Big Mouth Buddhist

Sad day.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:20:00 +0000

Anti-Abortion Activist Arrested in Killing of Kansas Doctor
In Kansas, police have arrested a fifty-one-year-old anti-abortion activist in connection to the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Tiller was shot dead Sunday as he attended services at his church in Wichita. The National Abortion Federation says Dr. Tiller is the eighth abortion provider to be assassinated in the United States since 1977. President Obama said he is “shocked and outraged” by Tiller’s killing. US Marshals are now being deployed to protect women’s health clinics and doctors across the nation. We’ll have more on this story after headlines.

This is just sad. Would someone please explain to me how it is that Anti-abortion groups can blithely go about accusing abortion doctors and people who are 'pro-choice' of being murderers? I do not know of any abortion doctors or believers in pro-choice who have ever brutally killed in public by bombings, or gunning someone down. Will someone please point out the hypocrasy? I mean jesus. Or whatever.

And for fuck's sake, will these people please grow a brain and read Sam Harris? How hard is it?

Among several points that he makes in 'Letter to a Christian Nation':

- "20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.”

- “Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings.”

Buddhism has no single view on abortion. There are many different sects of Buddhism and various sects believe differently. It all comes down to when you believe life begins and in this country (the US), life begins at birth. There are those that disagree with me, but frankly, I don't care.

My question is this - if life begins at conception, why do we not count pregnant women as two people in the census?

I don't believe in some giant puppet-master in the sky keeping tabs on each little thing we as humans do. I don't believe it's my place to judge another's life, but rather it's my place to be compassionate. Black and White does not apply here.

Look, It's a personal choice. It needs to remain a personal choice. Believe what you want, and let other believe what they want, but please stop being a hypocrite and accusing people of being murderers in one breath and killing people yourself in the next.

Pathetic Irony and the LDS Church.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:43:00 +0000

Much as happened in the last two months, and so quickly so that I may have seemed to drop off the planet. In that short time, the presidential race got extremely ugly, and then an amazing thing took place, we elected a new president and he's an African American. I foresee changes to come in this world that are difficult to put into words.

The United States and it's long history of racism continues, but in a different respect, because the majority has spoken and the majority is ready for a new future. Sadly there is a part of me that fears for the safety of the President Elect, as his election has brought the fringes of racism into the daylight, like so many cockroaches when the kitchen light is flipped on unexpectedly. If I were one to pray to a deist god, I would do so for him. Instead, I'll meditate on his behalf, because I think that changes he will implement will be beneficial to all sentient beings. And that's a bold statement.

In other news, Californians have elected to remove rights that had been granted to the sexual minority community by their state judicial branch. It appears that the chief sponsor of this newest wave of hatred is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I happen to know a thing or two about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because this is the religion I was raised in. I served a full time mission for this organization and basically it, and it's perspective on the world, encapsulated my own vision of the world, and world religions, until I was 22 or so.

To say that the LDS view of the world and of world religions, of it's people and by extension, the freedoms of the worlds people is narrow would be an understatement taken to an extreme. The phrase 'Having Blinders On' especially applies to this culture.

Rather, than go off on a tangent about my own storied experiences of having grown up in this group, only to escape it as an early adult and completely change my point of view to that of social and political liberal, lesbian ,and later Buddhist, what I will tell you is that anyone who does even a tiny bit of research into the subject can discover that multifarious manners by which the church has sought to alter the documentation of its own history.

The LDS church as a whole has long sought 'mainstream acceptance' in the world - ironic, since their own scriptures describe them as a 'peculiar people'. I don't have a footnote for where I learned this, but I remember being taught as a child that in the early days of the church, eg - 1840+ (they were already in Utah at the time), membership in political party was randomly assigned to members so that they would 'receive equal attention from Washington'.

Furthermore, I personally have long known that the church, both individually and collectively is very concerned with image and are taught to 'avoid the appearance of evil' (I won't go into my theories about how this teaching fosters hiding of evils/bad behavior, and that it seems to condone the commission of heinous acts out of the view of the public, rather than an honest, and forthright approach to the world. I'll save that for a later post).

Third, anyone who has paid attention to the mainstream media in the last 20 years or so, especially those of us raised in the LDS community, can clearly see that 'The Church' has engaged in a broad spectrum marketing campaign to dispel what they call 'myths' and sanitize the religion for the purpose of making it broadly appealing to the masses.

Indeed, it seems to have worked. The LDS church's Prophet, Seer and Revelator Brigham Young once described the African Race as follows:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, ad seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291

For someone harboring such openly racist beliefs, the LDS church has made amazing inroads in converting the people of the African continent.

The church also has something of a tangential connection with sexual minority community. A book written by former BYU Professor D. Michael Quinn, in his treatise, 'Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example' outlines and extensively footnotes this tangential relationship. Mr. Quinn has other titles he's published as well - all of which cast a shadow on the sqeaky clean image 'The Church' would like to project. Among them, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View", "Mormon Hierarchy #01: Origins of Power", "Mormon Hierarchy #02: Extensions of Power", and "Essays on Mormonism Series #04: The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past". Fascinating reading, all - and for his scholarship, the LDS Church excommunicated and ostracized him.

The history of the racism and bigotry continues to this day - even though, supposedly they 'shook off' their racism in 1978 when they allowed black men to hold their priesthood (when god told them to, of course).

Just in the last two weeks a story appeared from Rexburg, Idaho (Location of BYU Idaho, and approximately 97% LDS populated) of a school bus full of 2nd and 3rd graders who were shouting 'Assassinate Obama' - to which parents reported this to the school board. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Racism is taught. Someone taught these kids this - and even though they may not know what they were saying, its planting seeds that may flower later into a very destructive plant - and this scares me, but I digress.

Here's the ironic part - ready?

In sanitizing their history, and making themselves appear squeaky clean to the world and 'avoid the appearance of evil', they have done LESS to align themselves with the 'mainstream right' (eg, extreme poltical religious right of this country) than by simply funneling money into a measure that removes marriage rights from the GLBT citizens of California, and by teaching racsim in their culture.

These are characteristicts that are stereotypically associated with fundamentalist right wingers, 'Sarah Palin Republicans' if you will - and while it is safe to assume that not all people who are of the 'Evangelical Persuasion' feel this way, that is the prevailing stereotype ...and now it appears that the Mormons long sought after 'acceptance' is well underway.

Ironic, don't you think?

Why, you may ask? Well...I will get into that next time, with the topic of 'A Mormon President and The White Horse Prophecy'.

Stay tuned.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:45:00 +0000

Ok...yeah I know I have been quiet...

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:04:00 +0000

...but I was moving. Now that's done, I can open my big mouth again. Well, for a just a quick post today:

I watched the debate last night (who didn't). Joe Biden won the debate when he choked up over his loss and the empty pantsuit exhibted NO COMPASSION whatsoever and began, without a blink, yammering on about maverick this, and oil that.
If I hear one more sentence ending in the dangling participle 'Also', or I hear the word Maverick even one more time, I will throw up in mouth.
They passed the ~~robbery~~ bailout bill - loaded with pork and BS...and leaving us holding the bag. It's scary and I think it's a calculated move to get the republicans through the election.
The banks are still going to have a problem because they are treating the symptom, not the disease. I think we are in line for a huge recession. It seems to be in the cards and I have to say I have EVEN MORE respect for Barack Obama for even wanting the job at this point. I hope he can be our new FDR, becuase I think that is the only thing that is going to fix it.

That's about all I have time for today - more later.

I'm worried about this country.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:52:00 +0000

She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is - this is a basic requirement, in our present world, for any political hopeful, and not only do you need to know what it is, you need to have an opinion because it defines your conception of foreign policy.

For those unfamiliar, the Bush doctrine, in a nutshell states that the USA has the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves.

It's the basis for us throwing our weight around and bombing countries willy nilly if we can come up with real or fabricated reason to even remotely suggest they might have a terrorist living within their borders. It was used to justify invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and will probably be used on Iran if McSame gets elected.

It's abhorrent.

The fact that Palin didn't know what it is is nothing less than pathetic and verifies that she is completely unqualified to be elected as a national leader.

In addition, when asked by Charles Gibson if she had any insights on Russia, since Alaska was so close to it.

Her response? "Did you know you can actually *see* Russia from Alaska"

That's not an insight. That's a visual.

She said we may have to go to war with Russia. She said it on national television. If these two get into office, we're going to be nothing but a sand lot after the Russian's bomb us off the planet. It's scary. How can they justify this? How? Give me one moral basis upon which they can validate this policy? Just one.

Republicans are pro-molestation...

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:11:00 +0000

Ok, I have to say this -

The whole 'Obama supports comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners' thing is such a load of B.S.. I mean seriously.

The bill is sponsors AGE APPROPRIATE sex education, and in the case of kindergarten, specifically, and only, teaches kids that their private parts are private and how to identify inappropriate touching and how to protect themselves from predators.

As a father, OF COURSE he wants that. And every parent in America should as well. Part of the reason so many people have been victimized by predators and unscrupulous authories (priests, teachers) is because the country is sexually repressed on a wholescale level.

In fact, any parent who DOESN'T support education for their children on this matter, to me, seems to be an unfit parent. As a former Rape Crisis Counselor, I have seen too many children in the children's hospital have to undergo rape kits becuase they weren't educated and they didn't know and they were victimized.

So the McCain's little rant here is unconscionable and just plain stupid.

Not to mention illogical.

Do they not realize that the logical converse of their implication that children should NOT be educated about inappropirate touching and sexual predation implies that they SUPPORT inappropriate touching and sexual predation?

Am I the only one who sees this? We all know that the the support of sexual predation on kindergartners is not a policy platform, but common sense dictates that the uneducated become victims....

I guess, if you think about it...that also describes the reason why Bush and most Republicans in general, get elected in the first place.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:29:00 +0000

Palin made rape victims pay for their own rape kits.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:08:00 +0000

As a former Rape Crisis Counselor - I felt morally obligated to cross post this information.

Read it and be disturbed.

The Math: Palin's Wasilla Rape Kit Calculus
by Prof Frink
Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:19:29 AM PDT
I know we're sick of Palin diaries around here, but I wrote this as an email I'm sending to all the women in my life, if you don't want to read this, don't. Sarah Palin is the new GOP darling, and has provided new hope to John McCain’s quest for the Presidency of the United States. Since the campaign’s announcement of her as the Vice-Presidential candidate to run alongside John McCain, she has also laid claim to the hopes of all American women, saying "it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all". The McCain camp is holding her executive experience as the mayor of a town of 6,500 people from 1996 to 2002, combined with her two years as governor of America’s 48th most populous state, as her qualifications to be second in line for the Presidency.
For today, I’d like to review Palin’s time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and how this love of earmarks relates to the price she asked the victims of rape in her city to pay for the evidence needed for justice.
Prof Frink's diary :: ::
She, along with McCain, wraps herself in the mantle of the outside reformer, unafraid of her own party, willing to cross party lines to root out corruption and waste wherever it may lie. More of her and McCain’s facts to backup these claims are being proven false every day. She didn’t actually fire the state-provided chef she claimed to have fired. She didn’t really sell that plane on Ebay. She’s claimed to oppose Federal pork-barrel earmarks, while leading Alaska it had $506.34 in earmarks per capita, easily the highest in the nation. To give you an idea of just how much this is, Arizona, McCain’s home state, has $18.70 of earmarks per person. I’ll leave it others to further examine her history as governor.

During her time has mayor she hired a lobbyist linked to the now disgraced and convicted Jack Abramoff. The city of 6,500 obtained $26.7 million in pork-barrel earmarks during her last four years as mayor, that’s a per capita of over $1000 per person, expensive for even Alaska. Steven R has already written a wonderful diary about a policy position of her appointee as Police Chief, Charlie Fannon. Chief Fannon went on the record with his opposition to a law signed in May of 2000 requiring that cities foot the bill for rape kits for victims, essential to the conviction of the perpetrator. You see, until that time, Wasilla expected women to pay for their own kit for $300-$1300, on the premise that the kit would be paid for by the fines and penalties assessed of the eventual convict, assuming a conviction was forthcoming.
A city swimming in federal earmark money that can’t afford to help ensure that victimized women don’t have to pay for the evidence to seek justice, this is the city that Palin led as mayor. Between 2000 and 2005 Wasilla averaged 2 arrests per year for rape. This number does not count attempted rapes.This also doesn’t account that the DOJ estimates that as little as 26% of rapes go unreported, or those who are never arrested and charged for a notoriously hard to try and convict crime. In 2003, her last budget, Wasilla had a total budget of $12.5 million including capital projects (Ordinance 02-23 (am), 5/13/2002). In 2000, said Chief Fannon, "I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer" when asked about the rape kit law.
Maybe she could have used of the $27 million in earmarks the city had obtained. Just how many rape kits could she have afforded with that? Assuming the maximum price of $1300 per kit, that money could have bought 20,538 kits. Alaska averaged 541 rape arrests per year between 1996 and 2002. That means that just the federal pork money Wasilla obtained could have provided enough rape hits to provide the entire state of Alaska with rape kits for at least 30 years. And yet Sarah Palin’s own police chief couldn’t see the point in "burdening the tax payers" with the costs of the kits for his town’s women.
If this is the type of judgment and sensitivity we can expect from a McCain-Palin ticket, I think the first woman elected Vice President, may also be the most notorious. She is not the anti-government crusader she claims to be and she is certainly not going to support the positions of most women in this country. Not only did the women of Wasilla have to pay for their own kits, if Palin had her way, they couldn't even obtain an abortion in the case the rape left them pregnant. Get out there and work for Obama. Donate to Obama. Get someone elected who will do something good for women in this country, fighting for equal pay for equal work, their right for choice, and the expansion of the FMLA.
I know Obama is running against John McCain, and that Palin is just a Vice Presidential pick, and they don’t win or lose elections. In this case, Palin was McCains choice. Her positions and qualifications speak directly to his. If Palin would be a disaster for women in this country, how could John McCain be any different?
I've got a new daughter and I don't want her growing up with the legacy a McCain-Palin ticket would leave us.

I blame Constantine.

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:53:00 +0000

"What, Who, Huh?", you may be asking? Well I will get to that in a minute...but first, I just found a really scary website. Not scary in the sense that there is anything untrue or wingnutty on it - it's scary in the sense that what they are saying is true, and what they are saying is that the religious rights seeks to have effective control over the republican party. Now, they already do have control over the Republican party, but the fact that it is so openly and unequivocally stated is scary. See for yourself. Just the introduction is enough to send shivers down your spine: http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Now...why do I blame Constantine? Well, as you probably know, Constantine was a Roman Emperor, and responsible for a number of major things. Here's a basic bio:

Roman emperor, born in Naissus, Moesia, the eldest son of Constantius Chlorus. Though proclaimed emperor by the army at York on his father's death in 306, it was not until his defeat of Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in Rome (312) that he became emperor of the West; and only with his victory over Licinius, the emperor of the East, that he became sole emperor (324).

His Edict of Milan (313), issued jointly with Licinius, brought toleration to Christians throughout the empire, and his new capital at Constantinople, founded on the strategically important site of Byzantium (324), was from the outset a Christian city.

A few of his "accomplishments":

The first Christian Emperor

Made Christianity the 'State Religion'

Called the Council of Nicaea (which officially established the credo of the Catholic Church

What else? Well he was reported to be almost freakishly physically strong as well as ...get this, a lifelong pagan. He did not formally convert to Christianity until his deathbed.

This is the rub: Christians like to say he was the first 'Christian Emperor' - this is BS.

Constantine was a politically savvy dude - he legalized Christianity, and made them stop being lion food. Making someone be lion food is mean and so is watching people die for sport.
That’s just messed up.

I think, had he not legalized Christianity, it would have remained a fringe religion (which is why the Romans were feeding them to lions in the first place)

Constantine made it mainstream, and he didn't even believe it.

Kind of hypocritical doncha thinks?

By making it mainstream and by default, giving the Catholic Church power greater than even the Emperor he elevated Popes to nearly the level of God.

In so doing, he was indirectly responsible for the Crusades (edict of a Pope), the bloody slaughter of millions of innocent Muslims (Edict of a Pope), a continual grudge of said Muslims against power-hungry and land grabbing Christians (law of Cause and Effect), Lutheran reform (because there had to have been something to reform from in the first place, and if you really want to stretch it, you could even say that these reforms gave rise to Secular Humanism because during the Enlightenment some people started to think, instead of blindly follow like so many sheep.

If we move onto the 'New World', Columbus, who was a cathol, enslaved the natives of Haiti for his own pleasure (from his own writings). He helped bring Cholera and various other diseases to the new world which wiped out hundreds of thousands of its native inhabitants. Following suit, there was Pizarro and Cortez…more of the same.

Eventually there was a fringe Christian group called the Puritans, and ask any subject of The Queen, the Puritans were a fringe group of Christians (the forbears of today’s Fundie movement) ...who had plotted to overthrow the Monarchy and were subsequently booted from England. They came to the new world, slaughtered natives and stole their land and viewed themselves as superior due to the color of their skin. Then there was Jamestown, and on and on and on it went.

Eventually the principle of Eminent Domain gave rise to not only the white Christian land-grab that later became the USA, but also gave rise to slavery (there are references and a fucked up school of thought from back-in –the-day that African Americans were the descendants of Cain and their skin was black because of his curse), but also gave rise to the 'Theology of Dominion', or the idea that Christians are mandated by god to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns. Tomato - Tomato....I call it White Christian Hegemony.

Now, I know it probably sounds like I hate Christians. I do not. Let me be very clear: I do not hate Christians. I was as raised one. What I do dislike, and what I find terrifying, are extremists. People who believe on the one hand in Dominion Theology and on the other that we should kill all the Muslims becuase by definition they must be extremists. It's ridiculous and it's dangerous to think that way.

Tell me, dear reader, 'How is Dominion Theology ANY DIFFERENT than Muslim Fundamentalists seeking to restore Sharia Law and the reign of the Mullahs'?

To say the two are different is either sheer hypocrisy or sheer stupidity. Pick your poison.

I was listening to the radio on this way to work this morning, and the commentator was talking about the fundamental differences, conceptually, between the right and left. The guy he had on to speak for the right essentially said, (using Hobbs as his benefactor) that society is basically weak, humans are subject to vice and without the rule of a conservative government, would destroy themselves. Whereas, the guy speaking for the left used Locke and Rousseau and said that humans are essentially good and intelligent and capable of governing themselves and doing the right thing if given the freedom to choose.

Now, as a Buddhist, I believe all sentient beings have inherent 'Buddha-nature' and that they are in fact essentially good at their core. I don't think you can be truly compassionate for the suffering of sentient beings if you do not think this way - for how easy is it to be cruel and thoughtless about something or someone if it as evil at its core?

I guess this makes me, by definition, a liberal. I happen to be proud of that.

So, I am not anti-Christian, and what’s more, I am not necessarily anti-conservative either. I think it’s important to save money where you can and not spend where it’s not prudent. There is nothing wrong with that. However the extreme right has hijacked the term conservative and it does not mean anything anymore. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Where I get confused by the ‘modern conservative movement’, because their base is Christian, is by the contradictions so very apparent in their theology. Depending on which book of the Christian Bible you read, Jesus was either a really nice guy (who was compassionate and loved everybody, and supposedly gave his life for them...so there must have been something there to love - cuz if we're all evil...why do that?), or a pretty stern and angry hater dude who hated women, gays and liberals…(or was that just Paul?)

Why do the theocracy-seeking Fundie-Christians see the 'pretty stern angry dude' instead of the nice guy? I mean, the Biblical Jesus is a conundrum no matter how you slice it. Why so negative, Christians? I thought Christianity was religion of love.

Why do they support a candidate and a VP candidate who openly lie? Isn’t that a violation of their 10 commandments?

Are they, like Constantine, espousing Christianity only when it’s politically expedient to do so?

Why does the right seem to want to control everyone and take away people's freedom of religion by forcing everyone to live their lives according to Christian principles? What happened to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do we even have a constitution anymore?

If you take for granted that there is a god (which I do not, but will for the sake of this argument) and that god gave you a brain…why is that not good enough to allow a person to make their own choices and chart the course of their own life?

Why does that seem like such a horrible thing to the Fundies?
Why is it anti-patriotic to be a lover of peace? Was one of Jesus's nicknames 'The Prince of Peace'? I don't recall his nickname being 'Prince of Bombing the hell out of Iran'.

Why do they want to Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran, and start a war with Russia in the first place?

Why do its adherents choose NOT to think critically and NOT to see the contradictions and violence inherent in the system?

From where I stand, it's about the 'Me First Doctrine' - aka - whoever dies with the biggest pile wins. That's not Christian. That's power seeking. There are power seeking people in the world who know they have to be elected, and those power seeking people know that there are large swaths of individuals who have been taught for centuries to blindly accept as a matter of faith that their 'leaders' tell them to do, and not to question, for to question is the work of their satan. Those power hungry people have learned to manipulate the minds (and the votes) of those who will not question them. It's pretty damn scary when you think about it.

Those power hungry people go to church on sunday and those power hungry people claim to be good christians.

Let me leave you with this thought:

“Going to church on Sunday no more makes you a Christian than sitting in the garage will make you a car”.

If you really believe something…act like it. Live your truth. If you believe in compassion, be kind. If you believe in good works, do good works. If you want people to be nice to you - be nice to them, and even if they aren't nice to you - be nice to them anyway.

Actions speak louder than words.

As for me, I am going to stick with Buddhism.

And as for the rest of it, I blame it on Constantine and his questionable judgment.

Which Buddhist Hell is this?

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:30:00 +0000

This weekend I went to a really great workshop on integrating the 12 Steps (of Alcoholics Anonymous fame) with Buddhism. It was great. The presenter, Darren Littlejohn (http://www.12stepbuddhist.com) is very knowledgeable about both 12 step recovery and Buddism, and I enjoyed myself thoroughly.

One thing he mentioned that I found interesting and oddly ironic, is the concept of Buddhist hells. Now, hell in Buddhism is not the same as it is in Christianity. In Christianity, if you are naughty, when you die, you go to hell and burn there for all eternity. There are as many versions of the Christian hell as there are Christian groups...but they all seem to agree on this point - you stay there forever.

Not so in Buddhism. In Buddhism, the purpose of hell is to work out your Karma, so that you can be reborn into Samsara...(which in itself is a kind of a hell, but I digress). So there are freezing hells, and really really hot hells and the hungry ghost hell and so on...as many as 189 different hells in some Buddhist traditions, none of which sound appealing, which is why I try to be a good doobie and nice and all that stuff.

Anyway...

So, as you may have gathered, I pay attention to politics. And last night I watched most of Sarah Palin's speech. It was icky and her lips were moving so it was pretty much all lies. That's not very nice. I know. Truth though.

And I got to thinking that it is fascinating how cyclical the nature of human existance is, and how we keep repeating the same patterns over and over...it's like a giant version of 'Groundhog Day' (remember the movie with Bill Murray?)

One example that Darren used was in a Buddhist hell, (for the sake of argument, he invented this one, i think) say you are down in the depths and it's really cold and you are uncomfortable and you see a giant mountain before you and it's beautiful and green and looks warm and at the top of the mountain is your best friend and you want to go see your best friend, so you try to climb out and up the mountain, only to discover that the mountain is covered with razor blades. So you slide back down, now bleeding, to the uncomfortable place and stand there bewildered and then you look up and see your best friend and decide to climb the mountain but you discover that it's covered with razor blades and so on and so on and so on...that's pretty hellish, don'cha think?

We play out our lives like this. I know I do sometimes. Certainly, people shouting out negative 'isms' at each other off the pulpit is a just a giant do-over from 4 years ago and it's just as hellish.

Now, I support Barack Obama because I believe that he will make this country into a more compassionate place to live and that is the kind of world I want to live in. I don't want wars and starving vets and homeless people and rich getting richer while the poor lose their homes.

He's not some kind of a savior, he's just a guy, with some good ideas. However, what I see from the republican camp is a whole bunch of:

"you are down in the depths and it's really cold and you are uncomfortable and you see a giant mountain before you and it's beautiful and green and looks warm and at the top of the mountain is your best friend and you want to go see your best friend, so you try to climb out and up the mountain, only to discover that the mountain is covered with razor blades. So you slide back down, now bleeding, to the uncomfortable place and stand there bewildered and then you look up and see your best friend and decide to climb the mountain but you discover that it's covered with razor blades and so on and so on and so on"

Barack may not be perfect, but at least it's not more cyclical non-answers and a possible pathway out of the nightmare we've been living in for 8 years.

oh...and on a funny sidenote...I have a new policy. Every time a Republican pisses me off, I donate money to Barack Obama. Since this is happening daily now, this is probably going to get expensive, but it's worth it.

And finally, let me leave you with this thought...

"The definition of insanity is doing the McSame thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

Buddhism + Anger = Not Buddhism

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:27:00 +0000

Yeah, so I just ripped someone a new a--hole on Politico.com for spewing ignorant, racist garbage about Obama. I'm so tired of people creating ridiculous untruths simply because they are afraid of change. Change happens.

One of my favorite quotes from the movie Kundun (and one I used to have taped to my computer monitor) is when one of the sweepers is playing soldiers with the young Dalai Lama and he loses his tin soldiers to the sweeper and the sweeper says 'Today you lose, tomorrow you may win. Things change, Kundun'.

Now, first of all, my getting angry is not very Buddhist. I used to also have a quote from a Buddhist Monk (whose name escapes me at the moment) who said, 'You are only Buddhist since the last time you got angry'. Its safe to say this is probably my chief issue to learn to control...and on my commute home every day, I start being a brand-new Buddhist about every 37 seconds...but that's another issue.

What fascinates me is people's fear of change. The United States government is in a shambles, and has been for about 30+ years, since Nixon opened the doors to government and big business being in bed together - but the last 8 years have been particularly bad. I won't even go into the exhaustive list of disasters wrought by the careless hand of Neo-cons (and I could, but I think I might reach my data limit on Blogspot).

Now, we have a new hope. I know it sounds corny, but someone with fresh new ideas - a human, who is just as fallible as the next guy(or gal), but someone who actually has some ideals and believes in doing the right thing, has come along and all the entrenched humans who are terrified of change have decided to attack his character, his skin color, and the religion that he does not belong to (he's a Christian, not a Muslim and it shouldn't matter anyway(it's just a jealous game people play ay ay ay)) and any other untruth they can come up with. If they thought the world would believe that he had horns coming out of his head - I believe they would say that too. I have even read on a blog commentary somewhere that Obama is the Anti-Christ. It's ridiculous and laughable and actually pretty sad.

What it amounts to is a fear of change. A collective fear of change (at present) by about half of this country. Let's be honest, we're all afraid of change on some level - it's a very human tendency, of which I myself am often a victim. However, when someone (or a country) gives up their freedom to think critically, and they willingly turn over their rights to a despot (Bush), they are clearly so paralyzed with fear of change that they bring about destruction.

Those who do not stand up for their rights are bound to lose them.

It is that fear of change that us in Samsara to begin with - our attachment to an illusion that we desperately want to believe is permanent - name your flavor -- be it fear of death, fear of loss, fear of trying a new brand of peanut butter, fear of electing a President who is different than any we've had before. It's all fear and it's all based in attachment.

If we as individuals, as a people, as country can embrace change, we can become free of chains of our own imprisonment. It's the most basic of Buddhist lessons and frankly, when I think about it this way, with detachment, suddenly I'm not angry at the person who posted the ignorant racist lies that I ripped him/her a new a--hole over.

I shouldn't have done that - I should have been more compassionate and will try to be, the next time.

Apart from that though, I wish people would see that change is not a bad thing. Acknowledgement of the inevitability of change is what frees us from pain.

Or, at least, it's a step in the right direction.

Big Mouth Buddhist = Big Mouth Bass?

noreply@blogger.com (Mel B) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:59:00 +0000

So - this is my first entry.

I initially set this up as a way of funnelling my frustrations about the way the Chinese treat people, particularly the Tibetans (but really anyone who wants individual rights). I thought, "Hey, I'll write a blog!".

So, how did I come up with the term 'Big Mouth Buddhist', you may be wondering? Well, I'm a Buddhist - albeit not a very good one, and I think I have a bit of a big mouth - well at least, I have opinions and I like having a place to express them.

That's my brilliant plan - to share with any who care to read - my thoughts on life, liberty and the pursuit of Nirvana.