I just don't understand how it is society allows invasions of privacy such as telemarketing.  It must be a matter of commercial interests being put above the interests of the public.  I have a similar view of billboards -- no matter where they are they are an unavoidable and ugly intrusion, and sometimes they are outrageous in spoiling the view.  If we had choice in whether to see them or not it would be acceptable (such as a mute on the TV) but when they impose themselves they should not be allowed.

I just finished a book on the beginnings of WWI where the Austrians accused the Serbian government of being directly behind and plotting the assassination of Ferdinand and the Serbians accuse the Austrians of doing it themselves in order to have an excuse to invade Serbia.  Neither assertion was remotely likely, if even sane.

Then the French and Russians accuse the Austrians of plotting to conquer and absorb Serbia, using the assassination as an excuse to invade Serbia whereas the Austrians feel they have to do something and have every right to take actions to protect their southern border, but they just want to send a strong message to Serbia and have no intention of trying to occupy the country, but can't let them off scott free since Serbian behavior shows them delighted at the brutal murder.  They don't know what to do but then the Russians mobilize and Austria decides Russia is using Austria's actions as an excuse to invade and occupy Austria.

I could go on and on about how the British, French, Germans, Italians and of course the ever-suspicious Turks all decide they have to get in the first blow because obviously all their enemies are determined to have a war, so best have the war now rather than latter, even when historical study shows none of the wanted it and a few, including Kaiser Wilhelm, were terrified in private.

Conspiracy theories, in short, are mentally lazy and harmful and almost always, if not always, wrong.

It sometimes hits me that so many prefer ancient superstitions and religions to modern science, considering the track records of the two.

Capitalism might work reasonably well if everyone had the same income, since in such a world output would be distributed based on willingness to pay -- and those wanting and needing the most would have a priority.  As it is though the wealthy get most of everything and the poor often do completely without.

Therefore capitalist societies need income leveling mechanisms -- charities, graduated taxation, income redistribution schemes, and so on.  The problem is in democratic societies the vote is too often bought in various ways so that the wealthy over time dominate more and more.

In the "old days" (nineteenth century) Marxist thinkers thought this process must inevitably lead to a collapse and revolution.  I think what has saved capitalism has been that it can suffer mini-collapses with a partial reorganization, mitigated by technological progress, to stave off any day of reckoning.

I'm not unhappy, and in fact am quite happy, with the "Communist" (actually socialist -- Communism is seen as a remote goal -- perhaps in the indefinite future not unlike Christ's Second Coming) system in Vietnam.  At first things went badly because the authorities took their Mao too seriously, but when instead they tried a more Leninist, less Stalinist and certainly freer approach, readily allowing if not encouraging foreign investment and private small enterprises, the economy and everyone's standard of living have done wonderfully.  That does not mean socialism as the underlying foundation of the economy has been abandoned.

I think Vietnam thereby avoids a lot of the problems of capitalism and yet gains the incentives and competitive pressure (even the state enterprises almost always are set up either to compete with each other as well as with private and semi-private ventures).  The system isn't perfect (in particular the corruption that state enterprise seems to sometimes encourage) but these are specific offenses that jails are built for, and the legal and monopolistic practices of free enterprises can be dealt with quickly on a case by case basis without all the lawyers -- private enterprise is by sufferance rather than a legal right.

The key in my opinion is flexibility and avoidance of rigid ideological notions -- whatever works on a case by case basis, but not allowed to happen as it happens (unrestricted market forces) but through constant study by planners and academics.

Yes, we cherish memories.  That has an acutely bittersweet aspect to it though.  I also have the benefit of having shrines to my parents where I can sit and talk to them and even do the "worship" rituals (leave flowers and other things, light joss sticks).  The culture here expects that so it is no problem, unlike in the States where one has to go to the tomb and even there is limited by considerations of face as to what one does.  I don't know if they are aware of this, but it is possible and that is helpful.

One is not happy because the world goes as we want it to go.  The world is perverse, sometimes doing what we want but more often in the end not.  One is happy when one decides to be happy, sometimes with a little professional guidance or teaching about how to do it and sometimes with a little chemical help, under medical guidance.  Some people show themselves resilient and happy in the worst conceivable conditions, so although external events have some immediate impact, it is what we are or teach ourselves to be that matters in the end.

I would say that according to some definitions, "religion" has pretty much disappeared (effectively) for more than half the world today.  Europeans take their religion lightly and most ignore the traditions, and more and more Americans (both North and South) are coming to be similar.

In much of the rest of the world the religion listed in the reference books is not really a religion, for one reason or another.  For example in much of Africa, including the Muslim and Christian parts, it is more magic than religion -- ways to get God to do what you want.  This happens in animism and Hinduism and many flavors of Buddhism and other Chinese religions, where you don't have "God," but "Heaven."  I dunno -- is it okay to call belief in spirits inhabiting a local forest glen and giving these spirits a greeting when you come into it a real "religion?"

We have instincts that lead to expression via religion, such as our submission/dominance instincts, our altruistic instincts, our ability to love and to experience awe and of course our instinct to try to survive, leading to beliefs trying to avoid the reality of death, but none of these can be said to be explicitly a religion instinct.  They are just instincts that sometimes find religious ways to come out.

One might say that there are two kinds of atheist -- those who believe there is no God and those who don't believe in God.  I suppose the first could be said to have "atheism" as a sort of religious opinion, but those who are just not convinced there is a God have it as simply an opinion based mainly on lack of good reason to think there is one.  Detailed looks at history and at physics and astronomy and the evolution of life is sufficient to show that the heavens most certainly do not declare the glory of God.

It entertains (and irritates me) no end that theists persist in insisting atheism is a religion.  If they would get over that they would be more persuasive but as it is it just convinces me they are not thinking at all clearly.  I suppose what is going on is they want to see it as some sort of choice we make in religions, but that is not the case at all -- our beliefs are either rational or based on indoctrination from childhood, and some overcome the indoctrination and some don't.

I noticed the comment above that belief in God in many cases is based on fear of death -- either for ourselves or our loved ones.  This is powerful, and I can see where it would create a strong desire to believe, even in spite of there being little evidence.

Everyone keeps telling me I don't look my age.  I use to think it was because I'm fat and so don't show wrinkles as much and I still have my hair.  Trouble is I know my age, and now that I've gone gray and they still say it I think I am being fibbed to.  (A fib is not a lie -- lies are malicious but fibs are not).

That reminds me.  I don't believe in ethics by the rule book -- the "Thou shalt not lie" stuff.  There are times when lying through your teeth is the only honorable and ethical thing to do, if it protects someone from harm.  It is usually not hard to tell when a lie is called for and when it is wrong -- is the lie selfish or not, and does it harm someone else.  Lots of lies are neutral -- they may be a little selfish but do no one else any harm. 

This is not ethical relativity or situational ethics.  If something is wrong it is wrong -- no situational or relativity about it -- but determining right and wrong requires thought and reasoning, not just the blind application of rules.

Sin is an invention of priests who need to have a lever to control us, to get us feeling guilty and fearful, and to get us feeling forgiven with their rituals.  That a god's death could provide forgiveness for sins is illogical and in fact rather dumb.

Suffering is the evil of the world, not people's bad behavior, and to the extent what we do causes suffering there is no cosmic forgiveness and only what forgiveness we can give ourselves or others give us.  One should undo the harm as much as possible and learn what lessons one can and then get on with life -- accepting whatever consequences may follow form what we do.

It can be helpful to distinguish between opinions and beliefs.  Opinions are things we learn intellectually and hold tentatively, although sometimes we are so sure they are true as to be willing to wager on them 

Beliefs, on the other hand, are things we "know" are true but never actually learned, at least in our memory.  They are obtained by being indoctrinated -- usually as children before our skeptical abilities are mature.  We are not really consciously aware of their presence -- we just assume they are true much as we assume the sofa is "there" when we sit on it without looking.

When an opinion is questioned, we ask for the evidence: when a belief is questioned we think the questioner must be nuts or perverted or lacking in some way, to question something so fundamental.

We have a strong desire (it is almost certainly an instinct evolved for group cohesion in primitive situations) to believe what the community believes and what we grew up believing.  This is powerful.  During the "rebellious" phase of young adulthood, when we are establishing our independence, aspects of the cultural environment may bring these beliefs into doubt, and even lead to their being abandoned, but not without a lot of turmoil and angst and fear and guilt.  As often as not after a few years of this sort of emotional pain the person decides "enough" and goes back to believing.  The instinct then rewards the person for doing this with joy and peace (testimonials in religious meetings show what is going on pretty well).

After this the believer is pretty much locked in and will never allow doubts again, no matter how irrational the actual belief may be shown to be.

When "it comes down to it," one would like one's philosophy to be true.  I don't think, then, that one can really say one chooses one's philosophy.  Rather one looks for the truth and then is obliged to go with whatever one finds, whether one likes it or not.

I often get, when describing some teaching or another, an "I don't like that."  My unspoken thought is, "So what? Whether you like it is not relevant, and thinking your likes and dislikes are at all to the point is just arrogance and foolishness."

There was a time in my life when I was impressed by my experiences of deja vu and worked with it to try to outline my most recent past life.  The results were indeterminate and nothing more than frustrating, to the extent that my initial conviction that I was onto something soured.  I don't know and I have to leave it at that, although I must admit I got quite a few clues nothing ever led to anything concrete.

I am pretty sure the center of memory is the physical brain, as we see it destroyed with brain-destroying diseases, and so we have to think the same thing happens when our brain decays at death.  To say we carry some sort of memory to another life, then, would require we posit a second, separate, center of memory that survives our death -- a bit much.  It is plain enough very few if any have access to such memories.

Still, the way our mind seems to be an ongoing process of some sort of unknown phenomena wave providing sentience and sensation and so on would suggest that it is independent of brain and would indeed persist, but at quite a loss when it is stripped of life's memories.  This is similar but not quite the same as traditional Buddhist thought, and quite the same if you take out the superstitious wishful thinking of those who want to turn rebirth into a means for personal immortality, which it ain't.

The younger sister of my life partner died yesterday after an extended battle against cancer after being in a coma for a few days.  She was a warm exciting person but being at a considerable distance from where she lived with her husband (their children were grown and married) I cannot say she was at all close to me.

I have now heard several stories of a clearly mystical or supernatural sort, but not identifiable with Christianity (as I would have expected since they were a strongly Christian family) but instead of a generic sort (temperature changes, restlessness, some sort of glow in a vision/dream, and so on -- the details don't interest me).

I certainly do not reject these reports, even though I'm normally of a skeptical frame of mind.  They are credible to me knowing the individuals and from the fact that it does not seem to be some pious effort to convert others to their beliefs.  Saying that someone has no reason to invent a story is of course not enough -- people invent stories all the time whether or not they have reason (and often the stories go beyond the telling so it is not possible to even question motives).  Thus there is no basis for using this as evidence or any sort of proof of anything.

Still, I really don't think they were fabricated nor imagined out of emotional responses.  It doesn't fit, but I would not rule such an interpretation out either.

The implication is some sort of after-life and efforts by the deceased, immediately after death, to send a signal.  That of course would be a lot to swallow too.  I think most people, including myself, have experienced "feelings" or something more tangible, on learning of someone's death.  I did with the death of my father.  Memories are unreliable and one is never sure whether the feelings preceded the arrival of the news, although that is my memory and that is what is said to be the case here.  Even if the feeling did precede the news, with the knowledge that the person is near death it doesn't mean much.

One need not believe in God or angels or spirits or anything in particular to nevertheless think that there is much more to the phenomenon of mind than electrochemical neurochemistry, especially given the mechanical interpretation usually applied to physical phenomena.  Consciousness and sentience and the experiential rather than mechanical way we exist, and of course things like the conviction most of us have that at least some of the time we are capable of will, leads to the thought that in some way or another something -- maybe not the person but something -- does persist.

Still, skepticism is essential: otherwise we end up with no end of nonsense, some of it dangerous nonsense.  I guess I have to just say not only do I not know but I can see no way of knowing.

What we appear to lose when our brains are damaged seems to have to do mainly with memory -- retrieving and storing them.  The personality seems to remain but of course cannot function well without the ability to remember things, or confusion and partial memories.  Eventually, when even short-term memory is lost,. even the personality seems to go, but it is hard to really make that assertion, and even then the elements of sentient existence -- experience of "qualia" -- the ability, for instance, to discern faces and colors and other sensations, to feel pain and hunger, and all the rest -- seems to remain.

This fits but of course does not imply the South Central Asian (Indian subcontinent) cultural idea of rebirth -- at death memories are lost but the personality goes on, not as a tangible thing but as a process.  The cultures of this area had no problem assigning sentience to animals, but not souls, which to the cultures involved was alien (the ideas are sometimes translated "souls," or "self," but this is a distortion.

Obama is exercising "executive power" much as the Jacobite kings exercised "royal prerogative."  Goes to show that it is impossible to clearly separate executive from legislative power, and as I see the dispute in the States on this issue, it might be that Congress is the one interfering with the president's power make executive decisions.  If the Supreme Court were not today such a political institution we might hope for a clear line that all would accept: I don't think now that is possible.  In the end this is just one more example of the developing constitutional crisis in the States resulting from its having such an obsolete basis of government.

I would add that traditionally amnesties have always been an executive prerogative.

Israel is a legally constituted sovereign nation under constant attack by those who openly declare their intention to eliminate it and if necessary to annihilate the population.  That Israel takes harsh and often preemptive measures against these things is understandable and perfectly moral and legal.  While sometimes its measures may in even my opinion be counterproductive and regrettable, they should not be second-guessed by arm-chair types sitting comfortably at home and not under regular bombardment and terrorist attack.   The propaganda that distorts this ongoing reality should be simply dismissed.  The Palestinians have had many chances for peace and will not accept them.  That is their decision and they have to live with the world they have created.