The Seeds of My Dissent are Sowed!

I am created as an atheist and anarchist; it’s “god’s” will and my destiny.   I was fashioned in an existential crucible shaped by a society that prefers myth and superstition above truth and reason.

From my youth, I was indoctrinated with a vision of a socio-political and religious belief system that painted America as utopian.  Growing up, I was saturated by the media with the accepted affirmation on “truth, justice and the American way”, but my personal experience of reality did not jive with the belief system I was blithely asked to embrace.  This utopian vision, as defined by my church and the state, proved to be dystopian.  I struggled with the dichotomy between what I was taught to believe and what my experiences were telling me.   Where was I to find “truth”?

My story begins very early in my youth, when a soul wrenching incident occurred to me that shook the foundation of my entire belief system.  My father turned up dead while in the custody of the corrupt police in a suburb of Chicago, within mafia territory.  The police told our family one story; the local newspaper printed a conflicting story, and worst of all our parish priest, while speaking to the children, violated one of the ten commandments by lying about my father’s death (a big deal for a young initiate). 

None of the stories conformed to each other and all were at odds with the facts; the evidence pointed to the murder of my father at the hands of the police who claimed it was a suicide.  The truth was covered up by the police, along with the local paper and the mortuary where my father was interred.  When my uncles started asking the police for some answers to the inconsistencies in the story about their brother’s death, they where rounded up by the police and escorted, not just out of the city or county, but all the way to the Illinois/Kentucky state line. With continuing threats to my family, we where compelled to move out of town; the truth never came out. 

Thus, at the age of ten the very foundation of my belief system was disturbed before it had a chance to fully form.  Following the murder of my father I was faced with a mystery where the truth was obfuscated and difficult to discover. There was a tacit agreement between church and state to construct a truth that served their wishes, leaving me confused and without mooring. 

Following that experience, I found myself alone and adrift in a sea of confusion, grabbling with pressing existential questions about the meaning of life and the nature of truth.  I found myself set on a lonesome journey, adrift in a sea of confusion and apprehension, seeking existential truth.  I was left with no answers, only questions. 

As I pursued those questions the questions only proliferated.  I found myself caught in a maelstrom of contradictions and ambiguity. Would I ever be able to reconcile what I was taught to believe with what my experience was actually showing me? 

As I grew older, more incidents with the church and its insufficient answers further widened the chasm that originated with the earlier fracture of my faith.  The straw that broke the camels back was when I was told by a nun that my questions on the existence and nature of god could only be answered by god when I went to heaven; I lost interest in the teachings of the church.  

Adding to this incident is a whole series of unsatisfactory experiences with the church amounting to psychological torture, I found myself on a life long quest for truth or at least something in which I could have faith.  Not just something to believe in, not “blind faith”, but something that stood up to reason. 

Over time, I’ve come to understand there are no definitive answers defining an absolute truth, there is only the journey and the residual experiences that leave a sense of the truth, a common sense that embraces the riches of beliefs systems, while ultimately rejecting them all.  It seems truth is found in the seams!

A further assault on my faltering belief system occurred while pursuing the “American Dream” as a young adult.  Unlawful actions taken by government officials “under the color of law” obliterated my already sagging belief in government and the notion of the “rule of law”. 

I was engaged in a perfectly ordinary real estate partnership with two of my brothers to purchase distressed properties and save them from decay, but it turned out the county government had a hidden agenda on one of our properties.  In the process of pursuing their agenda the government officials engaged in activities that if done by the ordinary citizen would be criminal.  In its attempt to take property held by our family partnership, the state and local government violated our constitutional rights.  A protracted lawsuit against the government followed that lasted over a half a decade.    

This assault on my liberty and happiness was specious and insidious; the anger inside me from this egregious assault was so great as to bring me close to the line that separates anger at the few to condemnation of the whole; for the first time in my life I understood terrorist.  I felt rage and despair, but in my favor, I’ve always had hope.  But how deep is this reservoir of hope?  Could the well run dry?  I have an enduring sense of humor I inherited from my mother and this has served me will; I can laugh even as I cry.

As a result of these various transgressions by both church and state, I’ve completely lost the cozy feeling that once wrapped me in a blanket of security and comfort early in my youth.  There is no longer a warm fuzzy feeling inside me when I view symbols of the church or state.  My visceral reaction is disdain; I am compelled by distrust, to shun both authorities.  To the extent society as a whole has embraced the myths perpetrated by these institutions my trepidation is further confirmed. 

When the myth and the truth are in conflict, faith cannot survive without degenerating to blind faith.   Faith is based on trust, if you can no longer trust what is being offered as the truth then you are delusional if you continue to have faith.  Over the years, I have learned to keep my own council and find comfort in limbo.

Copyright © 2010 – 2012

"How Rich is too Rich"

The question “How rich, is too rich?” was posited by Donald Trump in an interview with a nationally syndicated host, when asked if he wasn’t already rich enough.  In a taunting manner Mr. Trump repeated this question over and over again, throwing out figures like “one million”, “ten million”, come on tell me, a hundred million, finally intimidating the interviewer into an uncomfortable chuckle; I too was uncomfortable watching him.  My first thought was, Mr. Trump, if you feel the need to defend your wealth, you’re already too rich. 

Trump’s question raised a challenge within me; his sarcastic attitude spurred me on to find a satisfactory answer to his forced query.  To focus simply on the dollar amount, as Trump did, is inadequate to qualify an answer to this question, we must look for a more fundamental principle to flesh out a universal answer to this enigma. 

To discover a principal that satisfies this question, I focused on folks whose wealth is publicly evident and I asked if each were too rich.  I’ve already proffered the notion, that if a person is concerned about the size of their wealth their values are mislaid and they’re already to rich; if this type of wealth is the measure of their self worth their personal worth is inflated; in other words, they’re too big for their britches.  When asked a similar question on the notion of distribution of wealth, I’ve heard numerous people who were financially wealthy retort “Why should I be compelled to give away any of my money?  I’ve earned it by myself and I should be able to keep it all.” 

This claim would be fine if they earned their wealth in a vacuum without the participation of anyone else, but we don’t operate in a vacuum, we operate in a society.  In society, especially one that has developed an overarching state with layers of bureaucracy and regulations, citizens give up a measure of their personal sovereignty to create the state and provide the environment were wealth is not just produced, but accumulated.  Without this broad sacrifice of sovereignty by society at large, it would be impossible for anyone to legitimately accumulate vast wealth in relative safety.  In addition, there is a shared largess of ideas, methods and tools that have been accumulated by society over the ages that has contributed to the common wealth of society; this also represents an advantage not individually earned. 

When you contrast this selfish world view held by many with people like Oprah, Magic Johnson, the Newman’s, Jimmy Carter, the Gates and Warren Buffett, along with countless other people who give freely of their time and money we discover a different metrics for determining wealth.  People of this ilk can never be two rich, they will always give according to how blessed they feel about their wealth. 

Giving by the wealthy is not some bleeding heart liberal nonsense; it should be considered an obligation by those who have benefited from societies largess; it should also be regarded as a responsible business strategy.  I’m sure Oprah as a businessperson and philanthropist can attest that the more she gives the greater her popularity; her shows ratings are improved enhancing her wealth, both physical and metaphysical.  Sharing one’s wealth abundantly is synergistic releasing an actualizing power that is infectious and motivates others to contribute their wealth; wealth is actually amplified. Stinginess and amassing wealth is a zero sum game; it shifts the financial wealth to the wealthy and leaves the poor poorer. 

Giving doesn’t need to be a strictly charitable effort to be effective.  There are financial opportunities with charitable attributes which can bestow similar benefits as a charity, while earning a pecuniary benefit.  One idea, known as peer to peer funding, provides low cost financing to micro businesses.  Another strategy is to become part of an investment group in your community and invest in innovative local small businesses that fall outside the credit system.  Join together with others in your church, mosque or synagogue to refinance individual members of the congregation’s credit card debt, with a personal loan in aggregation with others in order to spread the risk, which will provide an economic opportunity to the loan pool, while allowing the recipient to put the savings from the debt reduction towards accumulating productive capital.  Be creative, express your wealth; look around your community to find a need and fill it!

Copyright 2009 - 2011

Art & Obscenity

With the release of Annie Liebowitz’s photo of Miley Cyrus in the Vanity Fair Magazine, some in the news media reported that it was risqué or obscene, even reporting that Miley was half nude. I was dismayed by how many editorials were fixated on sex and nudity, which was not universally apparent in the photos. If there were any obscene connotations in the photo it is in the mind of the beholder; in my mind there is nothing implicitly or explicitly sexual in the photo.

There were incredible statements about how the photo was “exploitative of the innocent”, that it was “suggestive”, “child pornography” and that the magazine was “selling sex”. There was one particularly over-the-top comment made by an editor of Entertainment Weekly who remarked "…if Miley Cyrus is going to go around naked but for fabric draped over her, she's just begging us to imagine what her firm, young breasts look like, her smooth, tan skin, her tight, virgin...well, you get the idea. And I think that's shameful." WHAT? WHAT?? WHAT IS THIS GUY TALKING ABOUT?

There is nothing inherent in Annie’s photo of Miley that is shameful. What’s shameful is the values ascribed to this photo by those who desire to view it in a strictly prurient manner. These people expressing these thoughts need to understand that obscenity is generated in their own minds. The word obscene comes from the Greeks who did not like to show murder explicitly in their dramas, they chose to do it off-scene and left it to the imagination of the audience. I wasn’t invited by the photo to imagine the thoughts expressed by the editor and others like him; when I view this photo I see it clearly as a work of art. I am not titillated by it, indeed I feel a sense of melancholy when I view it; to me it’s an enigmatic vision like that of the Mona Lisa.

To demonstrate my perception of the photo as a kind of homage to the Mona Lisa, I down loaded and I compared it to the Miley Cyrus photo; one cannot help but be amazed at its similarity. Annie’s photo of Miley possesses many of the artistic qualities of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting. Take a moment compare the two, look at the mouth, the eyes, and the crossed hands, even the highlights on the skin. Then look at the folds of the clothing, the variegated background, as well as the overall near monochromatic color of the respective pictures. I would say that Annie’s photo of Miley should be considered a 21st Century Mona Lisa.



Those who rage vociferously against “obscenity” appear to observe the world through a perverted mind and wish to prescribe it to others, they perceive obscenity everywhere. The same type of perverted thinking has characterized many other pieces of art throughout the ages as obscene, including such treasures as the Venus de Milo, Botticelli's Birth of Venus and Michelangelo's David. In fact when several clerics viewed Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel for the first time, they accused him of obscenity and consequently covered his nudes.

Recently, officials in Bartholomew County Indiana notified a business that sells copies of classical art that they must be move certain statues out of view from the window, as these classic art pieces would be considered obscene under state law. The statues included copies of Michelangelo's David and the Venus de Milo. Also, a parent in Shelton Connecticut recently asked the school to change his daughter's bus route, so she could avoid seeing a 15-foot high replica of Michelangelo's ''David'' at an office park; the bus route was moved.
Those who have obscene thoughts in their heads when viewing Liebowitz’s photo of Miley, or any other piece of art for that matter, need to take responsibility for their own obscene thoughts, they need to own them and not ascribe them to the population at large. I would suggest they should commence a study of art from a rational unpolluted mindset and develop new ways of viewing the world around them. A world were art is allowed to flourish is a richer and more caring world.

Just for fun I’ve swapped the faces of Miley and Mona. What do you think? Whatever it is, own it!



Copyright © 2009 - 2011