct cause of its increase in consumption for a period of time. Now, does this mean we therefore cannot have any change here? Not necessarily. Truth is that, in my opinion, were the hypothetical situation this: Marijuana is legal today, and has been legal for generations.  Then I would not be in favor of prohibition.  As we know from history prohibition does not work. But the argument today is not about banning a currently legal substance, rather it is about legalizing a banned substance. I maybe wrong, but I don't think marijuana is as ingrained in our culture as alcohol is.  My argument is based on a few insights: 1) It would at least appear that it is an uncommon behavior for adults over 40 to regularly use marijuana.  However, most regularly use alcohol.  Marijuana is unfortunately a drug that is preferred by youth, and then either they decide by inspiration or desperation to stop consuming marijuana... and yet they continue to consume alcohol.  My guess is that with age comes experience.  And experience carries with it bad judgement.  Over time enough experience with bad judgement leads to good judgement.  And good judgement leads to wise behavior.  Apparently the wiser decision is to not use marijuana for most people over 40.  Oh and yes, I can hear you asking "Well what about Willy Nelson?" Or "I have an uncle who has been toking up daily and he is one of the smartest and most responsible people I know."  Okay, fine yes there individuals who continue to use marijuana into their theoretically more mature adult years.  But really?  I am making a generalization.  In general, do you think the vast majority of 40+ year old adults are using marijuana with any kind of regularity, especially in comparison with alcohol?  My point is to distinguish the entrenched use of alcohol versus marijuana in our American society.   By the way, I wished people did not drink so much alcohol either.  But there is no closing the door on that pandora's box.  It seems perfectly logical to me that were we to allow legalization of marijuana, in time it may perhaps become as ingrained in our culture for nearly all people as alcohol is currently.  Again, a pandora's box that is best left closed. 2) While most adults seem to be programmed for alcohol over marijuana, even the youth seem to be programmed the same way.  Unless, something has changed for American youth, my experience was that teenagers were far more likely to consume alcohol as opposed to marijuana.  Right or wrong, they felt that alcohol was "okay" but marijuana was not.  Perhaps its "just say no" propaganda, or perhaps it is because they have seen the adults do it (i.e. their parents) and so they figure alcohol can't be that bad.  Which reinforces my first point and leads me to my third. 3)  Even if marijuana were legal, would you use it in front of your children? Do you think the majority of adults would use marijuana as casually as they drink a glass of wine for dinner, or have a scotch after work?  Can you see a time when after a family meal, the adults go and toke up while watching TV with the kids?  My guess is no.  Why? Again, it is simply not something that mature people want to do.  So who does want to do it?  The youth.  My assumption is that the greatest percentage of marijuana users in the U.S. are between the ages of 16 and 30.  I also assume that that has probably been the case since the 60's.  Why?  Because for most people as they mature they no longer find benefit in using something like marijuana.  Marijuana unlike alcohol, cigars, pipes, coffee (all of which contain potentially harmful and/or addictive substances), is not simply enjoyed for taste.  Marijuana is used strictly to get you high.  This is in contradistinction to alcohol which is often consumed simply to enjoy the flavor, or enhance the flavor of other foods (as in the case of wine pairings.)  Alcohol, like cigars , pipes, and coffee, can and should only be consumed for the flavor and not for intoxicating effects.  That people do otherwise is obvious.  But at least we have a campaign for people to "Drink responsibly."  Which means do not get drunk, and if you do get drunk don't drive.  How is that going to work with marijuana, "Toke responsibly?"  But there is only one outcome for using marijuana and that's getting high.  As I stated earlier, there is nothing comparable between the immediate intoxicating effects of marijuana versus alcohol.  You just get higher and higher until you are "stoned."  And this is yet another reason why I think it has not become ingrained in our society.  At least coffee, alcohol, and tobacco have some attributes beyond the potentially mind altering ones.  Our society still looks down up public inebriation and mind altering drugs. And this actually brings me to another point.  Marijuana, like alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, is potentially addictive.  Whether it is a psychological or physical addiction is irrelevant.  Either way, for some people they need to get high.  For some people they must use marijuana regularly.  For some people, marijuana transitions from being a controlled substance in their life, into a controlling substance they live for.  When marijuana becomes a lifestyle and source of identity then you have a problem.  It should go with out saying that a life dedicated to getting high, is a life of an addict.  And we all know or have known those people. So again, since we already have a problem in our culture with alcohol and prescription drugs, why would it make since to legalize and make more readily available yet another addictive drug? Ah yes, and what about legalizing marijuana for medical purposes only?  Well, I have had experience with patients who swear by marijuana's efficacy and claim it was the best drug they had used.  In my own practice, I have heard the claims regarding its use during cancer treatments or for pain or for psychological conditions.  I know that herbs work.  I am quite sure that marijuana works for a number of medical conditions.  So if marijuana is to become legal for prescription use only, then it should be treated the same as other drugs.  It is common knowledge that the "medical" marijuana practice in states like California are a farce.  Basically, anyone can get a card and then go to any dispensary and get some marijuana.  If you want marijuana to be recognized seriously for its medicinal benefits, then it should be treated as such.  That means that the doctors are to held liable for their diagnosis and prescriptions, just as they are for hydrocodone, ritalin, or xanax.  Also, pharmacies should be the source and not marijuana shops.   Finally, the forms of marijuana consumption for medical use should not be smokable.  Marijuana smoke is not healthful and contains many of the same carcinogens as cigarrete smoke.  No responsible doctor would prescribe smoking cigarettes for nicotine, so why would one prescribe smoking marijuana for THC?  Instead, the THC can be obtained by ingestion (eating or tinctures) or vaporization.  Both of which are medically sound methods of consumption versus smoking. Alright, so with all that said... What is my final opinion on marijuana's legal status?  Well this is one of those areas of life where we are stuck between a bad decision and a worse decision. In my opinion, the best bad decision is to legalize marijuana (and other drugs) but only under the certain conditions: 1) There must be strict mandatory penalties for first offense DUI's, meaning mandatory prison, loss of driving privileges, etc.  Should a death occur due to a DUI then the offender should be eligible for the death penalty and the minimum prison sentence is 40 years. 2)  All applicants for welfare must pass mandatory drug tests.  Failure to pass or comply means no entitlements. 3) All current welfare recipients are required to take recurring random drug tests.  Should any drugs which are not prescribed be evident in the test then they lose all welfare entitlements. Neither driving nor welfare is a right.  They are privileges.  And if someone decides to abuse those privileges and do so at the cost of others, then they lose said privileges. I suppose if that can't happen (and I understand it likely will not.) Then next best bad decision would be to conserve the law as is and therefore keep marijuana illegal, but reduce the penalties for personal possession.  As much as I like the idea of decriminalization for the sake of the benign users who go to jail for mere possession... I just do not foresee how that works in the long run for society.  I am opposed to reversing the law for no other reason than that I am certain that simple decriminalization or  legalization will necessarily increase its use and users... especially in the youth.  And ultimately I do not think it will do any good. What do you think?  

Thank you for listening to the podcast! Below is the modified transcript... Once again I find myself inspired by my own class, Torah Means Teacher.  As I was converting the taped class for podcasting, I was reminded of an ultimate issue I have yet to share with you. The topic is exceptionalism.  This is a hot topic.  A trigger of much debate and controversy.  When I was young and discussing this I never expected the backlash, but now I am shocked when there is a vacuum of dissent. Because of the topics nature... I find it rarely discussed.  It has almost become taboo to discuss exceptionalism.  Why? Well, I think a primary cause for the lack of discourse is that the "Exceptionals" have created a war against "Exceptionalism." In other words... You have the "Exceptionals" or as Thomas Sowell refers to them the "Anointed" ones, but for the sake of a poetic argument... I am calling them "exceptionals."  They are known as: "experts", "professionals", "studies", "universities", "professors", "officials", "judges", "celebrity", "genius", "progressive", "avant-garde", and all the titles of exceptionally high esteem which people blindly respect today and thus allow these exceptionals to influence their minds and behavior. Now these exceptional people have come out against the idea of "Exceptionalism."  They do so with probably great intentions.  I am quite sure, they think they are doing good for people and humanity by ridding the world of the notion of exceptionalism.  Why?  Well one reason is because exceptionalism necessarily creates a problem if you believe in egalitarianism, a mascot for the exceptionals.  You can't have better, worse, or even different when we are all supposed to be equal and the same.  Also exceptionalism necessarily implies a form of separation, and since we are supposedly in a "global" age without borders (another mascot for the exceptionals) again they would have a problem. Let me explain or better define these terms as I am discussing them today: "Exceptionalism": The idea that a person, a group of people, a nation, a culture, or a system can be separate and distinct from others. Now notice that I leave my definition open as far as judgement, but at least the idea of exceptionalism allows the space for judgement (ie. better or worse.)  Granted in general people are going to reference exceptionalism in positive terms (i.e. exceptionally good). "Exceptionals":  Akin to the Sowellian idea of the "Anointed" people who proclaim to have the vision and answer for how the world and each individual should live and think.  They are our generations "gnostics" who are lauded, revered, and worshipped by the masses for their supposed superior intellects, experiments, studies, or diplomas.  Their influence on group think is so strong so as to elicit the idea of divine transference of knowledge to these secular prophets and apostles, and to go against them is an act of modern secular heresy. These "Exceptionals" have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone should go to college, every kid should get a trophy, and every nation is wonderful (though perhaps ironically barring the U.S. and Israel.)  So, for me to say that not every kid should go to college or get a trophy and that some nations are despicable, boldly defies their prophetic wisdom and makes me not just wrong... but an evil heretic. But lets just role back the iron curtain of egalitarianism, compassion, and political correctness to see what reality is really like. In reality, there are people, families, schools, teams, businesses, towns, states, and nations who prove to be exceptional.  Some are exceptionally wonderful and some are exceptionally awful.  To deny this means to deny basic observational common sense... Which, by the way, the "exceptionals" prefer you do... This is why they MUST have a study to give them their "divine" definitive ruling on any given matter. As  Dennis Prager has stated numerous times: I have been convinced that either “studies” confirm what common sense suggests or that they are mistaken. So much of my clarity about this subject is do directly to Dennis Prager and his works regarding this subject.  That is how the whole topic was brought up in my Toran Means Teacher class. Many people, actually many Jews, have an issue (aversion) to the idea of "chosen."  That God chose the Jews is a difficult subject for people to discuss.  Maybe they think, "If I agree, does that make a racist?" or "If I disagree, does that make me an anti-semite?"  The exceptionals have so effectively set the rules of discourse that people cannot engage in an honest discussion regarding an otherwise benign topic.  Nothing about Jewish chosenness is analogous with "White Pride", "Apartheid", or "Nazism". It is simply an undeniable fact that in the Torah, a book which is constantly belittling, denigrating, and criticizing the Israelites...  also includes the Lord's claim that those same stiff-necked people are conditionally His treasured possession among all His people. Exodus 19 (NIV): (The Lord speaking to Moses, who is to tell the Israelites) 5Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” This is clearly a statement of exceptionalism.  And that is okay.  It by no means that we, Jews, have some sort of superior genetics or blood line or anything like it (the audience of Israelites was a mixed multitude - many peoples united by a covenant.  Furthermore, anyone can be come a Jew to this day.)  Nor does it mean that only the Jews are God's people.  NO, NO, NO!  It says clearly that all the nations are His, but we are to be His treasured one... and Why? It is conditioned on us obeying his voice and guarding (or keeping) the covenant (contract) we have with Him.  It is  a conditional statement (notice the "if") based on behavior, and not genetics, geography (these people were in the wilderness), or any materialistic matter.  Plus, it's beyond implicit when He further states the "whole earth is mine."   In other word's God is saying, "Don't think for a second you alone are My people... rather, all are My people!  But your behavior may make you a special one, an exceptional one. Oh, and by the way with this exceptional status comes obligations (not rights or privileges)."  Because it states that because of this agreement, you Israelites are to be a 'kingdom of priests (ממלכת כהנים)'..." Priest are individuals who are necessarily separate and distinct from the non-priests (which pretty much everyone else.)  Thus, they have a far more proscribed life than the rest of the population. Also, they have duties the rest of the population do not have.  They are to be role models and teachers for the rest of the people regarding holiness and ethics.  Which is why the next part of His demand is that we be a "holy nation."  That is to say a nation set apart from other nations.  A nation whose society is distinct due to its strive to act more God-like rather than animal-like.  Israel is to be a nation whose people are working to elevate themselves from their base animal natures, and teach all the other nations to do the same. And why is it important for the Israelites to do so? Because the animal nature of man is amoral at best, and immoral at its worst.  Therefore we must be taught an objective morality from the singular Divine source of morality, and then go and teach the rest of humanity these standards of ethics.  And as I once again learned from Dennis Prager... Ethics is not enough!  Holiness protects ethics. As I've mentioned before regarding Herberg's "Cut Flower Culture", it is a perfect analogy to illustrate Prager's observation that you must have the Holy in order to protect the ethical. Ethics without God is like cut flowers. Cut flowers will die when cut from their root. Just the same, ethics without God will die. ~ Dennis Prager To be clear: Yes you can be an ethical individual and unholy. But no, you can not be a holy and unethical person.  Rather, your unethical behavior disqualifies your supposed piety. Yes you can be ethical individual and not believe in God. Plenty of individual atheists are good and decent people. And yes, you can be unethical and believe in God.  So, NO, belief in God does not make an individual ethical or holy. Holiness is found in elevating man's behavior beyond that of animal and towards the Divine. Ethics is found in the moral treatment of others. It is in terms of society, not the individual, that we find many problems with "cut flower ethics." As I said, an individual can be ethical without God, but a society cannot remain ethical without the Holy and God.  Think in terms of time and plurality. Problems that arise in non-God based ethics for society are: How one defines ethics? Or is it all relative and/or undefinable? If there is an objective morality, who is the author? To whom is one accountable to? What if the people don't agree? What if people don't care? These and more concerns are a subject for another post.  The point is that the ethical Monotheism presented in the Torah is the idea the Jews are commanded to enlighten the world about, hence the reference that we are to be "a light unto the nations (Is. 49:6)." Does this mean that Jews are to proselytize others? Yes.  But it does NOT mean that we are to proselytize for Judaism per se. Rather we are to proselytize for Ethical Monotheism.  Meaning it is not imperitive or necessary for people to be Jewish, but it is imperititive and necessary that people treat each other appropriately based on a universal morality created by the One God (however they know God).  Again think plural rather than singular. Now all of this is a long way of illustrating the dilemma the "exceptionals" have with "exceptionalism."  The "exceptionals" are to be gods to man, and they are the ones who define ethical behavior.  Their exceptional intellect or studies are the source of moral behavior, not God.  Belief in a God who demands we act ethically based on the objective morality set forth from the Divine is completely incompatible with the "exceptionals" world view.  They will mockingly ask, "Who are you to say what is right and wrong?" or "Why should we follow your God's morality and not some other made up friend in the sky?" Well, though it may seem like a tautological argument the reason is because God gave us a user's manual for human behavior (a.k.a. the Torah), and it has been and continues to be a great source of instruction on how to create a greater civilization.  Dare I say an exceptional civilization.  Not perfect, but a better, more just, and elevated civilization. You see the problem?  The "exceptional" experts argue there are no exceptional civilizations.  "They all have flaws, and they are have attributes.  They all are ultimately equal, and we should not judge one culture or nation against another." This is the kind of rhetoric I've heard. Ironically, this moral idiocy denouncing the idea that some people or cultures can be better or worse than others, comes from people who claim that their theories are superior to all others.  They are superior due to their level of education, studies, or societal rank (i.e. political position or celebrity.) But common sense dictates otherwise. Are we to believe that the Asian-american culture is no different than the African-american culture?  How the cultures value education, employment, and family should bear no relevance?  Are we not to judge at all? Are we to think that Mother Theresa is no different than you or me or Osama Bin Laden?  Or that North Korea is no different than Canada? Or that abusive alcoholics parent's are no different than typical Mormon parents?  Really?  Are we going to hide behind the "who are we to judge" curtain? I am not. I know that there are exceptions throughout life.  There are exceptionally good individuals, families, nations, religions, and cultures and there are exceptionally bad individuals, families, nations, religions, and cultures.  I judge them based primarily on their behaviors.  I judge them based on their values.  I judge them based on the results.  All of which I wish to be judged by as well.  And again I must clarify, that this in no way implies that exceptionally good means perfect.  I do not go for perfect or utopia or even "best", rather I go for better. Based on that,  I can easily say America is exceptionally better.  America has been a historic force for good for the world.  There is no other nation whose values are rooted in Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum (as explained in Prager's book Still the Best Hope.)  It is these values that propel America in doing good and bringing liberty and prosperity to the world.  This does NOT mean that the American citizen is somehow exceptional... Americans are just people, and like every nation some are good and some are bad.  But America the idea, Americanism is what is so exceptional.  That we have a nation of diverse people who are united by the grand idea of America...  that makes us exceptional.  But there is nothing inherent to an American that is exceptional, rather it's the values that American citizen embodies. On the other hand, other nations are exceptionally evil.  Again, it is not that the individual citizens are necessarily evil people... Some are, and some are not.  But the values, culture, and society which comprise a an evil-doing nation should be recognized as such.   For instance, North Korea is a modern example of yesteryears Holocaust.  Are the North Korean citizens therefore evil? NO.  But their ruler is evil.  Their government is evil.  And not recognizing it as such does not benefit anyone, except those who act evil and promote evil. I can say that the religious culture fostered through modern Mormonism is exceptionally good.  I know of many people who have become better people and contribute tremendously to society because of their conversion into the Mormon faith.  For different reasons, I can say similar things about other religions.  As I stated in the beginning, being exceptional doesn't necessarily mean being superior.  It just means separate and distinct.  The Mormons have their way of changing peoples behavior towards goodness, Christians have theirs, Buddhists, Judaism, and others have their own.  Which is necessary because one flavor of religion cannot fit every persons' taste.  But my point in bring up the good religious cultures is to contrast them to the exceptionally bad ones. Radical Islam is one such example.  The Islamist culture is a culture of death and destruction.  It is a cause set on creating pain and misery for all who do not submit.  To be clear, I am not speaking of all Muslims, there are millions upon millions of good decent people who are Muslim.   I am actually angry on their behalf that this evil 10% of their faith poisons the general perception of their religion and culture.  Of course I am mostly angry at the Islamist for their unforgivable treatment of anyone who does not submit to them (Muslim or not.) But this discussion is rarely heard.  The world of Islam needs to have this discussion from within especially.  The hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not agree with the 10% of radical Islamists (roughly 1oo million) must stand up and fight against them.  And we should help them! Instead, it has become politically incorrect to speak this way.  Though I am ultimately defending and fighting for the majority of good Muslims, I will surely be deemed an Islamophobe. Other areas of exceptionalism are far more micro.  For instance, there is a battle for the definition of family, and what the ideal family structure is. All things being equal, a traditional family comprised of both a mother and father is exceptionally good.   But, we are living in a time when it is wrong to judge any alternative family structure.  Who am I to say that a single mother is not as good as a mother and father in raising a child?  Or why does it have to be a mother and father, couldn't a two mothers do just as good a job? Again the "Exceptionals" have marked this subject closed for discussion.  Any talk about a mother and father being the ideal is now bigoted.  "Studies show..." and then they site some example in favor of their agenda.  Or they bring up an example of unequal scenarios.  But again, I fall back on common sense. All things being equal... Equal love, money, time, everything... Would it make any difference whether a child were raised by a single parent, two mothers, two fathers, or the traditional mother and father scenario?  Which do you think is preferable or ideal for the child and the eventual society?  Or does it make no difference? No scenario is exceptionally better or worse than the other? If you think all these are interchangeable, then we are clear on where we differ. If you think America is no different than North Korea, then we are clear on where we differ. If you think that Al Queda is no different than Mormons, then we are clear on where we differ. I believe in "Exceptionalism", and you believe in the "Exceptionals." This is an area where the great Pragerian line "I prefer clarity to agreement" falls short, because in this instance I would prefer we agree on what is better for society: The need for Ethical Monotheism, it's objective morality, as well as the spread of American values (Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum.) If you disagree, let me know why...      

On my other podcast "Torah Means Teacher" I received a comment from a listener who respectfully challenged my position on the afterlife.  So I figure this would be a great topic as it is an ultimate issue.  ***Warning this post and podcast may not be appropriate for young listeners or those who are sensitive empaths*** Do you believe in an afterlife? Why or why not? Do you think about it much? While I do believe in an afterlife, I rarely think about it.  By rarely I mean almost never. The times I think about it are when: Someone I know dies or loses a close loved one When I learn about tragic deaths (either by man, natural disaster, or disease) And when I learn about monsters disguised as humans (murderers, rapists, totalitarians, sadists, etc.) So for instance recently I read Mao: The Untold Story. As I read about the torturous nightmare he inflicted on China, I wonder what happened to his victims when they finally got to escape the hell they were living in.  Keep in mind that while he (via his men) were torturing people they would not let them die so as to inflict terror on the people.   And then when you reach the end of the book, Mao basically just dies a decrepit old man, sad he did not accomplish his world domination dreams.  No remorse otherwise. So Mao dies and then what? How is his one death as an elderly man in anyway just when you considered the 70,000,000 who died horrific deaths due to his actions?  What about the 100,000,000 who were tortured under Maoist China? It is precisely because of this dilemma that I believe in an afterlife. Well this and because I believe in God.   And it's not just that I believe in God... I also believe He is just and good. So let me break that down: It is less absurd that God created everything, rather than creatio ex nihilo God cares about His creations God gave man free will God demands man act good and just Therefore God must be good and just If God is good and just, then there must be an afterlife (To be clear... the afterlife is never explicitly referenced in the Torah, but it is almost definitely implied when the someone dies and then is "gathered to their kin" and then buried.  Other than that the Torah is silent on the afterlife.) Now I'm sure some of you are think my last statement was a non sequitur.   So allow me to explain: This world is not just. This world is not good. Yes your life (like mine thank God) may be good and just, but for many millions of people who exist with you and prior to you and me that is not the case. Literally millions (perhaps billions) of people have had a horrific or nightmarish existence in this world.  Think about the history of humanity.  It is tragic. Whether it be diseases, disasters, or evil people who cause it... the outcome for many is beyond our imagination in regards to pain and anguish. Since the dawn of civilization we have been our own great source of tragedy, which is my main argument for an afterlife. Let's just look at the fairly recent 20th history for examples: (Directly from a well done blog: "25 most evil people in history.") Talat Pasha He was the Grand Vizier of the Sultan in the Ottoman empire from 1917 to 1918.  In 1915, Talat declared an order to wipe out the Armenian race.  People were whipped, tortured, robbed, raped and killed.  All of the Armenians were forced into concentration camps.  People were overloaded with supplies and forced to trudge miles with no food and they were killed if they couldn’t continue.  People were naked when they marched.  The whole male population of Angora was exterminated.  Many were forced to rape family members.  People were killed by bayonets, clubs, axes, hammers, spades, scythes, and saws.  Many had their private parts and sexual organs cut off.  Tens of thousands were burned, drowned, poisoned, dismembered, crucified, boiled and beaten to death.  Out of the population of 2.5 million Armenians, 1 to 1.5 million people were killed.  Talat was assonated in 1921 by a Armenian assassination squad. Josef Mengele He was a physician in the concentration camp Auschwitz and the doctor known as the “Angel of Death.”  He was in charge of selecting Jews to be sent to concentration camps or to be killed.  He practiced many experiments on people.  One of the most common experiments was on twins.  He would find the similarities and differences in the genetics of twins, as well as seeing if the humane body could be manipulated.  There were about 3,000 twins, only 200 survived.  The twins were arrange by sex and age.  During the experiment, he would pour chemicals into the eyes of the twins to see if it would change their colors into sewing them together in hope to create conjoined twins.  He sometimes tried to change the sex of the twins.  He sometimes forced parents to kill their children.  He tortured children to see how long they could survive.  He often beat prisoners to death personally.  He sent over 400,000 people to their deaths in the gas chambers.  Mengele escaped with his family to South America and lived there the rest of his life.  It is possible that he used 88 twins in his medical experiments there.  He died from a stroke in 1985 while swimming in the Brazilian ocean. Reinhard Heydrich Reinhard Heydrich was the chief of the Reich Main Security Office, the second most powerful person in the SS and the mastermind of the Final solution.  He was one of the highest ranked of all the Nazis and was responsible for many war crimes.  His actions caused the deaths of millions of people.  He was responsible for the mass murder of Soviet officials and Russian Jews during Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, which killed over a million people.  He forced 60,000 Jew to leave Germany and go into Poland, where they were sent to Ghettos.  As he chaired the Wannsee Conference, he presented a plan of transportation and deportation of 11 million Jews from every country in Europe to be worked to death or killed.  Heydrich thought  of the pretext to invade Poland, which killed over 80,000 people and  started World War II.  There was an assassination attempt on him in 1942.  He survived the attempt to kill him, but died 9 days later.  In response to his death, Nazis killed nearly everyone in the village of Lidice. Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden was an Islamic terrorist leader that lead the terrorist organization called the Al-Qaeda.  He is responsible for the 9-11 attack, which injured more than 6,000 and killed about 3,000.  He is also responsible for bombing attacks on the United States Embassies in Dares Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  212 people were killed and 4,000 were injured.  He sponsored the Luxor massacre of 17 November, which killed almost 70 people.  Osama has caused other Al-Qaeda bombings throughout the world.  The 2004 Madrid train bombings, which killed 191 people and injured 2,050.  In October 2002 in Bali, 3 bombs exploded, killing 202 and injuring 209.  The 2004 SuperFerry bombing killed 119 people.  Thousands of Iraqis have died from Al-Qaeda bombings.  In 2007 alone, bombs exploded in Qahtaniya and Jazeera, Iraq, killing 796 and injuring 1,562 people.  Osama encouraged other Terrorist groups to attack the United States.  He caused the War on Terror, which killed 127,170 to 1.2 million people.  Osama was killed on May 2, 2011. Saddam Hussein Saddam was dictator of Iraq from 1979 to 2003.  During that time, about 2 million people died as a result of his actions.  He authorized many attacks on people like the chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5,000 people.  Saddam’s 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed 50,000 to 100,000.  An Amnesty International report said, “victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks… some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage.”  Saddam also had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.  He executed over 400,000 Iraqis.  Many of them were tortured to death and filmed so he could watch them at his house.  In 2006, Saddam was hanged after being found guilty for being convinced of crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Special Tribunal. Heinrich Himmler Heinrich Himmler was the head of the SS, the second most powerful Nazi and the architect of the Final Solution.  He, more than anyone, encouraged and facilitated Adolf Hitler’s decision to implement the Final Solution to the Jewish question, as well as other programs of ethnic cleansing that destroyed millions of lives during World War II.  He was responsible for 6 to 7 million deaths of Poles, Russians, communists, and other groups whom the Nazis deemed unworthy to live including people with physical and mental disabilities.  Himmler once said “The decision, therefore, lies here in the East; here must the Russian enemy, this people numbering two hundred million Russians, be killed on the battle field and person by person, and made to bleed to death”.  His house contained furniture and books made from the bones and skins of his Jewish victims.  Himmler committed suicide in 1945 by eating poison. Adolf Eichmann Adolf Eichmann was the architect of the Holocaust.  He was in charge of rounding up Jews into and forcing them into ghettos and concentration camps.  He was responsible for day-to day organization of the Final Solution.  He organized the registration, cremation and transport of Europe’s Jews.  From May until July, 1944 Eichmann organized the deportation and murder of more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews.  He was responsible for 5 to 6 million Jewish deaths. He would leap into his grave laughing because the feeling that he had 5 million Jews he killed filled his heart with gladness and joy.  He once said that he would even kill his father if he was ordered to do so.  He escaped and made his way to Argentina and lived under the name Ricardo Klement for 15 years.  He was captured in May 1960, Israeli Security captured him and took him to trial.  He was tried for 15 charges and hanged. Kim Il Sung He was dictator of North Korea from 1948 to 1972.  Kim Il Sung started the Korean War, which killed 3 million people.  After the war, he brainwashed the people of North Korea into idolizing him, even though he made the country a lot worse than it was before.  He killed all of his officers and rivals.  In addition, he exiled or executed 90% of his generals that fought in the war.  More than 200,000 political prisoners were forced into concentration camps.  People were forced into concentration camps for something as little as dropping a picture of Kim Sung accidentally on the ground.  If someone committed a crime, the person’s children and the children’s children would also be killed or sentenced to life imprisonment.  Prisoners were starved, tortured or worked to death.  Prisoners were sometimes forced to kneel in a box motionless for months until he or she dies.  Hundreds of thousands were killed by firing squads and in concentration camps.  Of the population of 22 million Koreans, 900,000 to 3.5 million have died in a famine.   Kim Il Sung died in 1994 of a heart attack, which was brought on by a row with his son Kim Jong Il, who has proven that he is worse than his father. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini He was the religious leader of Iran from 1979 to 1989.  He was also the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which killed 3,000 to 60,000 people.   The Shia Islamic Law had a lot of harsh rules for the normal people.  Men and women had strict dress codes, citizens lost equal rights and met with very harsh punishments, were brutalized, tortured and killed.  People were imprisoned and tortured for listening to music.  People were lashed 100 times for kissing in public. People were tortured and killed if they did not believe in Allah.  People were shot, hanged, blinded, gassed, stabbed in the chest, stoned to death and burned alive.  People had their hands cut off for stealing.  Women had their faces slashed or burnt by acid.  People were killed by machine guns, knives, clubs, cutters, and acid.  In the 1988 Iranian Massacres, Khomeini ordered that every prisoner that did not repent anti-regime activities should be killed.  About 30,000 people were killed in 5 months while thousands of others were killed for other reasons including children that were hanged from cranes.  His followers held 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but there were others there for 6 years.  They were blindfolded most of the time.  They might have suffered a fate worse than death.  He spread his ways across the Middle East.  Saddam Hussein feared the spread of Khomeini’s militant brand of Shiism so he attacked Iran, which started the Iran-Iraq War, which caused the deaths of 1 to 2 million people.  During the war, Khomeini sent young boys to fight and refused to make peace with Iraq even though there was at least one moment when Saddam offered peace for Iran.  Because Khomeini refused to settle peace, Iran’s economy was ruined and 500,000 to 1 million Iranians were killed.  His hatred of America and Western society inspired and paved the way for terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda.  He paved the way for the Islamic Holy War, which has killed more than 2 million people.  Khomeini died from cancer in 1989. Emperor Hirohito He was emperor of Japan from 1926 to 1989.  In that time he and his army committing many war crimes and  killed countless numbers of Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos and Indochinese.  He committed the war crime called The Rape of Nanking which killed 300,000.  He ordered every Chinese war prisoner to be killed.  About 200,000 women were sexually assaulted.  Husbands were sometimes forced to rape their wives and daughters.  A total of 10 million Chinese were forced into slavery, many were tortured and some even eaten.  Many people were shot, beheaded, stabbed, burned, boiled, roasted, buried alive, and impaled.  People were sometimes killed by gas, aid, military dogs and being hanged by their tongues on iron hooks.  People were often used for bayonet practice.  Between 4 and 10 million people in Java were forced to work by Japanese military, the majority of which died.  People sometimes had their bodies sliced in half by a sword.  Women were often stabbed by a bayonet or a long stick of bamboo through private parts.  The Japanese disemboweled, decapitated, hacked, nailed, crucified and dismembered men.  Men and women sometimes had their private parts sliced open.  Thousands were frozen to death.  4 million people in Indonesia died from famine and 2 million in Vietnam.  Thousands were killed by chemical attacks.  About 400,000 were killed by diseases.  About 580,000 were killed after being human experiments.  The Sook Ching massacre killed 50,000 to 90,000 Chinese.  100,000 civilians in the Philippines died from the Manila massacre.  His men said that it was easy to kill because Hirohito told them that their lives were valueless compared to himself.  He told his men to kill, burn, and loot all Chinese.  Over 20 million Chinese, 10 million Asians in other countries, and millions of people in World War II were killed by the Japanese.  He died in 1989 from cancer. Leopold II of Belgium He was king of Belgium from 1865 to 1909.  He ruled the Congo Free State, which was a private project, from 1885 to 1908.  The Congo Free State was 76 times larger than Belgium.  He is considered one of the greatest liars of all time because he fooled the whole world that he was helping the Congo and the world believed him.  Instead he turned the Congo into a country ruled by force labor.  He was free to rule the Congo Free State as a personal domain.  Leopold ruled about 20 million Congolese.  Under his administration, the Congo Free State was subject to a terror regime.  The Congo Free State also became one of the most infamous international scandals of the turn of the century.  His men tortured, maimed, and slaughtered millions of Congolese.  Congolese were killed if they did not bring enough rubber.  Hundreds of thousands of people had their hands, legs, feet, arms, heads, ears, and noses cut off.  Many villages were burned and the Natives forced to flee into the jungle.  Leopold’s men raped, flogged and eat the natives. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of children.  More than 500,000 died from various diseases.  A few million died of starvation.  Leopold killed around 10 million Congolese (or 50% of the Congo’s population).  Before Leopold acquired The Congo Free State, most African countries were free countries, but within 30 years after Leopold acquired the Congo Free State, all but 2 African countries were taken by European countries.  He did all of this just to get more money.  Leopold died in 1909. Mao Zedong Mao Zedong was dictator of China from 1943 to 1976.  Mao’s plan was to make China a superpower country.  Mao also said he would turn China into a powerful country that could match the United States and the Soviet Union.   In the process however, he created the greatest famine and genocide in history.  Under Mao’s rule China endured a series of economic disasters and political terrorism.  Millions of Chinese died by execution, starvation and committing suicide.  Tens of millions were sent to labor camps.  5 Million were executed.  Mao turned neighbors against neighbors and sons and daughters against their teachers and parents.  Mao used fear to root out every last hint of dissent.  A criticism uttered in private could lead to public humiliation, torture or death.  The famine killed about 30 to 45 million people.  Millions died from disease.  Another 700,000 committed suicide out of fear of Mao.  Mao lead 2 Great Leap Forwards which was a plan to use China’s vast population to rapidly transform the country from an rural economy into a modern communist society.  Both combined killed 40 to 50 million people.   Millions of children were also killed.  If children stole food, they would have their fingers chopped off.  Mao once lead a revolution that everyone in China was supposed to accept, but if you opposed the revolution, you would either be imprisoned for many years, tortured or executed.  People were expected to work till they dropped.  People were beaten up and tortured if they could not do their work and if they were late going to work.  People were also beaten up if they said something that made Mao or his men angry.  Mao’s brutal men had methods of torture like whipping, burning people with incense or with flame of a kerosene lamp and nailing a person’s palms to a table and then to insert bamboo splints under fingernails.  Mao killed 70 million people.  Mao died in 1976 after suffering from a nervous system disease. Idi Amin Amin was dictator of Uganda from 1971 to 1979.  Amin charmed and promised the world that he would bring peace and democracy to the people of his country.  Instead he turned Uganda into a poverty-stricken land patrolled by death squads.  Amin was possibly the most brutal and merciless dictator of all time.  His rule was characterized by human rights abuses, ethnic persecution, political repression, massacres and the expulsion of 80,000 Asians from Uganda.  Amin pitted his people and executed hundreds of thousands of his people.  Amin was probably the most sadistic dictator in the 20th century.  He would show executions of people on television.  Amin tortured and killed his country’s soldiers, government officials, teachers, artists, doctors, journalists, engineers, politicians, police officers, photographers, lawyers, business people, ordinary citizens, ministers and children.  Amin’s men tortured and killed people with sledge hammers while Amin kept the pictures for fun and amusement.  Amin often had his victims buried alive.  Amin would often give the heads of his enemies to crocodiles.  Hundreds of thousands of dead bodies washed up to the shores of Lake Victoria.  Amin killed 4,000 people by throwing them into crocodile infested rivers.  About 50,000 people died from disease, most were children.  He would cut the flesh of people and force them to eat it until they died.  Amin ate human flesh and he said proudly that he was a cannibal.  He also drank human blood.  Amin mutilated one of his wives and had her limbs sewn upside down.  Amin killed and tortured 300,000 to 500,000 Ugandans.  Amin was forced in exile in Saudi Arabia for the rest of his life.  Amin died almost 25 years later in 2003.  In that time Amin lived a very peaceful life. Pol Pot Pol Pot was Prime Minister of Cambodia from 1976 to 1979.  His plan was to destroy the civilization of Cambodia and turn it into a new age.  He turned Cambodia into a killing field.  Pol Pot is the only man in history that ordered an official genocide against his whole country and he killed the greatest percentage in the amount of time he was in power.  He declared that the Buddhist religion, money, and personal possessions would all be banned.  His communist government forced mass evacuations of cities.  Millions of Cambodians were displaced, tortured and killed.  People were separated from friends and families.  People died from effects of slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, starvation and execution.  Hundreds of thousands were clubbed to death and buried alive.  Thousands were killed from disease and torture.  Many were hanged.  Millions of people including the elderly, pregnant women, and children would stand in water up to their necks in cold and rainy seasons, working on canals, with legs and feet swelling up and bleeding.  If you stopped working because of illness, you would not be feed or you would be killed.  If a worker made a mistake, he or she would be flogged to death or shot.  You would be expected to work until you dropped dead.  Many people had no rights to eat.  If people were found eating dead humans, they would be buried alive.  Pol Pot wanted teenagers to become solders with a love of killing.  If Cambodian people married people of Vietnam, the husband and wife would be killed.  People that spoke and looked like Vietnamese were also killed.  Pol Pot often ordered people to kill and fight Vietnamese.  He took pictures of the people he executed and recorded them in detail.  Prisoners were forced to drink humane urine.  He ordered babies to be torn limb by limb.  People were beaten to death by blunt instruments like hammers, spades and axe handles.  People were also killed by sharpened bamboo sticks.  Some of his men killed people by bleeding them to death.  He liked to keep the skulls of dead people.  To Pol Pot, his people’s lives were not just cheap, but of no value at all.  He killed 1 to 3 million Cambodians, 25 to 33 percent of the country.  Pol Pot died in April in 1998 of natural causes. Adolf Hitler Hitler was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to his death in 1945, becoming Germany’s Fuhrer.  Before he gained power, he wanted to be an artist, but he failed.  Then he decided that he wanted to be a member of the German army, he became solder in World War I.  When the German army surrendered, Hitler escaped and returned to Germany.  He believed that Germany lost because they had surrendered, and it made him bitter.  He then turned his attention to the Jews.  He believed that the Jews were the cause Germany’s problems and he also believed that the Jews did not count as human beings.  His plans were to eliminate every Jew in Europe and to gain world control.  He once said “by the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.”  Hitler would kill any Jew, enemy, or anyone that he thought was a problem.  He used wounded people that were in hospitals for test experiments for ways of killing, like carbon dioxide gas.  These experiments killed over 300,000 people.  Every Jew in Germany was sent to concentration camps.  Jews in other countries were also sent to concentration camps.  All were expected to work until they died or they were killed.  Millions of Jews had to watch friends and members of their families die.  Jews died from gas chambers, crematories, firing squads, lethal injections, force labor, starvation, poison, exposure, disease, execution, death marches and medical experiments.  More than 90 percent of Poland’s Jews were killed.  Millions of children died because of him.  Hitler betrayed friends and allies in the war.  Hitler had a breading program.  If the child fell short of Nazi-defined perfection, the child would be killed.  Hitler himself was responsible for the deaths of more than 11  million people (5,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses, 15,000 homosexuals, 100,000 Freemasons, 100,000 of the mentally ill, 500,000 Gypsies, 750,000 Slavs, 3 million non-Jewish Poles, 3 million Russians and 6 million Jews) but his actions caused the deaths of over 50 million people.  On 1945, Hitler committed suicide by gunshot and cyanide poisoning. Joseph Stalin Stalin was dictator of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953.  When he was young he was a bank robber, an agitator, and an assassin.  After a long road to get into power, he became a paranoid, ruthless, unforgiving, brutal and vengeful dictator.  He created a 30 year reign of violence, terror, destruction and murdering.  Anyone who spied on him, displeased him, or voted against him was doomed to die.  His first plan was to create the Soviet Union into an industrial superpower country.  To do that would cause the deaths of countless numbers of people.  People were sent to slave labors and were forced to work to death.  Huge industrial schemes became a living hell for hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.  He signed the death warrants for tens of thousands of people.  Stalin only liked people who fourfold his orders, but if you were a popular figure, an intelligent, and independent person, Stalin would order you to be tortured, imprisoned for many years or life, or shot you.  He would kill family members of people who loved him and family members of people who horned him as a god.  Stalin once kissed a small girl in public, she had become famous and thought Stalin cared for her and her family, but he later killed her parents.  People were sometimes killed with an ice pick.  About 10 million people died in a famine.  Stalin once said “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is simply a statistic.”  He killed the wives of some of his friends.  He exiled his daughter’s boyfriend, Aleksie Kapler.  Stalin’s wife was driven into despair by his treatment of her, which caused her to kill herself.  His son died in a Nazi concentration camp after Stalin refused to trade for his life.  He would even kill people who were defending their country against the Nazis.  People were in prison were force to fight in World War II, but if they returned they would be sent back to prison.  Hundreds of thousands of people from other countries were tortured, raped, or killed.  People were often killed by mustard gas bombs.  More than 1.5 million German women were raped from the Soviet Union.  Recent evidence shows that Stalin had his own Final Solution in which hundreds of thousands of Jews were exiled or killed.  Stalin wanted the Soviet Union to become a country strong enough to rival the U.S., but if they were stronger than the U.S., he would want the 2 countries to fight a war.  Stalin killed 20 to 60 million people.  He died in 1953 from a stroke.    So here are 16 distinct examples of a single person doing incredible evil to a mass number of people... and that is just within the last hundred years.  This kind of behavior goes back thousands and thousands of years. And I have not even mentioned the random person who murders another person.  Or the rapists.  Or the child molestors.  Or the sadists. Unfortunately the amount of unjust suffering and violence in this world is mind boggling. So what happens to these people when they die? Stalin murdered 20 - 60 million people, and he died his single death from a stroke... Where is the justice in that? All these examples I just listed are similar.  They murdered and tortured millions of individuals and inflicted unimaginable pain on all those who were associated.  But they only suffer their one death? So as my logic would dictate... assuming God is good and just... then there must be an afterlife... an existence beyond this world where the evil will be subject to greater suffering than what they caused their victims in this world. And on the other hand, their victims must enjoy an existence of tremendous pleasure, as their corporeal existence was a horrifically pain filled nightmare. I believe that since God is good and just, and this world is not... then the next world (the afterlife) makes up for the suffering that goes on here. I have only really mentioned suffering caused by evil, but of course we must not dismiss all the suffering that is just terrible luck. Diseases, disasters, accidents, and other tragic life events that inflict people every day. We forget or ignore it because it is not our life... but its someone else's  life.  Someone else who is as good if not better than you and me. I truly hope there is another, better world waiting for them.  One which somehow cosmically justifies the suffering they endured here.  Likewise, I hope that their is cosmic justice for all those who live lives of evil and wickedness. If there is no afterlife, or no difference for the fate of those who are evil and their victims,  then God and I have a problem.   He is either cruel, unjust, or simply uncaring if that is the case.  How could I care more about the pain in this world than He who created it?  As Dennis Prager says: If pain were water, the world would drown. Thankfully, the God I learn about from the Torah is caring.  He demands justice.  He demands goodness.  So it seems perfectly reasonable to me that He is too is just and good.  I know, God could be a hypocrite... but I choose not to believe that.   Rather I choose empowering beliefs like, 'God is good', and 'this world is not all that there is.'   God is non corporeal so it is logical to assume an nonphysical existence beyond this one.  And since this one so often tragic and unjust... then the other one should be its counter and be filled with goodness and justice. Please God... I hope so!

Happy New Year!  I know I've mentioned before that since this is time shifted media (meaning you can listen or read this at any point in time) I would work to not have time bound posts or podcasts.  So this post, as with my "Christmas" one, are meant to be broader than just for today. New Years Resolutions: Do you make them? Do you keep them? Do you take them seriously? Do make resolutions or wishes? How have they affected you in the past? Are there areas in your own life you would like to resolve? Can you narrow it down to an area? Here's my take on New Year Resolutions: I love them.  I love them when they are done right. And that is what I intend to help you with today. By the way you can use this at any time in the year or your life.  But the first of the year is a great point to start because it is an easy line of demarcation.  In 2013 I did this, but as of 2014 I do this other thing and don't do that which I did before. Since so many have a hard time with New Years Resolutions (8% are successful at their resolutions), let me start with the pitfalls. 1. The Wish List New Years Resolutions are not wish lists. For example: Lose 50 pounds, Win American Ninja Warrior, Find true love, Get Promoted, or Become a Musician. For most people these are dreams or wishes the may really want to come true.  But they are just that... wishes. Wishes are things you hope for.  Dreams are not reality.  Resolutions however are things that you are determined about, and you are resolved to attain. Imagine someone has been badly injured.  You go to visit them and they say "The doctors say I may not walk again... I sure hope I can walk again."  Do you think their recovery will be as rapid or full as the person that says "The doctors say I may not walk again... but I have determined that I will and I have decided that everyday I will work toward my accomplishment... step by step." If you want to make a New Year Resolutions list this year then make it filled with resolutions.  Get real and ask yourself "what am I determined to do?" And then, start writing all the reasons why you must.  Get brutally honest with yourself and tell the truth about why must be resolved to do so.  Come up with at least 5 reasons.  If you cannot come up with 5 reasons... then maybe its a wish... or maybe you need to move on to the next step... Again, being extremely intellectually honest I want you to write all the excuses... I mean reasons... you have not changed up to this point.  Even if its something as self-evident bad for you as cigarette smoking, you have good reasons for why you do it and have not changed yet. Seriously, write out at least 5 reasons why you have continued up to now, or why you have not acted up to now (depending on your scenario.) Now this may seem like a ton of work, but that actually leads me to the next pitfall... 2. The Laundry List: Too often people make the proverbial laundry list of things they are going to do this year. For Example, stop smoking join gym eat less junk food drink less alcohol eat veggies pay off debt take more vacation date more learn French Enjoy life This list is fairly paradigmatic of what folks have spoken with me about in the office.  First of all, its a fine list of things that will probably enhance most peoples' idea of quality of life.  Fine. But it's a long list to get determined about.  Its a great list to completely fail at though. Chunk it down. Figure out what you are really going for.  What one thing (or maybe two) are you 100% committed to doing (or not doing)?  Seriously, you have got to get very real and honest with yourself and DECIDE what you will change starting right now. And then once you have that one thing start taking massive action on it immediately. So for instance, if its "stop smoking" and you don't know what to do next about it, well as I said above...  First of all you need to really find out you really big WHYs.  All the reasons why you must stop now, and all the reasons why you have not stopped until now.  Then start getting your identity ready for the new you. You can start telling yourself "I am not a smoker." Or you can write it down and post it throughout your house, car, or wherever you are triggered to smoke.  Get leverage by informing others like you spouse, kids, parents, friends, anyone whose opinion of you value that you are determined to becoming a non-smoker. Now after a few months of not smoking and you know that you are a "non-smoker" you can move on, but in the beginning chunk it down to one or so resolutions.  By the way, if its more than one then they should be synergistic, like "become a non-smoker and start cross fit 3 times a week". Remember, Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. ~Albert Einstein Okay so that once again leads me to my final bone to pick regarding resolution pitfalls.  I call it: 3. D.U.M.B.E.R. There is an acronym for successful goal setting that was I believe started by the famous business legend Peter Drucker, S.M.A.R.T.  As time went on the acronym was lengthened to S.M.A.R.T.E.R.  Hence, my pitfall acronym is D.U.M.B.E.R. D: Disagree = You have resolutions that disagree with each other.  They are conflicting values. U: Unrealistic = You have resolutions that are so far beyond reason that you set yourself up to fail.  Either you are going for perfection, or tomorrow, or more money than Bill Gates, whatever it is it is not something you can really own and envision with clarity. M: Misguided = This has many forms.  The most common is your resolutions are not focused on you.  Instead they are focused on things outside of your control.  The problem with this should be self evident. B: Broad = Way too broad and general resolutions.  "I going to lose weight" or "invest more money" are common examples.  What does that mean? One pound lost and you are good? But on the other hand... E: Exact = Way to exact and specific resolutions. "I am going to lose 56 pounds and be at 8% body fat in 90 days."  Your resolution should not become an end unto itself.  Ultimately it is about the betterment of you through working on your resolutions, not the exact numbers. R: Reject = Too often people focus only on rejecting things from their lives.  "I am not going to eat chocolate, and I am not going to watch TV, and I am not ..."  It's okay to have a prohibition but be sure to add something new in its place. So that is my DUMBER list. True to form, here are my suggestions: 1. S.M.A.R.T.E.R. S = Specific (or Significant)M = Measurable (or Meaningful)A = Attainable (or Action-Oriented)R = Relevant (or Rewarding)T = Time-bound (or Trackable)E = Evaluate (or Ethical)R = Reevaluate (or Rewarded) 2. Certainty Unfortunately, people are not in the right frame of mind when they make their New Years Resolutions.  I suggest you revisit times in your past where you have changed for the better, and feel how good it feels to know you can change.  Allow that feeling to be real and powerful so you can be totally certain you can change, and absolutely resolved this will happen, and know that it is already happening. 3.  Start! Most people wait for an appropriate time to tackle their resolutions.  "I won't start my diet until after Valentines day, because you know there is going to be chocolate everywhere and..." There is a term for this... PROCRASTINATION. Procrastination is not allowed in my house.  I HATE PROCRASTINATION.  As Tony Robbins says "Procrastination is a silent killer." So many good people, with good goals and resolutions, and good intentions fail because they don't ever START. Of course, starting is not enough.  You must follow through.  You must gain momentum.  You  must notice your results and change where needed.  But these other steps cannot be made until you START. And remember keep it simple. 4. H.H.C. If you don't know how to start or where to improve your life, let me recommend the H.H.C. idea from Dennis Prager. A while back he had a show on resolutions and Dennis recommend making resolutions in one or more of the following categories. H = Health H = Happiness C = Character Are there areas of your health that you could improve? Or are there areas of your life where you could improve your level of happiness or increase your ability to at least act happy? Or are there parts of your character you know you would like to change or improve? Focusing on HHC is a brilliant way to not only improve your own life, but often times the lives of others as well.  Everyone benefits. And finally, besides keeping it simple, and besides focusing on HHC, please, PLEASE avoid the destructive all or nothing attitude.  All or nothing is disempowering and destructive mindset.  Rather, take on the mindset that something is better than nothing.  Something is better than nothing is infinitely better and more productive than all or nothing in most areas of life.  So at least improve a little rather than not improve at all. Okay... so what are you waiting for? Make your resolutions NOW! And get started on a creating an extraordinary 2014 for yourself.   Have a Happy, Healthy, and Good New Year!  God Bless!    

Jean-Léon Gérôme [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons This podcast is inspired by this week's parsha (Torah portion) which is Va'eira (Exodus 6:2–9:35) .  While almost any parsha contains an "ultimate issue" this one in particular brings up a major one.  The very beginning verses of Va'eira are these: Exodus Chapter 6 (ESV): 2God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD. 3I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty,a but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. 4I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners. 5Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. 6Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. 7I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am the LORD.’” Okay so what's the big deal?  Well ask yourself, what does all this mean? 3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.  Is that to be taken literally?  If so, we have a problem.  Genesis (the book prior to Exodus) references the tetragrammaton (JEHOVAH, Y-H-W-H, יהוה) name repeatedly.  I think it is safe to say the patriarchs definitely "knew" both names. Being a ba'al tshevuvah I first really started studying Torah as an adult, and my most influential teacher (though not an ordained rabbi - regardless I regard him as my rabbi) is  Dennis Prager.  Prager taught in the name of Nehama Leibowitz who wrote in the name of Yehuda Halevi from his book "Kuzari.": Paraphrasing in my own words the ideas taught in class: This answer is a response to a previous indictment of God by Moses. Exodus Chapter 5 (ESV): 22Then Moses turned to the LORD and said, “O Lord, why have you done evil to this people? Why did you ever send me? 23For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has done evil to this people, and you have not delivered your people at all.” Chapter 6: 1But the LORD said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand he will send them out, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land.”   Now the reason for this argument was because since Moses had done what the Lord had told him, nothing has gone well.  The people he was sent to save and liberate,  have only been dealt with more harshly and suffer under more oppression directly due to Moses' actions.  Moses acted because God told him to and now Moses is angry at God because He is allowing others to suffer... Tissot: Moses via Wikimedia Commons How many of us can resonate with Moses' feelings and words?  I know I can.  I am angry with God on a fairly regular basis.  Mainly when I learn of magnificent senseless and gratuitous evil that transpires currently or has transpired in history.  I am reading about Mao and his sadistic treatment of his people, and I am angry with God that so many millions of people had to suffer such cruelty and evil.  They had an ineffably torturous existence and The Ineffable seemingly did nothing about it!  Damn right I'm angry.  Now, I know that the evil that happened there was due to a man and not God (as I believe man has freewill), but what about all the act of force majure.   The millions who have died or been horrifically injured due to earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, or the millions of children who battle horrific illnesses, cancers, and deformities. In my own life, and I'm sure for many of you reading this, I think of myself as blessed and lucky.  I can reflect on my life and look with amazement at how things have worked out... seemingly miraculously.  God's work in my personal life has been mind boggling, but when I think about others lives and the horrors they have witnessed or experienced it is equally mind boggling. Our patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, experienced very personal relationships with God.  Each had their own special and real relationship with the Lord and each saw how God worked in their microcosmic lives.  They no doubts or misgiving regarding the faith as there is naturally in the enslaved Israelites trapped in Egypt. Yehuda Halevi: "The Patriarchs, on the other hand, were inspired with a pure and undiluted faith which was proof against all temptation even if evil had dogged them all their days." And Nehama Leibowitz writes in response to Halevi: The Patriarchs were select individuals and it was not necessary for God to communicate Himself to them through miracles and wonders; for they saw Him in everything.  It was the epoch of the individual.  But in the days of Moses, the Jewish people evolved...  The mass cannot appreciate the language of hidden miracles accompanied by no obvious change in the natural order.  They would not have been able to discern the hand of God working in their lives and in that of the whole human creation without the display of the supernatural which  would bring them out "with a strong hand". And as Prager taught:  The Patriarchs' lives were God-centric and all was caused by God.  You got pregnant... God made you pregnant.  You moved to another land... God wanted you to move to that land.  You found a wife... God wanted you to find that wife.  You were barren... God made you barren. So on and so forth.  Every aspect of their life was caused by God with whom they had a very omnipresent personal relationship.  This was not the case with the Israelites in Egypt.  It takes a remarkably exceptional human who sees God in the darkest and most horrific parts of there life, but remember this is in reference to a mass number of people who have been there for multiple generations.  They understandably needed substantial evidence for God existence.  So again, for the individual whose life is not horrific it may be easy to believe in God, because we can see God in our lives. But when we think beyond ourselves, and realize the nightmarish existences others suffer. And here in lies the difference between Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... as well as Moses, and the Hebrew slaves in Egypt.  Moses and the patriarchs had every reason to believe in God considering the circumstances of their lives.  But what about the Israelites suffering in Egypt? Sure, we all have suffering and tragedies in our own lives.  Yet still, in general most of us living in America in the 21st century can realize God's involvement in our personal life. So why do we doubt and have hostility toward God? Because at some point we realize that unlike us, others are unimaginably suffering.  Where is God for them? The question Prager asked in class was:    How many of you feel that your life, and only your life, has been fair or better than fair in terms of how life and fate have treated you?  The vast majority of hands rose in affirmation. And there lies the problem that plagues so many today...  They believe in only a personal god.  Or a personal concept of God.  This is usually know today as "Spirituality".  That is to say that many people (polls vary but its highly over 20%) consider themselves "Spiritual but not religious (SBNR)" so they realize that for themselves their is a transcendent aspect of their own life, but they don't recognize it as an overarching idea that constitutes a religion. And this is a dangerous idea by itself.  Spirituality and the idea of a personal God is great, but it is not enough. The idea of being spiritual but not religious or more than religious leads to people naturally blurring the distinctions between themselves and God.  When I hear someone say "God told me to..." I feel uneasy.  How do you know that was God speaking to you?  And a major reason that spirituality over religion is dangerous is because without good religion there is nothing to tether the individual's relations with God to. Notice that when people do great evil in the name of God or some spirit... they say just that... God told me to do it, as opposed to the Bible told me to do it.  Yes, I know people have cherry picked the Bible to justify their actions, but 1) they take the Bible out of context and 2) had they been rooted in good religion they would understand the context. For instance, as Prager notes: Muslims don't typically go and murder civilians shouting "The Koran in Surah 2 said...", NO! Instead the yell "Allahu akbar (God is greater)".  This is an example of where spirituality seemingly trumps religion.  He's right.  My friends who are Muslim are heart broken over the actions some people are committing in the name of their God and claiming their religion's name.  They hold fast that the tenets and behaviors these people hold is antithetical to Islam. And as Prager further noted, the Nazi soldiers walked around with "Gott mit uns (God is with us)" on their uniforms.  Notice they didn't have anything referencing the Bible (i.e. James 3:16).  Why?  Because Hitler and the Nazi movement was not rooted in Christianity but rather an evil megalomaniacal man's hatred for others.  (In fact, it was the religious Christians in Poland and Germany who overwhelming took the Jews in to their home and hid them ... at the risk of peril to their own family.) Can religions be overtaken and turned bad?  You bet!  But notice it is generally by someone claiming to be more "spiritual"  than the rest (i.e. connects or communicates with God personally in ways beyond the common man).  And then they change the religion to meet their new "spiritual" agenda. Spirituality that is not contained by religion is dangerous.  Religion is to spirituality what power lines are to electricity.  It harnesses the power and directs in a way that is safe and applicable to many people.   Religion also provides a code by which you can check your spirituality.  For instance, if I think I have a message from God to go and murder someone, then I know something is arwy because prior to my "personal message", God prohibited man from murder in the Ten Commandments. Religion also makes demands on you that your spirituality will likely not do.  My religion demands we love the stranger, and love our neighbor.  My religion demands we give charitably to others.   My religion demands we see human beings as sacred and act to save their life.  My religion demands we visit the sick.  My religion demands we honor and respect our father and mother.  There are many obligations found in religion (Judaism in particular).  All of which are intended to improve or elevate the person obliged.  Many are ethically based.  Many are holiness based.  All are based on goodness. What does individual spirituality demand?  Simply that you are obliged to yourself? Or whatever the spirit moves you to do? This is why you see school and hospitals erected in the name of religion and not spirituality.  This is why the greatest charities that do the most good for mankind are rooted in religions and not spirituality. Another question what does your spirituality prohibit you from doing? My religion not only prohibits theft in the most obvious of cases, but it further elaborates that I am prohibited from asking a merchant about a product if I know that I am not going to purchase from him... as that would constitute a form of theft (i.e. his time, hope, etc.) In general "spiritual but not religious" means that your prohibitions are up to you.  And what you are obliged to do... again guess who is dictating that as well... you.  You are in effect God.   Do you disagree with yourself and your own opinions? Probably not... as most people understandably think their own thinking is the right thinking. Now this does not mean that you if you are spiritual but not religious your are a bad person or a lesser person.  Nor does that mean that religious people are better.  Goodness and wickedness is inherent in all people regardless of their beliefs. But what I am saying is that having a spiritual relationship with God and not a religious one has tremendous potential for numbing our awareness of others suffering, or far worse committing evil in the while claiming it the will of the Divine. You have a great relationship with the spiritual? Okay, so what?  How is your spirituality going to have leverage over you and your actions?  How do you know what you believe is "spiritual" and not just your opinion?  How do you question yourself in regards to your spirituality?  What do you reference when you face an ethical dilemma?  How do you know what is right and good, or wrong and destructive? My religion poses many challenges to me and my thinking that were I just a spiritual person I would likely never wrestle with.   Sure I have spirituality in my life, but my spiritual beliefs must remain consistent with my religion.  My values must come from my religion.  Where else will they come from? World opinion? Spirituality? My heart?  None of these are a good source for ethics or values. This reminds me of a debate between a religious Jew, Dennis Prager, and a more secular Jew, Alan Dershowitz.  This debate was once available on youtube but alas youtube or the 92nd St. Y or someone has taken it down... The main point relevant to this idea is Prager's profound conclusion: “Ladies and gentlemen, the major difference between Alan Dershowitz and me is this: When professor Dershowitz differs with the Torah, he assumes that he is right and the Torah is wrong. When I differ with the Torah, I assume that I am wrong and the Torah is right.” ~ Dennis Prager, in a debate at the 92nd St Y.  Then, Dershowitz quipped that for the first time that night he agreed with Prager. Prager's insight brilliantly exhibits the power that religion can have in challenging yourself and your thinking.  A good religion is something that is wiser and better than you, and it should challenge and confront your opinions and values in order to make you a better person.  How else does one confront such challenges if you don't take religion seriously?  Does your spirituality challenge you?  Does your secularism challenge you? Spirituality sans religion is dangerous.  Religion sans spirituality is dead.  We as a people must have both.  It is necessary for man to have a good religion so as to have a constant reference point by which his moral compass is bound.  Religion is the magnetic north that directs your spiritual needle inside your moral compass.   No religion... then that needle has no set bearing. Notice I keep referring to a "good" religion.  I fully recognize no religion is perfect.  All religions have problems.  So what? I don't even know what "perfect" would look like.  So just because no religion is perfect, that is not a logical reason to therefore abandon religiosity.  A good religious life brings meaning, wisdom, and improvement to a persons life in ways they could never imagine.  I know it does for me and millions of others.  And this is not a sales pitch for Judaism.  Rather, if you are spiritual but not religious or just a plain secular athiest... then I suggest first investigating the religion you were raised in or your family's religion.  It makes life easier for you and them.  But, if after truly investigating and doing the religion sincerely, you find that that particular religion does not fit you... then try on another.  Shop religions and become observant about their followers.  Notice, which religion (or church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.) available to you seems to be bearing good fruit.  Do you know someone who has converted to a religion and become a better person?  Then investigate that religion.  This is a fundamental role religion should play in peoples' lives...  Good religion makes gooder people. In the final analysis, yes you can have good irreligious individuals (spiritual or not), but you cannot produce a good people without good religion.  Hence why God was going to reveal Himself in ways never known before, not even by the most spiritually attuned individuals Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.  

So it's Christmas time and yet people in America no longer wish each other "Merry Christmas."  Instead they are saying "Happy Holidays." Why?  Which holiday are they referring to?  Hanukkah was finished a week after Thanksgiving this year.  So what other "holy" day are they referring to?  Kwanzaa?  "Maulana Karenga created Kwanzaa in 1966 as the first specifically African-American holiday" according to wikipedia.  Now I suppose I could mention that Dr. Maulana Karenga was born Ronald McKinley Everett on a poultry farm in Parsonsburg, Maryland. He was the seventh son and fourteenth child of a baptist minister. Ronald Everette would eventally change his name 20 years later to Maulana Karenga which translates as “Master Teacher”.   Near the end of the article wikipedia cites: "According to Keith Mayes, the author of Kwanzaa: Black Power and the Making of the African-American Holiday Tradition, the popularity within the US has "leveled off" as the black power movement there has declined, and now between half and two million people celebrate Kwanzaa in the US, or between one and five percent of African Americans. Mayes adds that white institutions now celebrate it.[8]"   So... again what holiday are you referring to? It is okay. You can say it... Christmas.   I am a Jew and you can wish me "Merry Christmas" and I will not only not be offended I will indeed wish you a "Merry Christmas to you."  Why?  Because I am not that narcissistic. I am convinced that those who are opposed to Christmas celebrations, decorations, and greeting are narcissists. So what if is not your holiday?  As Dennis Prager has noted, and I am paraphrasing his idea, this anti-Christmas narcissistic behavior is analogous to someone being offended or upset whenever it is someone else's birthday.  Since it is not your birthday then will you not allow others to public celebrate their own birthday? In fact, I can say that as a Jew I am truly grateful for America's Christmas spirit and merriment.  I, you, and everyone can benefit from the beautiful decorations and cheerfulness during this season.  I was in Asia during the holidays one year and it just felt... oddly non festive... as there was nothing special going on like there was here.  Here starting after Thanksgiving, the streets are lined in beautiful lights.  The neighborhood's homes are adorned with beautiful lights and decorations.  Stores are decorated with cheer and joy.  It is wonderful. Why?  Because it's for your holiday Christmas - not winter, not Kwanzaa, not Hanukkah, I know that reason for the cheer and adornment is because of the traditions surrounding the holiday of Christmas.  So as someone who benefits from your merriment... I thank you! Actually, most of my religious Jewish friends feel similar to myself and Prager in this regard.  It tends to be the secular Jews who take issue.  My theory is that the more rooted in your own religiosity the more comfortable you will feel when others express their different religious celebrations.  I was once a "secular" Jew.  I was atheist through and through, but still had a separate ethnic identity as a Jew, and I heard all the clamoring from my "peers" who somehow felt offended by Christmas.  Why? In the final analysis, the general cause of their disdain for Christmas was their own narcissism.  Their opinion was along the lines of: "I am not a Christian, so I have a right to be free from having to in anyway experience their religion or holiday." They would bring up the notion of separation of church and state, but of course it was conveniently taken out of context. As for my friends who were secular Jews I would again use another Prager idea and ask: Since Israel is 80% Jewish is it okay for Israelis to wish everyone "Shanah tovah (Happy New Year)?", the typical greeting around the time of Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish new year which occurs around September.)  In general they answered "Of course."  So then I ask: Is it therefore okay that since 90% of Americans identify themselves as Christian they can wish everyone "Merry Christmas?"  Typically they argue that the reason it is okay in Israel is because Israel is a Jewish nation, but it is not okay in America because America is not a Christian nation. True, America does not have state controlled religion as you can argue exists in Israel.  But it is irrefutable that America is a nation predominately Christian in its religious make up of its citizenship as well as its founding.  Also, just because our government is secular that does not mean that the nation is secular.  Rather the founding fathers wisely envisioned a limited, secular government for the religious peoples comprising this great nation.  They also designed a constitutional republic which guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So, for all intents and purposes America is a Christian nation.  And they should be free to express their religiosity and publicly celebrate their holidays.  Are my fellow Jews opposed to the public lighting of the menorah as they do here in Houston at city hall?  Of course not.  Even in my small town of Kingwood, where there are less than 100 Jewish families, yet this overwhelmingly Christian suburb graciously allows us to do a public menorah lighting and celebration during Hanukkah.  I suppose I should mention that Hanukkah, a post-Biblical holiday, is not nearly as important to Jews as Christmas is to Christians.  In fact, we should thank the Christian's in America for helping us make this otherwise minor holiday more major.  The truth is that the gift giving and the increased levels of observance of Hanukkah is largely due to reactionary response to the celebrations of Christmas in America.  Again, I thank you! So yes, Narcissism! The arrogant pride of oneself that leads to indecent and egoistic behaviors at the cost of others.  If you are so uptight about Christmas trees and lights and decorations and the religio-specific greeting "Merry Christmas"... then you are probably a narcissist. Or you are a coward who is afraid of being confronted by a narcissist. You choose. Now for my other rant about narcissism.  This one is based off of a message from a listener... Jim in Texas.  So thank you Jim, though I am unsure if you knew I would actually use your submission for an Ultimate Issues subject.  By the way, this is an invitation to all of you.  One thing I have figured out the Ultimate Issues podcast listenership is variegated, but with one commonality... you love to think and question and gain insight.  So if you have any ideas or stories you'd like to share or get my thoughts on, you can email me as Jim did at [email protected] or simply share your ideas in the comment area at ultimateissues.com. Here's the story, and it comes from UPWORTHY.com A 4-Year-Old Girl Asked A Lesbian If She's A Boy. She Responded The Awesomest Way Possible. And its a TEDx youtube video with over 4 million hits.  For full comments please listen to podcast.  As I don't want to transcribe her talk. As far as the notion that everyone must come out of their closet in order to push your agenda or cause (per Ash's TEDx Talk)... Would she or the audience feel as passionate as the do for liberals coming out of the closet as the would about a black conservative republican?  He or she is likely in the closet with his liberal, democrat family and friends... and probably for good reason.  He won't change them or their politics, and they will only think less of him.  Not all hard conversation have to be had.  Not everyone needs to come out of their closet.  In general, if coming out of your closet only does good for you (because you feel better) and shifts the problem or burden onto others and  you know there is no good for others that will come from it, then don't do it.  If you do, then you are acting selfish and narcissistic. Here's the deal.  In the final analysis today's activists are generally narcissists.  They are actively trying to change the world to suit their personal needs or desires or dreams.  They are trying to cause the macro to submit to the micro.  For instance, trying to get a very small percentage of people to be treated different because they feel different.  Case in point, transgender.  Where as in the normative world boys are prohibited from using the girls restrooms, in more and more schools if a boy feels like a girl then he can go use the girls restroom.  Who does this benefit? Only the boy... and at the expense of others.  Hence, a narcissistic idea. Now to be clear, I 100% believe in the civil rights movement which reached its peak in the 1960's.  That all people should be treated as equals under the law is correct and just regardless of circumstance.  So why is today's activists different than those lead by MLK, Jr.  He was fighting a government and a courtroom, while today's activists are fighting 4 year olds (as Ash stated above.)  People should be free to have their own opinions.  People should be free to not agree.  But today's activists are trying to convince people that if they don't agree then they are evil.  Not wrong... evil.  Hence, why she mentions being prepared to battle a four year olds simple question "Are you a girl or a boy?"  Her decision to dress and style herself is of her own free will, and like the rest of us she cannot expect everyone else to like or understand or agree with it. The idea that you must accept me no matter what is a narcissistic and dangerous idea.  Actually, activists are beyond just trying to get acceptance... they want celebration.  You must celebrate the activists cause.  Whether it be redefining gender, redefining marriage, or global warming... the activist believes that if you are not passionately with them, then you are against them. This is the narcissism that leads to issues like this: BAKER FACES PRISON FOR REFUSING TO BAKE SAME-SEX WEDDING CAKE Yep, if you are a religious Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu and then you and your religious opposition to same sex marriage is not only wrong... But were you to deny service for a same sex wedding (say as a baker, caterer, photographer, or Clergy/Officiate) then you could face jail time! Now all this could be avoided by not acting like a narcissist, and instead of demanding service because you are you... simply go to someone who will gladly provide services regardless of circumstance. Again this is an instance of having the macro bend to the will of the micro.  The civil rights movement was a macro movement in every way.  A large percentage of the population is not WASP.  Half are not male.  It's a simple concept that can be applied in many instances... as Spock has said "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few."   What defines needs, many, or few? Well that's left open ended.  And I will speak on this at a later point. The point is this: Yes, a level of self interest is necessary and good.  But when your self interests come at the cost, denial, or demand of others' interests then you are acting narcissistic. As Rabbi Hillel said "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?" Ethics of the Fathers, 1:14 If you want to pursue happiness, and do good, then you will learn to act for the benefit of others and not solely for yourself. Let me know what you think.  Thank you and merry Christmas!  

Nelson Mandela died last Thursday Dec. 5, 2013.  Since then the world seems to be mourning his death and celebrating his life.  It's remarkable how so many people with various ideologies and values revere and honor Nelson Mandela.  And that is what got me questioning... Who was Nelson Mandela?  And how can it be that everyone loves him?  Why? I had grown up in the '80's as a typical American kid who knew that apartheid was evil and Mandela was the hero-leader of a South African movement to end it, and hence wrongfully imprisoned by the apartheid South African government. Then 27 years later he reappeared upon his release from prison and subsequent election to become South Africa's President.  Real story book stuff... from prisoner to president. About 20 years later the world mourns his death.  Seeming every dignitary attends his funeral.  Interested in the outpouring of love and admiration, I decided to start reading about Nelson Mandela.  But most articles seemed hagiographic.   Was Nelson Mandela a saint?  But even saintly characters like the Dalai Llama are hated  (i.e. Maoist Chinese.) So I googled Nelson Mandela truth... just to see what would pop up.  I couldn't resist going down that rabbit hole.  Then I listened to some South African people who lived in South Africa in the 50's and 60's. Turns out I had reason to be suspicious. He and his (ex)wife, Winnie, are thought of as terrorist by some. In fact, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008, in what they describe as a "bureaucratic snafu". Read the NBC article : US government considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008   As one blog commentator wrote in response to the Blaze's article celebrating Mandela:  In his book, ”Long Walk to Freedom”, Peace Laurette, Mandela writes that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism :1981 – 2 car bombs at Durban showrooms1983 – Church Street Bomb (killed 19, wounded 217)1984 – Durban car bomb (killed 5, wounded 27)1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines on farm roads (killed 125)1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam shopping centre bomb Dec 23 (killed 2 white women and 3 white children)1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb (killed 3, wounded 69)1986 – Newcastle Court bomb (wounded 24)1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb (killed 3, wounded 10)1987 – Wits command centre car bomb (killed 1, wounded 68)1988 – Johannesburg video arcade (killed 1 unborn baby, wounded 10)1988 – Roodepoort bank bomb (killed 4, wounded 18)1988 – Pretoria Police housing unit, 2 bombs (wounded 3)1988 – Magistrate’s Court bomb (killed 3)1988 – Benoni Wimpy Bar bomb (killed 1, wounded 56)1988 – Witbank shopping centre bomb (killed 2, wounded 42)1988 – Ellis Park Rugby Stadium car bomb (killed 2, wounded 37)Late 1980s – numerous Wimpy Restaurant bombs (killed many, wounded many) Now, what is the context in which this excerpt is taken? I don't know.  What does the writer mean when he says "personally signed off"? Again, I don't know.  I would need to read the book to find out more details. So, then I started reading older articles like this own from the New York Times in '97: Party Led By Mandela Now Owns Up To Atrocities There is plenty of information available in his own words such as this provided by the FreeRepublic: How to be a Good Communist: by Nelson Mandela So it seems irrefutable that Mandela was a communist.  Fine, I disagree with his politics.  So what? I care how a person behaves, not their politics.   Ultimately I am left unsure about Nelson Mandela.  I spoke personally with a historian here in Houston regarding Mandela.  I wanted to know a more objective view about the man, his history, and his actions.  She said simply... "We won't know that for probably another 10 years... at least." I called (as did others) Dennis Prager to get his opinion on Mandela and he said the best assessment of his life was from the Wall Street Journal: Nelson Mandela A would-be Lenin who became Africa's Vaclav Havel. Prager's on-air answer was this: "The fact of the matter is, starting out as a Marxist, pro-communist, pro-soviet, and retaining very immoral views with regard to much of the world situation - He did magnificent good inside of  South Africa.  One can walk and chew gum at the same time with regard to Nelson Mandela.  Recognizing the good that he did in his own country,  he was personally a man of tremendous forgiveness, and is to be owed great credit for that living after 27 years in prison and a lousy prison experience at that... All I need you to do to understand the good he did in South Africa is to look at neighboring Zimbabwe... Where you have the massacre and torture of political opponents, where you had a currency that didn't exist, where you had endemic corruption, where you had a country rich in food and then unable to feed its own people, tremendous racism against whites.  You did not have that [in South Africa] because of Nelson Mandela. On the other hand the loyalty to people like Moammar Gaddafi, tyrants of other peoples was a terrible flaw. So, you have to compare in life people to their surroundings not to what we wish they would be..." - Dennis Prager: Dec. 09, 2013 Then Prager wisely referenced the Genesis line:  "Noah was a righteous [and unblemished] man in his generations..." ~ Gen. 6:9 And why did the verse include "in his generations"?  Because you must compare people with their time and surroundings. It is precisely because of that kind of profound insight that I call Dennis Prager "my rabbi" (though not ordained, he is the man who taught me Torah, and he is also a great teacher of life and wisdom.  Hence, the reason I called to get his opinion on Mandela.) Who among us does not wish to be judged based on our surroundings?  As I have said in other posts... CONTEXT MATTERS.  A thousand years from now, our descendants who may derive all their sustenance through some sort of synthetic process may consider us barbarous heathens, because we actually eat food that requires destruction of plant or animal to obtain.  Their judgement would be unfair, as our way of gaining nutrients is limited to the times and surroundings of our current existence. So just as you would want to be judged contextually, so we should judge others contextually. This reminds me of the arguments I heard while in college that George Washington should not be considered a great man because he owned slaves.  So what?  Slavery was a ubiquitous practice among all nations in the past.  Don't judge George Washington based on today's standards, judge him based on his surroundings.  On the contrary, it makes him all the more remarkable that in his generation he desired a nation without slaves.  In fact he was the the only southern slaveholder among the founding fathers to emancipate his slaves (Northerners, Franklin and Jay also owned slaves who they freed.)  Also, he was opposed to the institution of slavery and expressed support for the gradual abolition of slavery.  Again, compared to his surroundings Washington was a great man. To be clear I am not comparing Mandela to Washington.  Nor am I stating that if Mandela did in fact murder he should be absolved from his actions (again if he did them.)  Murder is abhorrent regardless of surroundings.  At this time it seems unclear the level of Mandela's activity (if any) in the ANC's immoral behavior. Was Mandela a righteous man by many of our standards? Perhaps not, but to consider his life out of context reflects a poor ability to judge appropriately. Was Nelson Mandela a man worthy of praise, honor, and respect considering his time and surroundings? At my current level of understanding and knowledge about the man, it would seem so.   Thoughts or arguments? Please respectfully post below. Thank you!

Twenty five episodes later... here is part two of "Equality" This time I want to focus on two related subjects. A: Does Male equal Female? B: Does Human equal Nonhuman? The impetus for this episode is from Dennis Prager.  He brought to light an article that sounded too strange to be true... But alas, once again truth is stranger than fiction. These are not phony headlines from The Onion. 'Preferred' Pronouns Gain Traction at US Colleges Click here to read full the article So can they maintain an all female school?  If so, how can they justify turning down males who feel female? Know that they are literally trying to make up words to replace well understood, and perfectly pragmatic terms.  All for the sake of their feelings.  Terms like "ze", "e", and "ou"... and even better "they" used as a singular pronoun. Notice further how they have selective definitions and understanding based on their agenda.  On the one hand, they drop "male" and "female" because it refers to a fixed biological characteristics identified as "sex", and they prefer the mutable "gender" (a seemingly undefinable term by their standards.)  But on the other hand, they require the distinction between male and female to reference their arguments, values, and beliefs.  Ultimately their identity is still a reaction to the reality of male and female differences. Either there are masculine characteristics inherint to males, or not.  Same is obviously true for feminine characteristics.  Is this primarily a human issue?  Or are there no differences between the male bird and female bird? Are there no differences between testosterone and estrogen? While the answers may seem self evident, these questions must now be taken more seriously since there is a strong movement to eradicate the notions of male and female.   Here is another headline from the Washington Post ‘M’ or ‘F’? Outdated IDs worry transgender people Click here to read the full article. How is this movement going to affect the rest of public life. Will different restrooms continue?  How can you justify male and female public restrooms?  How can you restrict an individual from going into either sex specific restricted area?  What if an individual simply feels like the sex or gender described on the door of a restroom? What about girl scout and boy scouts?  Are they going to be considered sexist and bigoted organizations guilty of immoral discrimination? How about the Catholic Church or Orthodox Judaism?  They restrict certain jobs and positions within the religion based on sex.  Will the terms "Priest" or "Nun" become terms of discrimination and bigotry? And how will this affect terms and roles such as: Husband and Wife? Father and Mother? Son and Daughter? Brother and Sister? Boyfriend and Girlfriend? Niece and Nephew? All of these are gender specific.  Therefore, they are sexist and bigoted based on the rationale of those who oppose the traditional notion that male and female are different and not interchangable. And in case you need a study to confirm what common sense suggests: The hardwired difference between male and female brains... Read more here...   I suppose God would be considered a sexist as well.  After all when He created humans it is written "male and female He created them." As I stated in a previous post: God is a seperator.  He's an organizer who seems to like everything to fit its place, and not intermingle with that which it is not. He makes clear distinctions between things and does not like to mix unless He specifically calls for it (i.e. No mixing wool and linen except for special holy garments… again more on this later.) In fact, notice that in the creation story God did not create anything on the second day. Rather He separated that which was already created… and that was it for day two!  Seperation is pretty high priority stuff for Him apparently. 6And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. As Ayn Rand (an athiest) would say: A is A. B is B. So don't confuse A with B.  This is to avoid confusion, as well as create clarity.  And in Ayn Rand's philosophy - objectivism. God created a world of order rather than chaos.  This is how science and math can exist.  There are predictable, repeatable, demonstrable proofs in our world. A is A.  B is B. A is not B. 3 is 3.  5 is 5.  3 is not 5. Imagine if randomly A was redefined and the value of 3 was constantly changing… Imagine a world of absolute chaos and uncertainty (A is B is 5 is…)  A world that exists one moment, and does not the next. So if we just refer back to the story of the creation of man (again in Genesis) we learn that God made male and female separate.  Male is male.  Female is female.  Male is not Female and vice versa.  Do not confuse the two and believe they are the same. He also states that women are not to wear the instrument of men, nor are men to wear women's garments.  Do not mix, nor confuse.  Keep things separate and distinct.  Blurring the lines of distinction between male and female (as in same-sex sexual practice, or same-sex marriage) goes against order which sustains our predictable yet dynamic universe. Now, I know some of you are saying "Wait a second… This sounds awfully bigoted.  Are you possibly implying that God could be a racist as well?  After all weren't whites forbidden from marrying outside their race?"  My answer… "Only by man made law… NEVER by God's law or in the Torah!  No where is race an issue in the Torah.  Moses (the lead human character for 4/5 of the Torah) marries outside his "race."  There is only one race referred to in the Hebrew Bible and that is the human race (adam.)   God doesn't care about anyone's skin color, He cares about your character… and teaches us to do the same.  He does however care about keeping things different when things are significantly distinct.  Male vs. female is such an example. Skin tone vs. skin tone is as significant as eye color vs. eye color.  That is to say it is insignificant." If you differ, that's fine.  Lets be clear on where we differ. God, Torah, and I believe that Male and Female are different yet remain equal in terms of value and should remain distinct, noninterchangeable sexes. You think they are the same and interchangeable (not just equal in terms of value):  Male is Female. So based on that rationale: separate toilets, separate sports teams, separate leagues and clubs, separate prisons, separate safe houses, and any other male/female separation is unnecessary and therefore wrong (due to inherent civil rights discrimination ala Jim Crowe laws).   And speaking of Rights, that brings to part B: Here is another real headline from the New York Times. Rights Group Is Seeking Status of ‘Legal Person’ for Captive Chimpanzee Read the full article here. So beyond asking, does male = female? We must also ask, does human = nonhuman? Either you believe in the distinct sanctity of human life, or you believe all life is of equal value. My positions are clear.  Only Man is created in the Divine image.  Only Man embodies the spark of the Divine.  Human life is of infinite value alone. While we should respect other life and be good stewards towards the animals that share our world.  And yes we are obligated to treat them well, and act humanely towards them in general. BUT... Humans and animals are not the same.  "Rights" pertains only to humankind. There are no "animal rights" only "human rights." If animals have rights and each life is of equal value, then will you prosecute the frog when it eats the fly?  Or convict the cat when it torments and tortures a a mouse purely for amusement? We humans alone are given the blessing and curse of freewill.  The rest of creation simply acts based on the rudimentary principles of pleasure and pain.  We alone can make moral judgements that may be painful, and yet the right thing to do. While you may think the argument that nonhuman is equal to human is an absurd one, please know there is a strong and powerful movement to turn that seemingly absurd belief into a recognized truth. From PETA's website: As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.” Read more here...   Not only do I find these notions (male=female & human=nonhuman) absurd... They are a lie.  Just as we should be outraged if schools were teaching 2 = 5 or green is red or right is left, we should be outraged at these movements to obfuscate the truth.  These are lies told with good intentions, but will never the less have terrible consequences.  History has proven this to be true.   Thanks for reading. Thank you for listening and subscribing. If you have any thoughts you'd like to share please do so below in the comment area.

Happy Thanksgiving!   What is there not to like about this holiday? To whom do you give thanks? God, family, friends, strangers, neighbors Even if atheist is the nation not better for having a day of gratitude? Why not make this more meaningful instead of less full of meaning? Its thanksgiving day, not turkey day! Why not use this day for meaningful conversations?  Instead people just mingle and rarely engage and connect.  Especially family… doesn’t mean you can’t have easy conversation, but on Thanksgiving we can dialogue about some profound subjects (gratitude, happiness, suffering, free will, luck, history)   Do you know any happy people who aren’t grateful? Do you know any unhappy people who exude gratitude?   Gratitude is a choice.  If, when, and how you express thanks is up to you!   Below I offer you three examples from our Presidents’ Thanksgiving Proclamations.  Hopefully they touch you as they have me…     From Heritage.org: Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation October 3, 1789 Introduction Following a resolution of Congress, President George Washington proclaimed Thursday the 26th of November 1789 a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer” devoted to “the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.” Reflecting American religious practice, Presidents and Congresses from the beginning of the republic have from time to time designated days of fasting and thanksgiving (the Thanksgiving holiday we continue to celebrate in November was established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and made into law by Congress in 1941).   In setting aside a day for Thanksgiving, Washington established a non-sectarian tone for these devotions and stressed political, moral, and intellectual blessings that make self-government possible, in addition to personal and national repentance. Although the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting its free exercise, Presidents, as well as Congress, have always recognized the American regard for sacred practices and beliefs. Thus, throughout American history, Presidents have offered non-sectarian prayers for the victory of the military and in the wake of catastrophes. Transcending passionate quarrels over the proper role of religion in politics, the Thanksgiving Proclamation reminds us how natural their relationship has been. While church and state are separate, religion and politics, in their American refinement, prop each other up.   Thanksgiving Proclamation Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789 By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation. Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence (divine overseeing) of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public (not just private) thanksgiving and prayer (we benefit from giving thanks and prayer), to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:” Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789. Go. Washington   From AbrahamLincolnOnline: Lincoln’s Proclamation of Thanksgiving Washington, D.C. October 3, 1863 This is the proclamation which set the precedent for America's national day of Thanksgiving. During his administration, President Lincoln issued many orders similar to this. For example, on November 28, 1861, he ordered government departments closed for a local day of thanksgiving.   Sarah Josepha Hale, a 74-year-old magazine editor, wrote a letter to Lincoln on September 28, 1863, urging him to have the "day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival." She explained, "You may have observed that, for some years past, there has been an increasing interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on the same day, in all the States; it now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution."   Prior to this, each state scheduled its own Thanksgiving holiday at different times, mainly in New England and other Northern states. President Lincoln responded to Mrs. Hale's request immediately, unlike several of his predecessors, who ignored her petitions altogether. In her letter to Lincoln she mentioned that she had been advocating a national thanksgiving date for 15 years as the editor of Godey's Lady's Book. George Washington was the first president to proclaim a day of thanksgiving, issuing his request on October 3, 1789, exactly 74 years before Lincoln's.   The document below sets apart the last Thursday of November "as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise." According to an April 1, 1864, letter from John Nicolay, one of President Lincoln's secretaries, this document was written by Secretary of State William Seward, and the original was in his handwriting. On October 3, 1863, fellow Cabinet member Gideon Welles recorded in his diary how he complimented Seward on his work. A year later the manuscript was sold to benefit Union troops.   By the President of the United States of America. A Proclamation. The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart (ie. make holy) and observe (act different) the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth. By the President: Abraham Lincoln William H. Seward,
Secretary of State   From the American President Project: • John F. Kennedy Proclamation 3438 - Thanksgiving Day, 1961 October 28, 1961 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation "It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord."   More than three centuries ago, the Pilgrims, after a year of hardship and peril, humbly and reverently set aside a special day upon which to give thanks to God for their preservation and for the good harvest from the virgin soil upon which they had labored. Grave and unknown dangers remained. Yet by their faith and by their toil they had survived the rigors of the harsh New England winter. Hence they paused in their labors to give thanks for the blessings that had been bestowed upon them by Divine Providence.   This year, as the harvest draws near its close and the year approaches its end, awesome perils again remain to be faced. Yet we have, as in the past, ample reason to be thankful for the abundance of our blessings. We are grateful for the blessings of faith and health and strength and for the imperishable spiritual gifts of love and hope. We give thanks, too, for our freedom as a nation; for the strength of our arms and the faith of our friends; for the beliefs and confidence we share; for our determination to stand firmly for what we believe to be right and to resist mightily what we believe to be base; and for the heritage of liberty bequeathed by our ancestors which we are privileged to preserve for our children and our children's children.   It is right that we should be grateful for the plenty amidst which we live; the productivity of our farms, the output of our factories, the skill of our artisans, and the ingenuity of our investors. But in the midst of our thanksgiving, let us not be unmindful of the plight of those in many parts of the world to whom hunger is no stranger and the plight of those millions more who live without the blessings of liberty and freedom. With some we are able to share our material abundance through our Food-for-Peace Program and through our support of the United Nations Freedom-from-Hunger Campaign. To all we can offer the sustenance of hope that we shall not fail in our unceasing efforts to make this a peaceful and prosperous world for all mankind.   Now, Therefore, I, John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America, in consonance with the joint resolution of Congress approved December 26, 1941, which designates the fourth Thursday in November of each year as Thanksgiving Day, do hereby proclaim Thursday, the twenty-third day of November of this year, as a day of national thanksgiving.   I urge all citizens to make this Thanksgiving not merely a holiday from their labors, but rather a day of contemplation. I ask the head of each family to recount to his children the story of the first New England Thanksgiving, thus to impress upon future generations the heritage of this nation born in toil, in danger, in purpose, and in the conviction that right and justice and freedom can through man's efforts persevere and come to fruition with the blessing of God.   Let us observe this day with reverence and with prayer that will rekindle in us the will and show us the way not only to preserve our blessings, but also to extend them to the four corners of the earth. Let us by our example, as well as by our material aid, assist all peoples of all nations who are striving to achieve a better life in freedom.   In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.   DONE at the City of Washington this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-sixth.