Robert F. Kennedy talks eloquently about how the media has failed democracy (click HERE to view video). But has an apathetic democracy also failed the media, by consistently undervaluing it and failing to protect it? I guess it's a question of the chicken or the egg.
After he married, 31-year old Michael Bijon wanted to use his wife's last name, but found that though it was a relatively simple process for a married woman to adopt her husband's last name, with the roles reversed, he would be subject to an entirely different process involving a $350 fee, a court appearance, a public announcement, and a whole pile of paperwork.
After getting stuck in a mountain of red tape, Michael and his wife Diana Bijon called on the California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union for a little help with their problem. Following their successful lawsuit, California changed its laws, making it possible for married couples and domestic partners to put their preferred name on marriage and DMV paperwork, irrespective of sex.
This is certainly a change that's long overdue. To quote the ACLU's SoCal legal director, Mark Rosenbaum, "This disposes of the rule in California that the male surname is the marital name to the same trash bin where dowries were once tossed out."
As a writer, I'd used a pen name for almost a decade before I got married, so changing my name after my husband and I tied the knot just didn't make sense. Being a feminist, it also rankled that it was the woman who was asked to sacrifice part of her identity, unnecessarily, and by default.
I've been married now for the better part of a decade, and find the seemingly old-fashioned attitudes and expectations of people and institutions with regards to my surname choice quite bemusing. Much of my family still insists on calling me Mrs. X on correspondence. They know full well that I never changed my name, in part to make a point. I also use Ms. rather Mrs., since I think that the change in courtesy title according to marital status, which is another women only thing, is also anachronistic. I figure that those who persistently call me Mrs. X are making a point of their own about the traditional values to which I refuse to subscribe.
Personally, I've always liked the double-barreled option, which literally brings both sides together with a new family name. Michael and Diana Bijan could have gone this route without a change in the law, but in their case, Michael felt far closer to his wife's father, which is why he wanted to use her last name only. For me, the double-barreled choice didn’t make sense, since my name was also my trademark (and our names joined with a hyphen sounded a little too convoluted).
The current humorous Hollywood fashion for combining names (as in TomKat and Brangelina) actually seems rather sensible to me. If John Mayer marries Jennifer Aniston, they could go by the name Mayerston or Anistayer. Similarly, if George Clooney ever decides to get hitched to Sarah Larson, they have an option of adopting Larsooney or Cloonson as their new mutual family name. At least it'd make for a plethora of interesting new hybrid names (though probably some unfortunate ones too, what if Helen Hunt marries Cameron Crowe?).
Then again, I like that other Hollywood tradition of getting married and keeping the name people actually know you by. That option certainly made the most sense to me. What do you think?
We may want to consider re-writing the old adage “you can never have too many friends,” especially when in comes to social networking websites. This short video clip from British comedy group Idiots of Ants highlights the many perils of online friendships on services such as MySpace and Facebook.
Having said that, we’ve yet to meet a Daily Mantra reader we didn’t like (though that could change). If you’d like to become our friend, you can hit us up on both MySpace and Facebook.
If player fails to load, click HERE to view video.
In a year when womens' pay has actually gone down relative to men’s, John McCain voted against the Equal Pay bill, which was killed in the senate on Wednesday night. To add insult to injury, he said that what women really needed was “education and training." Tell that to the many woman with strings of letters after their names, that are still getting paid less than their equally, or lesser qualified male counterparts for similar work.
On the up side, listen to Chelsea Clinton's incredibly erudite thoughts on the subject, which she gave in an off-the-cuff response to a tough audience question during an Open Thread campaign appearance in support of her mom at Duke University. Has Hillary sold-out her feminist principles? McCain has certainly sold out his (that's if he ever had any in the first place.) Given the values Hillary’s obviously instilled in her daughter, we think her feminist heart is in the right place.
Real Time host Bill Maher called the Roman Catholic Church "the Bear Stearns of Pedophilia," in the New Rules section of the latest episode of his HBO show (click HERE to view). "If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you Pope. It's like if you can't pay your mortgage, you're a deadbeat, but if you can't pay a million mortgages you're Bear Stearns, and we bail you out."
Certainly, it does seem to be a question of volume. To misquote Joseph Stalin, "one case of child abuse is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." After all, it's hard to explain why the Yearning for Zion Ranch in the Texas was raided, and its leaders arrested for child abuse, while Pope Benedict XVI is set to receive the red carpet treatment on his forthcoming trip to the U.S. .
During a BBC special investigation for the documentary series Panorama, reporters revealed the existence of an updated version of the 1962 document Crimen Sollicitationis (Latin for "The Crime of Solicitation"), which was authored by Pope Benedict XVI in 2001 while he was working under the former Pope John Paul II. In the missive, the then Cardinal, ordered bishops to put the interests of the church above those of the victims, and demanded that they keep quiet about the abuse under threat of excommunication.
In addition, under his policy of "Exclusive Competence," all abuse issues were to be handled directly by Rome, which dealt with the issue by systematically shuffling known perpetrators to fresh dioceses. This means the buck directly stopped at the Pontiff's office. Yet still, we're rolling out the red carpet rather than getting our handcuffs ready.
The Daily Mantra has very mixed feelings about the Beijing Olympic Games. One the one hand, we of course want to support the Tibetan people, and register our displeasure at the atrocious human rights record of the Chinese Government (and are aware that right now, sadly, America is not in a position to cast the first stone in that department). On the other hand, this is a sporting event that should transcend politics in order to celebrate international cooperation and human achievement at its finest.
The Olympic torch's troubled trip around the globe perhaps highlights that fact that the world's trouble spots are the very places that can benefit most from the global spotlight that follows such sporting events. Certainly, we very much hope that the current overwhelming international condemnation of China, that the torch is serving as a catalyst for, will at least result in some benefit for those oppressed by the communist state.
The issue is not an easy one. We certainly can't let China off the hook, simply so everyone can have a jolly good time at the games. Nor do we want to back China into the kind of corner where their only face-saving response will be harsher repression and greater isolation. It is therefore a question of balance, and of the delicate application of both the carrot and the stick.
The need for a little of the ying along with the yang when approaching the issue of China came into focus for me on a recent visit to New York's Guggenheim Museum, which is hosting a major retrospective on the work of Cai Guo-Qiang, a Chinese artist who has been bestowed with the prestigious job of creating a fireworks spectacular for the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.
Cai Guo-Qiang, an artist who works in video, and on paper and canvas with gunpowder, has had an interesting relationship with his motherland. Both Cai and China have suffered at each other's hand, but ultimately, in choosing to persevere with their relationship, despite its difficulties, everyone has benefited.
Cai was born in 1957 in Quanzhou City, China. His father, who was also an artist, ran a bookstore favored by the party elite. With access to a little privilege, he was able to slip his son the odd forbidden book, such as the iconic Death of a Salesman and Waiting for Godot. Cai moved to Tokyo to study in 1986, and, after the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, remained in self-imposed exile in Japan until 1995, when he moved to New York.
In 1999 he attracted the wrath of the Chinese government thanks to his ironic recreation of a famous Maoist work of art, the Rent Collection Courtyard, which celebrates the "People's Revolution" by reminding the viewer of the cruelty of the pre-revolution overlords. A copyright lawsuit ensued, but was subsequently dropped. The artwork also earned Cai the Golden Lion Award at the 48th Venice Biennale for which it was created.
Moving to the West and creating the artistic equivalent of a red flag to China's bull aren't the best ways to court favor with the Communist Party there. But Cai's international fame and success proved to be an irresistible carrot, and he was invited back to China and honored with a solo show at the Shanghai Art Museum in 2002. The show was the first solo exhibition for a contemporary artist in China, and created new opportunities for the nation's growing stable of modern artists.
Of course Cai could have chosen to stay away. To punish China with a personal boycott. But that is not in his nature, or true to his work, which he sees in social terms as a means to break down boundaries and unite people. Such themes are intrinsic to his work. For example, an ancient fishing boat resurrected from the sea, which is filled with shards of the white porcelain it might once have been used to transport, is always installed with the help of the Japanese villagers who originally helped Cai raise it from its watery grave (a team traveled from Japan to New York for the Guggenheim show).
In another conceptual piece yet to be physically realized entitled Project for Extraterrestrials No.6, Cai hopes to gain the cooperation of the Chinese and Japanese governments in order to set off a series of gunpowder footprints that will stomp across the border between the two giant superpowers.
Cai's choice of gunpowder as his primary medium is a nod to the Maoist principle that things must be destroyed before being reformatted or rebuilt in order to wipe the slate clean. So while China's current regime may be in need of such treatment, let Cai's Olympic art speak for itself as it explodes above Beijing. And give China some credit for allowing Cai’s revolutionary voice to burst forth, for that is the carrot that goes with the stick.
The American public is used to getting its Fox News (or Faux News as we like to call it) served up through red-tinted spectacles, a phenomenon that The Daily Show parodied rather excellently in the clip above. But should the country shift into the blue come November, don't be surprised to see Fox bend with the wind of change, indeed there are major signs that it already is.
As we previously reported, in the late 90's there was a significant shift in the editorial slant of Fox owner Rupert Murdoch's British news outlets as Margaret Thatcher and John Major's monetarist (read: right-wing / Republican) empire was being swept aside due to increasing popular support for "New Labour" (akin to our left-leaning Democrats) and its promise of more egalitarian trickle-up economics. Sensing the changing political tide, Murdoch held a come-to-Jesus meeting with Labour leader Tony Blair in Australia in Dec '96, where it was agreed that some of his outlets would switch teams in exchange for future political concessions. In May '97, with Murdoch's support, Blair swept to victory in the General Elections, becoming the first Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in nearly two decades.
It seems that the Murdoch clan may be laying the groundwork for a similar seismic shift here in the U.S.. In an editorial published on Jan 30 of this year the Murdoch/News Corp. owned New York Post endorsed Obama, ironically claiming (given the politics of the paper's mother ship) that, "Obama represents a fresh start."
Now the Murdoch/Obama connection is getting more personal. On April 28 Rupert's daughter Elisabeth is planning a discreet fundraiser for Barack Obama at her London home. Gwyneth Paltrow is one of the event's co-chairs, and VIP tickets are priced at the individual donation limit of $2,300 (see invite below).
The Daily Mantra thinks that people can be judged by the quality of their friends. How do you feel about the ones Obama is getting into bed with?
I love this video pod from Current reporter Karney Hatch, who made his bank pay for the error of their ways (see video). After incurring a spate of outrageous overdraft charges, Hatch took Wells Fargo to small claims court to challenge "the common sense and fairness" of their fees. Rather than waste time and money in court, Wells Fargo decided to settle, rescinding the charges in question and agreeing to pay Hatch's court filing fees. "It was cheaper to give me back my fees rather than pay someone to defend the bank in court," notes Hatch.
A similar thing happened to me about a month ago. My husband and I have three accounts with our bank, two personal and one business. In addition, over the years I've done business management for several other companies, who have all held accounts at the same bank. I've have a relationship with our bank for over ten years, and during that time none of the accounts I've managed had ever gone into the red. With a longtime track record of being a model customer, I was therefore very upset when the bank chose to penalize me with inflated charges when a snafu occurred.
One of our checks was accidentally deposited into the wrong account, which caused it to go overdrawn when checks we had written cleared. Even though we had more than enough money to cover the checks over the three accounts we had with the bank, the bank decided to return three checks, which, if they had cleared would have created an overdraft of less than $250. The bank then charged us $36 per check for the privilege of refusing to honor them. In addition, we faced check return and late payment fees from our car insurance, phone and credit card companies because of the bank's actions.
I was particularly upset that the bank hadn't bothered to call me (which they did regularly to confirm other transactions for the many accounts I supervised), or taken my highly responsible banking record into account before they decided to bounce the three checks. Had they called, the situation could have been resolved instantly with a transfer between accounts. Instead, it seems to me, the bank saw an opportunity to make a quick buck ($108 actually) and took it, charging me fees, and putting my good credit, and car insurance policy, at risk in the process.
My initial complaints fell on officious and intransigent ears. The bank refused to refund the charges, insisting that they "couldn't" rather then "wouldn't" do it. Luckily for me, they'd erroneously mailed someone else's overdraft notice in the same envelope as mine, so with this as leverage, I agreed to do the right thing and hand over "John Doe's" letter on condition that the bank did the right thing and rescinded my fees.
But the episode left a very bitter taste in my mouth, and got me thinking about those less fortunate than myself, for whom the system is particularly unfair. Just one of the three fees the bank had taken from my account, without my permission, was the equivalent to the best part of a day's pay for someone on minimum wage. Put the three together and it's well over half a week's salary for the hard working poor. How can that be fair?
"If you took out a $40 overdraft loan at the prevailing overdraft fee of just over $27, and you paid it back in a week, it would be over three-thousand, five hundred percent interest," said Eric Halperin from the Center For Responsible Lending in an interview with Hatch. How can such extortion even be legal?
"I felt like I was at the bottom of this elaborate pyramid scheme designed to extract money from people who didn't have it to just funnel it up to the CEOs and the higher up in the company," confessed a former Wells Fargo loans collection officer in Hatch's film.
With such sharp practices these banks are no better than loan sharks. And with the economy in crisis, such money generating policies are likely to increase as the banks desperately try to claw back the funds they've been forced to write off due to the mortgage fiasco we're in the midst of right now. Once again the consumer is paying (dearly) for the mistakes fat cat, big business has made.
So what can we do? Certainly it's all our responsibilities to refuse to take such treatment lying down. The banks are only able to charge such outrageous fees because on some level we allow them to get away with it. Next time you get an unfair charge, call the bank on it. You may be able to afford to eat it, but the person standing in line behind you might not, and, as a society, we stand or fall together. If one employee refuses to help, refuse to be brushed off. Ask to see their superior, and if they can't help, ask to see theirs. Threaten to close your account down and take your business elsewhere, and DO IT if they fail to offer an acceptable resolution. Remember, money talks loudly when it walks out the door.
If all else fails, take a leaf out of Hatch's playbook, and take your bank or credit card company to small claims court. As Ralph Nader says, "If a million consumers filed a million small claims court actions a year against the banks, the banks would either try to abolish the small claims court or try to improve their performance." Perhaps it's our responsibility to put that theory to the test. Once we've knocked the banks into shape, my next raison d'être will be local councils and the parking fines they charge. Try paying those on a minimum wage!
This is definitely the way to go. Instead of waiting nervously for his skeletons to fall out of the closet one by one, the newly appointed New York Governor David Paterson, who replaced his disgraced colleague Eliot Spitzer, took the bull by the horns and confessed all just hours after taking office.
After rumors of infidelity surfaced, Paterson and his wife Michelle admitted they had both had affairs during a rocky period in their marriage in a joint interview with New York's Daily News on Monday. The pair then faced reporters together at a news conference held this morning in the Capitol's Red Room.
"I didn't want to be compromised, I didn't want to be blackmailed, I didn't want to hesitate taking an action because the person on the other end might hurt me or my family. I just thought this was the time to come forward and reveal this," Paterson told reporters.
Perhaps this may serve as a new model, with politicians and statesmen confessing all before they take office (which Paterson didn't strictly do, but it's not like he got to pick his timing here) so they can get on with the important work at hand unfettered by sins of the past. After all, public officials only become truly accountable to us at the point that they begin their public service (or, if elected, start campaigning for office), and some of the best and brightest hopes are surely likely, at the very least, to have follies of youth buried in their past.
What are mistakes but opportunities to learn and grow? We, in turn, should learn to be more pragmatic about sin. To quote the big J.C., "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If we allow our politicians to admit to more mistakes without fear of hysterical or over zealous judgment, we also allow them to better serve us. So let's be grown-ups about this, and get such compromising information out in the open where it is rendered benign. This has to be a more evolved policy than our current one, where the cardinal sin is getting caught.
It's at this point I'd like to give Obama the opportunity to hit the public confessional. McCain and Clinton have been in public service so long that their dirty laundry is by now well aired, but the press have only just started digging into the life of the new kid on the block.
If Obama does indeed win the Democratic candidacy, as it very much looks like he might, it'd be sad if the Republican's won the election by default were an unrecoverable scandal to break closer to November. The tenet of public service is to put those you serve above yourself (and your own career prospects). I'm therefore urging you, Obama, if you have anything you're hiding, whether it be financial or sexual impropriety, or something that could appear as such, to take a leaf out of Paterson's playbook and get it out there now. Your best shield in the upcoming battle is the truth.
"Stand By Your Man" was written back in 1968. A lot has changed since then. So why are women still doing it? Especially when, as in Silda Wall Spitzer's case, you've been hurt and humiliated in a very extreme and public way. In an article entitled "Women ponder why Spitzer's wife stood by," writer Jocelyn Noveck interviews several women who hypothesize that Silda (mutely) stood by her man at a recent press conference for the good of her kids. But is such behavior really in their best interest?
The Spitzer's have three teenage daughters. Are they sending them a healthy message by showing that Daddy can behave in such a disrespectful way to Mommy without consequences as far as their relationship is concerned? What kind of message is that? 'Boys will be boys' I guess. Personally, I'd like to have seen Silda force her husband to face the press alone. Or at the very least make a statement of her own, rather than mutely standing by as the world her and her husband worked so hard to create shattered around her.
Even if she doesn’t ultimately choose to leave him, a break from her husband, and a vacation from the humiliation should at the very least be on the cards for Silda and her children (charged to her husband, of course). Silda, we're here if you need help packing.
Controversial conservative talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has scored yet another own goal for women, this time blaming Eliot Spitzer's wife for her husband's infidelity during an appearance on the Today Show.
"Men do need validation," said Schlessinger, during a panel discussion lead by Meredith Vieira on the sex scandal. "When they come into the world they're born of a woman. Getting the validation from mommy is the beginning of needing it from a woman. When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like our hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. These days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need."
Vieira then asked, "Are you saying women should feel guilty, like they somehow drove the man to cheat?" Schlessinger responded by saying, "You know what, the cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged, and to feed himself where he's starving. But, yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need."
It's this kind of fuzzy logic that's making it so tough for Hillary to move beyond the kitchen in the White House. Too many people still blame the presidential hopeful for her husband's infidelity. Again, the Daily Mantra asks, on what planet is this OK?
Click HERE to view Today Show video courtesy of The Huffington Post.
The Daily Mantra loves this stylish video short in which a mysterious DJ is sent to a busy city block to mend a series of tragic events that occur (click HERE to view). Using vinyl that's plugged into the spacetime continuum, he remixes events, manipulating what time shifts can't fix with some very special EQ. If only he could spin things back eight years, before the first election was stolen when Al Gore was poised to be president, and remix things so he was.....if only.
The Daily Mantra watched tonight's primarys at a Drinking Liberally soiree in Santa Monica, CA. All we can say is the political organization which boasts it "promotes democracy one pint at a time" works!
We were rooting for Hillary, and when we arrived at the Nocturnal Bar on Lincoln Boulevard she was two percentage points down in Texas. By the time we'd downed our first glass of red wine, God had apparently had a word in Mike Huckabee's ear and had persuaded him to give up his presidential bid, and Hillary had taken the lead over Obama in Texas by four percentage points, and had also won Ohio and Rhode Island. Sadly we were driving, so couldn't consume another glass of red wine for our blue cause. If we had she may have won in Texas by an even bigger margin. We'll plan better, and try harder next time.
Is Obama the new American Idol? Or are we just blinded by the hype? (And Obama's avalanche of cash?) Can Hillary derail the seemingly unstoppable momentum of Obama’s rock star-like celebrity? Do we need to believe in the American dream so much that we'll actually overlook a more qualified and experienced candidate? Is the media so obsessed with a good story that they're ignoring the truths in the way? After SNL stuck a pin in the Obama bubble last weekend, it seems for some the Kool Aid is finally wearing off. As Tina Fey succinctly put it, is "bitch the new black?"
They say a free press is the cornerstone of any democracy. But since there's nothing free about our press, and very little that's democratic about our government-for-hire, America's house of democratic illusions is only held up by those naïve enough to still believe the fairy tale, and those too apathetic to do anything about it, which, if we're honest, is most of us (endlessly forwarding activist emails may make us feel like we're doing something, but, let's be real, is mostly ineffectual).
George Bush is certainly under no illusions about the role of the media in our pseudo-democracy. After a speech intended to welcome journalists to the new White House briefing room back in July 2007, a Reuters photographer took a now infamous snap of the president's speech. The man charged with maintaining what should be the greatest democracy in the world had taken a black pen to his own neatly typed address, and, after the phrase "a free press is", had scrubbed out the words "one of the cornerstones of." But then, as he wages wars in the name of democracy abroad, he's waged another cold war on democracy at home, which has been, however unwittingly, aided and abetted by the very cornerstone our "democracy" is supposed to rely on.
But if you won't pay 50 cents per day for a newspaper, $29 a year to support an independent online news service such a Salon.com, or $50 a year to fund news on PBS or NPR, then don't blame the press for the current fix we're in. It's a matter of value. What do we value more, the news, or the cars and burgers sold in between the news? If it's the former, we should economize on the latter and be prepared to pay for quality journalism.
Like any other commodity, with news you get what you pay for. Purveyors of infotainment, such as Fox "News", which Fox & Friends guest, comedian Lee Camp succinctly called out live on air last week for being a "parade of propaganda" and a "festival of ignorance," serves no higher purpose than to provide fodder to keep viewers tuned-in for the advertisements. Like any other mainstream news outlet owned by one of the big media conglomerates, Fox News serves its parent company's bottom line, and is under no illusions that its purpose is to provide a check and balance to curtail the activities of a runaway government.
While pumping billions into an ill-advised war overseas, Bush is trying to cut off the lifeblood of those that report on it with an independent voice at home. His proposed federal budget would cut more than half of the funds allocated to public broadcasters in 2009 and 2010. And with the New York and Los Angeles Times both announcing three-figure job cuts in the past month, don't be expecting their much maligned journalists to have the time to come up with as much original thought or news as they have in the past. With less staff but the same column inches to fill, many of our once grand newspapers are being reduced to nothing more than printed blogs, reprinting the same recycled news, press releases and wire stories by the inch, and commenting on the commentary of others in place of the time consuming task of researching their own fresh news and opinion.
Ask yourself why the word "divisive" ubiquitously sits next to Hillary's name, as does "change" next to Obama's. In truth either world could equally apply to both. But these clichés have become ingrained in our culture thanks to a media that doesn't have the time, money or inclination to find the news, but merely reports on the same "news" briefings and press releases, representing the often unchecked facts and quotes they contain as news.
As any physicist can tell you, if you want to arrest entropy you need to put more energy into a system. Write to your congressman or woman and demand that they fight the PBS budget cuts. Consider where you should get your news from (the BBC is a great place to start), rather than reaching for the remote or reading whatever's on your homepage out of habit. Refuse to be another Faux News viewer or clicker. Don't let these masqueraders make money off your viewership and clicks. And don't just take the news as read, but consider where a story is really coming from, who's promoting it, and, most importantly, why?
A member of the Israeli parliament blamed a recent spate of earthquakes on gays, and what he sees as Israel's overly tolerant attitude towards homosexuality. Shlomo Benizri, a member of Ultra-orthodox Jewish Shas party, made the comments during a debate on earthquake preparedness on February 20, 2008.
"Why do earthquakes happen? One of the reasons is the things to which the Knesset (parliament) gives legitimacy, to sodomy," said Benizri, who is known for his homophobic views. "A cost-effective way of averting earthquake damage would be to stop passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the State of Israel, which anyways causes earthquakes."
"We are looking for earthly solutions, how to prevent them," he continued. "I have another way to prevent earthquakes. The Gemara says that one of the reasons earthquakes happen, which the Knesset legitimizes, is homosexuality."
The Israeli government repealed laws banning consensual gay sex in 1988. Since then, though they don’t permit gay marriage, they have recognized same-sex unions performed abroad, and have extended many of the benefits and rights married couples enjoy to same sex couples. Last Sunday the country’s attorney general ruled on legislation that expands the rights of same-sex couples to adopt. Since then, two more earthquakes have rocked the region.
"God says you shake your genitals where you are not supposed to and I will shake my world in order to wake you up," said Benizri, who is a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ruling coalition. What Benizri seems to have conveniently overlooked is the fact that homosexuality is really not on God's Top 10 List, with things like adultery and theft being far more of a priority for the oft misquoted and misunderstood deity.
If God is really showing his displeasure by shaking up the Middle East, it's more likely because of the worship of false idols (money and oil), the coveting of a neighbor's house (Palestine/Afghanistan/Iraq), and the (mass) murder being committed in the region by people from all sides (including us). Can we just stop blaming the gays for our troubles? I know God isn’t.
A recent article in Live Science delved into fairy tales for glimpses of truth. Having recently seen The Brothers Grimm (which stars Matt Damon and the late Heath Ledger) on DVD, I was expecting to read about the real life stories that the fairy tales grew from (not that the film was exactly a documentary). But that's more history than science, more anthropology than physics, which is the sphere in which Live Science concentrated their efforts. They hypothesized about the most fantastical aspects of three well-known fairy tales to conclude whether or not Rapunzel's hair really could have held the weight of her prince, if the Little Mermaid's voice could have been stolen, and if a magic carpet might really be able to fly.
Being a fan of author Joseph Campbell, I tend to look at fairy tales as metaphors for deeper truths about life itself. So while Rapunzel, were she a real girl locked in a tower, may have been able to sustain the weight of her prince on her long blonde locks, I believe there are more important messages in the story. As parents read the story to their young daughters, they may be reminded about the upcoming struggle between protecting their innocence and letting them grow up, and the young listener may learn about not giving up on love.
The Disney version of The Little Mermaid, modernizes the message of the rather gruesome original (which involves a sea witch cutting out our heroine's tongue). The way Disney tell it, The Little Mermaid is a cautionary tale about putting personal wishes above those of one's family. It champions following one's heart and trusting in love, as well as not giving up one's voice or changing who we are. The magic of fairy tales and myths is in their ability to speak a different message to each of us, and even offer guidance at different points in our lives.
Many of us have experienced the freedom of a flying carpet without actually defying gravity. The wonder of being able to go where we want, when we want, without limit or permission is a dream we can all understand, whether we experience it on a bicycle or a balloon. Of course, the tale was told before the modern airplane was in existence, so perhaps that myth has already become a reality in a way.
Suspension of disbelief is essential in these stories, but perhaps knowing that some of it is possible helps us with our resolve to not give up on our own fantasies. Because we can connect and relate to the characters and their situations at some level, we may be able to use that as a bridge to enter the realm of the magical and discover what is truly possible, expanding the boundaries of the real world to experience some of what seems to be only imaginary.
To read the results of Live Science's investigations go to: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080211-fairytales-science.html
Parodies sprout up fast on YouTube, and sometimes satire writes itself. For a huge, if dark, laugh check out this take off on the same Obama "Yes, We Can" video we posted on Super Tuesday (if player fails to load click HERE to view). Sure, it's a spoof, but the joke isn't on the Obama campaign. Rather, the video's black humor springs from the insanity and bleak absurdity of the militaristic mentality typified by likely Republican nominee John McCain. (Who knew the man was so forward thinking, looking ahead to the year 12,008 no less!) Our deep thanks to the makers of this hilarious video that not only speaks volumes but could well help deliver some of that up-for-grabs independent vote to the Democratic ticket in November. We wish them the last laugh and us all peace.
Star Trek was creator Gene Roddenberry's blueprint for a utopian society. Civilizations united under the Federation of Planets in a future where the overwhelming problems of the 21st century, disease, poverty, hunger, sexism and racism, were no longer an issue. But rather than progressing towards such a future we seem to be regressing, and could perhaps use a little help from Star Trek to get us back on course at warp speed.
From James T. Kirk to Jonathan Archer, over the years the captains of the various incarnations of the USS Enterprise have faced numerous challenges, avoiding conflict with a myriad of alien species to maintain the peace and unity of The Federation. The Daily Mantra thought that since these captains have navigated their way through troubled times with such skill, our nation might call upon one of them to steer our country through the uncertain, and most likely tough territory that lies ahead.
We therefore ventured where no Daily Mantra reporter has gone before, to the first stop of the 40-city Star Trek Tour in Long Beach, CA to ask the most dedicated Trekkies which Star Trek captain might best lead our nation. While the favorite choices were no surprise, the quietly capable Kathryn Janeway of the Voyager series was the only captain who failed to register a single vote. Perhaps we can infer from this that even forward-thinking Star Trek fans aren't ready for a female leader quite yet.
1. "Picard, because he was very down to earth and a humanitarian." Pam, Yucca Valley
2. "I think we need somebody with Kirk's cowboy politics. If an enemy comes along, he shoots first and asks questions later. He's not really diplomatic, he just blows them away. I think we need that." Brian, Huntington Beach
3. "Picard, because he's British. Everything about the British to me is more proper and honest." Brandon, Fresno
5. "Jonathan Archer, because I think that he's got the tenacity, and the 'we're going to get the job done and kick some butt if you mess with us', but at the same time he's got that diplomatic feel that Picard would have." John, Fresno
6. "I'll have to say William Shatner (Kirk), because that's the only one I know." Donna, Diamond Bar
7. "Picard, because he was probably the most democratic and most thoughtful all the captains." Bill, Yucca Valley
8. "Jean-Luc Picard. I think he's strong, he's balanced, I just think he's a good person." Jeanette, Costa Mesa
9. "Captain Kirk. He's been around the longest and he's the cutest." Emily, Arizona
10. "I like Captain Kirk. He's a great actor. Well actually he kind of did a little over-acting. Perfect for the job. You've got to in front of all of those people and kind of schmooze 'em." Dean, Costa Mesa
11. "I would say Picard, because he seems to have good communication skills, at least on the show he seems like a diplomat." Chris, Diamond Bar
12. "Benjamin Sisko, because he's very forceful." Angelo, San Louis Obispo
The line between poetry and song lyrics often blurs with the two genres sometimes overlapping. Political rhetoric, however, more often resides in a whole different register. One happy exception to this rule has turned out to be presidential hopeful Barack Obama's speech following his near-victory in the New Hampshire primary which contained such stirring phrases as:
"It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom:
Yes, we can....
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots...
Yes, we can"
These words and their delivery inspired the producer, frontman and songwriter for The Black Eyed Peas known as will.i.am to craft an unusual and inspiring amalgam of pop, politics and personality. The video he made together with director, filmmaker and Bob Dylan scion Jesse Dylan first aired Friday on ABC News Now's "What's the Buzz" and features a range of entertainers including Scarlett Johansson, Tatyana Ali, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta, Eric Balfour, Aisha Tyler and Nick Cannon. Made without input from the Obama camp or the campaign's coordination, the black and white video could be considered a sort of highly polished, celebrity studded grassroots effort.
Obama's words, in the speech and now in song, epitomize the can-do spirit considered by many to be quintessentially American. They also bring to mind Daily Mantra's favorite law, one not encoded in the US Constitution, namely the Law of Attraction. In light of the inescapable nature of this universal principle, the electorate's collective negativity with regard to the political arena (no doubt intensified by the painful scandals and ill considered decisions of the last eight years) is something we would do well to heal and overcome. Like any affirmation of our power, this video by will.i.am and a junior Dylan can help weed habitual negativity out of our consciousness and thereby ameliorate our experience. Its affirmative spirit could even prove healing for an individual consciousness mired in not just in political nay-saying but in personal negativity as well.
There is an undeniable logic to Senator Obama's heartening words. Without a prior belief in possibility, nothing is ventured and therefore nothing is gained. All the historical examples he lists, from unionizing to emancipation to the enfranchisement of women to the civil rights movement, tell us that remarkably positive transformation happens all the time. Indeed, the historically unprecedented political viability of an African American presidential contender and a female one attests to the utter reasonableness of hope as much as anything else.
Wherever we reside and on whatever day our state's primary election is held, may we all vote our consciences, our minds and our hearts. May Spirit or Truth or Goodness or Justice or Compassion, however we conceptualize what we desire for ourselves both as a nation and as a mighty international power, express itself through the democratic process.
Whether or not you plan to lend your support to the Senator from Illinois, his colleagues from New York and Arizona, one former Massachusetts governor or someone else entirely, we could all do worse than to meditate on the message of hope contained in this song and speech's moving words: "We can heal this nation. We can repair this world. Yes, we can."
Hillary Clinton told reporters this past weekend that, "It would be a big mistake for Democrats to nominate someone who's already conceded on the issue of universal health care.'' I can't help agreeing with her. Universal health care only really works, or even makes sense, if it's just that: Universal.
The point that most insured seem to miss is that they're the ones that are currently footing the bill for our half-assed, non-universal, universal system. When the insured pay their premiums, they're not just paying for their own insurance, they're also paying for the massive emergency room bill that's being racked up by the uninsured. Since emergency departments are the only part of our health care system that is federally required to provide health care to all patients, that's where the uninsured go, en masse, to get medical attention when they're sick. And the insured, not the government, pay for it through inflated bills and insurance premiums.
Because of this existing non-universal, universal system, America's emergency medical system is breaking down. The financial liability that comes with having an emergency department means many hospitals are electing not to have emergency facilities. Those that do exist are over-crowded and overwhelmed. According to a Heritage.org report, in one state surveyed, over 40% of patients seeking treatment at emergency departments had "non-urgent medical problems." Those who do have real emergency medical problems are therefore being put at risk by our current, very arbitrary, emergency health care policy, and our emergency departments are too busy coping with the everyday problems of the uninsured to be able to deal with any real large-scale emergencies.
At the moment the insured are in essence penalized for being prepared. The same goes for companies with health plans for their workers. Those companies that do the right thing by their workforce are not only put at a vast disadvantage when competing against less public-spirited companies, they're also picking up the health care tab for the workers of those companies via inflated premiums. The only way for this imbalance to be addressed is with truly universal health care.
Hillary conceded on Saturday that wages may have to be garnisheed to pay for her plan. So what? Any universal health plan will be far cheaper that the rocketing private insurance premiums individuals and companies are paying now. Think about it for a moment. Compare your health insurance premium (if you have one) to your overall tax bill. I did. Even though I'm young, fit, and have no history of serious illness, I actually pay more per month for my health insurance than I do in federal taxes. How can that be right? How can my health insurance cost more than my share of the overall national budget which funds schools, social services, roads, the military, the war, etc., etc..
It doesn't make sense, and it won't until our health care is taken out of the hands of the greedy health insurance companies, with their out of control profits, which are protected by numerous pieces of highly dubious legislation. Just this past weekend it was reported that a woman called Barbara Antonelli from Staten Island was hounded for a $5 co-pay while on a gurney in the midst of a heart attack. Should our nations health really be in the hands of such a sick system?
Got health insurance, and a little in the bank for a rainy day? Think you’re OK? Think again; A 2007 Newsweek report on health care in our country estimates that to die with dignity even those with insurance will need an additional $300,000 to pay for long term care and other costs that aren’t covered by health insurance. This means that even those with insurance and six or seven figures in the bank are putting their longterm financial security at risk by putting their faith in our current system. As for the rest of us, with illness being the number one cause of bankruptcy, few of us can afford to die. Those that do will have likely surrendered their savings, their home, and their dignity, before their final breath. Now ask yourself again. Can we afford not to have universal health care?
Just as pax is Latin for peace, a crow feeding worms to a hungry stray kitten is surely animal for love. This miraculous story from the cable channel Pax of an unlikely interspecies friendship warms our hearts. In the video (if player fails to load click HERE to view), the older gentleman, Wallace, who along with his wife, Ann, witnessed and recorded this pairing surmises that this cat and bird must have met when each was too young "to know better." We wonder whether they were too young to know worse. Indeed, one lesson of this endearing real-life fable may be that a childlike, innocent outlook leads one to spread caring and nurturance around more liberally.
We also can't help noticing that this isn't a story of just two animals but of four, at least. Yes, a kitten eventually named Cassie, and her crow buddy and caretaker are the stars of the story, but the open-eyed, animal-loving humans who also show love and deliver nourishment play a touching role as well.
May we all learn, despite apparent differences, to play with and care for one another just as this adorable feathered and furred duo do. After all, as Wallace and Ann's veterinarian says, "If you are able to have trust in someone or something then everything is possible." And as Wallace himself astutely observes, "If a crow can take care of a kitten, it shows that two strangers meeting can get along with each other."
Two thousand years ago, a Roman Senator suggested that all slaves wear white armbands to better identify them.
“No,” said a wiser Senator. “If they see how many of them there are, they may revolt.”
There’s an interesting video going around the internet calling for an international day of protest to coincide with tax day on April 15 (if player fails to load click HERE to view). In it, the filmmakers cite the IRS and the Federal Reserve System as being enemies of the people, in cahoots with corporate America to keep the masses enslaved.
A Los Angeles man has 
The Daily Mantra has very mixed feelings about the Beijing Olympic Games. One the one hand, we of course want to support the Tibetan people, and register our displeasure at the atrocious human rights record of the Chinese Government (and are aware that right now, sadly, America is not in 
In another conceptual piece yet to be physically realized entitled Project for Extraterrestrials No.6, Cai hopes to gain the cooperation of the Chinese and Japanese governments in order to set off a series of gunpowder footprints that will stomp across the border between the two giant superpowers. 
This is definitely the way to go. Instead of waiting nervously for his skeletons to fall out of the closet one by one, the newly appointed New York Governor David Paterson, who replaced his disgraced colleague 
was written back in 1968. A lot has changed since then. So why are women still doing it? Especially when, as in 
Controversial conservative talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has scored yet another 
The Daily Mantra watched tonight's primarys at a 
A member of the Israeli parliament blamed a recent spate of earthquakes on gays, and what he sees as Israel's overly tolerant 
A recent article in 
Star Trek was creator Gene Roddenberry's blueprint for a utopian society. Civilizations united under the 
