From Zero to Sixty...

I'm not sure if it's meaningful to write about turning sixty, but since I am rapidly approaching that day I'm giving it some thought for the hell of it. After all, this is a time when everyone seems concerned about their legacy—Bush and Rumsfeld for example, and both are trying to rewrite history to attain a favorable view.
Alas, I don't have the luxury of living in the public eye. My secrets stay where they've been since they entered closet or can.

Of course, we're familiar with seeing our lives in terms of milestones: first steps, first date, first car, first war, whatever... After a while there aren't that many "firsts" anymore, as the initial excitement about fulfilling a life's promise turns to family, duty, work, honing one's skills, surviving tax time, etc., before life's last stages become too dilapidating to attribute any glorious accolades to.
"He remained sharp until the end," may be the best one can hope for.

However, right this moment it appears that sixty is a sweet spot from where one should be able to cast a mild glance backwards while at the same time eyeing the future without the kind of anxiety I felt for example at sixteen, when turning 21 equaled entering the promised land.
At sixty, being alive (something my father did not accomplish) is a success in itself from a very basic viewpoint. So far, so good. I'm breathing for all that it's worth. But there's still a road ahead, even if it's generally not regarded as long or promising as the one already traveled.
Yet, sixty isn't the beginning of the end, unless you believe it is.
To me, the number is representing an opportunity to take the pulse of my life. Life has to be about something. But everything, be they people, things, jobs, or money—to name a few—are elements outside of myself and prone to influences over which I can only pretend to have control.

I guess, what counts the most is, what have I learned, if anything?

Learning is an awkward process. It's based on failures and on finding ways to overcome them. As such it took me the greater part of my life to begin to appreciate failure as an indicator of progress. I've tormented myself on occasions, wallowed in regrets when things didn't turn out as I had hoped. And every time hindsight taught me that it had been for the better. That there were important lessons harvested from failure. Mistakes are a must and we should understand that, but few do in our reward-and-punish society. Without mistakes there's no analysis, no change of plan, no new direction. No improvement.

So, at sixty I can safely acknowledge that I've become pretty good a failing.
However, to avoid becoming too good at it I had to come up with a remedy. Finally I pondered upon a simple slogan which for me sums it up perfectly: Every decision, one of vision.

It sounds simple, but like all mantras just mumbling it is not enough. It takes effort to formulate a vision, but when it's decision time at least you have a tool in hand to measure its validity.
Making every decision one of vision is helping me understand where I'm going and it can even be the mechanism that helps me get there as I no longer have to concern myself with extraneous aspects and influences that lead me astray.
Unfortunately, I was only able to formulate this vehicle for my every day judgments a few years ago. Still, long enough to test it. I'd say that's my #1 insight.

Another thing I've been working on is a possible solution for a problem that we all seem to have: horrible time management. I don't mean the schedule you keep if you work for a boss. I'm talking about dividing your time between catching up with your tasks and accomplishing your goals.
I've noticed that we usually spend most of our time in the past, catching up with yesterdays' tasks, then put off accomplishing our goals because we've run out of time, energy, or are too drunk, to be motivated. We may even think that we've actually accomplished something. If you work for a boss that may be true, but you've done it in the service of another person or institution. You may not have helped accomplish anything for yourself. For that reason I'm a big proponent of building your own business, as it's all about tomorrow.

Now, it's not easy to start the day with dedicating time to your lofty ideals when you have pressing tasks waiting, but without allotting substantial time to realizing your dreams they will remain just that: dreams.
Contrary to popular belief, dreams are hard work. They need consistent attention if they are to become reality. To that end I try to dedicate a portion of my productive hours every day to accomplishing my goals.
Big deal, you may say, but until it entered my consciousness my activities were all over the place. Keep in mind that if you expect your dream to come true 100% that you probably can't accomplish that by dedicating 10% of your time to it. Still, 10% is better than nothing.
If I had to formulate my fantastic insight #2, it would sound something like this: Spend every day x% of your productive time catching up with ongoing tasks, then spend x% on accomplishing goals. Currently I am at 60/40 with my time. My aim is to switch those numbers around. If I can, that means I'm spending more time in the present than in the past.

Now, surely I must've learned something more in sixty years than that, and I have, so if you want more, here's #3:

"Always keep people wanting more."

In reaction to "George Bush's new-fangled (liberal) Faith"

Today I stumbled over Paul Raushenbush's post at Beliefnet's Progressive Revival blog, titled "George Bush's (liberal) Faith."
In it Raushenbush (what's in a name...) states that in his opinion George Bush revealed that his approach to the bible, evolution and to other religions has more in common with liberal protestants than with his fundamentalist political amen corner, as was "made clear" in what he calls "a surprising ABC Nightline interview on Monday."

When asked if he thought the bible was literally true Bush answered: "You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'"

When asked if he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs Bush said: "I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"

And when asked about creation and evolution Bush answered: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

Raushenbush elatedly wrote: "Check, check, check, - Oh, my God, George Bush and I have have the same world view!!!"

Holy Schmoly! Along with Pat Robertson, Michelle Malkin, Karl Rove, Shaun Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and other faux Christians forever trumpeting their smallish, boorish, hypocrite ideas about family, abortion, gays, and God, Raushenbush too can't live with the fact that Bush's set of religious values have nearly destroyed the economy, democracy, the environment, plus the lives of thousands of US soldiers and their families and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens in New Orleans, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He's leaving behind America as a severely broken and bankrupt stinking shit-hole on a hill—to paraphrase Reagan.

These are some of the reasons religious Americans voted for Obama, risking their Christian and Republican souls for some liberal ointment, perhaps seeing in Obama the Messiah they're always hoping for to put an end to thievery, greed, bribery, adultery, and all those other character traits Republican politicians and evangelical leaders are regularly being indicted for. Throughout history there have been terrible leaders and Bush's name can easily be added to a list that includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Idi Amin, and Mao Tse Tung, if only for alienating a very large segment of the nation and making the world a more dangerous place by being a poster boy for terrorist recruitment.

To Raushenbush that doesn't seem to matter as he continues with, "George Bush was trusted by a large segment of the Christian population because he publicly articulated a profound personal experience of God through Jesus Christ. This interview reveals that someone can have an authentic religious experience without the burdens of Biblical literalism, anti-science suspicions and Christian triumphalism."

That's it? Nothing about how that trust was betrayed? Rather, elation about the fact that in the end George The Merciless's religious experience was "profound." Is this guy for real? Who gives a flying fuck that Hitler went to church? Is that the religious right's ultimate standard by which a man's or woman's character is judged? Oh, I forgot, judging's up to the Almighty... Yet, I've never felt so judged by Republicans, even those among my friends, who project as much disdain as they can into uttering the label "Liberal" as during the last eight years (in which not a single Democrat was appointed by Bush and instead were singled out and ejected from many government posts, only to be replaced by Republican yes men and women—an action not unlike Hitler's reinheit-drive to rid Germany of the "impure").

But Raushenbush appears oblivious of any historical context and ultimately loses me when he states, "Contrary to popular belief, George Bush is no dummy," after first quoting the three above-referenced horrible, awkwardly-worded attempts by George The Theologist at forming complete sentences to do with his "faith." Raushenbush's jubilation at holding the same world view as George The Unrepentable (who at the end of his reign has begun appearing on TV in sheepskin, maybe hoping to erase all our negative memories) only shows what little evidence he needs to feel comforted by all those that engage in, support, vote for, and generally embrace discrimination, war, killing, and walk lock-step with the big corporations that control politics and thus our lives. No matter what myopic worldview George The Blind Bat has, Raushenbush, by comparing Bush to himself only gives validity to the idea that one does not have to be smart to be elected president if there are enough others lacking intelligence. Sadly, there are plenty and for 8 long years George The Decider was their Über-Dummy.

If the idea of an Almighty as one with sensibilities and reason was what many saw reflected in George Bush I'd proffer that as a mighty insult to the Almighty. As a result of having our own Gang of Four at the helm (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove) we have witnessed quite the opposite of everything commonly attributed to Jesus's teachings, and still Raushenbush goes back to crawl up the apparently cozy rectum of George The Warmonger who sarcastically (others might say "humbly") stated in his ABC interview that he's "just a simple president."
Sure. Someone you'd like to have a beer with. The Other Son of God. The Man with a Mission who wanted to be a Uniter but became a Divider by seeing himself as The Decider. The Chosen One who'd set the world straight on the path to Armageddon.

To his credit, Raushenbush finally had me laughing when he revealed himself as totally inadequate to grasp what the elections had wrought by saying, "Hopefully other political and religious figures on the right will follow suit. Governor Huckabee?"

Raushenbush, dude, the religious right got it royally wrong, and that includes that has-been Huckabee who'd sent gays straight to hell if he could! Except for you, no one's waiting for the televised remodeling of the collapsed Republican and religious right wedding cake. Certainly not redressed with some liberal sauce du jour. America finally woke up and grabbed power from the greedy grubby Republican and religious right dead-wrong hands. We're no longer interested in their or your misguided, juxtaposed, miserable, and entirely backward world views.

About Religion
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bush's Environmental Chief: There's "Not A Clean-Cut Division" Between Religion And Science

First, I'd say, consider the source. However, as these statements are dispensed as official news it pays to post a retort.
Ask yourself, if everything we know to be scientifically true today could fit in a book, would you not reference it like a good Christian does the Bible?

Now ask yourself, if someone today published a book based on quasi-historical assumptions, unexplainable events, would you suspend your disbelief and start trying to convince others that everything in the book is true, or would you label it entertainment or sci-fi?

There's no proof that burning bushes and snakes can talk, that seas can part or that anyone can walk on water (except maybe Chris Angel, a renowned trickster). So, what would happen today to anyone seriously claiming witness to such incredible incidents? What would happen if a long-awaited Messiah returned and had to resort to what may appear to many as illusions to convince us of his godly status?

You can belief anything you want, but it only proves you're gullible (I don't want to use stronger words) and lack the mental capacity to figure things out by using your rationale. We just had 8 years of that and it lead to nothing, and certainly not compassion, but rather near-totalianarism and gut-wrenching ineptness.

People have believed in the unexplained for thousands of years. I can't predict the future, but at some point I fathom science will have explained nearly everything, including why some people rationally insist on the irrational... To me, though, that just goes over my head.

About Religion
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost