Sign the Gulf Declaration Petition

[Stigweard]

Guess it's lucky that there is a world outside of the US.

A little email I got a few weeks back

 

 

 

So I think every little bit helps plus

 

That works for me too.

[garuda]

Edited July 24, 2010 by garuda

[Encephalon]

I may not have implied my point here effectively, while trying to be diplomatic with my message, instead of singling out anyone for attack.

 

Debating the issues, attacking the establishment, complaining about the collective unconsciousness that an apathetic society may sport is likely important if any real change is possible. But I was referring to attacking each other with spite. The enemy seems to be the intolerable situation, not the people here expressing their valid and legitimate opinion for changing things for the better. I applaud all for wanting change and a willingness to fight (verbally) for their cause, noble or not. But firing rounds at each other for our opinions seem counter-productive, if not disrespectful to a fellow human being who is trying to do their best at helping to make a better world, better collective consciousness.

 

Specifically, I was alluding to verbiage like the following, and not condemning any argument about the issues which do need to be addressed if positive change is to occur. For example, this sounds to me more like waging a fist-fight aimed at a forum member more than an attack on the issues, petitioners, the system, or the bad guys:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think both parties have a legitimate point and opinion regarding the issues. And I sincerely believe we should actively do whatever we can to improve a progressively deplorable situation(s) in the world. But the above smacks more of personal assaults toward each other, more than attacks against the issues. My intent was merely to point to the emotional heat of the discussion seeming aimed personally at each other. I think its okay to become somewhat emotional about the issues and the perpetrators, but the emotional fervor toward each other seems fruitless. If that isnt the case, then I was wrong and I apologize for interfering.

 

It may be none of my business and I may be totally wrong, but elevating the issue to feeling emotional, irritated, and in some cases enraged, seems to me to compromise ones ability to reason rationally, think clearly, and effect meaningful discussion or solutions regarding the actual issues at hand. If thats your style or preference, fine its none of my business. But am I wrong to share an observation in hopes of calming the emotion and offer an opportunity for one to examine the dynamics of the interactions verses legitimate debate over hotty-contested issues?

 

Hypothetical: What if two people (maybe Taoist students) were both in agreement that a law should be changed. One decided to use force; the other chose diplomacy. One option might be to combine and cooperate their individual strengths into one unified singular strategy to getting the law changed utilizing both aspects.

 

The second option might be: that the two get into an argument over which is the best approach force or diplomacy. They continue to argue over their choice of strategy until they both forget entirely their original mission of getting the law changed. So they fight between each other until they become exhausted and then part company while both having more resentment for each other than they originally had collectively toward the unfair law they wanted to change. Would you call that productive or counter-productive? This may be a slight exaggeration of the dynamic here, but maybe the principle is the same.

 

That is the only point I was trying to make here. Obviously I did a poor job of conveying this, and I apologize for any hurt feelings. I will attempt to confine my future posts to practice-related questions only, which is likely the most appropriate substance and intent of this forum. Sorry for any interference, being a new-comer here, I have no intention of making enemies.

 

I don't think Stig's post warranted the kind of belligerent reaction it received. There's something to be said for picking your battles, and unleashing aggressive energy over a petition was overkill and felt like a Krav Maga student who aches for a confrontation and settles for beating up someone's grandmother. Neither was there any point in going off on the petitioners themselves. I don't consume their books or ideas - although I occasionally read Chopra's columns - but they could very well be doing positive things with their lives that we don't know about.

This is not the first time in this forum I've seen aggressive ignorance coming from this direction.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Blasto

[JustARandomPanda]

It's too bad this online petition will do absolutely nothing to change the U.S. legislatures. All it does is preach to the choir and make them feel good momentarily like they've "done something". If the famous figureheads signing it had wanted to counter the Oil Lobbies and really change the Gulf Oil Spill situation they should've gotten off their duff and hit the streets gathering signatures the old-fashioned way. That's the only kind of petition that counts according to U.S. law.

[Encephalon]

It's too bad this online petition will do absolutely nothing to change the U.S. legislatures. All it does is preach to the choir and make them feel good momentarily like they've "done something". If the famous figureheads signing it had wanted to counter the Oil Lobbies and really change the Gulf Oil Spill situation they should've gotten off their duff and hit the streets gathering signatures the old-fashioned way. That's the only kind of petition that counts according to U.S. law.

 

Alas, I would have to agree, but I'm afraid the American populace is just too worn down to get passionately involved in anything anymore. Michael Moore pointed this out in "Sicko" with a comparison between the French and the Americans; in France, the government is afraid of the people. In America it is the reverse.

 

I think Charlie Rangel is right; we should reinstate the draft. When people are forced to get blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to defend our consumer lifestyle, people will take to the streets again. But as long as there are numerous distractions, amusements, and meaningless newsbites, most people will sit like frogs in water about to boil. The anesthetic effect of consumerism is just too strong for some.

[Riyue]

[rain]

No doubt petitions influence politics.

Sign and feel foolish

 

Feel foolish and look for more action

[joeblast]

Alas, I would have to agree, but I'm afraid the American populace is just too worn down to get passionately involved in anything anymore. Michael Moore pointed this out in "Sicko" with a comparison between the French and the Americans; in France, the government is afraid of the people. In America it is the reverse.

 

I think Charlie Rangel is right; we should reinstate the draft. When people are forced to get blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to defend our consumer lifestyle, people will take to the streets again. But as long as there are numerous distractions, amusements, and meaningless newsbites, most people will sit like frogs in water about to boil. The anesthetic effect of consumerism is just too strong for some.

Yeah, except we have an all-volunteer military that gets the job done plenty well enough, when its allowed to - what purpose would a draft serve, other than some means to "get the general populace a little more intimately involved"...? There's no need to grow the military - how are you reconciling that with your call to decrease defense spending? ( if in fact you did make that call, my fault if I'm wrong in that assumption...but that's congruent with the general impression I have, so again, apologies if that is incorrect.)

 

Rangel is a corrupt congressional lifer that relies on the pork he brings home for votes to keep him in his cushy loft - he's exactly the type of politician that needs to be cleaned out of congress. We need a full blown edification and institution of congressional term limits, I honestly believe that is just about the only thing (aside from something like this) that will save our country from the pits we're headed towards.

 

 

Congressional term limits...now THAT is a petition worth pushing...if I were a poltician, that's what I'd run on, ffs

Edited July 24, 2010 by joeblast

[Encephalon]

Yeah, except we have an all-volunteer military that gets the job done plenty well enough, when its allowed to - what purpose would a draft serve, other than some means to "get the general populace a little more intimately involved"...? There's no need to grow the military - how are you reconciling that with your call to decrease defense spending? ( if in fact you did make that call, my fault if I'm wrong in that assumption...but that's congruent with the general impression I have, so again, apologies if that is incorrect.)

 

Rangel is a corrupt congressional lifer that relies on the pork he brings home for votes to keep him in his cushy loft - he's exactly the type of politician that needs to be cleaned out of congress. We need a full blown edification and institution of congressional term limits, I honestly believe that is just about the only thing (aside from something like this) that will save our country from the pits we're headed towards.

 

 

Congressional term limits...now THAT is a petition worth pushing...if I were a poltician, that's what I'd run on, ffs

 

I wasn't suggesting that we grow the military, rather that we draft our personnel and keep voluntary enlistment. (Some would argue that we already have economic conscription in place, but that's another subject.)

 

I wasn't defending Rangel either, just one of his ideas, the argument being that the ranks become less ideological and the population takes a greater interest in the nations warfighting choices.

 

I was in USAF when the Soviets went into Afghanistan, prompting Carter to resurrect Selective Service registration. And then we watched their ten year campaign bleed their empire dry, just as it's doing to our empire.

 

As for term limits, I never swallowed the argument. They were always about skirting meaningful campaign finance reform and making sure that lobbyists had more expertise and influence than elected officials. This next campaign season is going to be positively steeped in cash now that the Supreme Court says that corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions.

 

I think I'm a little too old to be reading policy briefs from the Heritage Foundation. I realize there's a certain amount of inbreeding in most ideological institutions, even ones not promulgating a corporate agenda, but ideas are usually more powerful when shared with a broader audience. IMHO (which is rarely humble, as you know).

[Owledge]

Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbaren-Energien-Gesetz, or EEG) requires electricity companies to buy a certain amount of electricity derived from renewable sources such as solar power and to pay above market rates for it. The effect of this law has been to enable solar electricity companies to compete with those providing electricity from fossil fuels and to help push the adoption of this electricity source by consumers.

 

The result? In 2006 Germany accounted for 56 percent of the world's solar energy technology market and around 80 percent of the European market. A massive new industry creating work and opportunity for thousands of people. In 2006 the turnover was in excess of €3.7 billion. With growth rates as they were that could be easily double that today.

 

I'm not sure whether the amount they have to buy has any limitations. It sounds more like grid owning companies have to buy all the energy generated by private households. The rates are gradually decreased there. But maybe you were referring to the commercial sector only.

Subsidies cloak the fact that something is expensive. Germans are kinda bribed to join projects for solar energy generation that are said to be profitable in 20 years run-time because they are subsidized by the government using our own taxes. This means, the people who enjoy the profits from being a good boy and doing what the government wants them to do, increase the tax burden on all other people. And as has already been reported in German media, the solar panel manufacturers are delighted by this trend, because they can sell their panels for extremely high prices, because those prices are paid. There is the officially stated intention by the government to help establishment of this technology, but the very urge of the government to push it raises the prices. The manufacturers just don't have to lower prices, they make huge profits.

Furthermore, solar panels should be used within their special technological advantages, but everybody wants to cover all market sectors, thus there are huge solar parks built in Germany, although government studies describe Germany as not suitable for solar energy generation due to relatively little sunlight.

The energy density is extremely low. I did some exemplary calculation a while ago and the result was that if the roughly 20% nuclear energy in Germany was replaced by solar power, this would require an area like that of the whole German state Saarland.

And concerning wind power ... there's a huge difference between theory and praxis. In praxis, wind power generation in Germany is ironically more harmful to the environment than one would expect. But this was to be expected, because wind power, too, is run by profit-oriented businesses trying to survive in a hostile economic climate.

 

And the argument of job-creating is a very old, worn out one. It makes no sense to create jobs by measures that destroy others and generally have negative effects on society, economy et al.

 

There's almost always a whole lot of ugly details in things that sound nice at first.

 

In my view, everything that continues to ignore revolutionary energy technologies like zero point is just fooling the people and within the boundaries of enonomic stranglehold.

 

And while I don't support electric car technology, the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is quite insightful and shows you why you shouldn't give a shit about the Prius.

 

 

Germany's energy policy has so far been rather successful -- this is in large part because it reflects the general consensus of the German population, not because their government is "good at it."

The general consensus (I'd rather call it vast majority interest) among Germans is to save money, and mixed in are some other character flaws.

It reminds me of the thing with Diesel engines. People say it is cheaper and they would be stupid not to do it. Then I proved to them that it's is not cheaper. Then they said that they don't have to shift so much, so it is easier to drive. Then I showed them how turbo diesel engines actually require a lot of shifting. Then they said the noise level is low-frequency and thus nicer to the ear.

People will find every stupid justification for something they don't want to admit why they're doing it, or don't know.

 

 

There's no need to grow the military - how are you reconciling that with your call to decrease defense spending?

A propos defense spending: While the 500 billions are said to be more than the whole rest of the world spends anually for military, and while there are many things that would have to be added to that official number that are very related to military, I've heard there's more than three times that sum anually unaccounted for and going into 'black projects' (military projects too secret to be officially existing).

Edited July 25, 2010 by Hardyg

[Martial Development]

I don't think Stig's post warranted the kind of belligerent reaction it received. There's something to be said for picking your battles, and unleashing aggressive energy over a petition was overkill and felt like a Krav Maga student who aches for a confrontation and settles for beating up someone's grandmother. Neither was there any point in going off on the petitioners themselves. I don't consume their books or ideas - although I occasionally read Chopra's columns - but they could very well be doing positive things with their lives that we don't know about.

This is not the first time in this forum I've seen aggressive ignorance coming from this direction.

 

Before reading this thread, I had just finished watching the news report about the deaths in that phony sweat lodge last year. It was created by a man who had declared himself a spiritual leader, a man whose primary qualification (AFAIK) was to "champion awareness" in precisely the manner exhibited by this petition.

 

Someone will also argue that his sweat lodge was created "with the best intentions" and defy anyone to prove otherwise. I am saying, that wasn't good enough then, and it isn't now. We have the right and the responsibility to expect more from those who would be our leaders.

 

Comparisons to fist fights and Krav Maga are entirely inappropriate. These notes have been a polite reality check. Yes, polite. If you are living on this planet, don't fool yourself into believing you're above the fray. Keep doing that, and one day you'll end up on the wrong side of a "sweat lodge", another victim of the best possible intentions.

 

Now, as for what should or could have been done with this petition, keeping it...

 

Specific

Measurable

Achievable

Reasonable

Timely

 

...I would like to see each of those headline signatories publish their annual energy consumption, right next to their name, within 60 days. To be followed up with detailed accounts on how that energy is spent, how they personally intend to reduce it, and how others can follow in their footsteps without turning their lives completely upside-down. That could be a first step towards meaningful action, and I see no reason why we should we accept anything less.

[gendao]

That’s why I signed the Gulf Declaration that was started by some of the bestselling authors and leaders of our day such as Deepak Chopra, Jack Canfield and Michael Bernard Beckwith. Click here to read it:

 

http://www.gulfdeclaration.com

Doubt it can hurt, but I echo all the sobering sentiments in this thread...

 

In the East, masters and gurus are expected to have actually attained a high level of awareness, energy or both. And spiritual leaders (like Amma) put far more effort into fundraising to build schools, hospitals, homes, etc. - than playing partisan politics.

 

In the US, apparently you just need to be able to blow a lot of hot air and do the talk show circuit to plug all your books, workshops and lectures. I wouldn't be surprised if a Reiki 1 n00b has more actual spiritual attainment than any of these poseurs. Can any of them even actually DO anything??? Other than just talk???

 

At best, most of these are sadly naive, ignorant pied pipers with zero discernment. I mean, just listen to all the ridiculous and nonsensical accolades they heaped upon Obama to get him elected:

At worse, some are greedy telemarketers exploiting gullible followers - sometimes even to their deaths, like James Ray. I wonder how many of these guys are actually more like their fraudulent colleague in The Secret? Whose core message was liberal self-entitlement in a nutshell - don't do anything yourself. Just ask the universe/government to do it all for you! The "secret" is not hard, smart work - it's magic welfare!

 

And at worst, I wonder how many of these guys might even be plants used to manipulate the voting public?

 

Seriously, Michael Beckwith claimed that Obama was the most progressive candidate on the environment??? You mean BP's biggest whore who did nothing but stonewall and impede the cleanup effort??? REALLY???

Edited July 25, 2010 by vortex