There is drought in Cambodia where I am
Even though there has been rain, not enough
The rice is yellow
The reservoirs are almost empty

Turkey has unfortunately become an autocracy, with the coup attempt used as an excuse (makes one wonder how real the attempt was, as it was put down so easily).

I hope it will become a Mubarak type of autocracy, but it seems Atatürk's secular society is no more and an Islamist (although so far a moderate one, if such an expression is not a contradiction in terms). 

We forget what a similar government did to the Armenians, and Turkey has never faced the facts about it.  The Kurds may be next.  Of course there is now a de facto Kurdistan in northern Iraq and coming to be another in Eastern Syria.  The Kurdish sections of Turkey and Iran (which may be the reason the Iranians are also helping Russia with its attacks in Syria).  Of course the lunatic regime in central Iraq and part of Syria has to be removed first.

I see the Russians are helping with the human disaster in Syria.  The regime has already destroyed the country in its attempt to hold power, when plainly the vast majority of Syrians don't want them -- mainly with Russian help -- and now are carrying out more terrors (such as the bombing of a funeral today).

Some rambling thoughts from a very discouraged person, considering.

Burqas (Burkas) and monk robes

I find wearing special clothes or doing other special things to say "I am of this or that religion" somewhat distasteful and certainly arrogant and probably hypocritical.  If it is truly a free choice (not demanded by husbands and so on as a part of suppression of women) then it should just simply be ignored.  I treat the local monks that way, and have had some acrimony with a few about it, but at least in this case the special clothes and shaved heads are for the enforcement of poverty and humility, but I still find it not unlike praying loudly in public, and I know monks on whom it has this effect (making them think themselves superior to others).

There is an itch in the small of my back
A back scratcher is nearby
But I don't scratch it; I lay there in bliss concentrating on the amazing sensation as it ebbs and falls.

On or near a planet's surface, or in an accelerating box

Up and down oppose each other

In space there is no difference

Some monks came out and blessed my house today
So did a lot of the neighbors, I think maybe as a way to get a look-see
I didn't understand any of it, but I suppose my house now is blessed.

Religion as ideology

Religions all encourage fanciful and false ways of thinking and then reinforce it through fear and guilt and indoctrination, and, when they are in control, through law.  That doesn't automatically make them evil, since all ideologies do as much, and sometimes they do good things.  I think for the most part subjective reality is better than any belief system, though it is hard in a world so superstitious and ignorant to find one's way through the weeds.  

The Buddha identified one of the four sources of suffering as delusion, and he had it right.

It's almost lunchtime
and I'm not hungry
I guess I will again frustrate my cook

Is God evil?

I suppose a solution of suffering is to say God is evil.  I am more inclined to think we suffer because natural selection unfortunately works that way, by constantly weeding out the unfit, often in unpleasant ways, since natural processes like natural selection have no sense of good and bad, but just function automatically.  The incoming tide may drown the child, but the tide and the moon causing this knows nothing about it.

I have a pillow

I have a pillow
And a soft blanket
But I must sleep on the floor
I will ache tomorrow

A plea for free trade

A country that selfishly protects itself, regardless of the welfare of others, deserves the fate it will receive, since of course others will treat it accordingly, and make its exports unafforable, destroying jobs.  This is called a trade war and hurts everyone  -- it was just the sort of thinking I see above that led to the Great Depression.

  

If I can buy a shirt of higher quality and less expensively (including the value of my time) rather than make it myself, then it is stupid for me not to buy it.  If an industry can out-source some product or service it needs cheaper and better than if it does it in house, then it is stupid for that company not to do so.

What protectionism and tariffs and trade quotas do is coddle inefficient local industries.  Capitalism that works well depends on all businesses being under constant pressure to do things cheaper, more efficiently, and better, and managers and workers who don't understand this and who are not willing to constantly reinvent themselves are soon poor or bankrupt.  Countries are the same -- high protective tariffs merely reduce the standard of living of the general population by allowing local industries to produce goods not up to international standards and prices.  In the end those countries who protect local business least are the countries that do best.

I think the real patriot is not the person waving the flag around shouting about foreign competition but the person who works hard to meet the challenges of foreign competition -- and does not stupidly insist one's country not buy from other countries those things other countries can produce better, but instead concentrates on those things one can do better locally and outsources other things.

soft air

soft air
a few white clouds
here and there butterflies

A female US President

I remember the flack Nancy Reagan got when it seemed she had opinions and dared express them.  The popular First Ladies have always been those who stuck to their knitting -- some trivial project like beautifying highways or whatnot.

Mrs. Clinton of course was like Nancy Reagan, and I think this is where the irrational hatred for her comes from, as there is no rational basis for the attacks; she has her political baggage, but it is minor, almost trivial, and blown way out of proportion.  There  are some people who demonstrate a visceral hatred for her and irrationally persist with criticisms that have no reasonable basis, such as that she didn't divorce him or that she was responsible for Benghazi.  She was not.

I don't think a lot of people, including some women, are ready for a female President.  They are still sexist that way and don't think one would do a good job,  Of course they don't realize this about themselves -- they explain it away with all the vile and negativity -- but that is where it comes from sure enough, and they need to take a good look at their motives.  

Developing political morality

We all think our views are right.  That means nothing.  What matters is how we reach our views, and if they are just seat-of-the-pants without mindful consideration of our motives and prejudices, then our views are worse than nothing.

The most important consideration, it seems to me, is morality.  Do we support or oppose someone because of our pocket book or our prejudices?  These should always be suspect as simple selfishness or bigotry, and thus immoral.  This is the message I am getting.

Another consideration, related to morals, is what is best overall, not just for us or our region or our nation but for mankind as a whole.  Do Americans give this any thought at all?  It doesn't mean being economically stupid, as Clinton's Democratic primary opponent seems have been -- thinking that one can repeal the laws of economics and human behavior (a Marxist way of thinking), but it also means being compassionate about the poor -- the truly poor around the world, compared to most of whom the poor in America are rich.

What is right and wrong is not determined by our "conscience" (which is just our childhood cultural indoctrination) nor by what we convince ourselves is good for the nation because it is good for us.  What is right and wrong must be mindfully worked out from basic principles such as compassion, fidelity, honesty, mindfulness, reasonableness, carefulness, the well-being of others regardless of who they are.

The two basic political types of person

Politically I would say roughly there are two kinds of people.  One are liberal, open, friendly to foreigners, see mankind as one entity sharing one planet, tolerant, concerned more about others than themselves, compassionate to refugees and the poor.  The other are nationalistic, somewhat selfish, tending to parochialism, thinking their people or language or culture (or all of these) superior,  seeing each nation and culture as separate and competing with the rest of humanity, and sometimes outright bigoted, although usually more polite about it, it still shows through.

Eliminating Islam

Eliminating Islam would not eliminate terrorism; the West has produced its own share.  I blame the human ego -- none of us amount to much but there are some who think they should, and resort to this sort of thing as the only way they are going to be "important."

Mass destruction of the Middle East, or wherever, is a thing I could predict if nations there resort to mass destruction elsewhere, but it is not something I would want.  The West is too weak and divided and has too many people who just simply don't think rationally (and so generate political problems for those advocating a clear-headed policy) to be able to effectively carry out the long-term, expensive (in lives and money), sustained program that is going to be needed to protect humanity from Islam's extremes -- which, unfortunately, I have to say are buried deep in the religion even though most Muslims rise above it, to the extent they see beyond Islam.

This is an ongoing problem for democracies.  They are never strong and consistent, but shift policy and behavior with the political wind.  

Jehovah, Yaweh, and the Tetragrammaton

JHVH or JHWH is the "Tetratramagatton," often rendered "Yaweh" in English and appearing in the KJ Bible as LORD or GOD (in ALL CAPS) as opposed to the "God" or "Lord" when the titles appear in the Hebrew text.  This is by far the most commonly appearing name of God in the OT).  In four places in the KJV it is rendered "Jehovah," usually considered an error since it incorporates the vowels of the Greek "Adonai" or God.

As the name of God, "Jehovah" has far better English credentials than "Yahweh" or anything of that sort, the latter being a modern invention trying to reproduce the original sound (and probably getting close).  However, the English translation, as far as the literature of the language is concerned, should be Jehovah.  It is kind of funny that this is the only word in Hebrew where scholars think they have to try to reproduce the original sounds and probably derives from bias against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Interestingly, the word does not appear in the New Testament, nor, to my knowledge, in any early Christian writing, and Jesus is portrayed as completely ignorant of it -- not affirming or denouncing its use, but unaware it exists.  The same applies to all early Christians, including, of course, Paul.

This indicates, to me at least, that the earliest Christians were not very familiar with Judaism, where at this point in time a superstition against saying the name was in place.  Readers of the OT would, when reading aloud, substitute various other words.  Why doesn't Jesus address this?

The thing is, the early Christians were not reading from the Hebrew Bible but from the Greek LXX (the then current Greek translation of the OT) where the Tetratramagatton was also substituted, usually with Adonai (God).  At a minimum, if Jesus approved of the superstition, he should have endorsed it, and its avoidance should have been included in Acts in the Apostolic Decree.  But they are not even aware of the issue.  Given Jesus' more normal antipathy to Jewish superstition, one wonders that he didn't explicitly disapprove of it, since it is obvious the pronunciation of the name had been common in earlier Jewish practice and the avoidance had arisen only in Hellenistic times.

This is but one of a number of lines of evidence cluing us in that the earliest Christians only had a superficial knowledge of Judaism and that they drew this from the LXX.  Of course Paul claims to be a Pharisee, but he is from Asia Minor and claims Roman Citizenship too.  Not impossible but odd indeed, and difficult to credit.

That he seems to know nothing of either the Tetragrammaton nor of the later-evolved Jesus-on-Earth myths tells us that Christianity began in ways very difficult from what we are usually led to think.