The Global Conversation

Tag: The Global Conversation

  • Progressives: Defeat Romney/Ryan in Swing States

    It is critical to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013.

    The election is just a week away, and I want to urge those whose values are generally like mine — progressives, especially activists — to make this a high priority.

    An activist colleague recently said to me: “I hear you’re supporting Obama.”  I was startled, and took offense.

    “I lose no opportunity,” I told him angrily, “to identify Obama publicly as a servant of Wall Street: a man who’s decriminalized torture and is still complicit in it, a drone assassin, someone who’s launched an unconstitutional war, who claims authority to detain American citizens and others indefinitely without charges or even to execute them without due process, and who has prosecuted more whistleblowers like myself than all previous presidents put together. Would you call that support?”

    My friend said, “But on Democracy Now you urged people in swing states to vote for him!  How could you say that?  I don’t live in a swing state, but I will not and could not vote for Obama under any circumstances.”

    I said to him: “Like it or not, we have a two-party system in America.” (Why a Two-Party System is Inevitable in the United States and What to do About it)  The only real alternative for the next four years is Mitt Romney, who has endorsed every one of those criminal and unconstitutional offenses. And those are promises I believe he will keep.  That’s a terrible situation, but it won’t be improved by replacing Obama with Romney.

    “I don’t ‘support Obama.’ I oppose the current Republican party. Obama’s policies, as I see them, range from criminal to–at their best–improvements on the recent past, partial and inadequate.  But current Republican policies range from criminal to disastrous.  That’s not really a hard choice.”

    This not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive–primary challenger or major candidate–or even a Republican who’s good on foreign policy and civil liberties like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. What voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine on November 6 is whether or not Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years.

    A Romney/Ryan administration would be no better on any of the constitutional violations I mentioned, or on anything else. But it would be catastrophically worse on many other important issues: The likelihood of attacking Iran, Supreme and Federal Court appointments, the economy and jobs, women’s reproductive rights, health coverage, the safety net, green energy and the environment.

    As Noam Chomsky said recently (The Role of the Executive): “The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It’s worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives.”

    He also told an interviewer (How Progressives Should Approach Election 2012): “Between the two choices that are presented, there are I think some significant differences. If I were a person in a swing state, I’d vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice. I happen to be in a non-swing state, so I can either not vote or — as I probably will — vote for [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein.”

    I see it the same way.  Chomsky lives in Massachusetts, a “safe” blue state.  I too live in a non-swing state, blue California, so I, too, intend to vote for a progressive candidate, either Jill Stein or (as a write-in) my friend Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.

    Along with Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Frances Fox Piven, Cornel West, and others, I have encouraged others in non-swing states (including red states like Texas and Mississippi) to consider doing the same, in contrast to what we urge progressives in swing states to do, which is to vote against Romney/Ryan by voting for Obama/Biden (Make Your Progressive Vote Count for President).

    We see long-term merit for our movement in registering a large protest vote against both major candidates and in favor of a truly progressive platform.  In the almost 40 non-swing states–red or blue–that can be done without significant risk of affecting the electoral votes of those states or the final outcome in favor of the Republicans.

    But that isn’t true in the dozen or less battleground states—Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, along with Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania—where decisions by relatively small numbers of progressives to vote for a third party or not to vote at all would risk and might well result in a Republican triumph. That risk, as we see it, outweighs any benefits there might be in pursuing votes for a progressive third party in those states.

    I personally agree with almost everything Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson have to say–except when they say “Vote for me” in a swing state.

    This election is a toss-up.  That means this is one of the uncommon occasions when we progressives—a small minority of the electorate—could actually determine the outcome of a national election. We might swing it one way or the other by how we vote and what we say about voting to fellow progressives in the battleground states.

    Given that third-party candidates with genuinely progressive platforms are on the ballots of most of these swing states, their supporters—who might successfully encourage those with the same values to vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson instead of Obama—could well provide the margin for Romney that would send him to the White House.

    If, to the contrary, such voters in those states could be convinced to overcome their disinclination to vote for Obama ,  they could crucially block the far more regressive agenda of the Republican Party.

    Our task is clear. The only way to block Romney/Ryan from office is to persuade enough people in swing states to vote for Obama–not stay home or vote for someone else.  And that has to include progressives and disillusioned liberals who are inclined not to vote at all or vote for a third-party candidate (because like me, they’re not just disappointed but disgusted and even enraged by much of what Obama has done in the last four years and will probably keep doing).

    This is not easy.  But it’s precisely the effort Chomsky says is worth expending right now to prevent the Republicans’ rise to power.  And it will take progressives—some of you reading this, I hope—to make that effort effectively.

    It’s true the differences between the major parties are not nearly as large as they and their candidates claim, let alone what we would want. In many aspects, especially in the areas of foreign and military policy and civil liberties that are the focus of my own activism, their policies closely converge (though small differences remain significant, all favoring Obama/Biden over Romney/Ryan).

    It’s even fair to use Gore Vidal’s metaphor that they form two wings (“two right wings”) of a single party, the Money or Plutocracy Party, or, as Justin Raimondo calls it, the War Party.

    Still, the reality is there are two distinguishable wings, and one is even worse than the other.   To deny that reality serves only the possibly imminent, yet still avoidable, victory of the worse.

    The traditional third-party mantra, “There’s no significant difference between the major parties” amounts to saying: “The Republicans are no worse, overall.”  And that’s absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended.  It’s crazily divorced from the present reality.  (I say that, although I agree with virtually every passionate criticism of Obama’s policies I’ve ever heard from the left.  What I don’t hear from third-party partisans is comparable realism about the Republicans.)

    Some progressives who do acknowledge that the Romney/Ryan party is “marginally” worse in some respects nevertheless believe that “worse is better” for progress in the longer run, by evoking more effective protest and resistance—especially from Democrats in Congress and the media—and a popular turn to leftist leadership and policies. But, historically, they’re profoundly wrong. That hoary theory would seem to have been well-tested and demolished by eight years under George W. Bush.

    And it’s very harmful to be propagating either of those false perspectives.  They encourage progressives in battleground states either to refrain from voting or to vote for someone other than Obama, and, more importantly, to influence others to do the same. That serves no one but the Republicans and the 1%, and not only in the short run.

    It is true that Obama has often acted outrageously, not merely timidly or “disappointingly.”  If impeachment on constitutional grounds were politically imaginable, he’s earned it (like George W. Bush, and many of his predecessors!)  It is entirely understandable to not want to reward him with another term or a vote that might be taken to mean trust, hope, or approval.

    But to punish Obama by depriving him of progressives’ votes in battleground states and hence of office, in favor of Romney and Ryan, would serve to punish most of the poor and marginal in society, along with women, workers and the middle class. It would mean the end of Roe v. Wade, via Supreme Court appointments.

    And the damaging impact would be not only in the U.S. but worldwide. In terms of the economy, I believe the Republicans would not only deepen the recession, but could convert it to a Great Depression.  They would attack women’s reproductive rights globally, and further worsen the environment and the prospects of climate change.  Disastrously, it could lead to war with Iran (a possibility even with Obama, but far more likely under Romney).

    The re-election of Obama, in itself, is not going to bring serious progressive change, end militarism and empire, or restore the Constitution and the rule of law.  That’s for us and the rest of the public to bring about after this election and for the rest of our lives — through organizing, building movements, and agitating.

    But to urge people in swing states to “vote their conscience” by voting for a third-party candidate is dangerously misleading advice. I would say to a progressive in a battleground state that if your conscience is telling you to vote for someone other than Obama, you need a second opinion. Your conscience seems to be ignoring the realistic impact of your actions or inactions.  You need to reexamine your estimates of likely consequences and moral reasoning.

    Our demonstrations, petitions, movement building and civil disobedience—including protest and resistance to the wrongful practices of the incumbent administration–are needed every month, every year, including campaign seasons like this one. [I faced trial two weeks ago, with fourteen others, for civil disobedience protesting Obama’s continued tests of the Minuteman III ICBM’s, my fifth arrest protesting policies of President Obama, including the treatment of Bradley Manning and the continuation of war in Afghanistan).

    But it has been clear for months that this is a moment when effective resistance to an even worse alternative administration that is within sight of power is also urgently needed, leading up to and on Election Day.

    In this last week of this campaign, there is no more effective or pressing political effort which progressives can undertake than to make their voices heard–through e-mails, blogs, social media, and public appearances–to encourage citizens in swing states to vote against a Romney victory by voting for the only real alternative, Barack Obama.

    (Daniel Ellsberg is a former State and Defense Department official who released the top secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, for which he faced 115 years in prison (charges dismissed for governmental misconduct figuring in the impeachment hearings for Richard Nixon that led to his resignation).  He has been arrested more than 80 times subsequently for actions of non-violent civil disobedience.  He is the author of “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers,” and is currently writing a book on his experience as a nuclear war planner.  He lives in Kensington, California, with his wife Patricia, sister of Barbara Marx Hubbard.)

    (If you have a Guest Column that you would like to submit, send it to Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.  Not all material submitted is accepted for publication, but we appreciate each submission.)

     

  • DID GEN. POWELL ENDORSE OBAMA
    BECAUSE BOTH MEN ARE BLACK?

    Did former U.S. Secretary of State and retired four star Army general Colin L. Powell, a prominent Republican, just endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States because both men are black?

    A top surrogate for the campaign of Republican Mitt Romney said so Thursday, bringing race into the presidential contest just days before ballots are cast in America on Nov. 6.

    Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu, who has spoken in support of the Romney campaign for over a year, suggested on CNN Thursday night that Mr. Powell’s announced objections to Mr. Romney’s proposals and policies were not the real reason that Mr. Powell has broken with his own party to openly endorse and support President Obama.

    “Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that’s an endorsement based on issues, or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama,” Mr. Sununu told CNN’s Piers Morgan on Morgan’s nationally telecast interview program. Asked by Mr. Morgan what that “different reason” might be, the Romney campaign surrogate said:

    “Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

    Facing an immediate backlash for calling Colin Powell’s endorsement essentially disingenuous, Mr. Sununu backtracked a few hours after the Morgan interview, releasing a statement directly contradicting his own earlier pronouncement. “Colin Powell,” Mr. Sununu said, “is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made, and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the president’s policies.”

    For his part, the Republican Powell made it crystal clear why he was not supporting Mitt Romney, his own party’s nominee. Appearing on the a.m. news program CBS This Morning, Mr. Powell said he had the “utmost respect” for Mitt Romney, but was concerned about what he termed Mr. Romney’s shifting foreign policies. “The governor who was speaking on Monday night at the debate was saying things that were quite different from what he’s said earlier, so I’m not quite sure what Governor Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy,” Mr. Powell said.

    Mr. Powell was Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005 during the administration of President George W. Bush, yet had no problem praising President Obama for his handling of the U.S. economy. “When he took over, the country was in very, very difficult straits, we were in one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression,” Mr. Powell said. “We were in real trouble. I saw over the next several years stabilization come back in the financial community, housing is now starting to pick up after four years, it’s starting to pick up. Consumer confidence is rising. So I think generally we’ve come out of the dive and we’re starting to gain altitude.”

    The retired four-star general went on to call Obama’s actions to protect the U.S. from terrorist threats “very, very solid.”

    Was former Gov. Sununu’s remark on a widely televised interview concerning Mr. Powell’s endorsement of President Obama a last-minute attempt to “play the race card” a little over a week before a national election?

    Only Mr. Sununu knows the answer to that inquiry, but there is little question that the endorsement of Mr. Obama by a Republican as prominent as the former secretary of state (Mr. Powell was only a few years ago being encouraged by his party to run for President himself) had to have stung the Romney campaign, which would no doubt have preferred Mr. Powell to simply keep silent if he did not feel he could openly endorse Mr. Romney.

    Perhaps Romney supporters felt that the only way to mute the Powell endorsement of President Obama was to marginalize it as simply one black man assisting another. In the world of a New Spirituality, where fairness and transparency would be the hallmark, Mr. Sununu would return to the Piers Morgan program and make an apology to the same nationwide audience for his remark, and then say on national television what he put into a written statement released hours after the CNN program aired: “I respect the endorsement decision he (Colin Powell) made, and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President’s policies.”

    Wouldn’t that have been refreshing? It would have been far better than saying something blatantly racist on nationwide TV, then issuing a corrective statement hours later–a statement that everyone knows is far less likely to be seen in print by as many millions as watch CNN.

    In some circles this is called Get-Away-With-It Politics, in which you do something outrageous Big, apologize for it Small, then say you did your best to correct yourself, while really doing very little to alter the original impression that you so powerfully created.

    This kind of political handiwork is usually done by political hacks known as “hatchet men.” Generally these are well known former political figures, now cronies who hang around on the edges of campaigns issuing supportive statements on behalf of the candidate, but without official portfolio, so they can get away with saying what the campaign itself cannot.

    In other words, people like former governor John Sununu. And if the Romney Campaign wanted to do something showing real class, it, too, would disavow Mr. Sununu’s racist remark about the Powell endorsement of President Obama.

    Don’t count on it.

     

    (Have a comment? Submit it below. Your opinion matters. — Editor)


  • Can you make someone choose your reality?

    This is my first time asking this kind of question. I’m not too sure on how to compose it without sounding disrespectful or too naïve.  People can create their realities, right. Can someone choose his reality to continue a permanent partnership with someone that would not necessarily want to? If he wants to have that relationship to work, he has and will continue to put energy into it. The partner doesn’t see it that way.  She wants out of this relationship. His mind is surely going to explode. He cannot understand why!  He’s not an abusive person in any way. He’s a good provider, a good person.. He has a lot of feelings for his wife.  

    Sometimes he feels like a fool for letting her stay in the house until she finds a place to go live.  Of course, she doesn’t gave him much attention and told him she has filed for a divorce. What is going on here? They both are very spiritual and believe it’s their path to become better persons and show, teach, and spread the Love.  Enough of this rambling! I don’t know if any of this makes sense to you, but can you shed some *light* into this?  Thank you so much!

    PS: You’re right, I’m talking about my own marital situation.  P.E.       

    Dear P.E.,

    The answer is no…you can not create a reality that someone else is not willing to create with you.  Every soul has its own agenda, and every soul has free will.

    P.E., I get that you would have a desire for someone you love deeply to want to stay with you.  I get that deeply.  It is a natural thing.  I would, however, suggest that you are already creating the reality that your soul wishes to experience.  You have defined yourself as “a good provider, a good person, spiritual,” etc.  Can you see that you can Be these things in any relationship?  Can you see that you can Be these things in no relationship?

    Thinking that the current relationship with your wife is the only way you can demonstrate these things is expecting life to show up in only one way.  And God and Life provide more for you than just one way, or one love.  Ask yourself, What is this relationship giving me the opportunity to experience?  Why am I in this relationship?  In fact, what is the purpose of being in a relationship at all?  I believe it is to give the other back to themselves.  It is to give the other person every opportunity to be who they really are; and through doing that, I also get to be who I really am.

    I am not saying that you should give up.  What I am saying is that you should never force another, physically or energetically, to do anything.  The best you would receive is surrender.  What I am also saying is that if this relationship has a chance of moving in a different direction, it will be because you move in a different direction.  That direction, to me, would always (only?) include what your wife’s wishes may be. Is it impossible to believe that even apart can still be a spiritual way for both?

    Interestingly enough, when you move into this space, it opens up the door for more than one way for your wife to be in your life.  One of these ways could be supremely satisfying ways you least expect!

    This, of course, is just my general answer.  There are tools in the book When Everything Changes, Change Everything that can help you find your own answers, in your own way.

    Therese

    (Therese Wilson is the administrator of the global website at www.ChangingChange.net, which offers spiritual assistance from a team of Spiritual Helpers responding to every post from readers within 24 hours or less, and offering insight, suggestions, and companionship during moments of unbidden, unexpected, unwelcome change on the journey of life. She may be contacted at Therese@TheGlobalConversation.com.)

    (If you would like a question considered for publication, please submit your request to  Advice@TheGlobalConversation.com, where our team is waiting to hear from you.)

  • Are you willing?

    Has your life become one struggle or challenge after another which never seems to end? It doesn’t have to be that way any longer. Eventually all come to a time and place where enough is enough and we become willing to do whatever is necessary in order to end the pain we are facing. It is sad we endure so much more than we have to in most cases. Many are just not yet willing to let go of the old, the past, in favor of a new and uncertain tomorrow, a tomorrow filled with joy and purpose, when we become open to the possibility that our struggles are really in our own best interest and not something we need to avoid.

    All too often we spend the majority of our lives trying, unsuccessfully, to avoid any person or situation which may have caused us pain in the past. Not only do we unsuccessfully avoid the pain, typically we just increase the number of situations in life which will cause us pain in the future.

    As we learn to embrace the changes going on in our lives not as something we need to avoid, but instead as part of the process of our growth, we are now moving towards a life of creation rather than one of reaction. When we begin to create our lives consciously, we no longer have to get so caught up in all the challenges and dramas life brings. We now have a choice in the matter on how we will respond to change.

     AN ENERGY SHIFT IS NEEDED

    I have been working through a personal challenge of my own in my life. Each time I think I am making progress and getting closer to finally moving beyond it, I find myself slipping back a couple steps. Fortunately, I have been through this process a number of times and know each little bit of forward progress is, in reality, a huge step to overcoming my challenge, even if I slip backwards now and then. It shows me I still haven’t reached the point of being entirely willing to let go.

    I was talking with a friend recently about the challenges she faces after her epileptic seizures, both the physical ones as well as the mental ones. From talking to her, I saw how just shifting her energy slightly, before and after she experiences her seizures, she would be able to transition out of the negative energy states much quicker if she had just a bit of willingness to have a different experience. I was happy to hear from her yesterday that even though she had a seizure-filled weekend, she was up and functioning quite well by Monday afternoon.

    Willingness is an action step in many cases. The way to see if someone is willing or not is to see how they will take action in their lives. Talk is cheap, and our actions speak much louder than words in many cases. I see this often in the recovery meetings I attend. We will have new people come into the program, their life in chaos due to the addiction, yet they do not follow through on the suggestions they receive from the members with experience. To me, this is a perfect example of a lack of willingness. In many cases, following a few simple suggestions (willingness) could have made all the difference for them.

    WILLINGNESS FOLLOWS YOUR PASSION

    “Passion is the love of turning being into action. It fuels the engine of creation. It changes concepts to experience…. Never deny passion, for that is to deny Who You Are, and Who You Truly Want To Be.” – Neale Donald Walsch

    Neale’s words here are a perfect example of how we can increase our willingness to succeed in life. The more we are in touch with and doing things in our lives that fuel our passions, our dreams and visions, the easier it becomes to raise the bar on our levels of commitment to achieve more.

    Think of a time in your life when you wanted something so bad and you were willing to do anything to achieve it. Maybe you had to start your day early and end it late. Perhaps you had to stretch your comfort zone and try new things. We will not have that type of commitment for something we are not passionate about. It is like a fuel to get us moving each day, striving to be and do more than we may have ever done in the past.

    When the actions we are taking in our lives are an outward expression of Who we Are and Who we truly want to be,  it opens us up to become entirely willing to do the things in life which we may have balked at in the past. This is willingness in action.

    IT’S POSSIBLE TIME

    As we dial into each moment, staying focused on our dreams and passions, we are just steps away from all we desire. Presence in this moment is another tool of willingness.

    Willingness is a choice you must make over and over again until it becomes a habit you are not willing to let go of, no matter what happens in your life, no matter what obstacle shows up!

    The next time you face a major challenge in your life, take the time to pause and remember willingness is the spiritual solution to all your problems.

    (Mark A. Michael offers mentoring based on his understanding of the concepts and principles of “Conversation With God” and is part of the Spiritual Helper Team at www.changingchange.net.  He can be reached at www.beyondfaithintofreedom.com.)

  • I’m harming myself to help my adult child

    Therese,

    How do I stop sending support to my very adult son?  He has been in and out of trouble, financially and other ways, like drugs, all of his life.  Just when I think he’s got it all together something happens again.  The thing is, I can’t afford it, and to help him, I can’t pay own my bills.  He’s 16 in a grown man’s body!

    Paraphrased, this is the conversation I had with a friend recently.

    It is also a question that I have grappled with in the past, and still do.  I see how the world, economically, changed from the time I was young, and now.  It seemed to be a given then, that a young person could get an education, work hard, and have a reasonable expectation of meeting, or beating, their parents’ standard of living.  That is no longer the case.

    It was also the standard, in the western world I live in, that the young person leave the house somewhere between 18 and 21 years of age, and never come back, except in the event of some catastrophe.  That is no longer the case either.  This change, in my opinion, while forced by some fairly dramatic economic changes, has not been entirely a bad thing.  Having lived in Asia, where the model is to actively engage multiple generations in the raising of the children, and the sharing of the wisdom of each generation, CWG’s suggestion that this was the way, rang true with me.

    I was not about to move my entire family in with me, however!  So, how to work within the current economy, and not enable?  How to productively engage the multi-generation model?   I found my own way to have the East and West models meet.  We live in the same neighborhood!  My mother, my daughter and husband, and her sons and my husband and me.  Boundaries were set at the beginning, and have always been respected.

    I have two children, both of whom have seemed to require help.  One lives near, one lives far, so it isn’t nearness that is an issue.  But giving to them did begin to feel like a burden, and I started to give without joy.  So, in the past few years, I began to ask myself the questions I thought I should be asking about the situation of helping them.

    Questions like:

    What am I getting out of this situation?
    Is this help really helping in the long run?
    Am I imposing my vision of what their life must look like, and not honoring their vision?
    Is this help or control?
    What might their souls be wishing to experience…as well as my own?

    Hard questions to honestly answer.

    While I am truly giving to them out of love, if I am to be very honest, I am also giving out of fear.  Sometimes I fear that they will be angry with me.  Sometimes I fear what the consequences might look like if I don’t help them.   There are, of course, other fears.  There are other things, I realize, that I am getting out of this type of giving, that are not beneficial to all, and possibly not to anyone, in the long run scenario.

    I also realize I am imposing my vision of what their lives should look like.  I don’t want them to not be able to pay the bills, I don’t want them evicted from their homes, I do want them to have the things I had, and I do want them to always have full a full belly and feel secure.  But…is this what their soul is really wishing to experience?  As “The Only Thing That Matters” articulates quite well, the soul knows where it really wants to go, but it has absolutely no preference as to how we get there.  The long road or the short road makes no difference.  So, am I helping create the long road by removing the opportunities to take the short road?  Am I saying that the short road must not seem difficult for it to be the road that works best?  For that matter, am I removing my own opportunity to experience that more difficult path that is, none the less, the one I must ultimately traverse?

    Looking at my relationship with money was another thing I had to do.  Being an American, I’ll bet you can figure out at least some of where I had to go in that conversation with myself!  Not the least of which was asking myself exactly what my definition of abundance really is.

    Back to my friend, who specifically said that he is harming his own welfare in order to help his son.  CWG says that all benefits must be mutual.  Stated in another way, it says that to betray oneself, in order to not betray another, is still betrayal, and it is betrayal of the highest order.  And it is giving our children the wrong message.

    I was not willing to cold turkey remove the help, but I have cut back considerably, and help in very specific areas, like healthcare for the grandkids.  (Yes, healthcare, even with insurance, is expensive for way too many, but that is a different subject!)  It was difficult to change some of my behaviors, to be sure, though.  It hasn’t been all fun, but, guess what!  it has been quite beneficial for all of us.

    The oxymoron here, is that, we are told that life isn’t about us, yet it is all about us!  So, if life isn’t about you, and it is also all about you…where are you really?  How do we justify denying anyone anything, even if it is hurting ourselves?
    Neale answered that very clearly in a recent retreat I attended.  We forget that there really is just one of us in the room.  When I take care of me, I take care of you.

    My advice, then, to myself and to others, would be to ask the questions and be honest with our answers.  Then…be brave enough to take care of ourselves.  When we do that, we will also be taking care of our children well enough to allow them to do what seems to be failure, knowing we are allowing their opportunities to present themselves…and modeling how to find one’s own answers.  This may be very difficult to witness on occasion, but allowing the process to unfold, and not preempt it because it doesn’t feel good, will also empower us to know when help will be truly beneficial, to all, if offered.

    Therese

    (Therese Wilson is the administrator of the global website at www.ChangingChange.net, which offers spiritual assistance from a team of Spiritual Helpers responding to every post from readers within 24 hours or less, and offering insight, suggestions, and companionship during moments of unbidden, unexpected, unwelcome change on the journey of life. She may be contacted at Therese@TheGlobalConversation.com.)

    (If you would like a question considered for publication, please submit your request to:  Advice@TheGlobalConversation.com, where our team is waiting to hear from you.)

  • What would love do now?
    Wear a pink tutu in Times Square, of course!

    51-year-old Bob Carey, standing 5-foot-10-inches tall, and weighing more than 200 pounds, is appearing around the country in only a pink tutu and creating a 61-page book of his self-portraits in an effort to support his Beloved Other, Linda, who has advanced breast cancer.

    His extraordinary journey has taken him to the Grand Canyon, Coney Island, Times Square, The Washington Monument, a cow pasture in the midwest, and Giants Stadium, just to highlight a few.  You can view some of the images from his self-published book here:  Tutu Breast Cancer Project.

    Linda Lancaster-Carey, 51, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2003, says, “He’s not afraid to put himself out there. It’s his own body, with all its imperfections.”  The Careys say laughter has always been at the heart of their relationship and that the photography allowed Bob Carey to focus on something other than his own fear and anger surrounding his wife’s illness and the loss of his father to lung cancer and his mother to breast cancer.

    The Careys’ story demonstrates the level of unconditional love that so many people desperately yearn for but fall short of time and time again in their relationships, a level of love and commitment that perhaps may have not have been as fully experienced but for Linda’s illness.

    I imagine there was an earlier time in Bob Carey’s life where he would not have even considered donning only a pink tutu in the middle of Times Square, much less actually do it.  Even now, some members of the media have been less than kind, colorfully pointing out the flaws in Carey’s physique, to which he replies, “The photos are about transforming into somebody I’m not. It’s about being vulnerable.” Carey is also feeling pushback from critics who question his actions, women who are put off by the pink tutu and those who have grown tired of the “pinkification” of October, which has been designated as Breast Cancer Awareness month.

    In the midst of darkness and pain and uncertainty, Bob Carey answered the question, “What would love do now?”   He pushed past the illusions of fear, embraced his vulnerability, and stepped into his next grandest version of himself, gifting to his wife and all those whose lives he touches the remembrance of his own sufficiency and divinity.  His act of self-definition now spans the country, if not the world, so others, too, can remember more fully who they are:  as sufficient and divine.

    Conversations with God, Book 1, reminds us:

    “What you do for your Self, you do for another.

    What you do for another, you do for the Self.

    And this is because you and the other are one.

    And this is because…

    There is naught but You.”

    Perhaps the Careys’ story will serve to inspire us all today to do something extraordinary, something silly and unexpected, an expression of pure givingness to our partner, and thus to ourselves — or to ourselves, and thus to all of humanity — as a demonstration of our Highest Self and our deepest affection and in remembrance of who we really are.

    Yes?

    (Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation.  She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support .   To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)

     

  • If only you were ‘this,’ then I could be ‘that’

    By the time Jenny Lee was 28 years old, she’d already had 26 plastic surgeries:

    Breast implants (twice)
    Cheek implants
    Chin implant
    Lip implants (3 times)
    Nose jobs (3 times)
    Breast lift (3 times)
    Liposuction on her arms, hips, thighs, stomach & knees
    A full body lift
    Botox injections
    Veneers

    Why?

    Her answer to this one-word question is simply, “Because my husband told me that my breasts were too small and my nose was too big.”

    In an effort to achieve her perception of perfection – (including a belief that these choices would somehow become the source of her partner’s happiness) – Jenny Lee attempted to literally recreate her body, thus hoping to recreate her reality, through a painful journey of surgery after surgery after surgery.

    The cruel twist in this story is that after Jenny had the breast enlargements and the plethora of other procedures, instead of finally receiving what she desired most, her husband’s love and affection, she was met with a new unwelcome response from him:  resentment and jealousy… because now, ironically, she was receiving too much attention from others.

    Reading this story about Jenny caused me to reflect upon why women – or anyone, for that matter – began perceiving themselves as less than whole and adopted belief systems which embraced the notion that certain conditions create happiness, not only within ourselves, but within others:  “If I have thinner thighs or less wrinkles, I will be worthy of love”…”If he was taller and had more hair, he would be perfect”….”If she would look this way, I would feel that way.”

    We cram our feet into uncomfortable shoes.

    We stuff our legs into binding pantyhose and hip-slimming Spanx.

    We pluck our eyebrows and color our hair and bleach our teeth.

    We only feel pretty when we have make-up on…and we have become experts at “Photoshopping” out our perceived flaws.

    Why are we doing this?

    What is it that we are imagining ourselves to need?  Or be lacking?  Or simply not remembering?

    “Communion with God” says “need” is not only the first illusion, but the grandest illusion, the illusion upon which ALL other illusions are based.  The illusion of need manifests in all areas of our lives, but it becomes particularly painful when it permeates the most sacred space of intimacy within a partnership of souls.  Some people feel unworthy to stand before their beloved other unclothed.  Some people withhold from their lover the most sensual physical experience of love.  Some people go so far as to undergo 26-plus cosmetic surgeries to “fix” what they think is “broke.”

    What can we do to change this?

    As our society continues to shift and inch closer to the understandings and concepts held with the New Spirituality, will we remember that it is through the transformation of our thoughts about Who We Really Are, rather than our ideas about who we think we should be, that we will be presented the grandest opportunity to experience ourselves as whole and perfect….and as God?

    Or is it perhaps that an alteration of our physicality is just another path to a spiritual transformation?

    (Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation.  She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support .   To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)

  • “I love you, you’re perfect, now change”

    “I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change” is the title of a highly successful and now retired Off-Broadway musical in New York City which emphasized in a light-hearted fashion what has sadly come to be the not-so-light-hearted and oftentimes painful experience found in so many relationships:  partnerships foundationed in neediness and expectation, two of the “three love-enders,” as described to us in the book Friendship with God, with the third “love-ender” being jealousy.

    Conversations with God offers to us the following insight:

    “When you lose sight of each other as sacred souls on a sacred journey, then you cannot see the purpose, the reason, behind all relationships.”

    If we are entering into our relationships with the idea that our partners must BE a particular way or DO a particular thing in order for us to experience the depths of our own happiness and abundance, the expansiveness of our own joy and light, and the fullness of our own completeness and sufficiency, we are functioning within an understanding of “love with conditions” and misguided ideas of what perfection truly is.

    In an era where the divorce rate exceeds 50%, what is really going on here?  What are we not understanding and, thus, not being allowed to experience?

    Are our limited understandings and parameters in relation to this institution called “marriage” too narrow to hold a space for a deeply fulfilling soul partnership to thrive?   Have we placed unrealistic human boundaries on the aspect of ourselves that is without limits?

    Most of us, at one time or another and at one level or another, have experienced the joyful bliss of a budding relationship and the devastating heartbreak of its demise.  So many of us are yearning and searching for the perfect partner, what is often termed a “soul-mate,” only to experience repeated outcomes of disillusionment and disappointment; yet there are those who have discovered and held onto that seemingly elusive but deeply satisfying recipe of love and commitment.

    Why does this experience of a spiritually rich and loving relationship evade so many in what seems to resemble a cruel game of hide-and-seek?  It has been my own personal experience that a gentle shift in perspective can elevate a relationship from an experience of division and angst to an experience of unity and bliss.  This type of shift will invite me to take a conscious step away from my expectations and attachment to outcomes; to separate myself from my mind’s craving to be “right,” which oftentimes requires making someone else “wrong”; and to be fully present in the completeness of not only myself, but in the completeness of my beloved other.

    Perhaps someone, someday, somewhere will create and produce a musical about relationships that carries with it a message from within the perspective of The New Spirituality, and perhaps a title of…

    “I Love You, Without Condition, Eternally.” 

    (Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation.  She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support .   To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)

  • France proposes banning words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ as part of gay marriage legalization

    Thank you, France, for demonstrating that, YES, our world IS evolving and moving towards a more loving and accepting society, breaking through the intolerant barriers of an Old Cultural Story which dictates in what form love is to be experienced and expressed and moving into a New Cultural Story where couples of all genders are free to experience and enjoy the rights and privileges afforded to ALL loving relationships.

    According to a recent article in The Telegraph, “France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under new plans to legalize gay marriage,” giving equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

    Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper, La Croix, “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring up a child better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”

    As expected, this proposed law is being met with vehement resistance by members of the Catholic Church.  “Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society,” Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, the head of the French Catholic Church, told Christian’s RFC radio last week.  He is further quoted as saying, “This could have innumerable consequences. Afterward they will want to create couples with three or four members. And after that, perhaps one day the taboo of incest will fall.”

    Wow, is the suggestion really being made that the legalized union of two loving same-sex mutually consenting adults is one step shy of a parent engaging in sexual relations with their own child or brother or aunt?    And perhaps I’m confused, but isn’t it heterosexuals who have been historically, and still are even to this day, entering into multiple-partner relationships?  What does THAT type of irrational conjecture have to do with a same-sex partnership being afforded the opportunity to be a legally and socially recognized union?

    And just WHEN and HOW did God’s glorious gift of sex become a tool to be used to judge, control, manipulate, bring shame upon, and condemn?  Do we honestly imagine a God who created the possibility of deeply felt love to exist between two souls – whether that is a man and a man, a woman and a man, or a woman and a woman – only to then be judged and punished for simply being who they are?  What is it that we are actually afraid of here? 

    I applaud this bold step forward the country of France is proposing, a step that embraces the forward movement of The New Spirituality and celebrates everyone’s ability to enter freely and fully into a legally recognized union that supports at an equal level the depth of their love and the holy union of their souls.

     

  • There’s nothing you have to do

    Question to Neale: Conversations with God says, “There’s nothing you have to do.” What does this mean? If this is telling us what I think it is, why bother working for a better world? Why bother even being a “nice person”? And if, as you say in What God Wants, the truth is that God wants nothing at all, why not just break all the rules, live a completely hedonistic life, and let the devil take the hindmost? This whole message leaves me frustrated. – AG, Minneapolis, Minn.

    Dear AG: You ask a good question. Yet the statement, “There’s nothing you have to do” should bring you the greatest joy, and not a moment of frustration, because it is God’s greatest gift: Freedom. The statement does not mean there is nothing you will do in your life, it means that there nothing you have to do. In other words, nothing that you are required to do.

    God does not require us to do certain things, or to avoid doing certain things, in order to “get into heaven.” That notion reflects an elementary (perhaps even a primitive) understanding of God and Life.

    The God of Ultimate Reality requires, commands, and demands nothing. Why would God, when God is and has everything? What God desires is simply to experience Godself in all its glory. So God created Physical Life as an out-picturing, or expression, of Itself, giving Itself total Free Will to manifest Itself in any way that any of its countless aspects might choose to, using a simple formula: the higher and grander the choice, the higher and grander the experience.

    The opportunity, then, that is placed before Human Beings (who are one out-picturing of God) is to express ourselves in each golden moment of Now in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever we held about Who We Are. The greater our vision, the grander our possibilities, to which there no limits.

    Thus, the only reason to do or not do anything is not to “please God” or to avoid “displeasing God,” but rather, to express God and to experience God in the next grandest way possible, given the level of Consciousness of each manifestation of Divine Energy that exists in the Physical Realm.

    The answer to the question, “Why bother?” is, therefore: We do, or not do, a thing in order to express and experience, and thus to know and fulfill, Who We Choose to Be.

    Or, as CWG says; “Every act is an act of Self-Definition.”

    Put simply, humanity is in the process of re-creating itself in every moment. Anthropologists might call this process “evolution.” It is the process by which all living things evolve. The reason for doing any particular thing, then, is to evolve—and to demonstrate and experience the level to which one has evolved.

    We can help each other in this process. Indeed, that is what all Great Teachers have done from the beginning of time.

    And now, we are coming to see that we are all  “teachers,” in that humans have developed the technology for everyone now to see each other fully, openly, transparently. By using platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and, for that matter, the Internet as a whole—including this Internet Newspaper, The Global Conversation—we place ourselves (perhaps unwittingly) in the space of Teacher. That is, we are teaching others whether we know it or not.

    Other people are watching us. How are we living our lives? How we are using these technologies? Are we using Facebook, Twitter, etc., to tell each other what we had for breakfast, and how frustrated we are that we missed our hairdressing appointment? Or are we using these technologies to share with each other what we have learned and what we have chosen to demonstrate regarding what it means to live our lives as human expressions of the Divine?

    What are you using your life for? And how would you choose to behave and experience your humanity if you felt that you didn’t have to do anything in particular to pass God’s “judgment”? Now that is true freedom. And that is what is meant by on Earth, as it is in Heaven.

    Can we create heaven on earth right now? Yes. Are we doing so? No. We are creating a hell on earth. And that, quite remarkably, is our own collective decision.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. You can choose differently, right now, this day, in your life. And if everyone did this, we could and would change the world.

    May God’s blessings flow to you, and through to, to everyone whose life you  touch, both now and even forevermore.

    — Neale Donald Walsch