Palmer Blevins Blog

Disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich called it when he was impeached: that with him out of the way, the Democrats would raise taxes. I hate the notion that Blago called it right, but Governor Pat Quinn plans to hike income taxes by 50% on individuals making $56,000 or more.

This is just what working people need, more taxes. Yes, we have deficits, but why is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to foot the bill for the reckless spending that our leaders are notorious for?

I have a novel idea, perhaps it’s not really novel. How about we make the politicians who get us into these fiscal messes pay to clean them up? Instead of raising taxes on hardworking Americans we instead tax the coffers of our political leaders? For every dollar a politician is able to raise, let’s tax him/her 50%. That seems fair. But why stop there? Let’s also tax individuals who contribute to political campaigns, since they obviously have the extra cash laying around; for every dollar an individual contributes, let’s tax that person 25%. That seems fair.

Love it or leave it. How many times has a person heard a neo-Conservative utter this phrase in response to any criticism towards George W. Bush and his administration? Myself, far too many to count. During the reign of Bush & Cheney Inc., any criticism of Bush was tantamount to treason and un-patriotic. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

I thought we had this whole huge war a couple generations ago that settled the question of whether a state could secede from the Union. Last time I checked, the Union won and the Confederacy lost.

Chuck Norris has claimed that he would run for “President of Texas” if given the opportunity because “anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we’d do if the going got rough in America,” Norris wrote. It seems now that the neo-Cons of this country were not able to steal another election, that they want to take their balls and go home sniveling like little wusses because they lost.

I say let them leave. Let the Limbaughs, Coulters, Huckabees, Romneys and the collective listeners of “Conservative” talk-radio pack their bags and leave if they think they can run their own country better. Let them have Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina; and anyone who wanted to renounce their US citizenship could move to Rush’s new Confederacy but would not be allowed a right of return. The US would not offer them any sort of military or economic aid in return for their “independence.”

I think it would be a safe bet that within a couple years Russia would once again rule Alaska; and the remaining states would make nice additions to Mexico or China; and the world would see the great ineptness of neo-Conservative ideology and policy as it truly is.

Personally, I think Mr. Norris should be tried for sedition and investigated for possible links to domestic terrorists due to his talk about “cells” that would unite for secession. I think a nice stint in Gitmo would do Mr. Norris some good.

Shortly before September 11, 2001 the Bush & Cheney Inc., mis-Administration amazingly gave the Taliban $43 million on May 15 to supposedly eradicate opium.

At the time, the Taliban were hosting Osama bin Laden and his merry band of thugs; the same person and henchmen responsible for attacks on American embassies in the latter years of the Clinton Administration. And what did the US get in return for giving the Taliban money? Four planes used as missiles, two burning symbols of American economic and military power, and 3,000+ dead.

And now, President Obama wants to sit down and “talk” with “moderate” elements of the Taliban. What exactly are the supposed “moderate” elements of the Taliban? Are they the men running around not declaring “Death to America” but still throwing acid on the faces of little school girls who dare to defy sharia and try to get an education? Are the moderates those that practice “honor killings” because they found it easier to beat up on rape victims then tangle with the might of the US military? Are the moderates those who have imbraced the i-Phone?

What would happen should Osama bin Laden appear with a Coke in one hand, a Big Mac in the other, and instead of uttering “Death to Americans,” he utters “Save Money. Live Better. Wal-Mart.”? Are we then going to call him a moderate as well and just let bygones be bygones?

Negotiations with Taliban “moderates” will not win the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban and their proxies, allies, etc., need to be rooted out and eradicated. A person can rescue a wild animal, get it to eat out of his hand, and even domesticate it a bit; but there is always the possibility that the wild animal will turn if the opportunity presents itself. The worst thing we can do is trust the wild animals within the ranks of the Taliban; the so called “moderates” included.

Perhaps 9-11 was not enough for our leaders to realize that you can’t make peace with people who have no respect for life; let alone lives of those they consider infidels.

This article is featured on Helium.com

Is cell phone insurance a worthwile purchase? As a former sales consultant with Verizon, and a current customer of Verizon Wireless, I have mixed emotions in regards to cell phone insurance. Playing the devil’s advocate, let’s consider the following:

You walk into a store, sign up for a cell plan (2yr standard contract) and decide to go with a free phone out of the door. Normally that phone costs $19.99 with a two year contract, because there is a promotion going on (and you are convinced that it is a great deal) or because the phone is a garbage phone that has had nothing but problems and the store is having a hard time getting rid of the phone (even for free). The sales person starts talking insurance: $4.99 a month and it will cover manufacturing defects, loss, theft, etc., and a new phone will be shipped out to you within 24 hours should anything happen to it.

Replacing a cell phone, especially a higher end phone (such as the i-Phone or the Blackberry Storm) can be a pricey endeavor, so you are sold on the idea of insurance. Like other forms of insurance, there is a $50 deductible (which some sales people fail to mention), and there are not only limits to how you can use it, but if you get a garbage phone and it craps out on you…guess what, you are most likely going to get the same crap phone which has probably been someone else’s junk before it got “refurbished” (which again, some sales people fail to mention).

The salesperson makes his/her case for insurance (after all, it adds to his/her data sales points…which isn’t much at all, but in the world of commission and competition, every little bit helps); reminding you that after the warranty and time frame for returning/exchanging the phone has expired…you are stuck with that phone until you become eligible for an upgrade. And what will you do if that phone decides to stop working? You will have to purchase the phone at…*gasp* full retail price (which could be $50 or more than what you paid for it the first time around). Shriek!

But here’s the thing. Say the phone lasts you 1 1/2 yrs., and then decides to crap out. By this time you have spent $89.82 on insurance and will be shelling out an extra $50 deductible to get the very same phone that may or may not be refurbished and functional. But consider this: for the same amount of money to get a refurbished phone using your insurance, you can get a better phone full retail for the same price; or go to Craigslist or Ebay and get a phone for a lot cheaper than what it would be to use your insurance or buy full retail.

Cell insurance may be a good idea but in my opinion it is not a real good investment considering that the amount you pay in monthly and in deductible, you can often get a better phone for the same price…or less. And in today’s economy, it may be more prudent to not purchase it.

This article is featured on Helium.com

There is absurd war on religious freedom being waged in the US by those who relish the idea of turning schools in Illinois into quaint little Christian madrasas. Illinois is at the center of this controversy due to our wonderful Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, which was vetoed by then IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich, overridden by the IL General Assembly, struck down in federal court and then subsequently suspended in May of 2008; and the modern day Pharisees otherwise known as the Christian right are up in arms.

In a recently sponsored bill by Representative John Fritchey (D-Chicago), the law would be changed to make it voluntary, instead of mandatory, moment for “silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.” Religious zealots are not happy with this proposed change, and fail to see the hypocrisy that lie in their desire to have government mandate obligatory religous practice. These are the very people who feign outrage in regards to supposed government intrusion into their beliefs and daily lives; but when it affects non-fundamentalist Christians…it is more than acceptable. No other religious group, be it Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, etc., is making a fuss over the propposed change; and it is not like the law is forbidding reflective silence or silent prayer.

Our modern day Inquisitors and Puritans should understand that enforcing a mandatory moment of prayer or reflective silence is not going to end the problems plaguing our public schools; it is not going to end bullying, drugs, unruly students from misbehaving…nor will it prevent guns and other weapons from entering our schools. Our modern day witch-hunters seek to sneak religion into a sphere of society that will not benefit from its enforcement; and instead of blaming the ills of society on liberals, secularists, atheists and the producers of Will & Grace, they should spend their energies like the rest of us; on matters that truly are of consequence (like the economy).

If a teacher or student wishes to take a moment to step outside of a classroom to a designated area for a moment of silent reflection or prayer, more power to them. But the legislators and religious zealots pushing for mandatory reflection or prayer need to back off. Just as they would not like their children to be forced to observe a moment steeped in religion, they should not be so callous and disrespectful to force children who are not their own to do the same. As a taxpayer, there is a lot that I would like to see done in Illinois’ public school system; but mandatory religion is not something I am keen on paying for or having my representative to vote on. If a parent wants his/her son or daughter to pray or observe a moment of silence there are numerous parochial schools and there is always home. Let’s keep religion a private matter. America was founded on the principal of religious freedom; where an individual was able to worship, or not worship, free from not only government intervention but also from those who have nothing better to do than be concerned with what others are doing. It is time to end the war on religious freedom being waged by a small sector of society that have their knickers so tightly bound that they can barely fit their heads up their own keisters anymore.

There is a global war on religious freedom being waged: religous fanatics wanting to shove religion down the throats of those who are more concerned about matters of real importance (such as trying to make ends meet, to enjoy at least a moment of happiness, etc.), funamentalists subverting democracy to rob moderates and the un-religious of their God-given right to criticize that which is illogical and often times criminal, and supposed “holy” men and women threatening to kill, and in most cases, threatening to kill anyone who musters the courage to combat them.

There is a war on free speech and free thinking, being carried out by the most savage and most vile of human beings; and it is a war that we should be concerned about losing.  Writer Johann Hari has written a beautiful piece entitled “Stand up for the Right to Criticize Religion,” and I implore everyone to read it.  And suprise, suprise, suprise, religious fanatics have their panties in a twist, and calling for not only the imprisonment of the editor, publisher and writtter…but some of the more “godly” want a worse punishment for daring to speak ill of their religion.  Who ever guesses followers of the “religion of peace” gets a cookie.

Yet, despite the riots and threats, he is continuing the fight.  This man has become a hero to me.

“All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don’t respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the dead. I don’t respect the idea that we should follow a ‘Prophet’ who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn’t follow him. I don’t respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don’t respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of “prejudice” or “ignorance”, but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.

When you demand “respect”, you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has ‘faith’ that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It’s easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.”

Amen, brother.  Amen.

This article is featured on Helium.com

How does one convert to Buddhism? Before we dive into the matter, let’s understand that Buddhism is not really a religion, per se; it is a Dharmic philosophy originally professed by Lord Buddha that eventually became divided into various “schools” spanning multiple cultures, ethnic and language groups. Just like any other philosophy, a “student” of one of the various Buddhist sects can still adhere to a particular religious denomination. For example: there are many Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists who adhere to the various philosophies of individuals like Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Nietzsche, Gandhi, etc., and there is no apparent conflict between their religious beliefs and their philosophical beliefs; in a similar vein, there is no real conflict for a Christian, Jew, Hindu or even atheist to follow the teachings of Lord Buddha. Buddhism, for all intents and purposes, does not have a set dogma or canon; and that is what separates it from the label of religion.

There is no set catechism for “converting” to Buddhism; although those wishing to join a particular Buddhist school (such as Zen or Tibetan) can seek out a group and learn from a spiritual leader or master if the student desires a set structure and discipline. I became a student of Buddhism about five years ago when a friend introduced me to insight meditation and manifestation.

Buddhism, collectively, is a philosophy that focuses on the enlightenment of the individual while maintaining a balance between the individual and the world around him/her in with the ultimate goal of liberation (moksha) from the cycle of re-birth and suffering in mind. Becoming a Buddhist is not as easy as reading a book, liking what one reads, and then saying “I’m a Buddhist.” And it is not as easy as twisting your legs into the full lotus position and chanting “om” a couple times. Rather, becoming a student takes a lot of effort, concentration, meditation, dedication and pure willingness to change one’s life forever. It also takes a little bit of guidance.

There are two fundamental teachings of the Lord Buddha that a student should be knowledgeable of, however; and they are: the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. The Four Noble Truths teach the student that 1) the world is suffering (dukkha); from the moment we are born to the moment we die, life is suffering, 2) the cause or origin of suffering comes from desire (samudaya), 3) the cessation of suffering (nirodha) comes about by relinquishing our dependence on our desires or cravings, and 4) The Way/the Noble Eight Fold Path (marga) is the way to end suffering.

The Way consists of eight teachings for developing “good” karma and ultimately ending the cycle of rebirth and suffering and they are right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Way can be categorized into three parts or concentrations: 1) wisdom (prajna), which consists of right view (in which one gains knowledge) and right intention (in which one gains liberation), 2) ethical conduct (sila), which consists of right speech, right action and right livelihood, and 3) concentration (samadhi), which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

By becoming versed in the Four Noble Truths and The Way, the new Buddhist student then can apply those fundamental teachings to their meditative practices and interactions with not only others but nature as well to bring about quality change in their lives and the cessation of the facets that contribute to suffering. These two teachings enable to student to become aware, knowledgeable, connected and a steward for others seeking liberation.

Since 9-11, many individuals have spoken out about the need to clean up the image of a particular religion of “peace” and combat negative stereotypes. Some even created Tv stations. A couple pointers in how to effectively combat negative stereotypes should you really want to do so:

If you profess to follow a religion of peace, do not go around killing people or threatening to kill people or engage in acts of terrorism when they criticize your religion.

And most important of all, if you spent so much time creating a Tv station to combat negative stereotypes about your religion, don’t walk around like a bully, beat your wife and then behead her when she wants a divorce.

This article is featured on Helium.com

The Wheel of Law, or the Wheel of Dharma/Dharmachakra, is a Buddhist concept that uses the wheel of a chariot as a symbol for righteous action that will ultimately lead to the end of the cycle of samsara (rebirth). It is said that Lord Buddha set the Wheel of Dharma into motion with is first sermon at the Deer Park in Sarnath; this is known as the “first turning.” Subsequent turnings of Dharmachakra took place during his sermons at Rajgir and Shravasti, respectively.

The wheel itself represents not only the cycle of rebirth, but also karmic action. The wheel’s motion is a metaphor for not only Lord Buddha’s setting into motion rapid spiritual maturity for an individual seeking enlightenment and freedom, but also the individual’s turning of the cycle of rebirth through karmic action or cause and effect. The more “bad karma” one puts into motion, the more likely history is to repeat for that individual, most likely through rebirth into another samsaric realm, or life-form for easier understanding; the more “good karma” one sets into motion, the less suffering he/she will endure in this world…and the next.

On the Wheel of Dharma, there are eight spokes; symbolizing the Noble Eightfold Path that Lord Buddha taught: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Wheel of Dharma is also divided into three parts or “three trainings” of Buddhist philosophy: the hub symbolizes moral discipline or ethical conduct, the spokes are representative of wisdom while the rim symbolizes concentration or meditation. Action sets the wheel into motion; however, the wheel turns as one unit with all three parts working in co-operation.

By leading a righteous life, one set’s into motion good karma and possible re-birth in a higher realm; however, the goal of moksha (liberation or release) being the paramount goal. Moksha is the ending of the cycle of rebirth and suffering. However, wrong or incomplete actions can set the wheel turning negatively; thus creating “bad” karma, which leads to not only more suffering and pain for the individual (and ultimately all of creation since everyone and everything is interconnected), but also re-birth into a lower samsaric realm…which leads to more suffering. By following Lord Buddha’s teachings, the Wheel of Dharma can be stopped with the reward of ultimate liberation.

As a symbol, the wheel is used to defeat ignorance, suffering and other negative or otherwise incomplete or “evil” actions, thoughts, desires, etc. However, in order to set the wheel into motion, produce “good” karmic action, and ultimately stop the wheel’s cycle; one must completely follow the Lord Buddha’s teachings.

This article is featured on Helium.com

OMG! Three little letters that get the the tightest of whiteys tied up in knots. OMG! This phrase’s use in popular lexicon, can be used as an exclamation for a number of a number of emotions: such as excitement, happiness, relief, sorrow, guilt, anger, etc. Of course, those who are prone to more sacrilegious exclamations sometimes add the letter “F” to create “OMFG,” which in modern parlance means “O My F’ing God.”

I was raised a Southern Baptist, and many a time I got my mouth washed with soap for daring to take His name in “vain.” In the past couple years, I’ve taken notice of the many prudes who are more than willing to shove God down the throats of others; but can’t stomach the use of God’s name in phrases such as OMG! I am one to think that the Supreme Deity is more preoccupied with other things, such as ensuring that the world keeps spinning, the rivers keep flowing, and that humanity doesn’t wipe itself (along with everything else) out, etc.; than some snot nosed teenage punk uttering or writing the phrase OMG.

Is the use of OMG taking the “Lord’s Name” in vain, or insulting to the Great I Am? I can see it as being so if the letter F (and the word it is representative of) is added to the phrase; but I fail to see the All Mighty as an entity that is as self-centered, arrogant, vain, egotistical or easily to anger, sensitive and easily offended as the religious fundamentalists, fanatics and zealots make Him/Her out to be. Ok, let’s consider the argument that it is insulting to our Creator. I can see that, but I, just like everyone else, do not know what the Heavenly Father/Mother thinks…let alone what He/She takes as an insult. But if I were a gambling person (which I am only during the Super Bowl, and that after I’ve asked YHWH to ensure my team covers the spread), I would wager to say that God has been less offended by the utterance/writing of the phrase “OMG” than he has been by such crimes as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, and the “ministries” of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

God is probably more insulted by people who profess that they converse with the Almighty and that he directs them to hate, discriminate, etc., in His/Her name. God more than likely can handle OMG! a lot more than he can all the honor killings, lies, hypocrisy and injustice that have been carried out by those who profess to be His/Her followers. God probably can stomach OMFG! a helluva lot more than he can stomach what those “Created In His Image” has done to His wonderful creation.

So how does God feel about the expression OMG!? I really don’t know, but I think God doesn’t really care as He/She has more important issues to deal with; and if God could speak, he would probably tell the prudes and censors of the world to get a life and maybe stop caring about the actions of others and deal with their own plank filled eyes. Of course, just as the more religious minded like to delude themselves into thinking they know what God would feel about something, that is what I think God would say.