There is an almost infinite number of beliefs embraced or created by countless individuals and many cultures throughout the world. Some of these beliefs are conscious, others become part of our conditioning and lay just below conscious awareness, triggering automatic responses in us.

Some of these beliefs are religious, some are spiritual, philosophical, ideological. Even science has its beliefs, or theories … it often seeks to prove its theories rather than attempting to approach reality without bias, as it claims it does.

And what is reality? Is there an absolute truth, an objective reality? Both religion and science, that are very similar in their dogmatism, state that their world views are true, because essentially separate from human consciousness, therefore standing on their own and unassailable. One such absolute truth is “given” by God to prophets or mystics who write it down and make a religion of it, the other “discovered” by scientists in the laboratory, who translate it into a formula or theorem.

Everyone knows the riddle of the tree falling in the forest … if no one is there, does it make a sound? It produces a sound wave, which is an energy pattern, which can only become sound when a physical apparatus such as a human ear catches it and when a brain translates it into what is experienced as sound. Different creatures hear differently, and give sound different meanings according to the experiences of the species.

So what is reality? Can it exist separate from consciousness, from the physical brain and the mind that give it form and meaning? Is there anything that can actually exist apart from consciousness, standing on its own as an absolute, separate truth?

If we agree that consciousness gives form and substance to energy fields that are highly responsive to it and highly malleable, we must also remember that the chosen focuses of consciousness, at the individual as well as the mass level, are pre-determined by chosen beliefs. As we believe, so do we see, feel, experience, and create … as we believe so do we form our lives and our world. If we believe we can walk on hot coals without getting burned, we will do it. And if most of humanity believes that the world must end, the world will end.

Life, it could be said, is a series of experimentations within beliefs systems, from which our human world springs. We embrace existing beliefs or create our own belief systems and use them as long as they serve our individual evolution and the evolution of our species. We then discard them and our world changes as our beliefs change. As this is the nature of human experience, to create illusions and explore and move through them as do actors on a stage, it is quite unavoidable, because the ultimate reality, if there is such a thing and as far as our species is concerned, is a psychic field of infinite potentiality, of endless creativity.

This creativity is what distinguishes us from animals, whose behaviors are mostly pre-determined by what is called instinct, and who live in a state of grace, or harmony and balance with the creation and true to their nature, without having to strive for it.

The Biblical myths of the tree of knowledge and of the fall are meant to symbolically represent this leap in human evolution from a pre-determined life, a purely instinctive life, to a life of conscious choice and creativity, that are the gifts and responsibilities of conscious evolution.

Today, there are reactionary movements in the world, primarily rising from organized religions gone fundamentalist, but also from political ideologies, that would propose a regression towards pre-determined life, not in a natural state of grace as in the animal kingdom, but under coercion and oppression, under harsh laws that would re-establish the authoritarian state. As differences and multiplicity are erroneously perceived to be causes of conflicts, many people are progressively espousing the belief that only the eradication of such differences can lead to global peace.

Even the most progressive and open-minded among us state that, for example, “not seeing skin color” is the proper way to deal with racial differences. The Olympic slogan, “One world one dream,” resonates with these rising fantasies of the unification of the world through uniformity, and of an ultimate outcome of one world government, one world ideology, one world religion, one world culture.

Human creativity, the fulfillment of which is the very condition necessary for consciousness to evolve and even survive, can only be stifled under authoritarianism, that breed conformity and uniformity, the opposites of creativity. Coercive authority is indeed the enemy of creativity (try to force a poet to write, and see what s/he produces under such conditions … all true artists are rebels by nature … all dictatorships silence artists and intellectuals first, then burn books). If we understand that creativity is an intrinsic part of the human psyche, we can imagine what all that opposes creativity does to the human spirit, which explains the degree of violence our world is experiencing on a constant basis. The primal energy of creativity emerges, under oppressive conditions, in destructive forms, like steam under pressure, or like a grizzly bear that escapes captivity.

The enemy of creativity is also fear, that is always at the very root of all aspirations to achieve dominant power, control, and authority. Because fear is unavoidable, to live as a true human being requires great courage. Not just the courage to work, raise a family and do the right thing, but the courage to accept the greater responsibility of being a co-creator of the individual and mass realities we all experience. It requires the courage to acknowledge that consciousness is the root and the ground of the world we know.

The path to peace is not to suppress multiplicity and cause humanity to submit to inflexible dogmas and ideologies, to the unification of the world under globalization and other agendas meant to “homogenize” the world, but to acknowledge differences, and not only respect and honor them, but celebrate them … to see differences in skin colors, in cultures, in belief systems, in languages and religions, in human behaviors, and celebrate them joyfully! To no longer perceive creativity to be a threat, by accepting the facts that there is no absolute truth, only relative truths, there is not one proper way, there are many paths, and there is no objectivity, only subjectivity. There is no reality that can remain separate from the viewer or witness, even at the sub-atomic particle level, there are only individual perceptions, and mass perceptions within species, cultures and historic periods.

The beliefs we choose to call “truths” do not originate from outside of us, they are our creations. Only by understanding this will we stop fighting to invalidate other’s beliefs, or “truths,” or perceptions of reality, and accept the very liberating fact that the only valid power given to us is creative power, not dominant power or coercive authority, whose foundations are fear and that consequently can only generate more fear, and oppose creativity or the very nature of human consciousness.

And all of this, of course, is part of an individual’s belief system, not an ultimate truth, even the “facts” stated as such for the purpose of clarity.

Raphael Montoliu lives in Lakeport.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

• McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.

• Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal mortgage agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

• Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

• McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”

• McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.

• Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we've heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

• McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from eBay, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.

Analysis

Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain met Oct. 7 for the second of three scheduled presidential debates. It was a town-hall-style debate before an audience of 80 uncommitted voters. Questions were submitted by the audience members, and others who sent them by e-mail, and were screened beforehand by moderator Tom Brokaw of NBC News. The event was held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., and was broadcast nationally. We caught several misleading statements and falsehoods, many of which the candidates have said before.

"My" mortgage plan?

McCain made what he claimed was a new proposal to rescue over-mortgaged homeowners:

McCain: As president of the United States. ... I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes – at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those – be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

McCain added: "It's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again..."

But in fact, the recently passed $700 billion rescue package already grants the treasury secretary authority to undertake just such a program. It requires the secretary to buy up troubled mortgages while taking into consideration “the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities.” It also says “the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate (to) loss mitigation measures, including term extensions, rate reductions (or) principal write downs."

Obama himself had urged this as the package was being considered. He said on Sept. 23 that "we should consider giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly instead of simply purchasing mortgage-backed securities."

McCain said "his" proposal would be expensive, and his campaign quickly issued a news release giving numbers:

McCain press release: The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes. ... It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.

Minutes later, McCain was attacking Obama for proposing what he said was $860 billion in new spending.

Oversimplifying the financial crisis. Again.

The finger-pointing was fast and furious during the discussion of the fiscal crisis. McCain blamed lax regulation of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation:

McCain: But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [T]hey're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.

Obama blamed deregulation of the banking industry:

Obama: Now, I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history, not surprisingly. Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system.

We’ve been here before. McCain has in fact been in favor of financial deregulation, but President Bill Clinton signed, and a lot of other Democrats supported, much of that same deregulation. And while Democrats really did fight McCain-cosponsored regulations of the FMs, McCain himself signed on to the bill just two months before the housing bubble popped.

In fact, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Experts have blamed everyone from home buyers to mortgage lenders to Alan Greenspan to both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Furthermore, McCain misspoke when he said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back." Actually those organizations did not make "home loans directly with consumers." Rather, they "work[ed] with mortgage bankers, brokers, and other primary mortgage market partners" and supplied them with the funds to lend to home buyers at affordable rates, as described on their Web sites.

Dubious Health Care Savings

Obama said that his health care plan would cut premium costs substantially:

Obama: We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.

We contacted health experts about this claim before – when Obama was saying the $2,500 would be the savings per family "on average." Some were quite skeptical. M.I.T.’s Jonathan Gruber told us, “I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.” Obama has also said on the campaign trail that more than half of the savings would come from the use of electronic health records, a major part of his plan to cut health costs. When we looked into that claim, experts told us it was wishful thinking.

Adoption of electronic medical records has been slow among doctors and hospitals. Obama could do much to speed it up, but it's not clear that he could bring about widespread adoption or reap such large savings from it. One of his advisers previously told us that the $2,500 figure included savings that would go to government and employers and that could, theoretically, result in lower taxes or higher wages for Americans. It remains to be seen whether savings could trickle down like that, even if Obama could gain the optimistic overall health care savings he touts.

More health care misleads

McCain misstated his own health care plan and Obama’s in one sentence:

McCain: I am in favor of . . . giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for.

McCain's plan does not call for giving a $5,000 tax credit for "every American." It calls for a tax credit of $2,500. The $5,000 figure would apply to couples or families. And Obama’s plan requires large businesses to provide coverage for their employees or pay into a national plan, not "small businesses," as McCain said. Obama's health care proposal, posted on his Web site, says: “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” McCain previously used this charge in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, and he repeated the claim in the debate, saying, "If you're a small business person and you don't insure your employees, Sen. Obama will fine you. Will fine you." As we said, that's false. Obama countered that he had proposed a refundable tax credit for small businesses of up to 50 percent of the cost of premiums, which is indeed part of his plan. We've noted before that neither man defines what he means by "small business."

Black Hawk down

McCain lamented having to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1993, but failed to mention his own role:

McCain: We went in to Somalia as a peacemaking organization, we ended up trying to be – excuse me, as a peacekeeping organization, we ended up trying to be peacemakers and we ended up having to withdraw in humiliation.

What McCain isn’t saying is that he led an attempt to force the Clintonmccain administration to withdraw more quickly. After the First Battle of Mogadishu (immortalized in the book and film “Black Hawk Down”), Clinton proposed a six-month plan for withdrawing combat troops. Then-Sen. Phil Gramm complained that the plan was an attempt to “save face,” and McCain introduced an amendment to cut off funding for combat in Somalia and force an immediate withdrawal. The amendment was tabled and the Senate backed Clinton’s plan. In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” McCain called his amendment “hasty” and wrote that he “regretted” what he came to see as “a retreat in the face of aggression from an inferior foe.”

Nuclear warming

Obama flatly said he favored nuclear energy – embracing it more warmly than in the past:

Obama: Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.

Previously Obama has been more hesitant. He said at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, on Dec. 30, 2007, when asked if he was "truly comfortable" with the safety of nuclear power:

Obama (Dec. 30, 2007:) I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. ... I am not a nuclear energy proponent.

He then went on to say later in the same response that he has "not ruled out nuclear ... but only so far as it is clean and safe." The energy plan Obama released in October 2007 only grudgingly conceded that more nuclear power is probably needed to reduce carbon emissions: "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table."

eBay error

McCain said that "1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay." He's way off. That's the number of people worldwide who have eBay earnings as their primary or secondary income. The online auction site says that of these, 724,000 people are in the U.S. – but it still doesn't say how many of the 724,000 use eBay as their primary source of income.

McCain was touting the founder of the popular Internet auction site, Meg Whitman, as a possible secretary of the treasury in a McCain administration.

Counting errors

McCain exaggerated Obama's votes to increase taxes.

McCain: Sen. Obama has voted 94 times to either increase your taxes or against tax cuts. That's his record.

He’s getting warmer — the first time we dinged him for this one, he said Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes, which is way off. He's now saying it's 94 votes either for increased taxes or against tax cuts. But that's still misleading. Seven of the votes were for lowering taxes for most people while increasing them on a few, and 11 votes were for increasing taxes only on those making more than $1 million a year (not "your taxes" except for a very few.)

Obama had his own misleading claim about vote counts:

Obama: And during that time, he voted 23 times against alternative fuels, 23 times.

We found that only 11 of those votes would have reduced or eliminated subsidies or tax incentives for alternative energy. The rest were votes McCain cast against the mandatory use of alternative energy, or votes in favor of allowing exemptions from such mandates.

More on that $860 billion

McCain said that Obama has proposed more than $800 billion in new spending.

McCain: Do you know that Sen. Obama has voted for – is proposing $860

billion of new spending now? New spending.

That’s based on a McCain campaign estimate of how much Obama’s new proposals will cost, without figuring in any savings or reductions in spending. Any increase in funding and any created program counts as "new spending" in this estimate, whether or not it is offset by decreases in spending elsewhere.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain's major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain's deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.

Iraqi surplus

Obama repeated a stale talking point when he said, "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion."

As we’ve pointed out when Obama said it on the campaign trail, when he repeated it at the last debate, and even when Biden mentioned the figure in the vice presidential debate, that number is wrong. The Iraqis actually “have” $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus, and that means that the Iraqi’s will not have $79 billion in the bank. They could have about $59 billion.

$6.8 billion boast

McCain repeated a questionable boast when he said, “I've taken on some of the defense contractors. I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an Air Force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion."

As we mentioned in our analysis of the first debate, there is more to the story. McCain certainly did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. The contract is still up in the air, however, and questions have been raised about the role McCain played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.

After the original Boeing contract to supply refueling airliners was nixed in 2003, the bidding process was reopened. And in early 2007, Boeing rival EADS/Airbus won the bid the second time around. But Boeing filed a protest about the way the bids were processed, and the Government Accountability Office released a report that found “significant errors” with the bid process.

Further, the New York Times reported that “McCain’s top advisers, including a cochairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies.”

68 million acres

Obama was off the mark when he said that oil companies “currently have 68 million acres that they're not using.”

As we’ve pointed out previously, those 68 million leased acres are not producing oil, but they are not necessarily untouched. In fact, in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, there were a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished, according to the Bureau of Land Management. These acres of land that these holes sit on are not counted as being “producing,” but they are certainly far from untouched.

The return of the oil slick

McCain recycled a misleading claim from Sen. Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign, charging Obama with voting to give “billions” to oil companies:

McCain: By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.

McCain is referring to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Obama did in fact vote for. Clinton raised this same charge against Obama during the Democratic primaries. It was misleading then and it’s equally misleading now.

In fact, according to a Congressional Research Service report, more tax breaks were taken away from oil companies than were given. Overall, the act resulted in a small net tax increase on the oil industry:

Congressional Research Service: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years.

As we said last year, the bill did contain $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those went to electric utilities, and nuclear, and also to alternative fuels research

and subsidies for energy-efficient cars, homes and buildings – not to the oil industry.

Computer error

Obama moved the invention of the computer up by more than a century:

Obama: The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we've got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.

It’s true that the first electronic computer, ENIAC, or the Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, was developed at the University of Pennsylvania with funding from the War Department.

But ENIAC was not actually the first computer. That distinction belongs to the difference engine, a mechanical computer invented in 1822 by the British mathematician Charles Babbage. And even Babbage was drawing on earlier work, such as the calculating machine built in 1671 by the German philosopher Gottfried Liebniz.

Other quibbles

• Obama said: "When George Bush came into office, our debt – national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion." Actually, it was closer to $6 trillion when Bush took office. On Jan. 22, 2001 (two days after Bush was sworn in) the debt stood at $5.728 trillion. On Sept. 30, 2008, it was $10.025 trillion.

• McCain said it again: "We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very – like us very much" (He actually used the figure three times in the debate.) He's talking about what we spend importing oil, and he's said the same thing at the last debate and numerous other times. At current oil prices, the correct figure is about $493 billion. About a third of that goes to Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom, which were still on the friendly side of the ledger last time we looked.

• Obama was right about the amount of earmarks, when he said they "account for about $18 billion of our budget." According to the budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks totaled just $18.3 billion in 2008. Citizens Against Government Waste came in with a slightly smaller number of $17.2 billion, and the Office of Management and Budget smaller still at $16.9 billion.

• McCain repeated an error he made in the last debate when he said, "In Lebanon, I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said, if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect this situation? And said we shouldn't. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed." In fact, as we noted previously, McCain wasn't elected until three months after the Marines had been deployed. He did vote against the post-hoc War Powers Act authorization of the deployment; Reagan signed it into law in October 1983, 11 days before a suicide bomber set off a blast that killed 241 servicemembers in their barracks.

Sources

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Promises, Promises: A Fiscal Voter Guide to the 2008 Election." U.S. Budget Watch. 15 Sep. 2008.

CNN Political Ticker. "Fact Check: Is Obama proposing $860 billion+ in new spending?" 29 Sep. 2008.

JohnMcCain.com. "Straight Talk on Health System Reform." accessed 8 Oct. 2008.

Transcript, “Barack Obama Sept. 23 press conference,” Lynn Sweet's blog, Chicago Sun Times 24 Sept 2008.

Obama, Barack. "Plan for a Healthy America." BarackObama.com, accessed 8 Oct. 2008.

"U.S. Imports by Country of Origin." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 8 Oct. 2008.

"Spot Prices, Crude Oil in Dollars per Barrel." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 8 Oct. 2008.

"Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company" Government Accountability Office. 18 June 2008.

Isikoff, Michael, "McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs," Newsweek. 30 June 2008.

Laurent, Lionel, "Boeing Boomerangs on McCain," Forbers Magazine. 4 March 2008.

Wayne, Leslie, "Audit Says Tanker Deal Is Flawed," New York Times. 19 June 2008.

Majority Staff, "The Truth About America’s Energy:Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits," House Committe on Natural Resources. June 2008.

"Total Producing and Non-Producing Leases: Fiscal Year 2007," Mineral Management Service. Accessed 2 July 2008.

Van Wagener, Dana, "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf," Energy Information Administration. Accessed 2 July 2008.

"Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development," U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy. 2008.

Krauss, Clifford. "Backing Clinton, Senate Rejects Bid to Speed Somalia

Pullout," New York Times, 15 October 1993.

Winegrad, Dilys and Atsushi Akera. "A Short History of the Second American Revolution," University of Pennsylvania Almanac, 30 January 1996.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. Politics, and increase public knowledge and understanding. Visit them at www.factcheck.org.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

The first thought that comes to me when I ask this question is “Protect myself from what?” I started thinking. Usually a need for protection comes out of a sense of a lack of something – in this case a lack of security that comes from a stable financial base. But, is this true? Can we really find true protection in “stuff”?

My spiritual heritage has its roots in the Christian tradition. Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been meditating on the following verses in Matthew:

“Look at the birds of the air. They do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the filed grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

“If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

“So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat' or 'What shall we drink' or 'What shall we wear.' For the pagans run after all these things, and your Heavenly Father knows that you need them.

But seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” ̶ Matthew 6:25-26; 28-33

Are you worrying about what you will eat or what you will drink or what you will wear? If you’re a person of faith in a higher power, it isn’t really useful to spend time concerned over these issues, as God already knows we need them. So, where then should the focus of our thoughts be if not on our desperate condition? On the Kingdom of God.

Right. Anybody got a road map to where this “Kingdom” is?

Well, actually, yes.

“The Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

OK. If that’s the case, how do I know what part of me is the “Kingdom” and what is not? Actually, God gave the answer to Moses after Moses asked him, “Who should I say sent me?” God’s answer? “Tell them ‘I AM’ sent you.”

The Kingdom of God is when you are connected to the “I AM.” And, what is the “I AM”? The only thing that there is – The Present Moment. The NOW.

Anytime you feel fear, anxiety, worry, guilt, anger, etc, etc., it’s because you’re living in a time-bound experience. These emotions imply a sense of time, as fear, anxiety and worry are rooted in an imagined future, while guilt and anger have their source in a remembered past. Neither is happening now (though your ego-mind would like you to think this is so).

When you’re present, you experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (does this ring a bell with you Christians as the “fruits of the spirit?”).

How do you get and stay present? A few ways:

1. Acceptance and surrender

Allow the present moment to be what it is. Completely accept the situation as it stands. This does NOT mean you cave in and do nothing about it. Quite the contrary – by not judging the conditions you find yourself in, you bring a sense of clarity to the moment. This permits you to see things in a different, less emotionally charged, light from which a better course of action can be determined.

2. Gratitude

I like to think of gratitude as the energetic opposite of “surrender.” “Surrender” to me implies an inner acceptance of what appears to be an outward experience. “Gratitude” to me is the outward expression of an inner state of being derived from surrender. Having gratitude – or thankfulness – means you are OK with what Is and is the natural result of Surrender.

3. Do not judge

(anybody got a good antonym for “judge”? I couldn’t find one!)

Ever wonder why Jesus admonished, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? I would dare say because we do not know the mind of God. What we deem to be good (or bad, or fat, or old or ugly ...) may not be so because we tend to look at the situation from our own small point of view rather than God’s bigger picture. If you can cease to label an experience, you open up yourself to a wealth of possibilities only accessible by this freedom from your inner critic.

4. Give

“Give, and it will be given to you. A large quantity, pressed together, shaken down, and running over will be put into your lap, because you will be evaluated by the same standard with which you evaluate others.” (Luke 6:38 ISV) .

Do you ever wonder why it feels so good to give? Because when we give, we are filled with a sense of abundance, not lack. And, don’t just give money – give the most valuable item you own to everyone and everything: Your attention.

You say you’re a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Muslim? All of these religions have these tenants at their heart. You’re living as a “Pagan” (read: “Non-Believer”) if you are not living in the Kingdom, and the only place you’ll find the Kingdom is by being present now.

Enjoy the peace and abundance of the Kingdom of God!

Carol Cole-Lewis is president of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Lake County. Visit the church online at http://uuclc.org.

{mos_sb_discuss:5}

My parents told me at an early age that you only live once and time goes by too fast, so make the most it.

I guess that would mean anomaly ... this is my second life. I’m lucky. I screwed up the first one so I’m trying to make up for it the second time around.

You could say I had it all.

I had a wonderful wife (I thought so at the time), I was a successful photojournalist who left the crazy world of the newspaper game to pursue a career operating my own portrait photography business.

That’s where the wheels fell off the truck.

Within a five-year per found out I was diabetic.

At the time of my diabetic diagnosis, I became divorced from that wonderful wife, she took my business and everything in it and told it for cash, my mom passed away from cancer and for a short time, I found myself homeless. You could say the 1990s weren’t a very good decade for me.

When I was diagnosed with diabetes, my doctor said the disease usually takes one of two roads. It is there and it is more of a gnat that drives you crazy. It can also be a raging wildfire that is difficult to contain. Guess which road it took.

For seven years I did all I could to try and beat the unbeatable. Gone were regular drinks with sugar, Oreo cookies, maple syrup and almost anything else that I really enjoyed. I love food. That was probably the reason I became diabetic. Thank God they didn’t take my green beans from me. Then we would have a real problem.

In 1998 after having a severe case of cellulitis in my right leg that kept me in the hospital for two weeks, the doctors noticed my kidney function had dropped dramatically. They said it was from the medicine they had given me to get rid of cellulitis.

We went to see a neurologist with the idea of his being able to work some magic and increase the function of my kidneys.

After waiting for what seemed to be an eternity, the doctor came in and calmly announced that my kidney function was so low that he felt I would need to start dialysis within the next six months.

My wife's (I had just remarried) and my jaws hit the floor. In fact it was one of the only times I ever saw her cry. Of course that made me cry.

After mulling over the situation and seeing my doctor, he referred me to a nephrologist's office in Santa Rosa and my second life was born.

I hope to enlighten you with a world which is very misunderstood, the world of dialysis.

It’s a tough way to live. Just ask the millions on it and the more than 3,000 just in the Bay Area who are waiting and hoping for a kidney transplant.

I welcome your questions, your comments and your experiences with someone you’ve known who happened to be a dialysis patient.

I hope you enjoy my thoughts. They may be tough to swallow and may seem to be graphic at times. But they will be an honest look at an area more and more of the American population may be faced with unless their way of life takes a dramatic change.

Brett Behrens will be writing a regular column for Lake County News. Behrens, 46, is a native of Lake County. He has spent most of his life behind the lens as a photojournalist and the owner of a successful portrait photography studio. He continues his image-making activities as his time and eyesight allows.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Summary

Biden and Palin debated, and both mangled some facts.

• Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.

• Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.

• Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

• Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the president of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.

• Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

Analysis

Vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin met for their one and only debate Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri. The event was broadcast nationally. Gwen Ifill of PBS was the debate moderator.

We noted the following:

Palin trips up on troop levels

Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said "and with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq."

The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But even then, there still would be 6,000 more troops in Iraq than there were when the surge began.

Palin's false tax claims

Palin repeated a false claim about Barack Obama's tax proposal:

Palin: Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. The resolution would not have raised taxes on its own, without additional legislation, and, as we've noted before, there is no such tax increase in Obama's tax plan. (The vote took place on March 14 of this year, not last year as Palin said.)

Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes that were against tax cuts; and 17 that came on just 7 different bills. She also claimed that Biden and Obama voted for "the largest tax increase in history." Palin is referring here to the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That's a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of the nation's economic output, or gross domestic product, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it's not even in the top 10 since 1940.

Biden's false defense

Biden denied that Obama supported increasing taxes for families making $42,000 a year – but then falsely claimed that McCain had cast an identical vote.

Biden: Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes.

Biden was correct only to the extent that the resolution Obama supported would not by itself have increased taxes; it was a vote on a budget resolution that set revenue and spending targets. But he's wrong to say McCain voted the same way. The Obama campaign attempted to justify Biden's remark by pointing to a different vote, on a Senate amendment, that took place March 13. The amendment passed 99-1, with only Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold dissenting. It would have preserved some of Bush's tax cuts for lower-income people. The vote on the budget resolution in question, however, came in the wee hours of March 14 and was a mostly party-line tally, 51-44, with Obama in favor and McCain not voting.

Palin's health care hooey

Palin claimed that McCain's health care plan would be "budget-neutral," costing the government nothing.

Palin: He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything ... a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral.

The McCain campaign hasn't released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin's claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama's plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch's fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain's tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Palin also said that Obama’s plan would be "universal government run" health care and that health care would be "taken over by the feds." That's not the case at all. As we’ve said before, Obama’s plan would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. It would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care.

McCain in Spain?

Biden said that McCain had refused to meet with the president of Spain, but McCain made no such definite statement.

Biden: The last point I'll make, John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now. I find that incredible.

In a September 17 interview on Radio Caracol Miami, McCain appeared confused when asked whether he would meet with President Zapatero of Spain. He responded that "I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion," but then started talking about leaders in Latin America. He did not commit to meeting with Zapatero, but it wasn't clear he'd understood the question.

But the McCain campaign denied that their candidate was confused.

According to our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, campaign adviser Randy Scheunemann e-mailed CNN and the Washington Post the next day, saying that McCain's reluctance to commit to a meeting with Zapatero was a policy decision.

Scheunemann, September 2008: The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero — and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred. Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview.

That's not a refusal to meet with Zapatero, as Biden said. It's simply a refusal to commit himself one way or the other.

Palin's small business balderdash

Palin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time:

Palin: But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

As we reported June 23, it's simply untrue that "millions" of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama's proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as "small business owners" even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

Defense disagreements

Biden and Palin got into a tussle about military recommendations in Afghanistan:

Biden: The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge – the surge principles used in Iraq will not – well, let me say this again now – our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Palin: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one, and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan.

Point Biden. To start, Palin got newly appointed Gen. David D. McKiernan's name wrong when she called him McClellan. And, more important, Gen. McKiernan clearly did say that surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported:

Washington Post: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.

However, it is worth noting that McKiernan also said that Afghanistan would need an infusion of American troops "as quickly as possible."

Killing Afghan civilians?

Palin said that Obama had accused American troops of doing nothing but killing civilians, a claim she called "reckless" and "untrue."

Palin: Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.

Obama did say that troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians. Here’s the whole quote, from a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

The Associated Press fact-checked this one, and found that in fact U.S troops were killing more civilians at the time than insurgents: "As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party." Afghan President Hamid Karzai had expressed concern about these civilian killings, a concern President Bush said he shared.

Whether Obama said that this was "all we're doing" is debatable. He said that we need to have enough troops so that we're "not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians," but did not say that troops are doing nothing else.

Out of context?

Biden claimed a comment he made about "clean coal" was taken out of context:

Biden: My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.

Was it really taken out of context? Here’s the full exchange, which took place while Biden was shaking hands with voters along a rope line in Ohio.

Woman: Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, why are you supporting clean coal?

Biden: We’re not supporting clean coal. Guess what? China’s building two every week, two dirty coal plants, and it’s polluting the United States. It’s causing people to die.

Obama-Biden campaign spokesman David Wade later said that “Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies.”

Whatever Biden meant or didn’t mean to say on the rope line, he has supported clean coal in the past. When the McCain camp used this one remark from Biden as the basis for a TV ad saying that Obama-Biden oppose clean coal, we said the claim was false. Obama’s position in favor of clean coal has been clear, and pushing for the technology has been part of his energy policy.

McCain in the vanguard of mortgage reform?

Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

And there's more ...

A few other misleads of note:

• Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.

• Biden claimed that McCain said in a magazine article that he wanted to deregulate the health care industry as the banking industry had been. That’s taking McCain’s words out of context. As we’ve said before, he was talking specifically about his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

• Biden said five times that McCain's tax plan would give oil companies a "$4 billion tax cut." As we’ve noted previously, McCain’s plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent — for ALL corporations, not just oil companies. Biden uses a Democratic think tank's estimate for what the rate change is worth to the five largest U.S. oil companies.

• Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

• Biden said that Iraq had an "$80 billion surplus." The country was once projected to have as much as a $79 billion surplus, but no more. The Iraqis have $29 billion in the bank, and could have $47 billion to $59 billion by the end of the year, as we noted when Obama used the incorrect figure. A $21 billion supplemental spending bill, passed by the Iraqi legislature in August, knocked down the old projection.

• Biden said four times that McCain had voted 20 times against funding alternative energy. However, in analyzing the Obama campaign's list of votes after the first presidential debate, we found the number was actually 11. In the other instances the Obama-Biden campaign cites, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates.

Sources

Belasco, Amy. "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11." 14 July 2008. Congressional Research Service. Accessed 2 October 2008.

Pickler, Nedra. "Fact Check: Obama on Afghanistan." The Associated Press. 14 Aug. 2007.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Promises, Promises: A Fiscal Voter Guide to the 2008 Election." U.S. Budget Watch. 29 Aug. 2008.

Williams, Roberton and Howard Gleckman. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. 15 Sep. 2008.

"Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf." 2007. Energy Information Administration. 8 Aug. 2008.

Petroleum Basic Statistics. The Energy Information Administration, 3 Oct. 2008.

NPC Global Oil & Gas Study. “Topic Paper #7, Global Access to Oil and Gas,” 18 July 2007.

Clarke, David and Liriel Higa, "Blueprints Gain Narrow Adoption," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 15 March 2008.

"Iraq Index," Brookings Iraq Index.

Baldor, Lolita C, "General: Urgent need for troops in Afghanistan now," Associated Press. 2 Oct 2008.

"Bush: 8,000 Troops Coming Home By Feb," CBS/AP. 9 Sept 2008.

Tyson, Ann Scott, "Commander in Afghanistan Wants More Troops," Washington Post. 2 Oct 2008.

Barnes, Julian N., "More U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan 'quickly,' general says," Los Angeles Times. 2 Oct 2008.

Table T08-0164 "Distribution of Tax Units with Business Income by Statutory Marginal Tax Rate, Assuming Extension and Indexation of the 2007 AMT Patch, 2009" Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 20 May 2008.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. Politics, and increase public knowledge and understanding. Visit them at www.factcheck.org.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

That got me to thinking. It would be very helpful for TV public affairs shows to always put sidebars or bubbles showing the net personal worth and annual income of their various talking heads. The same would go for TV appearances by public officials, politicians and political shills of all stripes. I found myself wondering about the Fed chairman’s net worth, and then the members of the committee and the other “experts” assembled to support the administration’s request. From there my thoughts jumped to the TV commentators and pundits who are either super rich themselves or operate in those circles.

Why should we care about someone’s wealth? Every time one of these well-heeled folks says something being proposed is in “our” interest, you have to wonder whose interest they are talking about. Surely Secretary Paulson’s interest is not the same as mine as my net worth is slim to none. So, when Henry Paulson, or Donald Trump for that matter, advise that a course of action would be in “all our interests,” I’m pretty sure they are thinking of a relatively small circle of family, friends and associates whose net worth is way up there in the many millions.

So, here’s what I think about the proposed bailout. It’s crystal clear that the people who have made out big time under the current credit-debt system desperately want it to continue. And for them the bailout is a necessity. It may be that it’s a necessity for the rest of us as well, but I’m unwilling to take it on trust from the people who are pushing that line.

If I had knowledge of who had benefited from the housing and credit bubbles, I would be better positioned to assess whose interests were being served. For now, it appears to me that the “titans of wall street” and the government that serves them are using the same shock and fear approach to a power grab that has worked so well with the American people in the past — scare the hell out of them and then take what’s yours.

This of course implies that this was and is an engineered crisis. And why not? Everyone in a position of responsibility repeats the mantra that these high flying finance types are very smart people. If so, they must have seen it coming. A lot of us less brilliant people saw the handwriting on the wall a long time ago.

Of course a possible alternative explanation is that the Masters of the Universe (to use author Tom Wolfe’s phrase in the Bonfire of the Vanities) are far too arrogant and completely lacking in common sense. In that case we really ought to ignore what they say and let events take their course. I do believe that “the market” will likely produce a better outcome.

Steve Elias is an attorney and a radio show host on Lake County's community radio station, KPFZ 88.1 FM.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}