no fear.
don't fear the reaper.
fear not.
fear and loathing.
fear the lord thy god.
fear. fear. fear.
fear [feer]
noun
a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
reverential awe; esp. toward god.
that which causes a feeling of being afraid; that of which a person is afraid: cancer is a common fear.
-verb (used with object)
to regard with fear; be afraid of.
to have reverential awe of.
-verb (used without object)
to have fear; be afraid.
i can imagine no condition i disdain more than the state of fear. teaching my children to fear fear and fight fear and avoid fear and challenge fear is one of my primary responsibilities as a parent.
it is the single worst thing i have ever felt. moreover, it is easily the most stultifying feeling one can harbor. i've heard some parents consciously or subconsciously hope their children do not surpass them in certain ways, (i guess the ways that are most important to them?) perhaps they do not want to be outdone by their children from a severe insecurity. that very idea is abominable.
fear comes naturally in this world. as possibly the only species on the planet with self awareness, the only creatures who know we are dying, who understand the consequences of living, who must face down the fear of our own demise either sooner or later, we have a unique relationship with fear.
i am a-scurred, too. i am afraid of things so seriously that i will not even utter what they are for fear of giving them an upper hand. (i suppose it's that old mock the devil and he will flee thing.) fear is my worst me. any prejudices i ever had were born of fear. any childish beliefs came from a basic fear, a basic fear i was born with. when i was a child i was afraid of the darkness. i feared nightly. i was afraid of getting lost in downtown la after that happened to me once. i feared brutal stepdads. i was afraid of failure, (still am.) i was afraid of success. (yeah, still am that, too.) and so on...
if i want to be my best me, i recognize that the absence of fear is a basic starting point for me. i think it is for everyone, too. whatever scares should be debunked and demystified. if foolish consistencies are the hobgoblin of little minds, the most foolish consistency of all is the act of allowing fear to persist.
do you fear terrorism? are you afraid of bullies or ghosts? does the concept of a hell bother you? does cancer scare you? heart attack? impotence? old age? lost youth? traffic collisions? government conspiracies? random violence? getting caught? your dad? guns? your boyfriend's wife? the number 13? what is it? whatever it is i hope you vanquish it.
i think as we age our fears create our illnesses. whatever we fear that is able to gain some dominion over us leads to those ways in which we become twisted. maybe it leads to physical debilitation but what seems obvious is that fear leads to mental and emotional instabilities, which can in turn lead to real psychoses.
i think it is always important to be on one's guard from fears. for me to live a healthy life i think i must try hard to render my fears powerless, recognize them for what they are, deconstruct them, then proceed in the knowledge learned unafraid.
and so it is with my kids. i want them to be fearless. i want them to be respectful, but fearless. as it is i do not allow terra to be afraid. she suggested she was afraid of the dark at one time. she said she was afraid of monsters. she said she was scared of the noises outside at night. every time i heard something like that from her i scoffed. i explained it was natural to worry about those things, (and terra is certainly one who worries about new concepts,) but that ultimately we could know certain things about what scares us. when she feared the dark at bedtime i asked her if every morning she woke and everything was fine and she confirmed the truth in that statement. when she expressed her fear of earthquakes one night recently after seeing some images from haiti at school, as she cried over something that is actually worthy of some real concern, (concern, not fear,) i spoke to her of odds. she did not understand odds. so i appealed to her sense of trusting mommy and daddy to do everything humanly possible to keep her safe, which pacified her. since then the subject has come up a couple of times if briefly, which tells me she still has some fear about earthquakes but i feel like we're working on it. we are a team, her mother, mark, me and her. we are always at work on dispelling our collective fears. i am hopeful one day as i lay on my death bed she will be there, she will be brave and thereby show me she is prepared to endure without me, and she will console me and i will die in peace knowing full well that we are and have been dignified creatures.
i'll tell you one thing i am afraid of. i am afraid of terra and mark someday harboring many and sundry fears. as one who admits the influence of conditioning, i in no way think my children are immune from the maladies of the evening local news. rather i believe it is my daily duty, my life's work, my most noble charge to help them combat fears of all types. in this way, if i am successful in my small role in mark's and terra's sphere of influence, my babies can live healthy lives, daring greatly, perhaps failing from time to time but achieving too and accomplishing balance in their lives.
fdr said it. right? "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." respect-yes. but fear? no. it is a sad state, a bad way to spend one's life, every bit as unfortunate as poverty or physical debilitation.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
what to read
i will be the first to admit i can't read everything but then, it is awfully positive that there is so much good stuff out there to read, (though it looks like a coffee cup on the sea compared to all the bad published word out there.)
the header above links to a glenn greenwald story from salon.com. i used to read salon regularly but for whatever reason i had not been reading it recently. i happened to check in today however, and was rewarded with this thoughtful piece by greenwald.
it is interesting how that works, too. years ago i read salon and talkingpointsmemo.com religiously. lately i have been reading firedoglake and alternet mostly. huffpo gets me intermittently. i read mark morford regularly. i read a few blogs. i used to read mediamatters regularly but probably haven't been there in six months. great site, but who has the time? i get my sports from yahoo, espn or edgeofsports.
anyways, i wanted to share the article and the sense of pleasant surprise i got from visiting a site that had been out of my rotation a little bit.
the header above links to a glenn greenwald story from salon.com. i used to read salon regularly but for whatever reason i had not been reading it recently. i happened to check in today however, and was rewarded with this thoughtful piece by greenwald.
it is interesting how that works, too. years ago i read salon and talkingpointsmemo.com religiously. lately i have been reading firedoglake and alternet mostly. huffpo gets me intermittently. i read mark morford regularly. i read a few blogs. i used to read mediamatters regularly but probably haven't been there in six months. great site, but who has the time? i get my sports from yahoo, espn or edgeofsports.
anyways, i wanted to share the article and the sense of pleasant surprise i got from visiting a site that had been out of my rotation a little bit.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
should obama be a one-term president?
it is certainly worth considering forcing timothy geithner to step down as treasury secretary but it would also be reasonable right now to call for the resignation of barack obama.
democrats, (and probably republicans too, for that matter,) tend to think in terms of eight year blocks once they get a president elected. that has been a sound strategy too, considering the effectiveness of incumbent candidates. however it is time for change.
the democratic party, (and by that i do mean democrats,) could unseat barack obama after one term and elect another democrat president, perhaps even a more progressive, less corporatist candidate than barack obama. perhaps dennis kucinich could win, as the populist real deal. (or how old is ralph nader these days?)
please click on the header and read the bloomberg news story. the secretary of treasury of the united states, then in the capacity of head of the new york federal reserve, advised aig to hide information from the american public in order to get away with paying full price on credit default swaps, which in turn cost american taxpayers $62.1 billion. indeed, it was a back door bailout brokered by the new york federal reserve, geithner's organization. $62.1 billion taxpayer dollars?
i'll be honest, i am not sure i am advocating for unseating obama at this point, but i certainly respect the idea. not only did he appoint geithner to this vastly important cabinet position of tremendous power, but he had the best tools of investigation, to understand geithner's experience and ethos, money could buy. moreover, it is important for obama to be responsible for his decisions as president, and geithner's crime is egregious to such a degree, canning the guy who rewarded him and took advice from him, which suggests incompetence or worse, would be a revolutionary act of forsaking partisan politics in favor of simply exercising the collective power of the masses to act righteously as it concerns a matter of the utmost importance.
the federal reserve bank issues american currency and houses gold owned by some americans but also some saudis and kuwaitis and everyone else, but it is not a part of our government and it is ultimately beholden to its owners. as head of the new york federal reserve timothy geithner wielded a great amount of power, essentially on behalf of the investment bankers who own the new york fed.
$62.1 billion. i have to say that number over and over because it is hard to imagine that amount of money. it's huge. in response to the bloomberg news story, the white house has commented to say the advice the ny fed gave aig to not report the credit default swaps happened at a level lower than geithner and he was unaware of this advice and therefore not responsible. (where have we heard that before?) geithner's bank told aig to lie so that aig could use the money it received from taxpayers to pay off gamblers. that is unforgivable and geithner's bank facilitated the heist and his head should certainly roll. $62.1 billion. the fact obama prefers to dismiss this as if the "geithner was unaware," defense is legitimate is abhorrent and oddly in contrast to obama's m.o. otherwise. typically he accepts responsibility for everything and talks about how the buck stops with him.
former new york governor eliot spitzer has been doing his best to call for the release of aig's emails, of which there are plenty. since the american people own aig, we certainly have a right to see those emails, which will likely reveal more info about who swindled the american people and how. we should all stay aware of this story and push for release of those emails.
as for obama, his behavior is distressing. we voted him in because we believed he would be different in so much as he would not play typical politics by advocating cover ups and kowtowing to the corporations. lately his behavior has been disappointing. if i believed democrats could be of one mind in refusing to nominate him for a second term and if i had faith we would take the high road is defending the decision and nominate someone like dennis kucinich to replace him from a position of strength, i could easily go along with that plan.
democrats, (and probably republicans too, for that matter,) tend to think in terms of eight year blocks once they get a president elected. that has been a sound strategy too, considering the effectiveness of incumbent candidates. however it is time for change.
the democratic party, (and by that i do mean democrats,) could unseat barack obama after one term and elect another democrat president, perhaps even a more progressive, less corporatist candidate than barack obama. perhaps dennis kucinich could win, as the populist real deal. (or how old is ralph nader these days?)
please click on the header and read the bloomberg news story. the secretary of treasury of the united states, then in the capacity of head of the new york federal reserve, advised aig to hide information from the american public in order to get away with paying full price on credit default swaps, which in turn cost american taxpayers $62.1 billion. indeed, it was a back door bailout brokered by the new york federal reserve, geithner's organization. $62.1 billion taxpayer dollars?
i'll be honest, i am not sure i am advocating for unseating obama at this point, but i certainly respect the idea. not only did he appoint geithner to this vastly important cabinet position of tremendous power, but he had the best tools of investigation, to understand geithner's experience and ethos, money could buy. moreover, it is important for obama to be responsible for his decisions as president, and geithner's crime is egregious to such a degree, canning the guy who rewarded him and took advice from him, which suggests incompetence or worse, would be a revolutionary act of forsaking partisan politics in favor of simply exercising the collective power of the masses to act righteously as it concerns a matter of the utmost importance.
the federal reserve bank issues american currency and houses gold owned by some americans but also some saudis and kuwaitis and everyone else, but it is not a part of our government and it is ultimately beholden to its owners. as head of the new york federal reserve timothy geithner wielded a great amount of power, essentially on behalf of the investment bankers who own the new york fed.
$62.1 billion. i have to say that number over and over because it is hard to imagine that amount of money. it's huge. in response to the bloomberg news story, the white house has commented to say the advice the ny fed gave aig to not report the credit default swaps happened at a level lower than geithner and he was unaware of this advice and therefore not responsible. (where have we heard that before?) geithner's bank told aig to lie so that aig could use the money it received from taxpayers to pay off gamblers. that is unforgivable and geithner's bank facilitated the heist and his head should certainly roll. $62.1 billion. the fact obama prefers to dismiss this as if the "geithner was unaware," defense is legitimate is abhorrent and oddly in contrast to obama's m.o. otherwise. typically he accepts responsibility for everything and talks about how the buck stops with him.
former new york governor eliot spitzer has been doing his best to call for the release of aig's emails, of which there are plenty. since the american people own aig, we certainly have a right to see those emails, which will likely reveal more info about who swindled the american people and how. we should all stay aware of this story and push for release of those emails.
as for obama, his behavior is distressing. we voted him in because we believed he would be different in so much as he would not play typical politics by advocating cover ups and kowtowing to the corporations. lately his behavior has been disappointing. if i believed democrats could be of one mind in refusing to nominate him for a second term and if i had faith we would take the high road is defending the decision and nominate someone like dennis kucinich to replace him from a position of strength, i could easily go along with that plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)