Forgiveness in Relationships

I've known any number of men whose women left them or had sex outside of marriage, who have been left embittered – and frequently misogynistic – by the experience. My response to these men is, How about trying some forgiveness.

The same people play the moral card and claim that the women are evil. Most of them did not have moral considerations when they were wooing the woman. They thought that the woman was hot. And for them to claim to have morality is inconsistent with the reality of their own behavior.

As any student of Christianity knows, forgiveness is central to Christian experience. This is likewise the case with situations in which the woman leaves the man. My wife left me; but I am not persecuting her or trying to keep her away from my daughter. Instead we enjoy a friendly relationship where both parties are respectful toward one another.

It is this that should be the direction in which are taken relationships. A truly ethical person will also be a forgiving person. There are many worse things that people can do than leave their partners; and that is especially the case in the situation in which the man wooes with roses and keeps with fists.

The people who play the moral card must be made aware of the reality of their own behavior. Most of these people are not driven by righteousness at all. They are driven by greed and hatred.

And it is outrageous that these people claim that they have morals and that the rest of us do not.

Jews and Family Values

Many of the people who claim to have family values are hateful toward the Jews. My response to them is that they don't know what they are talking about. The Jews are very family-oriented; and the worst thing in Jewish culture is not to take care of one's children. This as opposed to a prince that I met at a pub, who said that he was a “producer” because he “produced” eight children without taking care of them.

There are many people who see Jews as unethical; but they are more ethical than most people who want them killed. Jews take care of their children. Jews are very dedicated to family. And Jews do more to take care of their children than do many people who claim to have family values.

There are many things that people claiming to have family values stand to learn from the Jews. Jews are very family-oriented, and they do not need to use oppressive methods to maintain family cohesion. Instead the Jews go toward intelligence in their family life. And the result is children who are loyal and healthy at once.

There are many things that people around the world stand to learn from the Jews. The more this is done, the more righteousness is actually being realized. Jews are the best example of family values that the world knows. And the person who truly believes in family values will recognize this and respect the contribution of the Jews to family and to society as such.

Inner Change and Outer Change

A long time ago, someone on the Internet said that society is hated by the arrogant. My response is that different societies are hated by different people and for different reasons; and that the same person who would love the society of San Francisco would hate the society of Waco or Kandahar.

I haven't hated all societies that I have encountered. I liked some and hated others. I have no problem at all with the society which I presently inhabit.

There are many who claim that geographic solutions are wrong, and that “wherever you go, there you are.” Sometimes however the geographic solutions are the rightful ones. In a huge world with many things going on, it should be possible for people to find the right fit. Certainly there are times when the inner change is more desirable than the outer change; but there are also times when it is the other way around.

I've done a lot of both, and I certainly am much happier now than I used to be when I was 20. I have done a lot of work on myself; I've also experienced widely different lifestyles. My advice to people who are unhappy with where they are is figure out in what setting they can be happiest and what being a part of such a setting requires of them. That being done, they can make the necessary inner and outer changes and find a happier placement.

On Common Sense

When I was 12, just having immigrated to America, I was spending some time in a summer camp; and the camp leader told the children to use common sense. I asked, “What is common sense?” That resulted in a chorus of laughter.

However the question here is legitimate. Really, what is common sense? If there is such a thing as common sense, then it by definition will be common to everyone. And if some people have it and others don't, then it can't be called common sense.

As someone who's been accused all his life of lacking common sense, I have decided upon a different route. I decided upon the path of actual knowledge. I bothered to educate myself about such matters as world history and religions. And what I found is that the reason for things is not common sense but choices that people make, which can take history into any direction and at any given time.

There is no such thing as historical inevitability, as many Marxists proclaim. And people are neither good nor evil, but capable of both. What I found again and again is that the root mechanism for just about everything is choice. And this can go into any number of directions, from as bad as Medieval England to as great as the San Francisco of today.

With psychology, I had a love-hate relationship. I like some things that come out of psychology and dislike others. I have minimal use for Freud, Peck and Maslow and absolutely none for Adler and Skinner. I have respect for Jung and still more for Rollo May, Carl Rogers, Fromm and RD Laing.

So again, what is common sense? Your guess is as good as mine; and there is the problem. If it really is common sense, then it would be common to everyone. If some people have it and others don't, then it cannot be called common sense. And it is only when it is defined rightly that it can be a positive force in the affairs of the world.

Difference and Inner City

My friend Drew, who is a biology teacher in the inner city, noticed that his students were all afraid to be different. So one day he went into a classroom wearing yellow pants. A student said, “Mr. A*, you are wearing yellow pants.” Drew responded with, “Why are you so afraid to be different?”

This question is valid everywhere; but it is especially valid in the inner city. These people want you to be gangsters and drug-dealers. Basically, they want you to be scum. And the only way not to be scum in such settings is to reduce the coercion by those who want everyone to be scum and to have the courage to be different.

When the culture around you is evil, the only solution is to not take part of that culture. This is the case regardless of whether this culture is inner city or upper-class Episcopalians. The culture that wants to see people be gangsters and drug-dealers is evil. And it takes courage to stand up to such an abomination.

The courage to be different is the essence of liberty; and the more people do it the more there is improvement in human condition. A teacher who wears yellow pants shows to the students that they do not have to be controlled by the worst elements among them.

And that is a service done to the community; but it is also a service done to liberty and intelligence in the country that claims to value both.

Australian Drug Smugglers and British Soccer Fans

In recent weeks, Australia has been tuned to its TV sets on a matter that involved two Australian men being executed in Indonesia for drug smuggling. There are several issues here.

One is that death is too harsh a penalty for drug smuggling, and that more humane treatment is necessary. Another is that these men made Australia look bad in a foreign country.

When English soccer fans made asses of themselves during the 1998 World Cup in France, the English sports minister called them a bunch of drunken brain-dead louts. He wasn't trying to excuse their behavior; he made it clear that the English government did not support it. The Australian government must make clear that it does not support these people's behavior. Then it must say that the punishment given out to them was inhumane, and that the contemporary world deserves better.

Among people commenting on this matter, one – an Australian – stated that his compassion resources were already highly taxed by people undergoing severe oppression, and that he had none left for the men who went into a foreign country and broke its laws. Certainly people who break a law in a foreign country make their home country look bad. That does not merit capital punishment; it merits recognition that it is a wrong thing to do.

So there you have it. Death punishment is too harsh for the crime committed; but these people are clearly in the wrong. They should have been extradited to Australia and tried there. And if that had been the case, the Australians would have been able to tell these people just what they think of them and how much of an embarrassment to Australia they have been.

How Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories Hurt America

In 1997, I read a fiction story written by a right-wing survivalist about a right-wing community that got established in the woods after “The End Of The World As We Know It.” There was a section there about two young guys from Boulder traveling through the community, and not only did they cry on the spot – and not only did they carry Mao's red book – but they also ate human babies.

I've spent three months in Boulder in 1998 and 1999. I am an outgoing person who meets lots of people; and only one person I met there was a Communist. Certainly no baby-eaters. My question becomes, where do these people get their nonsense? Do they just make it up?

How does it become possible to get the right-wingers to see the people on the Left for who they are and not for some outrageous fantasy? These same right-wingers compare Obama to Hitler or claim that he is a Communist. If he had been the first, the right-wingers would all be in concentration camps; if he had been the second, he would have nationalized the banks and the car industry. Instead he bailed them out; and American capitalism owes a lot to Obama.

In the English media in 1990s, there were stories about “ritual Satanic abuse” of children by New Age families. Now I've known any number of New Agers; and the first thing that they were definitely not is Satanists. They do not believe that there is such a thing as Satan. As for child abuse, the New Age parents were much less likely to be actually violent or abusive than Christian parents. What we see here is real abusers planting false trails, making people see as abusers the people who aren't abusers while distracting them from real abusers - themselves.

We see the same thing with people making outrageous accusations against the Jews. Most Jews are responsible, hard-working people who contribute significantly to countries in which they reside. If some Jews have power, basically, they have earned it. But we see claims that Jews are in control and that Jews are evil. If that had been the case, then people saying such things would be facing a firing squad. That they are instead free to spread their lies shows that either the Jews are not in control or that the Jews are so good that they would even let live the people who want to kill them – or both at once.

Then there's the claim that global warming is a hoax invented by socialists and UN to destroy democracy. This one must have taken some creativity. Global warming was known to both American and Soviet scientists as early as 1950s. It became common knowledge in 1980s, when it should have been solved. Instead the right-wingers denied it, and now we are facing a much greater crisis than it should have ever been allowed to become.

The New World Order conspiracy theories – we find them on both the Left and the Right. The term “New World Order” was first used at a high level in American political discourse by then- President George Bush Sr., who in the aftermath of the Cold War wanted to create a “New World Order based on the rule of the law and not on the law of the jungle.” It has nothing to do with UN, it has nothing to do with socialism, and it also has nothing to do with the elites. The world order based around the Cold War ended with the Cold War; and American statesmen, in whose favor it ended, wanted to inaugurate an international order built around American values. There is no conspiracy here; and a true American patriot should be in favor of such a thing.

Probably the most pernicious direction in which these conspiracy theories go is when they become appropriated by real enemies such as ISIS. These people would use anything, whether it comes from the West or whether it is home-grown. The right-wing conspiracy theorists have blood on their hands. Their lies are being used by Islamic fundamentalists and neo-Nazis against America. And for the people claiming to be American patriots, this is an unacceptable sin.

War Over Middle Easterners' Minds

Like many others, I am tired of the Muslim fundamentalists claiming that they have morals and that the rest of us does not. The opposite is the case. The Muslim fundamentalists kidnap children, send children to blow up marketplaces and throw sulfuric acid into girls' faces for going to school. They are the lowest form of scum.

So far, most of the effort against Muslim fundamentalists has been based upon military action. Not enough is being done to change people's minds. There needs to be a broadcast into the Middle East, similar to the Voice of America broadcasts into the former Soviet Union, to inform people of what they are being faced with and how wrong it is for such forces to claim to speak for morality.

For as long as they have the monopoly over the minds of Middle Eastern people, military action is not going to work. They can always get more recruits to replace those who get shot. Instead there needs to be a war for people's minds rather than their bodies; and in doing that America stands a chance to defeat these scoundrels.

Dissidents and Democrats

Sergei Alexeyev, the son of a famous Russian dissidents Lyudmila Alexeyeva, died recently. It is said that one should speak nothing but good of the dead. Yet generally this man was not regarded as a very good person. He had in his apartment the photos of Joseph McCarthy.

He was stridently against Communism, and that is fair enough. The problem I've seen is many Russian immigrants in America comparing Democrats to Communists. There is no room for this error. Democrats have not built labor camps. Democrats haven't executed people for disagreeing with them. Democrats have not invaded countries and made them their satellites by force.

If you have left one country to go to another country, it is expected that you will love the country into which you have immigrated. Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. The problems start when people start making false links. And the link between Soviet Communists and American Democrats is a false one.

My mother votes Democratic; yet she is a highly responsible person who has done well in the economy. Under Clinton, America thrived; under Bush it failed miserably. There are many people who hate Obama, but Obama rescued America from its worst economic crisis since Great Depression. If he had been, as some claim, a Communist or a totalitarian, then he would have nationalized banks and the car industry. Instead he bailed them out; and American capitalism owes a lot to this president.

As for myself, I believe that people should have the best of all worlds. Having been both a winner and a loser under capitalism, I look for win-win solutions. People should have the benefit of opportunity that comes with capitalism; and people should have the benefits of security that comes with liberalism. Everyone should be taken care of at the basic level; and those who want more should be able to work for it.

I certainly find it despicable that a Putin-associated youth organization, known as Nashi (translated as “ours”) would make Lyudmila Alexeyeva – a woman in her 90s – as their enemy. But I also see as despicable the people who claim that those interested in clean energy are commies. There is enough idiocy running around everywhere, and it becomes the duty of the responsible citizen to see what is idiocy and what is not.

Lyudmila Alexeyeva has done great things, and she should be respected for it. But not everything that Russian immigrants are doing in America is right. Coming from Russian immigrants, I am willing to do the intellectual heavy lifting to distinguish the right from wrong that takes place in this constituency. And it is by doing that that we can know right from wrong.

Real Solutions to Gender War

I have always found it hard to understand why so many good men wind up with bad women and so many good women with bad men.

On one side is my roommate Michael, who has never hit a woman in his life, and whose wife stabbed him with a knife. On the other side is Julia, a brilliant artist for whom I have written a poetry book, who although she was always determined to be good to her husband got brutally mistreated by him.

Clearly both men and women are capable of both good and evil; and it is important to understand who is who. There will always be men, and there will always be women, and the two need to work out workable arrangements in which both sides fulful their prerogatives.

I am neither for nor against either men or women. I am for good men and good women; and I am against bad men and bad women. This, I regard as the rational stance.

When men tell me that I owe it to the other men to control the woman, I tell them that I owe nothing to the next man that I don't also owe to the woman – that nothing is owed to a gender and that everything is owed to people who have contributed to humanity, of whom as many were women as were men. When feminists tell me that I am a chauvinist or a misogynist, I tell them that they don't know what chauvinism and misogyny is, and that if their hearts were as strong as their language then they would be in front lines fighting people like ISIS and Taliban. In both cases we see a great wrong. Men should not be coerced to collaborate with the worst men out there in their attempts to oppress and abuse women; and people of goodwill should not be coerced to collaborate with the worst women in history of humanity to attack good women and innocent men.

I do not seek to oppress or control women. I want to be good to the women in my life, and I want them to be good to me in return. My enemy is neither men nor women. My enemy is both men and women who want to be ugly to the other gender.

There are many false reasons given for what I am describing. One of them is that the people in these situations are guilty of co-dependence or low self-esteem. Whatever self-esteem a person has is likely to be worn down by these kinds of situations; and it is high self-esteem, not low self-esteem, that comes from the worst of attacks by men who want the woman in the subservient role. As for co-dependency, this happens to all sorts of women who are not co-dependent; and you can ask any number of strong-willed women in Middle East to tell you just how wrong-headed this analysis is.

Probably the most ridiculous argument that I've heard is that in these situations the women are responsible for what is happening to them, and that responsibility means leaving them to their situations. This is simply outrageous. A responsible man is not going to be beating his wife or raping his children; and if he does so, it is he, not the woman, that is failing to take responsibility.

So here you have it. Both sides in this matter are wrong. The real solution is for men and women to figure out how they can live together peacefully. And it is this that actually has a chance of putting an end to this whole ugly gender war.

Family and Republicans: Who Owns Family Values?

There are many people who claim that America's greatness is a result of it having “traditional family values.” This claim is outright false. Traditional family values existed long before America existed; and most of the places in which they existed, from Medieval France to the Ottoman Empire, were disaster zones.

In America itself, we see family values practiced to a much greater extent by liberal constituents than by conservative ones. The Jewish culture and the Italian culture are vastly family-oriented; yet most of both populations vote Democratic. My mother was a liberal; but she was extremely family-oriented. She made me and my brother her first priority and did everything in her power to ensure that we have a good life, including many things that were very hard to do.

As a father myself, I have absolutely no use for the attention of people who claim to represent family values. I love my daughter, and she knows it. Nor do I need to use coercive tactics in order to get her to behave. I treat her as an intelligent form of life. When she does something wrong, I explain to her why it is wrong, and she does not do it any more.

Most of the people who claim family values are simply lazy parents. They don't want to go to the trouble of making connection with their children and teaching them right from wrong. Rather they want the law – and the government – to do the job for them. Since these are the same people who claim to want limited government, what we find on them is absolute hypocrisy.

A good parent has no use for the attentions of the “family values” propagandists; and the parent who does is not a good parent. A good parent loves his child and treats him right. In the family values debate we see the absolute worst in men. And the absolute worst in men do not begin to speak for manhood or family as such.

Family, Jim Morrison and Eminem

Jim Morrison wanted to kill his father, and Eminem wanted to kill his mother. Both were expressing sentiments that are a direct function of the family arrangements from which they had come.

Jim Morrison's generation was raised in patriarchial households in which the fathet with the whip was the authority and the woman was the nurturer. Needless to say, they loved their mothers and hated their fathers. Children love parents who are nice to them and hate those who hurt either them or the parent who is nice to them. In a family arrangement that was the 1950s, it would be logical that the children would love their mothers and hate their fathers. The mothers were the nurturers; the fathers were the authority. Children will always love the first and hate the second.

With Eminem generation, the situation is different. Many of these people have been raised by single mothers, who took over from the fathers the authoritative role, and many of whom were too busy or overworked to adequately nurture the children. So – surprise, surprise – whom do people growing up in such situations hate.

Of course there is potential for misconduct in both the nuclear family and the single parent situations; and we can be guaranteed that we will find out from the children just what this potential is. We've seen how the nuclear family can go wrong with Jim Morrison, and we've seen how the single parent household can go wrong with Eminem. Neither is the one-size-fit-all solution. Both can be done right, and both can be done wrong. Thought must be put forth on how to make both situations workable and avoid the frequently legitimate wrong that takes place in each situation.

Neither Jim Morrison nor Eminem were particularly nice people; but they did express what many other people felt, resulting in both of them having a huge following. People raised in patriarchial nuclear family, where the father with the whip is the authority and the mother is the nurturer, will love their mothers and hate their fathers. People raised by single mothers who themselves become the authority will hate their mothers. It appears that the only way to avoid either scenario is for the parents – whether single parents or parents in nuclear family – to relate to the child at the child's level and treat the child as an intelligent form of life, doing away with the need for authoritarian or violent tactics entirely. And in situations where this is the case, I've witnessed the children loving their parents and remaining loving to their parents when they have grown up.

Russia and World Economy

Russian people excel at intelligence and education, and American people excel at business. This creates an obvious solution: Get American business with Russian brains.

When American business acumen got together with Chinese work habits, the result was a billion people rising out of poverty in three decades. While not all Russian people are as hard-working as the Chinese, many are exceptionally intelligent and well-educated. And that affords an obvious opportunity.

Russia should not rely on sale of basic commodities like the Congo. Russia should rely on the superior intelligence of its people in advancing science and technology. And the West should avail itself of these people's intelligence to enlist them in creating technological progress.

Places need to play on their strengths; and the true strength of Russian people is their intelligence. Russia is a resource-rich country; but they need to do better than being reliant on exports of raw materials like a third-world country. Russia's true contribution to the world is its intelligence. And it is by working with this that the best can be made both of Russia and of the world economy.

Oil Character and Clean Energy Character

The basis of the economy percolates through all levels of human activity to become the basis of the character of the people in the economy, which then becomes the character of the societies and policies that the people create. In the same way as the Roman Empire built itself on slave labor - and made the basis of Roman character cruelty, brutality, conquest, predation, short-sightedness, laziness and oppression - so the oil economy fosters in people a character that mimics in its mentality the character of oil industry itself. This character is toxic, extractive, destructive, short-sighted, polluting, and ensnaring. And its poisonous influence can only be significantly reduced through a greater use of clean energy - and greater influence for life-affirming, intelligent, provident, and socially and environmentally responsible character that its development and widespread use stand to foster in humankind.

The oil character is the character of extraction and exploitation, but that's not remotely the end of it. From combustion of oil, are encouraged worldviews that see the world as being given, and of man as only there to burn it without consideration for the rest of the world or for its future. The planet is seen as there for people to burn; the people are seen as there only to burn it for present consumption. Which means that anything that cares for the given world that man has not created, like anything that cares for the future of the civilization that man creates, is a competing interest that must be wiped out by any possible means.

Since the oil resources are finite, the oil character does not see nor plan for life beyond the time that oil runs out. Any mentality that sees this, looks for alternatives, or stands to create alternatives, is mortal enemy to the oil industry. Not only therefore is the oil character is short-sighted to the point of being apocalyptic and as such foresees - and effectively works to bring about in its spirituality, politics and economics - an artificial end of the world; but far more significantly it is aggressively, imposingly and overbearingly so, and seeks to stamp out by all measures all that is not itself.

As people are made dependent on oil industry for their lives and their livelihood, the economic foundations of life and liberty are likewise destroyed. All thought systems, spiritualities, psychologies, are manipulated by this interest toward forcing assimilation into the oil-industry way of living, but more profoundly into the oil character. These then are directed directly toward destruction of qualities that might influence people to not quite like this state of affairs or be motivated to look for or seek to create better alternatives: qualities such as knowledge and respect for the planet and nature in all its complexity and diversity; caring for humanity and its future; ability to create innovative solutions; and all in the human being - intellect, curiosity, natural wisdom, compassion, love of life, humanitarian orientation, and capacity for creative and innovative thinking - that might make these possible. Which means that destroyed is not only life and liberty, but also all in people that seeks and makes possible the above. First the order destroys life and liberty at economic level; then at spiritual, intellectual, and psychological levels; then finally at the political level. And then the oil order sets humanity careening toward planetary destruction while in the process destroying everything that is of life and liberty in its own ranks.

The extractive oil character is one of destruction of nature with no sight for the future and no creative role for man. It pits the interests of the industry against both what man has not created and everything that man has created and that he stands to create. Which means that both nature and mankind become enemies of the industry; and that creates the most destructive of all conceivable orientations. At social level, we speak of oil-based mentalities and their orders subduing, exploiting and driving into extinction all that is life-affirming at both natural and human level - controlling, expropriating and deceiving what can be controlled, deceived and expropriated; demonizing, abusing and destroying what cannot. At the political level, we speak of oil-funded Texas Fundamentalists claiming ridiculously to speak for America and then seeking to destroy, screw and enslave everybody who are not oil-funded Texas-Oklahoma Fundamentalists, both outside of America and within.

All that is life in nature, and all that is life in man, are targeted for contamination, discrediting and destruction with eye toward eternal damnation. This is true for all that is physical and emotional; it is also true for all that is of the mind. Science, business, politics, art, relationships, are there to be conquered, subdued, eviscerated, and made through force and deception to serve the agenda of artificial Armageddon. Anything that is life-affirming, is sabotaged, corrupted, contaminated, slandered, defunded, discredited, undermined, in order that people can be led to believe the explanations that want to portray life as sin and all its manifestations as evil. Which people then want to bring about an end to life as such.

To that end no lie, no cruelty, no violation, no atrocity, is inacceptable. This is the case among oil-funded states claiming to profess both Christianity and Islam. The puppet of oil-funded Texas Fundamentalist acquiring Republican nomination by spreading false rumors about his opponent, getting in office through corrupt dealings, putting the government trillions dollars in debt amid collapsing family incomes, silencing truth about global warming, deceiving America into a war, and doing what he can to destroy the true greatness of America - its constitutional democracy, its ingenuity, its scientific knowledge, its affirmation and preservation of rights and liberties, its foresight, its humanitarian orientation, its willingness to lead through true diplomacy rather than barbarism, and the freedom of speech, thought, and way of life, that has made possible its accomplishments - while claiming ridiculously to be making America stronger and greater - this, is only the political manifestation of the oil character. Its effect on the people within and on the world without, are even worse.

The oil character does not see man as a creator but only as a destroyer; thus it destroys man's capacity to create. Its hatred of nanotechnology, biotech, stem-cell research, genetics, is of the same mindset as its hatred of innovation, of ingenuity, of individuality and of art. By sabotaging and eviscerating man's capacity to create, is destroyed man's capacity to create a long-term and livable future. It is as such the worst possible way to relate both man and nature, destroying nature while also destroying man. And from this mentality, outgrows a toxic, necrophilic, destructive, totalitarian and apocalyptic character - which then becomes the character of the oil arrangement, and shapes their economics, their politics, their spiritual life, and their inter-relations. A character that feeds on life, poisons life, inhibits life, and seeks to make life uninhabitable - and uses man's intellect, emotion, physicality, spirit, everything, toward not merely abusive and totalitarian but in fact apocalyptic ends.

Driven by oil mentality man destroys nature; then he destroys the foundations of his own existence. And in the process man's mindset as well as man's activities mimic the worst practices of the oil industry - short-sightedness, expropriation, aggressive ignorance, violence against life at all levels, criminalization and demonization of all thoughts and characters that may see to the contrary, destruction of liberty, and apocalyptic totalitarianism. The past life that is fossil fuel is burned; so through poisoning and global warming is life present as well as life future. The inheritance of the past is squandered, the present is poisoned, and the world is set to slide toward an artificial end. The character that burns dead dinosaurs, also makes dinosaurs of the living while destroying anything that is not a dinosaur and anything in people that may lead to clarity as to the character of the dinosaur ways. And just as dinosaurs died out in a mass extinction, so has the order based on the burning of the dead dinosaurs created the fastest extinction in the history of the planet - the order that now threatens the existence also of humanity itself.

Clean energy, on the other hand, is not based on extraction or on combustion, nor does it work toward a planet-wide poisoning. Clean energy is based on transmutation, by high technology, of abundant energy into usable energy, while generating in the process no poisons or waste. This process fulfils the energy needs of the civilization, while being itself non-obtrusive to the planet and its inhabitants. The achievements, knowledge, prosperity, of civilization, are made possible through tapping into abundant energy of such sources as the sun and the oceans, without producing any toxic byproducts and without poisoning life present or sabotaging yet-to-come. The creative, constructive uses of human intelligence make it possible for both nature and civilization to exist - for nature to be accepted and left as nature, and for man to make the best of man and his world.

This makes the best of the given and the created. The world given that is nature is known, respected, and left as much alone as possible; the world created that is the civilization exists in all of what it capable and reaches, through maximization of intelligent creation and minimization of waste and destruction, to greater heights with no end in sight. The mind is not used to blindly destroy, but to intelligently build on the givens, to provide sustainable long-term existence for the civilization that man has created, while treading lightly upon the nature that man has not.

The sun and the ocean water are not at risk of running out for thousands of years; which means that, with clean energy, the world can be counted upon to be there for a long time. This allows the people to conceive and work toward a future that is indefinite rather than one that will end when the predatory oil-funded dinosaurs extinguish the life on the planet while telling people that it is punishment from God and using that to suffocate them still more. Life can go on, in both natural and human aspects, and people can plan and work towards a viable long-term future for themselves and for humanity. This builds in people the habits that are prudent, responsible, viable and conducive to life.

Clean energy recognizes, validates, and respects both nature and man, and makes most and not the least of life in both aspects. Nature is not just resources to be burned for consumption without regard for the future; it is something that is respected for its variety and richness and life-generative capacity - while man, rather than being merely a short-sighted destroyer, becomes an intelligent creator who builds on the knowledge of science and technology to create a livable future and livable world. Prosperity is not sacrificed; it is enhanced and extended. And so is livability of the planet, as well as of civilization itself.

The high levels of technology needed to put in place solar beams and similar devices encourage and validate the view of humanity as intelligent beings responsible for the destiny of both humanity and the planet, while also drawing on - making constructive use of - and fostering - in people inventive intelligence, long-term perspective, generative capacity, responsibility for the future, eye toward maximal benefit and minimal destruction, and greater understanding of, respect for, and caring for, the world - both in the given, natural aspect, and in the human, man-created, form. The mentality and character that is encouraged, both in people and in their social and economic and political activities, is therefore one that makes most of these virtues. It is the character that not only makes possible to indefinitely power the civilization while being minimally obtrusive to nature, but also fosters a nobler, more prudent, more responsible, more creative, more nonobtrusive, and more life-affirming and life-extending character in the people who would inhabit such a civilization - and, pursuant this, in the character of the orders that they stand to create.

Not only does clean energy therefore lead to a viable future, but it also fosters a more viable character in the people and consequently in the economic, political, and social orders that they create. From predatory destroyers eating alive the world and engorging themselves in the process, people become intelligent human beings who work toward a sustainable future in which the natural world can keep living, as civilization remains existing and achieves ever greater heights. The qualities of clean energy economy - responsibility toward the future, high levels knowledge, inventiveness and intelligence, use of mind to create, sustaining and growing the civilization while taking care to tread lightly upon the planet, life-affirming character that uses mind for constructive solutions that maximize creation and minimizes destruction, and respect found by intelligence for what man has not created as well as respect earned by intelligence for opting for and implementing this arrangement - will become more and more the substance of people's characters and percolate more and more to their social and political interactions to impart to them greater levels of these virtues. And that is a positive influence not only for the chance of the world to have a viable future, but also for the character of the people who stand to inherit the world.

Single Mothers and Power

A claim has been made, and continues to be made, that children need their fathers or else their “oedipal tendencies” will turn them into hoodlums. Barack Obama was raised without a father; yet he became the President of the United States.

With parenting, as with anything else, it is how it is done that matters. If a father is non-abusive, then yes, children should have the benefits of his company; and I for one enjoy a wonderful relationship with my daughter. That is not however the case with parents who are abusive.

Leaving aside for now the issue of whether there is even such a thing as Oedipal tendencies, most punks aren't punks because they love their mothers and hate their fathers. They are punks because they think that punk is power. Of course they are completely wrong; and most of them wind up in prison or getting shot. That does however give us something to work with.

If a person is driven by power, then there are many legitimate ways in which this power can be obtained. They can go into business; they can go into politics; they can go into the military. All these pursuits afford a legitimate way toward power. Being a gangster does not.

Barack Obama is vastly more powerful than any gang leader, or all of them taken together. That is because he made right choices in his life. He studied hard, he worked hard, and he put his mind to understanding and solving people's problems. Here is a black man, raised by a single mother, who got to the top of the world. Both the people on the Right who think that only people raised in nuclear families can be fine, and the people in the inner city who think that their disadvantages are too great to be overcome, are refuted by his example.

The solution to the problems of inner city is not forcing women to stay with violent men, but getting the young people to think straight. Over the long term, it is the productive and not the destructive forces that win. A person can be successful whether or not he has had a father in the house. And in a country whose most successful citizen was raised by a single mother, it should be possible for many other people raised by single mothers to also achieve.

International Relationships and Western Civilization

On an Internet forum, there is a gentleman who claims that his wife leaving him to be with a black man is symptomatic of the decline of America and the Western civilization. My wife left me as well, to be with a man much older than me; but I do not see that as symptomatic of decline of anything.

In a free country, people will cross-influence one another all the time. For example my family, who are predominantly Jewish or atheist, were very unhappy when I became a Christian. The Jews and the blacks influence the white people; but the white people also influence the Jews and the blacks. The same is the case with both liberals and conservatives. Having lived for a long time in Virginia, as a child and a young adult, and having liberal political sympathies, I could not avoid the conservative influence. That some people who don't want the liberal influence are affected by it anyway, is simply the fact of life in a free country.

People will influence others, and the solution is to learn how to live with that fact of life. An even better solution is applying the thinking that made America great in the first place. The American looks for opportunities and learns how to make best out of bad situations. A solvent, responsible, non-violent American man is a world prize; and there are all sorts of good women around the world who would do anything to be with such a man.

America is not declining, and the Western Civilization is not declining. Instead, the successful methodologies responsible for both are being copied around the world. American conservatives got more of what they wanted than any group in history. America remains the world's greatest country. American system and American values are rising to global dominance. That the wives of some conservatives would find someone who is not a conseravtive attractive is their judgment. The good news is that they are not the only women in the world.

Iran, Russia, Ethiopia and any number of other countries are full of beautiful women who know how to treat a man right, and who in their countries have nothing to look forward to except poverty and brutality. The American man who is dissatisfied with what American women became as a result of feminism should be free to look toward these women. That way he will be giving someone a chance at a better life and giving himself a chance at a better life with a woman who is willing to treat him better. And by doing so, he will apply America's best values toward making something good out of a bad situation and improving his lot and that of another person.

Whining is un-American. So are oppression and rabble-rousing. America became great as a result of thinking that looks for opportunities. International relationships are a great opportunity for the American men, who are among the world's wealthiest and least violent. If your American wife has left you, look elsewhere around the world. Chances are, you will emerge with someone much better and who is much more willing to treat you well.

Parenting and Intelligence

There are some people who believe that they should be hitting children in order that they not be spoiled; and there are other people who believe that violence against all children is taboo. I tend to side with the second group.

My daughter is a very well-behaved child; and I have not needed to use violence to make her that way. I treat her as an intelligent form of life. When she does something wrong, I explain to her why it is wrong, and she does not do it any more.

Maybe I got lucky to have a good child; and maybe some other parents are not so lucky. Maybe there are many children who, as they say in Australia, are “ratbags.” But my experience as a parent shows that one does not need to use the rod in order to get the child to behave rightfully. Engaging the child's intelligence works a lot better, especially for a smart kid.

When I was 5 years old, my grandmother was punishing me corporally for something, and my uncle Lev said, “That's not how you do it with him.” He then proceeded to explain to me why what I was doing was wrong. This left a huge impression on me, and in my own parenting I've used the same methodology. I do not beat my daughter. When she misbehaves, I explain to her why what she is doing is wrong.

Does this mean that she is going to grow up spoiled? I do not think so. More likely, she will grow up to be an intelligent person who knows right from wrong. So far this is the direction in which she is heading. And I absolutely hope that this direction takes her through life.

Consciousness, Karma and Deliberate Action

There are many people who believe that everything that happens to people is either karmic or a result of what's in their consciousness. Try telling that to the children who got gassed during the Holocaust. It couldn't have been anything in their consciousness, because they were too little to have a consciousness. And it couldn't have been anything karmic, because if it had been, then there would be a sizable population today with similar karma who would experience similar outcomes.

The idea that everything that happens to people is their own doing absolves oneself of responsibility for doing right by the next person. If this is the case, then if I were to rape you and kill you, it would be your fault rather than mine. And that is not only wrong factually. It is wrong morally. In every sense, it is sociopathic.

When I was writing on this matter on New Age – influenced forums, I was accused of seeing myself as a victim and not wanting to take responsibility for my life. I was not writing about my life, and I was not writing about myself. I was writing about how these attitudes affect people. And I was also writing from the perspective of someone who knows enough about history to know just how much things differ from one age to the next, and how much of it is a result of some people impacting upon others.

Where these people are right is in claiming that most of us are not children during the Holocaust, and that there are any number of things that people can do to improve their lot. They are also right that in many cases people being in a bad way is a result of their weakness, ignorance or incompetence. You will not see me argue with these propositions. You will however see me argue intensively against the proposition that, if I were to rape and kill you, it would be your fault rather than mine.

Corollary with this idea is the notion that nobody can help or injure another. A demonstrably false statement. People both help and injure others all the time. One does not need, as some of these people claim, to see oneself as a victim or to avoid responsibility for one's life in order to understand this. One simply needs to take a look at history.

If everything that happened to people was a result of their karma or their consciousness, then the world would have been the same way through all of history. As many people would have the karma for gas chambers now as did in 1940s; and as many people would have the karma for grinding poverty now as did during the Middle Ages. That things have changed, all the time, as a result of human behavior in politics, business, science and the arts, shows that it is this action that truly determines the fate of humanity.

Much of what came out of the New Age is good; and I am all in favor of the Western people becoming acquainted with Zen, yoga and herbal medicines. However this attitude has to go. There are all sorts of ways in which people influence others. And for that reason it is imperative that the influence exercised be right rather than wrong.

Guns and Conspiracy Theories

A couple of years ago a friend of mine, who has spent too much time in Texas, told me that the government was going to become tyrannical and that people would need to carry guns in order to protect themselves. I asked her, “Will they also need to have nuclear weapons?” She took that as me making fun of her and discontinued contact with me. Instead I was asking a serious question.

If the government really were to become tyrannical, then guns won't protect you. American government has at its disposal the most powerful weapons that anyone has ever built. To seriously challenge American government militarily, the insurgents would also need to have weapons comparable to those held by the American government. And I do not see that happening, whether the person wanting them is a left-wing anarchist, a right-wing survivalist or an Islamic nut.

What actually protects these people is the willingness of the government to not go the way of Stalin and Hitler; and it is this that these people need to recognize as the reason for their liberties. This matter needs to be solved at a political level and not at a military level. Militarily, the anti-government people are at a huge disadvantage; and it is political action in pursuit of the Constitution and not guns or militias that actually protects them.

Obama is as far to the Left of a president as America is going to get; but even he does not practice anything close to totalitarianism. If he had been, as some claim, a Communist or a Marxist, then he would have nationalized the banks and the car industry. Instead he bailed them out; and American capitalism owes a lot to this president, including not going into another Great Depression.

There are many people who substitute paranoia and conspiracy theories for knowledge. There are people who claim that Holocaust never happened. There are people who claim that the moon landings were faked. There are people who claim that global warming is a hoax. And of course there are many people who think that the world is going the way of totalitarianism. None of them are anywhere close to being right; yet many people believe them.

When faced with such things, the duty of intelligence becomes to refute these conspiracy theories and replace them with real knowledge. There is more evidence for the Holocaust than for Roman Empire. The moon landings were done by both Americans and Soviets, and a Soviet Moon Rover, to the best of my knowledge, still remains in Moscow. Global warming was known to both the American and the Soviet scientists as early as 1950s and became common knowledge in 1980s when it should have been solved. And the people today around the world enjoy liberties that would have been unthinkable a century ago.

The reason that conmen and lunatics get away with spouting these conspiracy theories is that not enough people challenge them. More needs to be done in that direction. Paranoid ideologies actualize in extremely cruel and destructive outcomes. And people – both in America and outside of Americe – deserve better than that.

How to Refute the Islamists

Like many others, I am tired of the Islamists claiming that they have ethics and principles and that the West doesn't. They are the ones that kidnap children. They are the ones that throw sulfuric acid into girls' faces. They are the ones whose founder was a pedophile, and whose Quran promises boys in heaven.

The military action against the militants is not enough. More needs to be done by way of changing people's minds, so that more people in places such as the Middle East and Africa resist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram.

Do you want to know the argument that would completely invalidate them? For real?

It is as follows. America is the only reason that these people can be Muslim. If not for America, the Soviet Union would have gotten to all these countries; and if they had become Communist, they would not be able to practice Islam at all. Whereas with America as the top country they can be as Muslim as they want to be for as long as they aren't killing Americans or their allies.

I do not understand why this argument is not being used, it is so obvious. The Middle East owes its not being Communist to the United States. And that means that it owes its right to practice Islam to the United States.

The ethical argument must be dealt with as follows. Great people, over centuries of hard work, have given America and much of the rest of the Western world liberties, opportunities and a more humane treatment. The West is not morally worse than the Middle East; it is morally better than the Middle East and has been made so through the efforts of any number of great people. In the West, women have rights. In the West, people have opportunity. In the West, people are treated much better than they are in the Middle East; and that makes the West morally superior to Muslim countries.

Once again, I do not understand why this argument – just as obvious as the preceding – is not being used more often. If you kidnap 200 schoolgirls in America, or if you throw sulfuric acid into a girl's face in America, you will face certain prosecution. And it is outrageous that the people who engage in such monstrosities should go around preaching morals.

This is not a war between Christianity and Islam. At the center of the attack are accomplishments of Western liberalism, such as free speech and women's rights; and it is in the name of these things, and not in the name of Christianity, that fight against Islamists must be waged. The people who want to join the fight against Islamism for Christian reasons should be welcome to do it. But they should not be the only people fighting this battle.

As for American liberals, they need to see things put into perspective. By standards of what is important to them – such as free speech and women's rights – the Islamists are vastly worse than the Western conservatives; and they should be fighting them with the same or greater intensity than they are fighting the Christian Right. Evil is not limited to the Western civilization, and very few things in Western Civilization compare in their cruelty, brutality and oppression to the Islamists. A feminist true to her creed would not be supporting the world's most misogynistic ideology; and a liberal true to his creed would not be supporting an ideology that militantly rejects free speech and personal liberties and is enforced through sulfuric acid attacks on schoolgirls.

Killing militants is not enough. They can easily recruit more for as long as they hold a monopoly over the minds of people in Middle East. More must be done to change minds. That will reduce cost in lives and money and secure for America a strong following in Middle East, allowing the people on the ground to defeat the Islamists.

World War II Generation and History

I once took part in a poetry reading attended for the most part by older social conservatives; and there was a heartbroken look on the face of one of the ladies when I recited a hippie-themed poem.

I've seen the same heartbroken look on the face of my grandmother, who was a Soviet Communist, when others in the family were making fun of Lada cars.

The American World War II generation got more of what it wanted than did just about anyone else in history. America remains the world's most powerful country. Its economic and political system is being copied all around the world. That they did not get everything that they wanted – such as not everyone living a family lifestyle and not everyone believing that marriage is forever – is just reality. The world changes all the time in all sorts of directions. That they thought that their order was going to be forever does not mean that reality will collaborate with that belief.

For reference, the country from which I come was completely destroyed. And there have been any number of ways of life that have been completely wiped out, some by Americans themselves. The former hippies are accused of having been spoiled children; but here we see conservatives behaving like spoiled children themselves. They got more of what they wanted than just about anyone else, and some of them make a huge stink because they did not get everything that they wanted.

Clearly the American World War II generation accomplished a lot, and it should be respected for that. But let us put things into perspective. Most people in history got just a smidgeon of what they wanted; whereas American conservatives got most of it. My grandmother worked just as hard as did her American contemporaries, yet everything for which she worked was destroyed. Whereas America remains the world's greatest country, and the World War II generation is known in America as the Greatest Generation.

I mean no disrespect whatsoever for the World War II generation. I simply seek to make sense of things. America's World War II generation got more of what it wanted than just about anyone else in history of humanity. And that they did not get everything that they wanted, is just life.

What History Classes Miss

Most history classes in the West teach only the white man's history. The world that we have today involves in economic and political activity the people of all races; which makes it imperative to teach the history of non-white people as well.

Very few people in the West know about the amazing engineering, architectural and agricultural accomplishments of the Incas, who had 1000-mile pave roads through the mountains, masonry so fine as to create huge structures without mortar, or agricultural practices more efficient than the contemporary agriculture. Very few people in the West know that the Aztecs had a city of 300,000 people, built on water. Very few people in the West know that China had half the world's GDP during the Middle Ages; or about the peaceful and prosperous Pala Kingdom and Moghul Empire in India; or about the brilliant architecture and mathematics of the Moores; or about Africa's Songhay and Mali empires. I know about these things, but it is only because I bothered to educate myself on the subject. And if I had not done that and stayed with my education, I would be as ignorant about these things as Sarah Palin.

The global economy involves people of all races, which means that the history of all races needs to be taught. And I do not come to this from a politically correct standpoint – I completely reject political correctness – but rather from the rational one. The Chinese, the Hindu, the Africans and many others are part of the world's economic and political process; and the white man should be educated about these people in order to be able to work with them successfully.

There is also a merit in studying these people's accomplishments. Much stands to be learned about how the Incas were able to practice agriculture on the mountains without eroding the land or desertifying the environment. Much stands to be learned about how Tibetan Buddhists were able to achieve the amazing wisdom and personal goodness that they have achieved. Much stands to be learned about the Samurai. Learning these things enhances and enriches the Western Civilization with knowledge, leading it to its ongoing greatness.

This means the following: That history classes should include sizable and serious descriptions of the history of people who are not of European ancestry. The more this is done, the better the Western people can deal with people of other ancestries, and the better works the international economic and political process.

Honest Republicans and Dishonest Republicans

I've studied Republicans for many years; and many of them are not that difficult to understand. Most Republican constituents want to make their money, raise their families and not be bothered by anyone. There is nothing wrong with that; and as a family man myself I mostly wish these people well.

There are however things that can go wrong with that – sometimes very wrong. Money can be made in destructive ways, such as burning the rainforest or flooding the atmosphere with CO2. Families can be managed in brutal and abusive ways. And the desire not to be bothered can lead to two wrongful outcomes: Attacking the people who aren't exactly like themselves, and not wanting to pay taxes to the government while continuing to enjoy the benefits of government Interstate, government Internet, government military, government policing and government science.

Having come to America in 1988 and settled in Virginia, I could not avoid the conservative influence. So I decided to study it; and I've found in it both good and bad. It is rightful to support hard work and economic opportunity, and it is rightful to have a strong military to deal with people like ISIS. It is wrong to militate against science and arts; it is wrong to militate against women's rights or non-family lifestyle choices; it is wrong to attack programs such as Medicare and Social Security; and it is wrong to burn down nature with no sight for the future while standing in the way of advanced technological solutions to the material problems of the world.

Not every Republican is a jerk, and I've known excellent people who were Republicans. Instead there are honest Republicans and dishonest Republicans. Honest Republicans should be respected, and it should be possible to reason with them on matters where they have gone wrong and get them to see reason. Dishonest Republicans should be exposed, and their constituents made aware of their dishonesty.

The dishonest Republicans should not be allowed to get away with their claim that they speak for prosperity. There was vast prosperity under Clinton and a huge economic crisis under Bush. Nor should they be allowed to speak for family or for values. A good family man will not be beating his wife or raping his children; and the people who hide behind family values to engage in such practices are profaning the name of values and the name of family.

Nor should they be allowed to get away with their claims that they speak for responsibility. Much of what these people do is severely irresponsible. They flood the atmosphere with CO2 and stand in the way of constructive technological solutions to the problem. They practice reckless reproduction and stand in the way of solutions to reduce population growth in the third world. They attack science while enjoying the technologically-driven prosperity that science made possible.

If a Republican is honest, then it should be possible to make him see reason – such as that not all economic practices are rightful, and that there are many benefits to the government. With dishonest Republicans, the solution is exposing their lies. What is right about conservatism should be kept, and what is wrong about conservatism should be defeated. And then it will be possible to make the most of all worlds.

Does Only Money Talk?

Many people believe that “money talks”; and of course it does. However, as history shows, it is not the only thing that talks.

The Roman Empire had more money than did the Vandals; yet the Vandals sacked Rome. China, Russia and Middle East had more money than did the Mongols; yet the Mongols conquered them all. Kuwait was much wealthier than Iraq; yet Iraq ran over Kuwait.

In addition to military action, there are other things that talk as well. These include the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran; as well as Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Ayn Rand, John Lennon and Andrea Dworkin. Some of these people had positive view of money and others did not. Regardless, they all talked, and all of them had a huge influence.

Most of the money that is presently made comes from technology, which is an outgrowth of science. The people who have disrespect for science have no business claiming to be in favor of money or capitalism. Without science, capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic goods at the level it was in Medieval Persia. Most of what business sells is based on science, and it is important that people remember this as many tend to forget.

What is science itself based on? Philosophy. It was the Enlightenment philosophy of 18^th century that liberated the human mind to engage in open and serious inquiry into nature and life. Which means, by transitive logic, that wealth is based on philosophy. Many of the people who are into money see philosophy as worthless; yet without it there would not be science, democracy, prosperity, liberty, or regular people living in comfort and dying at age 95.

What does this ultimately mean? That some people need to learn more about history. Property rights are a fairly recent invention, and for a very long time most people were serfs and the money belonged to the nobles and the kings. There are some who take property rights for granted but see human rights as a luxury. Historically, their property rights are a luxury as well.

So that while money definitely talks, there are any number of other voices, and some of them are quite influential. Without science and philosophy, the businessman – if there was even such a thing as that - would have very little of what he has now. The money world needs to develop respect for science and philosophy. These things are the true root of money, and it is imperative that this be understood.

Money and Bullsh*t

In America – and especially in Texas – there is a widespread saying, “Money talks, bullsh*t walks.” It occurs to me that this saying is not nearly as wise as it considers itself to be.

Most of the money that is made comes from technology, which is based on science, which is itself based on philosophy. Since most of these people see philosophy as bullsh*t – and some even see science as such – according to their own logic money is based on bullsh*t.

The aggressive disrespect that many afford to intellectual and artistic pursuits does more than harm the people who are involved in these pursuits, or the people who have value for them. It also hurts the rest of the civilization by denying them the benefits of many significant contributions.

I am not against money, and I am not against business. I am however against ignorance and ingratitude; and this is what we see here. If there had been no science, or philosophy, or the arts, the “money talks bullsh*t walks” people would have nothing to sell except basic commodities. It is science – itself an outgrowth of philosophy – that makes possible technologically driven prosperity; and without it capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic goods as it was in the Medieval Persia.

Without science there would be no technology; and without philosophy there would be no science. Which means that philosophy is the true root of everything that people have. There needs to be respect for philosophy, science and arts for that reason. For most of human history, people did not have much in the way of money; and had it not been for the enlightenment philosophy and science that was its outgrowth, people would still be living to age 30 and having none of the conveniences and the liberties that they have.

Life and Values

Happiness is a product of one's life and one's values being in accord. When one's life and one's values are in discord, there are two options besides being unhappy or a hypocrite. One is to bring one's life to accord with one's values; and the other is to bring one's values to accord with one's life.

As someone possessing of humanitarian values, I've taken the first road. I am moving into a humanitarian field: Aged care. And so far I like what I see.

Most people working in this field are women; and many of them are good women. The women at the organization where I'm doing my work assessment are all kind and compassionate people. A man who is not a bully or a misogynist finds positive interaction with these women. This is the case even, as in my case, he has no interest in having sexual relationships with them.

Certainly not everyone in the helping profession is good; and my former wife had horrible experiences with some other women in the field. But as a man who has no problem working for women, I am in a good position. I treat them well, and they treat me well. The result is everyone getting positive results.

People should gravitate toward those who are willing to be good to them rather than those who want to treat them like garbage. I've had both men and women treat me like garbage; and I've had to do a lot of brainwork to find my way away from these people and toward people who are willing to treat me well. I found out that much of what makes the difference is people's values. So now I gravitate toward people whose values are similar to my own and away from people whose values are not.

Some of the women in this field are physically attractive, and some others aren't. So far however I've mostly seen great personal qualities in all of them. Some of these women are what I would call saintly. They are kind, compassionate and excellent at what they do.

Happiness is a result of one's life and one's values being in accord; and my life has been most fulfilling when it most accorded with my values. I've had enviable periods in my life; but it is when I was doing work that was most meaningful to me that I have been the happiest. To all the people who want to make something of their lives, I suggest doing work that most accords with their values. That way they will be fulfilling themselves and in the process benefiting the world.