One

One

 

I look around,
And I'm alone
In a crowd
That's having fun.
But I wonder
What fun is this
That has no aim
Beyond the run
Of time spent
With not a rhyme
Of reason or
Rational thought,
Desire to build
A future life,
An end to strife,
Together with
Another soul.

Then one day
There's someone there,
Hoping that
I'll notice her,
Wond'ring what
I think of her,
And wond'ring, too,
what I would do
If I knew
That she was free
To be with me,
To get to know
If we could be ...
One.

Could we be
Together alone,
In the crowd
Yet not so loud,
No aimless goals,
Our purpose known
To us, and us alone?
Can we be ...
One?

But all these thoughts
Are but the chaff
Of giving Self,
O! selfish Self!
Pow'r to deny
That which is right,
that which is true,
The real inquiry,
The need to know
If you are the soul
I need, I want. 
Are you that one
Who will abide,
Whom I can bide,
Stay by your side,
As One?

That is the real,
That is the true,
The only question
That needs to be
Answered by you,
Answered by me,
In time, in time!
The only way,
If we are to be,
We must make the time
To find the answer,
To know the Truth,
Discover if
We are,
Or can be...
One.

Don Rice Jr.
For D. S. W.
(You know who you are!)
April 22, 2014

© 2014 Donald C. Rice Jr.

The Journey

The Journey

I began a journey 

The other day;

Where it will lead, 

I cannot say.

To realms unexplored,

Yet known within,

Seeking knowledge

Of Truth therein.

 

Down many roads

I've traveled thus far; 

And along each path,

I've gazed at a star 

And wonder'd anew

At the feeling I feel,

To know that this path

Is true and real.

 

The Spirit Within

Calls to my Soul,

Telling of wonders

I've yet to behold.

And my Soul, though timid yet,

Strives for awareness: Never forget

The original path

My wandering takes,

O'er hills and streams,

By mountains and lakes,

Past village and town;

'Neath skies so bright;

Through caverns and storms

That blot out the light

Of inner knowing

That all is right.

 

Yet onward I go,

Seeking my sight...

© 2014 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Reason and Rationality

At the start of last year, I wrote about anger.  If you want to read that blog before this one, here it is:

http://donricejr.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-be-angry.html

I wrote that anger should be eliminated from our being.  I was in error.  Allow me to clarify, if you will.

I wrote that anger is destructive, that it rips apart our essential humanity, and that it is an indulgence of the beast nature of our animal bodies.  That was the basis of my error. 

The Truth is that anger can be either destructive or constructive, depending on whether we respond rationally and reasonably or react instinctively and without rationality or reason.

My Teacher, Master David M. Berry, describes reason thus:  "Reason gives stability and balance to our love, hate, fear, and et cetera."  And he defines rationality as a state of "being able to consciously conform to conditions."

What, then, is a constructive way to deal with anger?  First, focus on what is causing it.  Then find a way to neutralize that cause, or to transform it into something else, something that does not bring out anger. 

How and what you do depends greatly on what is causing your anger.  But we must understand that there is a cause behind every effect.  So whatever we do, we must consider the effect it will have before we do it.  Is the effect something we want?  will it help us to further our individual growth?  Will it cause problems for ourselves or anyone else? 

Ask yourself those questions, then base your actions on the answers you discover within yourself.  This is what I'm learning to do, and I'm finding myself more in harmony when I do it, and less in harmony when I don't.  It's difficult sometimes, but only when my choices make it so.  When we understand that, then we will begin to change who we are as well as how to improve the living of our lives.


Namaste',
Don

  © 2014 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Ending Poverty the Libertarian way?

 

 The following passage is on an issue page for the Libertarian Party here in the United States:

"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."

There are two major points that render this unworkable.

First, anything that is to be eliminated must be done slowly and carefully, to avoid the proverbial "shock to the system", and to give the people using those services time and opportunity to find suitable replacements for them.  The biggest failure with this approach is that, in many instances, that opportunity is, for all practical purposes, non-existent.  That being the case, then all the time in the world wouldn't be of any help.

Second, I can name quite a few people, from personal knowledge, for whom relying on family wouldn't do any good at all.  My own is foremost in my awareness, as when I needed help, my family was nowhere to be found.

Churches?  Food pantries, serving lunches, okay, there's some help there; but it depends on donations that often dries up in hard economic times.  And even at its best, such donations are nowhere near enough to handle the need in many communities.

Private charity?  They have rules that far too many people just can't meet.  I'm reading a book right now about the child protection system, as part of my research for the book I'm writing.  It makes it clear that private organizations operate on a basis of whether a particualar person or family fits in with their target demographic.  And i've seen this to be true from my own experience as well.

I agree that the system is not working and, as it is now constituted, cannot work except to exacerbate the problem.  I think that is the way the system was designed; and yes, I'm including the child protection system in that statement.  However, we cannot just take the system down with nothing to replace it.  And the Libertarian platform offers nothing that is workable, for the reasons I've already stated.

No, what needs to be done is to completely revamp the system so that it actually serves the needs of the people reliant on it, rather than making them virtual slaves to it.  Something that will reduce or even eliminate the burden on all facets of our society.  The Libertarian platform does recognize that this burden exists, becasue they made it the opening statement for this part of their platform.  Yet their solution would do vastly more harm than good, becasue it is not founded on the day-to-day realities of life for the people who are dependent on the system.

Much of the rest of this platform stand on welfare is pretty much right on the money so to speak, except for limiting tax breaks to only private charities and foundations.  Public or semi-private must be included, such as the 501(c) organizations.  Otherwise, the problems I described above with private groups would continue unabated.

Farther down the same page is the following:

"It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty."

I take issue with the concept of turning it over to the marketplace.  Many advances have come about in our society as a result of *not* being beholden to market forces or the corporate "agenda".  We would never have gone to the Moon, for example, nor reaped the benefits in many different aspects of society that derived directly from that effort.

Choice in education is a worthwhile objective.  But through the marketplace?  Not a good idea, for the same reasons I stated above in relation to ending welfare altogether.  Instead, we must teach our children the skills needed to get and hold a good career that they enjoy and, becasue they enjoy it, they will put forth their best efforts.  This will also provide ample opportunities for advancement in their chosen fields, unlike what is now all too common in the workplaces of America.

Again, the best way to proceed is to completely revamp the system so that it not only provides a usable education founded in science and the arts, but also require courses in critical thinking, which has been all too lacking for as long as I can recall, with few exceptions, such as those who partake of extracurricular activities like debate clubs.

Taking the system down is counter-productive.  Revamp it instead.  Change it so that it works for us, not as it is now with us working for it.

Namaste',

Don 

  © 2014 Donald C. Rice Jr.

They can't back it up!

Here is an interesting and informative example of the mind of a neo-conservative, a conversation that I was party to very briefly.

The Conservative Hammer:
 If your life - in or out of politics - isn't grounded in the historical morality of the Bible, then you will become corrupt -- and this is EXACTLY what our politicians have become in the good ol' secular US of A
 
Don Rice:
 If you're consulting the alleged "historical morality" of the Bible, please tell us what is moral about the passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus telling us to torture and kill our loved ones. And compare those passages to the Christ teachings on love, fair treatment, compassion and forgiveness of our fellow human beings.

The Conservative Hammer:
Don, you do not understand the Old Testament in historical context with the New Testament and God's wrath upon the idolators of ancient Israel prior to the advent of Christ, which cleansed believers of sin and ushered in a New Covenant based on Grace and not law.

The Conservative Hammer:
But thanks for cherry-picking the liberal's favorite scriptures... Well done.


I commented that "What you call "the liberal's favorite scriptures" is the Christ teachings."  I also suggested that if he/she doesn't accept this, then perhaps he/she needs to rethink the claim to be a follower of Christ.

I made a couple further comments. One stated that this person's claim that I can't use OT examples to oppose his/her position was not consistent with his own use of OT excerpts to bolster his/her position.  I stated that "...either the OT is valid to this discussion or it isn't.  You cant have it both ways."

The other politely asked him/her to not tell me I didn't understand the material, because he/she doesn't know me and doesn't know what I may or may not have studied.

When I came back later, I found my last three comments had been deleted.  So I wrote another comment:

"Fascinating. Like a typical neoconservative, rather than address the very valid statements I made concerning your position, you deleted my comments. And here I thought I might have actually found someone who resembles a real conservative who wasn't afraid of debate when facts may be inconvenient to your position. I guess I was wrong in my estimation."

When I tried to post it, I discovered that I had been blocked.

This happens often with people who put themselves forward as conservative intellectuals.  When they encounter opposition based on facts rather than supporting their beliefs, the run and hide.  And make no mistake, that is exactly what happened here.

I have no remedy for that frame of mentality.  I can only hope that such hypocrisy dies a swift death, so that we may get on with the task of improving life in these United States.

 © 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Is it really about policies?

The sign posted by a Facebook friend of the conservative persuasion
said, "It's not the color of your skin but the content of your policies."

My response:

Oh, you mean like preventing a recession from becoming another Great
Depression? 

Preventing the end of the American auto industry?  Catching and
killing Osama bin Laden?

Sending SEALS to rescue Americans and others held hostage by
pirates? 

Or is it the refusal to give in to rightwing blackmail after trying
to compromise with them for three-plus years?
 
Or maybe it's the idea that every American is entitled to affordable
health care and health insurance.

Let's be real here for a minute.  The vast majority of Americans
have applauded many of the things Barack Obama has done or tried to
do.  Which of his policies do you disagree with?  And are you aware
that many of those are the same policies that Republicans were all
for when they were proposed by other Republicans?

Many say that this is proof that they hate a black man in the White
House.  I disagree.  It's proof that they hate a Democrat in the
White House.  It's proof that they no longer care about the will of
the people but cowtow to the will of their corporate masters donors. 
It's proof that their Party is on a fast downward spiral into moral
and ethical oblivion.

The supporting evidence?  Barack Obama has taken the same basic
tack as Bill Clinton: he's tried to push through ideas that Republicans
only talked about and said they support but did nothing to pass.  They
hate Obama for the same reason they hated President Clinton.  But
they're to cowardly to admit it, or to even admit the truth of why they
hate both men.

You want proof of racism?  Look deeper.  Put it all together.  No
other President has ever had to deal with the massive level of
disrespect, innuendo, accusation, prevarication and intentional
misrepresentation as has this President.  No other President has had
to deal with an absolute refusal to compromise from an entire
opposition party.  None other has ever had to even defend the fact
of his citizenship as a prerequisite for holding the office.  None
other has had to put up with a total refusal to accept evidence that
none of the accusations had any validity.

The tone of the claims against President Obama is telling.  Kenyan. 
Muslim.  Food stamp President.   Blatantly racist terminology and
images portraying him and his wife and children as monkeys,
watermelon eaters (I don't get this at all; who DOESN'T like
watermelon?), and more.
 
If all of that combined isn't enough to prove an overall tone of
racism toward this President; if you still, in spite of all of this,
don't see the racism, both blatant and covert, then perhaps you need
to take a good look at yourself.  It's as clear as day to anyone who
has half a brain.

This is not to say that all who oppose President Obama are racist. 
Indeed, there are some who honestly disagree with many of his
policies.  I, for one, am not happy with some of the things he's
done as President.  But nobody is going to be able to please
everyone, or to even please one other rational person all the
time.  So to those who claim to not be racist, I suggest you state
clearly exactly what it is you dislike, and why you dislike it,
especially if it's something you agreed with when someone else
proposed it.  Someone white, perhaps.

In other words, as the gamblers of old said, put up or shut up.

© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Family Sanctity

Family Sanctity
(This is a true story)



(Authors' note: No names are given here, in order
to protect the innocent from revenge actions by the System,
and to protect the guilty from violence by others.)

In an un-named small city in upstate New York, a
married couple with one son were planning their first
vacation together since they met. They were going to
Florida for two weeks, and the wife was going to meet
her in-laws for the first time.As they were scheduled
to arrive in Florida on the day of their 5th wedding
anniversary, the man had arranged a surprise. As the
family got off the train, the woman was going to be
presented with a bouquet of roses by a man singing
"Happy Anniversary."

This planned event never came to pass. Two weeks
before the start of their vacation, the man awoke in
the morning to find that his wife had died in the early
hours of the morning. She had been epileptic most of
her life (she was 31 years young), and had, according
to the autopsy report, had a seizure during which she
vomited, and she choked to death.Several months
later, the man was building a successful business,
when a worker at the day care center decided she
wanted to adopt the son. Knowing the man would
refuse, she called the State of New York Child
Abuse Hotline, and reported that the man had beaten
his son.  The case worker assigned to investigate the
complaint ordered the man to take his son to the
hospital to be examined. The man complied,
knowing the charge would be proven false.

Instead, the doctor, who was under contract with
the local Child Protective Services, claimed that
he found "significant bruising" on the childs'
back and buttocks, and the case worker wrote
in his case notes that he, the caseworker, had
taken pictures of this bruising.  After the boy
was taken into protective custody and placed
in foster care, all on the basis of this one case
workers' statements (even the Family Court judge
didn't see the pictures until nearly 3 years later),
the father asked to see the pictures, and was refused.

Instead, the case worker informed him that his son
had accused him of sex abuse (the boy had just turned
5 years old).To make a long story short, the father
enlisted the aid of another man he was introduced
to specifically to deal with this situation. The two
became fast friends, even to the point of considering
each other family. The Child Protection Service then
took that mans' children from him, making similar
sex abuse claims.

Together, the two men file a civil rights lawsuit in the
Federal District Court. The suit was dismissed only
because they could not figure out how to break the
"qualified imunity" of the child protective workers,
several of whom were by then involved in the case.
That "qualified immunity" assumes that the case
workers are only doing their jobs, unless concrete
evidence to the contrary is produced. However,
the suits' paper chase provided enough data in the
form of legal briefs, answers to causes, and case
notes, for the two men to request "fair hearings,"
that is, to have the case heard on a point by point
basis by an administrative law judge, and to bring
up clear evidence of false allegations in the family
court.  The evidence, including the pictures, showed
that there was no beating, no sex abuse.
NO ANYTHING! 

In this manner, the two men got their respective children
back. Most of the people involved on the side of "the
System" were either fired or transfered to different
jobs; one child protective supervisor wound up on the
lowest level of the Medicaid department.

But the laws have not changed significantly! 
This and other forms of systemic abuse still
occur on a regular basis! And not just in New
York, but thoughout the country! 
THIS MUST STOP!

 FAMILIES, BY DEFINITION, ARE SACRED!
THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THEM
MUST BE PUNISHED BY THE LAW!
   
Donald Charles Rice Jr.

 (If anyone has current information on
Child Protection laws in any state,
or on any current systemic abuse cases,
please email or PM me!)

© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.