October 2008 Archives

There's a ballot measure that people will vote on Tuesday in San Francisco that would decriminalize prostituion, did you know that? What do you think of that?

Evelyn Nieves of the Associated Press wrote a story about this a week or so ago, and I must admit, I hadn't heard about this initiative until them. Her lead paragraph in that story says...

SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 21) - In this live-and-let-live town, where medical marijuana clubs do business next to grocery stores and an annual fair celebrates sadomasochism, prostitutes could soon walk the streets without fear of arrest. San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K -- a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, Nieves explains in her story, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes. "Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes," she reports.

The measure is opposed by nearly everyone in the city's political establishment, Ms. Nieves says. But it does bring up an interesting question. Should government regulate human sexual behavior (other than obvious laws against child abuse or rape)?

A person can already buy sex without fear of arrest in two states. Brothels exist everywhere in rural counties in Nevada. And -- did you know this? -- Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels, the AP story says.

And it's not as if prostitution is new to San Francisco. You can find "ladies of the night" on many streets in that city at any given time. The Mission District is rife with them -- one recent check by Nieves found six woman plying their trade on one block.

Anyone who has done even a little traveling in Europe surely must know that prostitution is entirely level and very much out in the open in The Netherelands -- particularly in Amsterdam, which is famous for its Red Light District. So, too, for that matter, are drugs legal there. You can walk into a storefront shop and pick up all the marijuana you want, like buying cigarettes in America.

I haven't seen a great deal of evidence that this kind of tolerance has created crime problems in Amsterdam (I have been to that city often in the past 13 years and know people who live there). On the contrary, it has reduced street crime tremendously. Do you think the same thing would happen in San Francisco? Is it time for us to stop legislating morality? Or is there a good reason for society to make prostitution illegal -- a reason not seen or grasped by the good citizens of Holland?

What do you think?

Is there any place for the idea of "Oneness" in our political system -- or in any other human system, for that matter?

On October 28 the reader posting here as "SheerLuckHolmes" added the entry below to the Comments Section of this blog, in response to my question here about why there is such a Great Divide in America today. I love this Comment entry, and I wanted to interact with "SheerLuckHolmes" on this today...My remarks are in italic.

Neale...Your book series, CWG, pretty much makes this clear. There is so much "this vs. that", et. al., because the basic belief system held tightly by humanity in separateness. The greatest majority currently on the planet have no doubt what-so-ever that we are separate from God and separate from every other person on the planet. With this belief system coloring all the thought patterns, speech & behaviors, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to come to any agreements for getting along with each other.

I agree with you in large measure. However, I am wondering if we can at least learn to disagree agreeably while we are waiting for all of us to "get" that "we are all One." By the way, "we are all One" does NOT mean "we are all the Same." Yet it is as CwG says...contrast does not have to produce conflict, nor difference create division.
The answer for humanity is not for us to become Identical, but to remain Individual. Yet Individual does not have to mean Indecipherable or Indistinguishable. We are all Individuated Aspects of The Divine, yet the great wonder of The Divine is that It can make Itself manifest in a million-billion-ka-jillion different ways and forms.

So I am not sure that a thought pattern of separateness makes it "difficult, if not impossible, to come to any agreements for getting along with each other." I think that we CAN come to such agreements before we come to mutual understandings of our Oneness and mutual acceptance of our basic Single Large Identity.

People with the wealth of Warren Buffett make a stock buy of a billion dollars and the 'average man' finds that amount of wealth hard to conceptualize. Then that common man learns that this billion dollars is less than 5% of Mr. Buffett's entire wealth and it is off the charts incomprehensible.

You mention the Democratic candidate's plan to "redistribute the wealth." Others say that is moving toward socialism, still others say it is moving toward fairness. Socialism has been tried before and failed. Capitalism has and is being tried before and is currently failing. All the other 'ism's have been tried and failed. What hasn't been tried yet is any system where the motivating belief is truly 'we are all one'.

Here I agree with you completely. I am now urging humanity to consider embracing a New Cosmology. That is, a new way of looking at all of life, which can produce a new way of experiencing it. This would include, of course, a new way of experiencing our economies; a whole new financial system; an entirely new commerce.

1. Who are we?
2. Where are we?
3. Why are we where we are?
4. What are we doing?

A much quoted statement of Jesus is something like, it would be easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This does not mean that it is "bad" to be rich, or that rich people cannot get into heaven. What it means is that riches create great temporal temptations that can make it very difficult for the average person to keep his eye on the Main Chance. Wealthy people can more easily, one presumes, get "caught up" in the wonders of physicalization - to the point where all focus on the True Intent of the Soul is lost.

I belief this is because, after a certain point, true wealth becomes just numbers and, more importantly, power. And that power is always power over others. This is a demonstration of separation, in this case the power of the wealthy over the unwealthy.

Yes, agreed. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Do you think any 'wealthy' person on earth would give up their wealth so that every person on the planet could be given an equal amount? Do you think either McCain or Obama would give up all of their money and accept a check for equal the amount that every other person on the planet would get also? The belief system of us vs. them is just too strong.

No, nor would I. Yet that is not the requirement of Oneness. The Unity of All That Is does not require All That Is to be Equal in All Of Its Manifestations. In fact, such Equality would defeat the entire purpose of physical life, which is to create relativity, and thus, contrast. So let us no confuse "Oneness" with "Identicality" or "Equality." No one would argue for a single moment that every person on the planet be paid the exact same amount of money, no matter what they did for a living. That would not be Oneness, that would be insanity. It would also rob the species of much of its incentive.

The wonder of life is Choice. It is the gift given to all of us. Religion calls this Free Will. When Choice is taken away from us, either directly or as a result of a system that simply robs us of it (as do some political systems and some economic systems and some social systems in our world), then Separateness rears its ugly head. Then we experience not only "difference," but "division." It is THEN, SheerLuck, that "The belief system of us vs. them is just too strong." So what we need is a changed orthodoxy. A different cultural story. A New Cosmology.

This change is not going to happen over night, nor is it gong to happen over the next four years, regardless of who wins.

I agree. But I can get a tremendous kick-start if we elect Barack Obama as president of the United States, I believe.

It is going to take another generation, starting right now with each person who sees the value of 'we are all one'.

Mr. Obama does - and has said as much.

As each individual starts changing their thoughts, words and deeds to live their spirituality of oneness with others, things will change.

Indeed.

I challenge each person reading this blog to examine their thoughts, words and deeds today. Can you give examples of how you are LIVING your spirituality on a daily basis to treat every other person you deal with as yourself?

Wow. Now this I totally "get." This was a great challenge, SheerLuck. This was a great challenge to place before us. Terrific. Exactly on point.

I was once asked by a teacher of mine, "If you were brought to trial today and prosecuted for being a person of spirituality; would you be convicted by an overwhelming amount of evidence?" So I ask you, the reader, would you be convicted?

I am certain that I would be found innocent, by reason of insanity. No one would ever accuse me of being a person of spirituality. Not if they observed my behaviors for even one day. No, I would stand innocent on that charge. But I would be innocent by reason of insanity. It is insane for me to experience and express myself as NOT being a "person of spirituality."

So, SheerLuck, I am going to take you up on your challenge. I am going to do my darndest to treat every other person I deal with as I would want to be treated. It all gets back to something quite simple: The Golden Rule.

= = = = = = = =
On another note...CNN yesterday asked the following poll question on its news site: Which presidential candidate do you think would best help improve America's image abroad?

Can you guess the results?

Here they are...

John McCain 14%
Barack Obama 86%

Big surprise.

All over Europe people are overwhelmingly in support of one of our presidential candidate's. Can you guess which one it is? Why is this such a no-brainer? If it is obvious to you who everyone else in the world supports, why isn't it obvious to half of America who we should support???

I am in Paris as I write this, and I have been traveling all over Europe these past six weeks carrying the message of Conversations with God to audiences in England, Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland and Denmark...and I can tell you that people here are desperately hoping that Barack Obama will become the next U.S. President.

I had lunch today with a professor in Paris who said he'd heard on French television this morning that a poll taken here yesterday showed that Obama had the support of 95% of respondents.

Ninety-five percent.

How can people all over the world (the majority of people in all but a handful of countries favor Obama) see something so clearly, see so plainly that Obama is the best choice for the world right now, while America apparently still remains so divided? Could it be because folks away from the U.S. are looking at issues, while so many of the folks at home are worried about "values" issues?

But let's look at this idea of raising taxes for people making more than $250,000 a year, while lowering taxes for the other 95% of Americans, as Sen. Obama wants to do. Some critics of this idea call it "socialism" and criticize it as "redistributing the weath."

Well, let me ask you something. Did you know that in 1974 the highest paid executives in American made something like 20 times more than the workers they employed? And did you know that today they make 200 times more?

Did you know that?

Is there anything wrong with us creating taxing policies that no longer continue to favor the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor? Does that seem so immoral and "un-American" to you?

Is there something wrong with us saying, "Hey, you big tycoons have made enough money off of the middle class and the poor by giving them easy-money loans that you knew they can never completely pay off because it cost so much to finance them."

Those money people are no better than the old Company Store, to which the miners owed their soul. They're no better than the pawn shops that pay a pittance for family heirlooms and personal treasures because they know the folks who carry them into the shop, lovingly wrapped in paper or soft cloth, need whatever money they can get, desperately.

"You hypcrites! You brood of vipers!" one man once said, long, long ago. I believe he was speaking alternatively of the Pharisees and to money-changers in the Temple.

And one more note...John McCain the other day defended Sarah Palin's wardrobe purchases by the Republican National Committee by saying that Governor Palin was a woman of modest means and of modest lifestyle who did not know she was going to be thrust into the global spotlight in a national campaign. His implication: Of course it was appropriate for the RNC to make some wardrobe purchases for her.

And you know what? I would agree, if those purchases had been modest - or even immodest, but at least reasonable. Say, something like ten grand worth of clothing. Or, heck, even twenty grand. But one hundred and fifty thousand dollars???

I suppose to a man who has, by his own admission, 13 cars and 8 houses, that does not seem like a great deal for a few outfits to wear during the few weeks until the election day (the campaign says the plan all along was to contribute all of the clothes to a charity--unnamed--after the election), but to the average person....shall we say, to Joe Six Pack or Joe the Plumber, 150 C-notes seems like a lot of moola for mu-mu's. I mean, people buy houses with that...

It feels like it's becoming the same tug-of-war in every election. Are you noticing this? Are you wondering, as I am, how it has come down to this these past 10 years or so?

It's the urban vote vs. the rural vote. The upper income vs. the lower income. The more educated vs. the less educated. The "elitists" vs. the "real Americans." The liberals vs. the conservatives. The theorists vs. the fundamentalists. The "issues" voters vs. the "values" voters. The Joe Six-Pack's vs. the Wine-and-Cheeser's. The "Books-and-Ballet" crowd vs. the "Guns-and-God" crowd. And now, increasingly, so some say...the "traitors" vs. the "patriots."

Is there a reason why the lower-income, less-educated, "Joe-Six-Pack's" find it so easy to support Sarah Palin, and say they could easily see her as President of the United States, while the upper-income, more-educated, Wine-and-Cheeser's find it incomprehensible that anyone could think that Ms. Palin, nice person that she is, is ready to lead the most powerful nation on earth?

Is there a reason why the "Guns-and-God Crowd" and the "values" voters chant "Drill, baby, drill" and support a man who sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" to the tune of an old Beach Boys song, while the "Books-and-Ballet Crowd" and the "issues" voters find it incomprehensible that anyone could think that more raping of the earth and more dropping of bombs will solve anything?

Is there a reason why the majority of voters in most rural areas and middle states cast their ballots based on a candidate's stance on whether a woman can have an abortion or not and whether a man can own a gun or not, while the majority of voters in most urban areas and coastal states find it incomprehensible that everyone isn't casting their ballots based on a candidate's stance on saving the earth by protecting its environment, and on sharing more with the millions who have little by asking more from the little who have millions?

Does any know what the reason might be? What do you think? I'm curious...

P.S. Listen...I know this is unfair, but I want to print here, as a post-script, one of the Comments posted below in the first few hours of this entry's appearance. It is from a person posting as "Elaine," and it was so interesting and such a stimulating comment that I wanted to make sure none of you missed it. So here it is, clipped and copied and pasted right in here. You'll also find it below, of course, but, as I said, I did not want you to miss this one...because it so vividly illustrates exactly what I'm talking about above...

October 28, 2008 12:17 PM

Hey Neale,

In my opinion, I think it's because we've become a more polarized society in the last 25 years. And after 9/11, more and more people seem comfortable with extremes. It's easy to be "right" by flocking to what they believe is right; it's easy to avoid "wrong" because it is so obviously not "right" that they don't have to face the "gray" in the black and white world they want to live in.

I'm sure, like everything, there are people in metro areas who also vote for reasons you describe rural areas vote, and vice versa. But I still think the whole country could use a zap of bipolar meds, because we seem more and more divided.

This only reminds me of the church I grew up in (not the best experience...in today's society it could be considered a cult). The leaders never encouraged thinking for ourselves, deciding for ourselves. Anything not proclaiming God's name at every turn became "sin" and everything which mentioned God became "acceptable."

I kid you not when I tell you that church women got into arguments over which laundry detergent to use, because one detergent "washes away stains like the Holy Lord washes away our sins" and therefore, brand A is better than brand B. If you use brand B, you go to hell.

Therefore, it became easy because people didn't have to go through the effort of thinking, discerning, deciding. Someone said "all rock music is sinful. Listen to it and you'll go to hell." This solves the problem of discussing it, trying to determine what might have a good message versus a not-so-productive one. Someone decided that it was a sin to have a non-Christian cut your hair, and we should support the local hair cuttery where Christians worked. Guess what? Those people couldn't cut hair to save their lives! The rebellious me went to a gay man across town because guess what? He was better at his job.

But it takes more effort to think for yourself, decide for yourself, than to just "buy into" much of the stuff being said by certain VP candidates who shoot wolves from the air! (Yeah, don't get me started on that one...)

Will be interesting to hear others' opinions too...

Elaine

It's pretty bad when the biggest newspaper in your own home state won't endorse you. I mean, that's pretty bad.

The Anchorage Daily News (http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567867.html) has endorsed Barack Obama for president -- and said some pretty straightforward, tough things about Alaska's own governor in the process.

Now I know already that die-hard Sarah Palin supporters will say the same old tired things..."It's all about the left-wing media...", etc., etc. -- but thoughtful, undecided voters may want to listen to what the largest newspaper in the vice presidential candidate's own state has to say on this subject...

Said the Daily News...

"Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain."

The paper then goes on to offer some extraordinary insights into the two men at the top of their party's tickets. I think you should read this...

"Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

"Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered."

Yet what about the biggest issue of all...who can bring true newness to Washington? Is it the "maverick" team of McCain/Palin, or the "change" team of Obama/Biden?

Here is Alaskan newspaper was equally clear. Said the Daily News:

"Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

"It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove."

And what about the Iraq War issue? Surely Sen. McCain gets higher marks than Obama on that, right? I mean, isn't John McCain the one who all the Republicans say is better able to lead this country out of the Iraq debacle?

Let's see what the Daily News feels about this...

"And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions.
Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it." (Boldface mine.)

The paper pointed out that "It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead."

And now, on the subject of its state's own Governor, the Anchorage Daily News offers us this insight...

"Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.

"Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range.

"Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time." (Once again, boldface mine.)

Well, that's certainly telling it like it is...yes? If your own hometown newspaper can't support you, what does that say? Is that a wake-up call, or what??? I mean, I ask again...does anyone seriously think that the hockey mom dressed in $150,000 worth of new clothes paid for by small contributions to the Republican National Committee by people like Joe the Plumber is really and truly ready run the most powerful nation on earth? Or, let me put it this way....would YOU be? If YOU had to step into the presidency tomorrow, would you feel ready to lead this nation through the thicket of world political, financial, and military problems? Be honest. Would you? Or would you feel just a little....JUST a LITTLE...overwhelmed?

And if your honest answer is yes...well, there's goes your theory that Sarah Palin would make a fine, fine president because she's "one of us."

Um....don't we need just a little bit more than the mayor of a small town who at the time of her selection had been governor of a state with fewer residents than Los Angeles for 18 months?

C'mon. Be honest now. Gee, this isn't rocket science here. Everyone in the country is becoming more and more clear...even the majority of the country's top conservative columnists...that Sarah Palin is just plain and simply not qualified to be president. And as former Secretary of State Colin Powell said....THAT is the job of the vice president. The vice president does NOT "run the Senate," as Ms. Palin erroneously announced the other day...

Gee whiz. I mean, c'mon...