San Fran Chronicle calls Obama a "lightworker"

[tracyrtwyman]

Oh brother ...

"Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

[LINK]

Steve, this Lightworker crap has gone too far!

BTW, I wonder who the "spiritually advanced" experts are that the author is relying on for his info.

[Dan.Linehan]

That's awesome.

[frajilthunder]

Nice read. Thanks!

[Steve Pavlina]

Lol. So what does that make McCain? Or Hillary?

[Fullcrum]

"This lightworker crap has gone too far".

Hahaha . What's with the powerful reaction? Just because you don't like the paradigm doesn't mean everyone shares in it.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Lol. So what does that make McCain? Or Hillary?

Unelectable!!

//That's not what change is..

[Steve Pavlina]

Obama may be the answer to people's prayers, but McCain is the answer to our fears. McCain is the "war hero" (oxymoron?) that will save and protect us from all the dangers of the world.

As for myself I'll be voting for Richard Pryor for President. I feel safest with a non-corporeal President with a good sense of humor.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

McCain is the "war hero" (oxymoron?)

Not sure why it would be an oxymoron...

The definition of hero is someone who is endowed with courage or strength, someone who has risked or sacrificed their life, someone who is selfless and brave.

I would imagine that a Prison of War might need to reach deep inside for strength or might need to be brave in the face of death or torture. In my personal experience around most military people I would definitely say that they could be characterized as brave, selfless, and willing to risk their life. That doesn't mean war is always just. Its usually ivy league kids like Bush who are more likely to send soldiers to war than it is for vets.

In today's environment, I think the majority of us are questioning our gov't's sincerity and judgement. I think that this doubt is justifiably pointed towards the deciders but I'm not so sure that the growing doubt pointed to military people as individuals is justified. I'm not sure that stripping a former Prison of War of the "hero" title is the answer.

One poster on your site said "All military people are murders" and "I have no respect for anyone who joins the military". I am sure he would agree that "War hero" is an oxymoron... I asked him if he had respect for lawyers who defend people who may or may not be guilty and he was befuddled. Lawyers are viewed to be a part of a system and we keep our eye on judges and the jury to make the right decisions. Its socially acceptable to revere lawyers regardless of whom they defend. Lawyers are seen as stuards of the system whereas military people are viewed as poor, uninformed people making decisions to kill. I'm not sure this is fair.

When as a society, we start holding the lawyers accountable for who they represent and we start holding the soldiers accountable for what wars they choose to fight then our system will collapse.

I view military people as loyal, dedicated, brave and fearless. The very nature of basic training is to brainwash and to create fearless and loyal warriors. In today's world it is necessary to have a military for defense and one that will not question every action.

Military people should not be the scapegoats for OUR FAILURE to keep control over politicians or our government. Its actually you and I who are to blame.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

In today's world it is necessary to have a military for defense and one that will not question every action.

You might want to put some more thought into that line of thinking to see where it leads.

Personally I'd rather have a conscious, thinking human being put a gun to my head than an unconscious, obedient Terminator.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You might want to put some more thought into that line of thinking to see where it leads.

Personally I'd rather have a conscious, thinking human being put a gun to my head than an unconscious, obedient Terminator.

I was and still am against our being in Iraq but let me pose a point...

First of all, we have the luxury of hindsight and a mountain top view when it comes to Iraq. We can look back and say that it seems that we may have went to war over oil, weapon building profits and region control. You know it, I know it and the whole world knows it.

At the time when military people went to Iraq would have been better if every single military person said "I need to see more intelligence reports before I pack my bags"? This is simply unrealistic.

If you can break individual events down such as bombing a civilian building then yes I would agree that we want people to question actions and to even refuse to take those actions. But, we do not want a military that will question every action.

If a lawyer defends someone who it turns out was actually guilty then that person kills again then is that lawyer a murderer too? If the lawyer didn't really know that that the person was guilty and he was simply giving the person a defense then its justified right? The lawyer is seen as a necessary tool for the system and they are performing their duty as a lawyer. Its up to the judge and jury. Shouldn't our military be a tool in the system and isn't it ultimately up to their commanders and the gov't to decide when and where to use that tool? Doesn't our military deserve the same levity given lawyers?

[Steve Pavlina]

Hindsight isn't necessary when you have insight. Was it really so tough to see that Bush and his people were lying from the beginning... even back then? Propaganda is rather different from truth.

There were quite a lot of people saying the Iraq war was wrong from the start. Those people just didn't get as much attention from the press.

Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL (hence liberation had to be replaced with freedom).

Now we're in the midst of another propaganda push against Iran. This isn't truth either. It's marketing. It's a sales pitch for another conquest.

The troops in Iraq aren't supposed to leave. A quick pullout was never part of the agenda.

[Still Growing]

Steve,
I still don't see that the term "war hero" is an oxymoron. I also don't see why soldiers aren't given the same levity as lawyers. Why is it do you think? Do you think soldiers deserve the same levity in their profession as a lawyer? We don't judge lawyers for defending people that may or may not be guilty but we judge soldiers for wars that may or may not be just. Do you see the correlation I'm drawing?

On a different subject, I do agree that we are not trying to be tidey in Iraq and that the entire point is to have a reason to maintain a presence there. After 911 the military complex took over and the outcome was the decision to put a base in the region. Its more complex than that but thats the outcome.

As for Iran, this is a complete bluff and I don't think that we will wage war. Let me explain why...

I disagreed with us going into Iraq however it was sellable and strategically it had some positive outcomes. They left the borders open coming in and sealed them going out creating a lure to kill extremists. This wasn't by mistake. They just can't come out and say it. In addition, there were no outside Islamic contries siding with Iraq. Most people don't understand the dynamics of the middle east but if you think about it Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon have similiar mentalities. In addition, all hated Iraq and really could care less about this Iraqi regime. They weren't pissed that we kicked Saddam out, only that we decided to stay. Now that they see our real plans they're pissed because they know we'll be meddling in the Middle Eastern environment for a long time to come. Its no secret that we, as a country, I trying to spread democracy and modernity. Attacking Iran would be suicidal for the US and bad for military business in general. Its not sellable, period.

At this point the Iraq war has been reduced to an us vs them fight of Rep vs Democrat. At this point, it is almost impossible to maintain any intelligent conversation about Iraq without being categorized on one particular side. This is a stalemate in which there will only be loss. If we stay it will be a disaster and if we leave it will be a disaster. In life sometimes people, and countries, back themselves into a corner where they can only loose.

[newmark]

It's comforting to know that the next president of the United States will be a lightworker.
Will he lead us again in the fight against the forces of evil in the world?

[escapee]

Higher tax for the rich people like Steve P ( this is inevitable as the income gap widens and underconsumption by the mass), a much weaker paper money vs consumer goods and the second great depression will come under Obama . Well it really doesn't matter who ( Obama or McCain ) win the presidential election anyway the USA and the world will be heading into commodities induced inflationary recession.

Add another many first to Obama's "achievement" - The first African American president to be made the scapegoat for the America's second great depression. He 's a nice guy and i have my sympathy to Obama's family that he will have to go through these 4 years of hardship.

[escapee]

I still don't see that the term "war hero" is an oxymoron. I also don't see why soldiers aren't given the same levity as lawyers.

The above reminds me of the following quote.

”When there are too many policemen, there can be no liberty.
When there are too many soldiers, there can be no peace.
When there are too many lawyers, there can be no justice.”

Lin Yutang (1895-1976), Chinese-American writer, translator, and editor.

Are There Too Many Lawyers?

[Brutha]

I still don't see that the term "war hero" is an oxymoron. I also don't see why soldiers aren't given the same levity as lawyers. Why is it do you think? Do you think soldiers deserve the same levity in their profession as a lawyer?

Do you go around and call lawyers heroes?

The definition of hero is someone who is endowed with courage or strength, someone who has risked or sacrificed their life, someone who is selfless and brave.

That your definition.
I think being a hero is more about breaking out of the crowd and doing things that make a difference.
Just because you go into groupthink and take risk because of it, doesn't mean that you are a hero.

In my mind a soldier is no more an hero on default than a plumber or a lawyer.
A crack dealer has even more risk of being in his job than a soldier according to freakonomics, if taking a risky profession is somehow heroic it would mean that all crack dealers are heroes.

At the time when military people went to Iraq would have been better if every single military person said "I need to see more intelligence reports before I pack my bags"? This is simply unrealistic.

But it is realistic to not go into an unlawful war that isn't sanctioned by the UN.
That takes real courage.
And something that happend in Europe but no US soldier was brave enough to follow UN law (and the US is bound at the UN law).

I think a soldier who does such a thing can be called a hero, because he breaks out of groupthink to the right thing (not going on an unlawful war).
Another example of a soldier who was an hero would be the soldier who gave the Abu Ghraib video to his superiors and went against his colleges.

But just doing your job and being unlucky and getting captured doesn't mean that you are a hero.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
You are missing the point. The point is not that you should call soldiers heros... the point is that they shouldn't be called murderers. By saying that soldiers deserve the same levity I mean that lawyers are viewed as tools of the system and we watch the jury and judge to reach verdicts. Although soldiers should not commit war crimes we should not look to individual soldiers to determine if a mission is just or not. You are missing my context.

As for the definition of "Hero"; this isn't mine definition its the dictionary's. I wasn't saying that all soldiers were heros only that the term "war hero" was not necessarily an oxymoron. Don't you agree?

As for your last point about choosing Abu Ghraib... I agree.

[Still Growing]

Escapee,
I love your quote and I agree with it 100%.

I'm not sure what the quote has to do with the term "war hero" being an oxymoron. Also, I'm not sure if there is any correlation to the quantity of soldiers or lawyers to the point of levity given to one but not the other.

I see your quote as a new and valid point but it really does not address the questions that I am posing.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by escapee

Higher tax for the rich people like Steve P ( this is inevitable as the income gap widens and underconsumption by the mass), a much weaker paper money vs consumer goods and the second great depression will come under Obama . Well it really doesn't matter who ( Obama or McCain ) win the presidential election anyway the USA and the world will be heading into commodities induced inflationary recession.

Add another many first to Obama's "achievement" - The first African American president to be made the scapegoat for the America's second great depression. He 's a nice guy and i have my sympathy to Obama's family that he will have to go through these 4 years of hardship.

You are right, whomever is President will have the cards stacked against them. It would be a shame for the black President to be elected right before a recession or potentially a depression.

If Obama is elected the US will have even worse race relations in the short term but it would improve race relations in the long term.

[silicon toad2000]

I'd like to think that all politicians are lightworkers. If you take a politicians salary and compare it with private companies and look at what a person in a private company would earn based on being responsible for a similar budget or being responsible for the welfare of a similar number of people, I would think the person in the private sector would be earning a lot more.
I haven't put too much thought into this but I would follow through with this that either politicians are lightworkers or are severely underqualified/inexperienced for their area of responsibility.

[Fullcrum]

You would think so, silicon, with that logic. But it's not the case: even without a lot of money, they can hold lots of power, and isn't that really why most people want money anyway? More power.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by newmark