Random Pattern Weekly

President Obama to Governor Schwarzenegger: I thought America was the greatest country on the planet

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-05-10T05:06:00Z

On Monday (May 4th) President Obama announced an initiative to reduce corporate tax loopholes. He argued, these loopholes provide incentive for American businesses to establish operations on foreign soil.

Watching MSNBC, I'm amazed at how little coverage this issue has received. I'm still reeling from Fox New's loving embrace of the Bush administration, so I can't really comment on their coverage of the issue and CNN's 24-hour news format (i.e. recirculate the same days news collected once in the morning and once in the afternoon then played ad naseum all day with questionable "Breaking News" segments spattered throughout the day) works against intelligent news analysis, in my opinion. I don't watch them either, so they may be all over this already.

Barack Obama's argument begins,

"Let's begin with a simple premise: Nobody likes paying taxes, particularly in times of economic stress. But most Americans meet their responsibilities because they understand that it's an obligation of citizenship, necessary to pay the costs of our common defense and our mutual well-being."

I still like Obama. It doesn't matter how many times I hear people refer to him as: 'King Obama,' or 'Barack Hussein Obama': I like where his head is at and I support his efforts. Sometimes I have to qualify that with 'I like where his head is at compared to U.S. presidents past' but such a qualification is still improvement.

Barack Obama just seems like good people. He begins generally at the beginning when he talks, or; at least, closer to the beginning than I've ever heard a president speak. In this case, he started by explaining the idea of taxes in general before getting to his reasons for reform. Many times today we want to jump past the basics and move right on to arguments built upon assumptions we no longer remember or just choose not to say.

Take the example of a May 7th Wall Street Journal article titled "Obama's Global Tax Raid."

The online version of this article even skips the name of the person who wrote the opinion, so we must assume the Wall Street Journal now has an opinion independent of the people who write for the news organization. According to this column, Obama's proposal is a "global tax raid." It makes Obama sound sinister right from the headline. From sinister the opinion piece jumps right into confusion and name calling.

They state,

"The President's argument is that U.S. tax-deferral rules make it more expensive for American companies to reinvest overseas profits at home than abroad."

I've read Obama's statement and I didn't get that out of it. I'm not sure where they got that, but I'm sure they can justify it, even though Obama's statement seemed pretty clear to me. I won't proceed on this line any further except to say, if you know a bunch of people who this effects- you're probably doing pretty well and not exactly going hungry yourself.

(I'm not exactly sure how to interpret "more expensive for American companies to reinvest overseas profits at home than abroad" anyway.)

The Wall Street Journal's determination is: "This 'solution' is antigrowth, job-destroying, protectionist and unlikely to raise the tax revenue Mr. Obama predicts."

I do understand "job-destroying" and "unlikely to raise" tax revenue. "Antigrowth" and "protectionist" sound bad. I'm really not sure what those terms mean, but I'm scared. I just get confused though when the Wall Street Journal article admits:

"Few major U.S. companies pay 35% of their profits in taxes because of the foreign tax-deferral and other deductions, credits and loopholes. But that's precisely why Mr. Obama should want to take the better path to corporate tax reform by reducing the rate and removing loopholes. America now has the worst of both worlds -- a high statutory rate and a tax code so riddled with complexity that it is both expensive to administer and inefficient at collecting revenue."

I understand their premise, but their conclusion is lost in translation. Apparently I need not be too concerned though because they admit, "Some of Mr. Obama's advisers understand all this." That indicates some of Obama's advisers don't understand what the Wall Street Journal is trying to sell. I'm pretty certain that a high percentage of Obama's advisers have post-graduate degrees, so they're considered 'smart' people and if some of them don't understand it I don't feel so bad (and neither should you.)

The Wall Street Journal concludes,

"Fewer companies will keep their headquarters in the U.S., especially small or mid-sized firms that can slip away without becoming a political target."

I'm left to wonder, really?

Isn't the U.S. one of the greatest countries in the planet? These companies are going to leave all of this to live in India or Malaysia? I'm not knocking those places, they've got a rich history and I'm sure wonderful people, however, changing the tax code will apparently lead to Americans placing themselves in self-exile for a lower tax rate. Really?

There goes American businesses.
There goes American jobs.
There goes the American dream.

Reading these accounts, sounds like America is headed on a slow path to becoming Third World all because President Obama has suggested changing the tax code for corporate America. These are dire circumstances which makes it all the more confusing that there's so little coverage of this news on corporate run television stations like MSNBC.

In the past week I've seen: Swine Flu stories; analysis on Senator Spector's defection to the Democrat party; and commentary regarding Vice President Biden's remarks about keeping his family off of public transportation.

Oh yeah, and is the Republican party still viable?

Are any of these stories as important as what the Wall Street Journal suggests is getting ready to happen to America? In the absence of television reporting, it seems we're left to try to get to the bottom of this thing ourselves. Either that or the story will simply blow away, running slowly beneath the radar of public discourse for lack of engagement by the responsible media.

In an effort to get to the bottom of it, here's some more of President Obama's words from his May 4th announcement. In his address, President Obama said:

"As most American citizens and businesses meet [tax] responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs. And many are aided and abetted by a broken tax system, written by well-connected lobbyists on behalf of well-heeled interests and individuals. It's a tax code full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share. It's a tax code that makes it all too easy for a number -- a small number of individuals and companies to abuse overseas tax havens to avoid paying any taxes at all. And it's a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York."

Linking this back to his opening remarks, taxes are the way we as a country pay for common defense and mutual well-being. With this in mind President Obama commented,

"For years, we've talked about shutting down overseas tax havens that let companies set up operations to avoid paying taxes in America. That's what our budget will finally do. On the campaign, I used to talk about the outrage of a building in the Cayman Islands that had over 12,000 business -- businesses claim this building as their headquarters. And I've said before, either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world."

Is it so hard to believe that corporations have been pilfering from the U.S. citizen to line their

own pockets? It seems we are expected to believe that if Warren Buffett wanted to buy all of the tomatoes in America, build a fence around them in the poorest section of the poorest community in America, on land he purchased, to let them rot for everyone to see: that would be okay. I'm not saying Warren Buffett would do it (I'm sure he's a great guy) but: Is that okay?

If capitalism ruled our lives, it would have to be at least legal based on private property laws. The proposal President Obama mentioned didn't seem like a big deal in light of having the legal right to rot all of the tomatoes in America you can afford to buy.

"I'm asking Congress to pass some commonsense measures. One of these measures would let the IRS know how much income Americans are generating in overseas accounts by requiring overseas banks to provide 1099s for their American clients, just like Americans have to do for their bank accounts here in this country. If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens, and act accordingly. And to ensure that the IRS has the tools it needs to enforce our laws, we're seeking to hire nearly 800 more IRS agents to detect and pursue American tax evaders abroad."

This is against a culture in America which relies on incorporating itself. It sounds rather benign, but how many people really know what that means? The corporation becomes an entity of itself, behind which individual people make moves for which they don't have to take responsibility. You can make defective products (like Hydroxy-Cut) and never have to personally suffer any consequences for your decision to sell it to people.

Shut down a liver. Hush. That's just making a buck baby.

Headline- "Business groups gear up to fight Obama tax crackdown"

"[Coca-Cola Inc.] could soon find itself in the cross-hairs of federal tax officials because of its subsidiaries in a few places — namely the Cayman Islands, Costa Rica and other countries known as havens from U.S. taxes."

One benefit of incorporating is paying lower taxes than as an individual.

Some may argue a corporation is being double taxed. The corporation pays for its profits. The individuals paid by the corporation get taxed again and then what about the poor people who own the corporation? How are they to live in a world of such tax insanity?

The way the world is working with credit today, you really don't need cash in your hand to do things. You just need to have access to cash to pay your bills off month by month.

"U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said 'If you’re going to (have) a very complex piece of legislation that’s going to require double taxation on the part of domestic corporations, then what you’re going to see is jobs being shipped overseas.'”

I'm left to say, 'Really?' I thought America was the greatest place on Earth.

"U.S. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) of Roswell, said Obama’s tax plan 'would permanently ship away our competitiveness...While the president claims he wants to preserve American jobs, his plan will have the exact opposite effect.'”

What competitiveness do we have anymore? America is a consumer market and that's why there's currently shock and concern because American's are pinching pennies. For whatever reason, Americans are not spending and because American business is so consumer-dependent: businesses are suffering.

And why is that? I might suggest because we are no longer competitive. Unless you're talking entertainment and then we've got the market locked. Other than that we've got a lot of retail stores to sell you something. We've got a lot of restaurants to sell and feed you.

Movie theatres
Food courts
Indoor racing

It's some of the greatest things about America, but it's hard to sell to someone outside of your borders. Not impossible but difficult. If we're just selling to each other, where does more money come into the system. Is that why we need credit so much, because no money is coming in from outside? What do we have to export? But really I'm sure that's not the problem. The problem is far more complicated than I could probably figure out because I'm not an economist.

I don't know their jargon.

J.D. Foster, Ph.D and Curtis S. Dubay at the Heritage Foundation conclude President Obama's proposals weaken America's global competitiveness. They write:

"[Obama's proposal] would seriously damage the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses. The plan would: Limit the ability of American businesses to defer U.S. tax on their foreign income and Reduce the credit for foreign taxes paid. Both provisions would substantially raise taxes on U.S. businesses operating globally. Although intended to keep more jobs in the U.S., these proposals would cost Americans jobs and wages."

How many people do you know that are working in international business? How many people do you know that own an international business? Not intended as indictments, I'm just asking questions.

Dr. Foster and Dubay continue,

"The foreign tax credit and deferral are two critical features that prevent the U.S. corporate income tax from crippling the international competitiveness of U.S. companies."

An interesting thing about Googling "benefits of incorporating." You find little nuggets like:

"Income Shifting- Income shifting is one of the greatest benefits of incorporating. Income shifting is the act of dividing income between a corporation and its shareholders in a way that lowers overall taxes. If you run a profitable, small business with shareholders in higher tax brackets, you stand to benefit the most from this practice."

"Corporations typically want to do business or collaborate with other corporations."

"Continuous life: a corporation, can survive its founders, provided it complies with ongoing state and federal paperwork and pays the annual filing fees."

It seems like there's a lot of benefits to having a corporation which kind of flout the norms of being a decent human being. In fact, the corporation is not a human being. It may be represented in courtroom as if it were a human being though.

You incorporate so your name isn't in the news when kidneys fail.
You incorporate to protect your money. The money you made through your corporation.
You incorporate so you can buy property as the corporation. Then when you get in trouble, nobody can seek recompense by making you sell your home. Murder someone and the house is in a corporation's name: victim's family gets nothing.

Sorry toots.
Thanks for playing.
Better luck next time.

Headline: "US tax policy won’t hurt us"

"International Trade and Industry minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed told a press conference that the tax holidays enjoyed by MNCs [Multi-National Corporations] here were not the only considerations in their decisions to invest in the country. 'MNCs also take into account Malaysia’s stable political stability, investment climate and quality of the delivery service system when they make decisions to come over to invest,' he said."

Again, how many employees of MNCs do you know who have their permanent address in Malaysia? I'm not saying they're not there. I'm just asking a question. I figure most CEO's of multinational corporations live in the U.S. Maybe England or Japan, but I'm thinking these guys and gals don't have their family living in Malaysia.

They may have a vacation home, but that money is coming back to someone in the States 5 times out of 10. That's the problem though. The money is really not coming back to the States. Or the United Kingdom. Or even Japan. That money just sits in a bank account somewhere. Hidden from the IRS, because the corporation already worked out their deal with the host country for their operational cost. In some cases, I'm sure they get kick backs for investing in a host country.

The countries want the business of MNCs because it brings revenue, so they'll make it worth a corporations while to build.

Dirt cheap labor.
Sometimes less than ideal working environments that wouldn't pass inspection in the States.
You can train these foreign people in American culture, because they'll subject themselves to that kind of system over there just to get something to eat. In the past, we called this kind of behavior colonialism. Now we just don't have the guns to colonize. Unless you count Afghanistan or Iraq.

At The Virginian-Pilot, they seem to agree with President Obama. At least a little bit.

"The first part of the plan - cracking open secret bank accounts in Switzerland and other notorious safe havens for tax evaders - would generate $9 billion in a decade, according to White House officials...The second major component of Obama's tax plan isn't as clear-cut. Among other things, the administration wants to place limits on the ability of companies to defer paying taxes on profits earned by foreign subsidiaries. More than 80 of America's 100 largest corporations take advantage of the setup, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office. The proposed change would bring $200 billion more in taxes, White House officials estimate."

In the wake of all this, I like where Obama is headed. This topic needs to be discussed in America. We don't think about how business is conducted often enough in our country and that's probably why banks in America don't have the money on their balance sheets when Stress Tests occur. The system is built on a fallacy that most people have forgotten or just assume was solved.

The Hypothetical Quandary- If we're in a bubble and all we have is $100 between us and that's all the money there is, if I loan you my share--$50--at 10% interest: Where are you going to get the $5 to pay me back?

I like Schwarzenegger's idea too, but I wish he would be bolder.

Headline: "Schwarzenegger open to studying marijuana tax idea"

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations’ experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea...He says it’s time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state...Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that “it’s time for debate” on the idea. But he warned against making harmful decisions just for the sake of raising money...He said some other nations have had negative experiences. Ammiano’s bill is on hold in the Legislature. He delayed seeking approval until next year."

Good thinking Arnold, now work what you know buddy. Be bold. Be Conan. Be the Terminator. Make them do it, it's brilliant.

And to quote Baron Von Raschke, "That is all the people need to know."

Do we still believe capitalism is morally superior to every other economic possibility?

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-05-03T18:05:00Z

What's the difference between 60% of Iraqi Shi'is 'working' together in a 'democracy' with 20% Iraqi Sunnis; and, 36% of American Democrats working together in a republic with 28% American Republicans?

A suicide bomber is one difference. Heavy religious faith (defined as fanatic or extreme) could be applied to either country. Violence is really the difference. If we could just stabilize Iraq then we could start selling Iraqi stuff. It might even become a tourist hot spot. Can you imagine taking a picture in the 'Cradle of Civilization.' That's powerful marketing fodder right there.

If we could stabilize Iraq, the Chinese and Japanese could exploit the market to their advantage with their over-priced products (as opposed to over-priced products which are no longer being made in America. It's sour grapes, but still the nature of things. The Koreans will probably sell more in a stabilized Iraqi market than the U.S.)

One thing making stability so tough to establish in Iraq are those insurgents. Those pesky insurgents spring up and start killing people for their religious beliefs. You end up with chaos which really is a problem, but in a sense it is a democratic sort of chaos. The insurgents are Iraqis.

Chaos is no good though. Stability is probably better to have than democracy. Life sucks enough without having to worry if you're going to make it home alive today. If only we could get rid of the insurgents in Iraq then it seems 'we' might be able to make some headway in Iraq and democracy will flourish.

Insurgents in Iraqis are predominately Iraqi making a stable democracy in Iraq seem unlikely. W told us democracy would flourish. In his vocabulary, anything less than democracy flourishing in Iraq means we're cuttin'-n-runnin'.

Right?

According to many contemporary Republicans, talking about Bush's presidential statements and policies amounts to a continual campaign against Bush. It's amazing how little Republicans want to talk about the last eight years. Bush's stated policy regarding the Middle East was to spread democracy, but what does that mean? Is that what we're still doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Is democracy the right of a people to choose anything they want, even if they want to live in a country where blowing up churches and mosques is a legal past time? Is democracy more like having the freedom to not blow things up, but rather buy one of fifteen different kinds of potato chips?

In America, we certainly don't have the ability to make blowing up churches a legal past time, unless of course the president just decides to say it's okay one day. If the president says it, then it is okay but that has nothing to do with the people. Therefore, we still talk about torture's effectiveness rather than the target of prosecutions for illegally committing immoral acts in the name of a nation.

If torture is really debatable, does that mean someone might one day justify in court why they kidnapped someone, locked them in their basement and utilized stress techniques on them for days at a time? Will we reach a day where a judge in the United States of America might entertain that debate for longer than five minutes? Is that the country we want to live in?

One name should stand above the rest as a target of prosecution. The president of the United States where the buck stops (or was that just Truman policy?) Taking place before your eyes today is the exposing of cracks in the American facade. I take no glee in that statement.

Are we a democracy in America? Is democracy in direct opposition to communism? Does America have any kind of moral authority anymore? What's the difference between American foreign policy and the foreign policy of Nazi Germany?

These are not easy questions to answer and ultimately it's all a matter of how you look at any situation and how you rationalize that situation. For many people in the United States, the All Mighty Dollar is all that matters and if you ain't got a dollar, you ain't got nothing. You're just out of luck. These people will sell you in everyway how this is the nature of reality. Simply the ability of any individual to generate net worth or income determines their place in America. Survival of the fittest baby.

We sell one another for the possibility of generating ever greater incomes. We exercisely daily as if one day we might be able to buy all of the bananas in the world. We could buy them all and let them rot. If we had extra money, we might pay some poor people to watch them rot. We can do that because it's survival of the fittest baby and if someone is stupid enough to take my money, then good for me.

Money is a luxury and it's not always a good luxury (it's also not always a bad luxury- funny how life is such a complicated thing.) If you don't believe, look at the Army in the U.S. or look at prison life in the U.S. In the Army, pay is merit based and delivered in cash. The amount of cash you earn is the same as anyone else in your rank (with the exception of stipends for things such as: housing allowances and combat pay.) You don't make as much money in the Army as you might make as a civilian. You lose freedoms in the Army that you'd have as a civilian in the United States of America.

In this sense, civilian life in the United States of America is a true sense of capitalist life. You have the right to make as much as you have the ability to make. You also have the right to starve to death if you don't make anything. In the Army, you won't starve unless you go out of your way to starve. The Army takes care of food, clothing and shelter- plus they give you some spending cash. There's the mess hall and then there's also a Burger King on base. Private property and government property co-existing in the same space. The Army in this metaphor is a socialist society.

Prison, on the other hand, takes care of everything for inmates. You can't have cash (demonstrating that cash is a luxury) and you only get paid in products (e.g. cigarettes, soap, reading materials, etc...) Your food, shelter and clothing are automatically taken care of in prison. Again, you won't starve unless you go out of your way to starve. You get paid dirt in prison compared both to the Army and civilian life. Prison is communist life.

Another day, another fifty-nine cents sir!

If you're looking for some answer here, I'm going to disappoint you. There are no answers only the situation upon which we've been delivered. Answers are always too simple, so we must think in terms of life and the pressures life brings to bear on us all. When we look toward prison recidivism rates, we might ask: Are recidivism rates so high because Americans are morally evil, or is prison life simply an alternative to working 9 to 5, 40 hours a week?

Do we still believe capitalism is morally superior to every other economic possibility?

Work, Relationships, Life...

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-05-02T17:56:00Z

I've been dealing with systems lately. One series of relationships stop when I lose my job and now I scurry to establish new relationships. In a world of merit-based opportunities with many steps to reach the end. The specifics don't matter because the process reveals more about the way through life transitions.

You can find the way in many places, but for employment:

First, you submit some form of interest. Whether, this is emailing a resume or writing an essay- it's the introduction.

Second, you wait for a follow up. Some people disagree about negotiating this position of the process. My friend says call them after a day or two. Bug them because they'll remember your name and probably hire you. They see you want to do the job.
I'm not sold on his opinion.

Third, you meet, shake hands and talk about your goals in terms of somebody else's objectives.

Fourth, this is where the process can go a couple of ways. Probably most corrupt, the person with the authority to offer the job may already know who has the job before the interviews are complete. There's many variations: it's my cousin, it's my friend, it's my lover, etc. On the honest side, candidates are considered for their potential rather than appearances.

Fifth, you may be offered the job at this point or you may have yet another opportunity to discuss your future goals in terms of the group's objectives (in more detail and with more passion this time.)

Sixth, you may have to pass some tests. Waiting for results can be a drag.

Seventh, you keep moving forward because that's all you can do.

I've found time to tear up my front yard. It's nice having that kind of time. A three-week project, 11 tons of rock, a shovel and wheelbarrow; making it happen. I met neighbors I'd never talked to in six years. I became a site of curiosity in the neighborhood.

People would sit in front of their house and just watch as I moved earth. 96 hours total. New sprinklers, grass and rock. Two big beautiful trees. I've seen them for six years, but I didn't realize how nice they are in my front yard. In the afternoon, the sun was bright and a breeze would blow. That spot in my yard at that time is beautiful.

I never noticed that before.

I'd also never seen so many people begin working on their yards at once until I was about a week into my project. I don't know if my example inspired others to keep up or served as a reminder we don't need someone else to do what we could if we simply got up off of the couch.

Satan Flu

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-05-01T17:40:00Z

If I had a television station, I would make it a news station. 24 hours a day. If I could sell people on the idea I was providing 48 hours worth of information a day- that would be even better!

I could vent what I think on a daily basis if I had a television station.

If I didn't want to talk about something then maybe there'd be an outbreak of the flu. It happens once a year people get the flu. Then other people develop and sell dead pieces of the flu. If I talked to the people who sold the dead flu, then we could coordinate and maybe they'd give me some money to talk about the flu while they're trying to sell dead samples of that flu.

That's just if I didn't have anything important to say that day- of course.

The flu is great because if I really want to rile people up I can sell each flu as something new. That's pretty much what the flu is anyway. It's an affliction which produces common problems every year, but each year's strain of flu is always a little different than the one the year before. It's a new disease each year. That's why human antibodies don't just eradicate each year like chicken pox.

We could write the flu season down on all of our calendars if I owned a television station.

That might even be a lot of work, so I may have to hire someone to write down the flu on all of our calendars when we buy them. If I owned a television news station. I'd hire someone to do all that writing and that would create a job.

The job I created could then be good news.

Just so people didn't stop watching my news station, I'd hire someone to come up with creative names for the flu each year. Since it's always different, we can always come up with a new name. I want to start with "Satan Flu" though. That one I worked out on my own and since I'll own the television station that's where we start. "Satan flu" it's got a nice ring to it.

I bet American people would love my television station with names like that!

If I owned a television news station, I'd take advertisements from everyone with cash. I'd be rolling in the dough. Hydroxy Cut wants to advertise in copious amounts. I take them on as a client. Pay me and I'll use some of my 48 hours worth of news time to give Hydroxy Cut a quick shout out. If the product starts making people's livers shut down, then I still win because I can fill more time with that horrible news.

Hydroxy Cut bad- now that they don't pay me to say their name.

I love video clips. Watch enough TV and there's always at least five minutes of something worth clipping. Clip the video and rewatch it ad naseum. Rewatch it and comment on it. That one frozen moment in time and space.

Whether the clip let's you laugh, vent or burn down a village; the clipping process is awesome. If I owned a television station, I'd playback all of the things happening on TV that I love or hate. And just in case people get too fired up, I can fill time telling them how they shouldn't panic. If I owned a television station, I could fill the world with my perspective and find out just how human I am.

By human, of course, I mean fallible!

Lost Generation

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-04-25T00:36:00Z

I don't want to detract from the video too much other than to say: its got a nice beginning, middle and end. I love the creativity and the internal sense of closure.

Nice work.

April 23rd Birthdays

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-04-24T00:10:00Z

(1564) William Shakespeare- There's an ongoing debate most people don't care about arguing whether or not he was the guy who wrote the stuff he got credit for writing. I don't really care. He got the credit and it's too late to reassign the credit. Even if proof was inconclusive it would only make the headlines for a week or two (maybe) and then everyone would be back to talking about Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Then some a-hole would stand up to correct the conversation and everyone would look at him like an a-hole.

(1791) James Buchanan- He was the 15th President of the United States of America.

(1928) Shirley Temple Black- From child star to diplomat, I don't think any other child star turned out so well adjusted after her.

(1936) Roy Orbison- He made beautiful music.

(1940) Lee Majors- The 6 Million Dollar Man seems pretty cheesy today, but this guy was at the top when the show was contemporary.

(1954) Michael Moore- He's either loved or hated and in professional wrestling that's enough to build a career. It's when people don't care you have to worry. Personally, I liked Roger & Me, Fahreinheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine. I still haven't seen the movie Slacker Uprising which he made available for free download during the last presidential election.

(1957) Jan Hooks- She's an alumni of Saturday Night Live. That's almost as cool as the Beatles.

(1959) Guy Allison- The Doobie Brothers made a lot of great music.

(1960) Steve Clark- I didn't appreciate Def Leppard until they were past their prime. They rocked and drew the ladies. What's wrong with that?

(1961) Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy- An example of one, of many, tragic careers in professional wrestling. He was awesome. Long live the memory of Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy and the Asiatic Spike.

(1961) George Lopez- Mexicans don't get enough love in the United States of America.

From "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-04-23T17:22:00Z

It is this 'thirst', desire, greed, craving, manifesting itself in various ways, that gives rise to all forms of suffering and the continuity of beings. But it should not be taken as the first cause, for there is no first cause possible as, according to Buddhism, everything is relative and inter-dependent. Even this 'thirst', which is considered as the cause or origin of [suffering], depends for its arising on something else, which is sensation, and sensation arises depending on contact, and so on and so forth goes on the circle which is known as Conditioned Genesis...

So 'thirst' is not the first or the only cause of the arising of [suffering]. But it is the most palpable and immediate cause, the 'principal thing' and the 'all-pervading thing'. Hence in certain places of the original Pali texts themselves the definition of...the origin of [suffering] includes other defilements and impurities, in addition to 'thirst' which is always given the first place. Within the necessarily limited space of our discussion, it will be sufficient if we remember that this 'thirst' has as its centre the false idea of self arising out of ignorance.

Here the term 'thirst' includes not only desire for, and attachment to, sense-pleasures, wealth and power, but also desire for, and attachment to, ideas and ideals, views, opinions, theories, conceptions and beliefs. According to the Buddha's analysis, all the troubles and strife in the world, from little personal quarrels in families to great wars between nations and countries, arise out of this selfish 'thirst'. From this point of view, all economic, political and social problems are rooted in this selfish 'thirst'. Great statesmen who try to settle international disputes and talk of war and peace only in economic and political terms touch the superficialities, and never go deep into the real root of the problem. As the Buddha told Rattapala: 'The world lacks and hankers, and is enslaved to "
thirst".

April 22nd Birthdays

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-04-23T00:23:00Z

(1870) Vladmir Lenin- He's known simply by his last name.

(1906) Eddie Albert- His acting resume stretches from 1938 to 1997. That's an impressive accomplishment.

(1922) Charlie Mingus- Jazz doesn't get the respect it should.

(1936) Glen Campbell- He was a "Rhinestone Cowboy" but I'll forgive him for that because "Southern Nights" was a great song.

(1937) Jack Nicholson- "Easy Rider," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "The Shining," "Batman" and "A Few Good Men"- you could call it a career right there and still be better than 90% of the actors working today.

(1950) Peter Frampton- He made his guitar talk.

(1966) Fletcher Dragge- Guitarist for Pennywise. I like the punk influences that bleed through their music.

(1974) Shavo Odadjian- Bass player for System of the Down. They've captured aggression in song to perfection.

From "The Complete Jesus" by Ricky Alan Mayotte

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-04-22T17:11:00Z

[81-1] Therefore it is necessary for us to speak to you, since this is the doctrine for the perfect. If, now, you desire to become perfect you shall observe these things; if not, your name is 'Ignorant,' since it is impossible for a wise man to dwell with a fool, for the wise man is perfect in all wisdom. To the fool, however, the good and bad are the same--for 'the wise man will be nourished by the truth' and 'will be like a tree growing by the meandering stream'--seeing that there are some who, although having wings, rush upon the visible things, things that are far from the truth. For that which guides them, the fire, will give them an illusion of truth, and will shine on them with a perishable beauty, and it will imprison them in a dark sweetness and captivate them with fragrant pleasure. And it will blind them with insatiable lust and burn their souls and become for them like a stake in their heart which they can never dislodge. And like a bit in the mouth it leads them according to its own desire. It has fettered them with its chains and bound all their limbs with the bitter bond of lust for those visible things that will decay and change and swerve by impulse. They have always been attracted downwards: as they are killed, they are assimilated to all the beasts of the perishable realm.

From "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula

Wyll D Sarge — 2009-04-21T17:00:00Z

According to the Buddha's teaching, doubt is one of the five Hindrances to the clear understanding of Truth and to spiritual progress (or for that matter to any progress.) Doubt, however, is not a 'sin', because there are no articles of faith in Buddhism. In fact there is no 'sin' in Buddhism, as sin is understood in some religions. The root of all evil is ignorance and false views. It is an undeniable fact that as long as there is doubt, perplexity, wavering, no progress is possible. It is also equally undeniable that there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.

There is no point in saying that one should not doubt or one should believe. Just to say 'I believe' does not mean that you understand and see. When a student works on a mathematical problem, he comes to a stage beyond which he does not know how to proceed, and where he is in doubt and perplexity. As long as he has this doubt, he cannot proceed. If he wants to proceed, he must resolve this doubt. And there are ways of resolving that doubt. Just to say 'I believe', or 'I do not doubt' will certainly not solve the problem. To force oneself to believe and to accept a thing without understanding is political, and not spiritual or intellectual.

The Buddha was always eager to dispel doubt. Even just a few minutes before his death, he requested his disciples several times to ask him if they had any doubts about his teaching, and not to feel sorry later that they could not clear those doubts. But the disciples were silent. What he said then was touching: 'If it is through respect for the Teacher that you do not ask anything, let even one of you inform his friend' (i.e., let one tell his friend so that the latter may ask the question on the other's behalf).