Mississippi can't ever get in the swing of things. Just when the Democratic party is on the rise nationally, here in Mississippi it's in the crapper, due almost entirely on the fallout from the Dickie Scruggs web of intrigue.
While most of us focused on the executive and legislative branches of state government, the real power was in the judicial all along and since it wasn't as well noticed as the other two, hijinks ensued.
I think it's time to admit that the Republican party, in Mississippi and nationwide, was far too influenced by big business and big finance, but the Democratic party was likewise far too influenced by big law and big labor.
Since Mississippi doesn't offer much by way of big business or big finance, big law stepped in to fill the gap and we're only now discovering the full extent of their influence and their corruption.
How big was it? Let's put it this way: they could afford to pay Ed Peters a million bucks just to be the bag man, and that was just the tip on the tip of the iceburg. I really hate it too, because Peters was a guy I admired in a lot of ways, but a million bucks can do a lot to lure a guy to the dark side.
Looking on the bright side, it may be a good sign that any Mississippi scandal could involve so much money. Maybe that there was so much money to be had is an indication of how far Mississippi has come and how much potential there is out there for somebody willing to do things the right way.
The Life Of Boyd Campbell Jackson Mississippi
Monday, January 12, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Economic Stimulus
For twenty years now we've been adjusting the Fed Funds Rate as a panacea for all our economic woes. Hey, it worked for Reagan so why not, right?
Adjusting the Fed can provide a short-term stimulus or regulation for the economy, but it's useless for dealing with more systemic problems. The way we've been using the Fed for the last fifteen to twenty years is sort of like treating chronic fatigue syndrome with caffeine.
I'm encouraged by Obama's plan to invest in our infrastructure as a means of economic stimulus. Working on our infrastructure, building roads and bridges, can provide real long term economic stimulus that no quick-fix can.
We need to invest in and develop the means of producing our economy rather than relying on mathematical tricks.
We must develop the means and the discipline of controlling our economy rather than just letting the free market take us wherever the hell it wants to go, because where it wants to go isn't always where we want to go.
Adjusting the Fed can provide a short-term stimulus or regulation for the economy, but it's useless for dealing with more systemic problems. The way we've been using the Fed for the last fifteen to twenty years is sort of like treating chronic fatigue syndrome with caffeine.
I'm encouraged by Obama's plan to invest in our infrastructure as a means of economic stimulus. Working on our infrastructure, building roads and bridges, can provide real long term economic stimulus that no quick-fix can.
We need to invest in and develop the means of producing our economy rather than relying on mathematical tricks.
We must develop the means and the discipline of controlling our economy rather than just letting the free market take us wherever the hell it wants to go, because where it wants to go isn't always where we want to go.
Temper, Temper, Temper
Shots ring out in someone's home over the holidays. Someone dies from an argument on what channel to watch on television.
It's really hard to get anyone to control their temper. I've tried lots of different ways and none of them worked very well.
The issue is getting what you want from other people effectively. None of us are very good at it. Those who are good at it are almost dangerous to be around because you never know if they're manipulating you.
Unable to get what we want, we raise the stakes: first by frowning, then by yelling, then by violence. None of this necessarily increases the chances we'll get what we want, so, why do we do it?
Psychologists tell us the culprit is the fight or flight reflex. The tendency to lose our temper is born into us. This fight or flight reflex causes enough problems that I almost wish we were born without it.
They also say you're more likely to lose your temper if you are or have been around people who also lost theirs, which is why the propensity is more common in some cultures and some families than others.
Stress is also a factor. The stress doesn't even have to be related to the issue at hand. Stress in any part of a person's life can lead to losing their temper in others.
Here are some steps that might help to control your temper:
Access the threat: You may not be getting what you want, but are you in danger? If you're not, then realize you're not and adjust your response accordingly.
Break the cycle: Your boss loses her temper with you, her husband lost his temper with her and his mom lost her temper with him when he was a child. If we lose our temper with the next person then the cycle continues, if not then it's broken. It's that simple.
Deal with stress: Stress in any part of your life puts stress on every other part of your life. Deal effectively with stressful situations as they happen to prevent it from spilling over.
Change your perspective: Look at your behavior from the other person's perspective. Are you dealing with them the way you'd want someone to deal with you? If not, why not?
Don't spin your wheels: Losing your temper actually makes it less likely you'll get what you want. What would you rather do, lose your temper or accomplish your goal?
I can't promise that any of these ideas will work for you, but if you've read this article, then at least you're thinking about it and thinking about it is the first step toward controlling any problem.
It's really hard to get anyone to control their temper. I've tried lots of different ways and none of them worked very well.
The issue is getting what you want from other people effectively. None of us are very good at it. Those who are good at it are almost dangerous to be around because you never know if they're manipulating you.
Unable to get what we want, we raise the stakes: first by frowning, then by yelling, then by violence. None of this necessarily increases the chances we'll get what we want, so, why do we do it?
Psychologists tell us the culprit is the fight or flight reflex. The tendency to lose our temper is born into us. This fight or flight reflex causes enough problems that I almost wish we were born without it.
They also say you're more likely to lose your temper if you are or have been around people who also lost theirs, which is why the propensity is more common in some cultures and some families than others.
Stress is also a factor. The stress doesn't even have to be related to the issue at hand. Stress in any part of a person's life can lead to losing their temper in others.
Here are some steps that might help to control your temper:
Access the threat: You may not be getting what you want, but are you in danger? If you're not, then realize you're not and adjust your response accordingly.
Break the cycle: Your boss loses her temper with you, her husband lost his temper with her and his mom lost her temper with him when he was a child. If we lose our temper with the next person then the cycle continues, if not then it's broken. It's that simple.
Deal with stress: Stress in any part of your life puts stress on every other part of your life. Deal effectively with stressful situations as they happen to prevent it from spilling over.
Change your perspective: Look at your behavior from the other person's perspective. Are you dealing with them the way you'd want someone to deal with you? If not, why not?
Don't spin your wheels: Losing your temper actually makes it less likely you'll get what you want. What would you rather do, lose your temper or accomplish your goal?
I can't promise that any of these ideas will work for you, but if you've read this article, then at least you're thinking about it and thinking about it is the first step toward controlling any problem.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Mohammed's Hope for Peace
If you read the Koran or study the life of Mohammed, it's pretty clear the one thing he really wanted was peace for his people, yet considering the violent strife within the Islamic community and violent strife at almost every border of the Islamic community, peace is something that's eluded Mohammed's followers, almost from the beginning.
Although we, in the west, tend to concentrate on violence between Islam and other cultures, violence within Islam is almost as prevalent. Mohammed himself was threatened by the violence of Arabic tribalism which is why he entered a period of self-imposed exile in Medina. For the lack of peace, he left his home and became a refugee.
I have no idea what it means to receive messages from God, but I do know what it's like to be a man who deeply wants peace and happiness for his people, so it's easy for me to sympathize with Mohammed on that level.
Mohammed created the Constitution of Medina, which was a watershed accomplishment in the very concept of peace among differing people and the traditional greeting among Islamic people is "As-Salamu Alaykum" meaning "peace be upon you". Despite all this, almost from the beginning, Islam has been embroiled in violent confrontation.
You would think peace was possible. Islam is a very disciplined religion, much more so than Christianity and its followers are very devout. If Mohammed wanted peace then there should be peace both within Islam and without, but why isn't there?
Part of the answer may be that, from the beginning, Islam had violence thrust upon them. Mohammed had attained peace in Medina, but soon afterward armed forces from Mecca attacked them. In response, Mohammed left the path of peace and became a man of war.
By unifying the people of Medina and using ideas from outside his own culture (see Salman The Persian), Mohammed was able to repel the attacks from Mecca and force Mecca into a treaty.
That may have been the turning point. To protect his followers, Mohammed made the transition from prophet to general and in the years to come he used his army to conquer not only Mecca, but most the Arabian peninsula.
Instead of maintaining peace in Medina, he became a man of conquest. Elements of a warrior's code found their way not only into the Islamic culture but also into the Koran itself.
I can't posit that Christians are any better than Muslims in this regard. Christians have their own history of violence to deal with that's at least as substantial as Islam's. Jesus may not have been a warrior himself, but his followers certainly took on that mantle.
I would say though, that it's very difficult for a warrior culture to ever find peace, and for one to truly follow Mohammed, it may be necessary to divorce the prophet's desire for peace from his own actions as a military man.
We're trying to come to a point where the people of the world can practice their different faiths without fear that anyone will attack them for it. To do that we have to eliminate all traces of tribalism or primativism or any warrior's code that tries to tell us that the only path to peace and safety is by eliminating anyone who believes or behaves differently from us.
Islam is truly a religion of peace and Christianity is truly a religion of love, but how far are we from either of these in reality? Particularly, we who descend from the faith of Abraham must rededicate ourselves to the real values of our faith beyond the interceding fallacies of tribalism that followed.
Peace? Love? The choice is ours.
Although we, in the west, tend to concentrate on violence between Islam and other cultures, violence within Islam is almost as prevalent. Mohammed himself was threatened by the violence of Arabic tribalism which is why he entered a period of self-imposed exile in Medina. For the lack of peace, he left his home and became a refugee.
I have no idea what it means to receive messages from God, but I do know what it's like to be a man who deeply wants peace and happiness for his people, so it's easy for me to sympathize with Mohammed on that level.
Mohammed created the Constitution of Medina, which was a watershed accomplishment in the very concept of peace among differing people and the traditional greeting among Islamic people is "As-Salamu Alaykum" meaning "peace be upon you". Despite all this, almost from the beginning, Islam has been embroiled in violent confrontation.
You would think peace was possible. Islam is a very disciplined religion, much more so than Christianity and its followers are very devout. If Mohammed wanted peace then there should be peace both within Islam and without, but why isn't there?
Part of the answer may be that, from the beginning, Islam had violence thrust upon them. Mohammed had attained peace in Medina, but soon afterward armed forces from Mecca attacked them. In response, Mohammed left the path of peace and became a man of war.
By unifying the people of Medina and using ideas from outside his own culture (see Salman The Persian), Mohammed was able to repel the attacks from Mecca and force Mecca into a treaty.
That may have been the turning point. To protect his followers, Mohammed made the transition from prophet to general and in the years to come he used his army to conquer not only Mecca, but most the Arabian peninsula.
Instead of maintaining peace in Medina, he became a man of conquest. Elements of a warrior's code found their way not only into the Islamic culture but also into the Koran itself.
I can't posit that Christians are any better than Muslims in this regard. Christians have their own history of violence to deal with that's at least as substantial as Islam's. Jesus may not have been a warrior himself, but his followers certainly took on that mantle.
I would say though, that it's very difficult for a warrior culture to ever find peace, and for one to truly follow Mohammed, it may be necessary to divorce the prophet's desire for peace from his own actions as a military man.
We're trying to come to a point where the people of the world can practice their different faiths without fear that anyone will attack them for it. To do that we have to eliminate all traces of tribalism or primativism or any warrior's code that tries to tell us that the only path to peace and safety is by eliminating anyone who believes or behaves differently from us.
Islam is truly a religion of peace and Christianity is truly a religion of love, but how far are we from either of these in reality? Particularly, we who descend from the faith of Abraham must rededicate ourselves to the real values of our faith beyond the interceding fallacies of tribalism that followed.
Peace? Love? The choice is ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Official Ted Lasso
