Vegetable Soup

Cook lentils, split peas, or beans according to the package.

Cook an onion, 4 sticks of celery in a frying pan or wok. Bok choy too...

Heat up a box of vegetable broth (low salt) and about equal part of water.

Add about 4 carrots, 1 large potato (cut in 1" cubes), and lentils/peas/beans. Even frozen peas or a can of beans will work... but better and cheaper to make from scratch.

If your wife isn't looking, add other stuff that you like (like kale) and she doesn't. Chop it up small so she doesn't catch you.

Put in the cooked onion and celery.

Add a heaping teaspoon of salt, tablespoon of parsley, bay leafs (2), and heaping teaspoon of herbs de Provence.

Simmer until potato is soft.

You can blend some of the soup... but I like it as it is. It is almost a stew sometimes... or you can add water. Hot sauce is good too.

I guess you could add garlic, but since I don't like garlic I'm not going to tell you that.

You now have food for about 4 or 5 days.

Three Perfect Candidates: Political Pacifism

I sat three periods of zazen this morning. I needed that, considering the amount of controversy that has passed in front of me this week. Some of it started when my long-time friend of 49 years, Miss S., called Rick Santorum an asshole. My zen teacher calls us all buddha. How can someone be buddha and an asshole? If that wasn't bad enough, my best commenter-to-my-blog-friend, Kate, said that asshole is pretty tame. She went on to say what might have a little more impact.

I think ‘demonizing’ goes more like, “He is too evil to rot in hell for all eternity. He is Cain, cursed to walk the earth until the end of time. The only reason he looks relatively young is because he eats aborted baby dumplings all the time. If he were Buddhist, he could look forward to being reborn as a maggot in a pile of crap. Farts are too good for him.”

I asked my palates teacher to rename "bomber wings" to "angel wings" in my effort to quiet things down. She complied.

As I sat this morning, I thought (what everyone does even though we are told to follow our breath) about how the Dalai Lama doesn't seem to have anger toward the Chinese who have removed him from his homeland. He writes,

Anger is the real destroyer of our good human qualities; an enemy with a weapon cannot destroy these qualities, but anger can. Anger is our real enemy.

So why do I say that we have three perfect candidates? One makes too much money and doesn't give enough of it back to the other 99.9%. The second has ethical issues. And the third calls a baby that resulted from a rape "a gift" (though he adds the adjective, "broken"). One might say of this almost biblical tale, that these are despicable human beings, using some of Kate's metaphors.

But no, this is an opportunity to see who we are in the face of our dislikes. These men are our brothers. We are part of the same spaceship, whirling through space. Our problems are their problems. They have a different perspective than we might have. But are they fodder for anger? Is anything?

Anger gets in the way of love. It eats at us until we are sick. It keeps us from enjoying life.

"Well, why don't they just change their views and pay more taxes, and then I'll be happier?" you say. That may happen, but then someone else will say or do something that will offend us and we'll be cranky all over again.

We can choose to respond differently.

In some studies done by scientists invited by the Dalai Lama to Northern India it is shown that thinking can change the brain. We can choose not to complain and we can choose not to be angry. The amazing part of this is that we stop being angry people. Our hearts can open up to our brothers and sisters, and we can talk to them rather that throw darts at them. I love that line in the Lord's Prayer, "And forgive us our trespasses,: as we forgive them that trespass against us." It is much easier to be angry. And you need to remember that anger goes in both direction. Buddha said (heard this today in a dharma talk) that when you put more wood on a fire it gets hotter.

Santorum, abortion, and equanimity.

Below is an email conversation that I had with my friend "S" about Rick Santorum and abortion. I'm always surprised when people condemn others.

S: this guy is a real ass hole. 

Article: GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum explained his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape during an interview Friday, saying that women who face such circumstances should "make the best out of a bad situation."

Asked by CNN's Piers Morgan what he would do if his own daughter approached him, begging for an abortion after having been raped, Santorum explained that he would counsel her to "accept this horribly created" baby, because it was still a gift from God, even if given in a "broken" way.

"Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn't have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice, I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or she doesn't, it will always be her child, and she will always know that," Santorum said.

"And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created -- in the sense of rape -- but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life we have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible, but nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation and I would make the argument that that is making the best."

(Video above via CNN)
Santorum has crusaded against abortion throughout his tenure as a legislator and presidential hopeful. A recent analysis of his time as a U.S. senator showed an almost obsessive tendency to talk about abortion-related subjects on the Senate floor. His strict views on the issue, as well as gay rights, have repeatedly drawn aggressive pushback from his detractors on the campaign trail.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Santorum called Obama's support of women's reproductive rights "radical and extreme," arguing that this was illustrated through the president's recent statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Other hardline anti-abortion advocates have explained their views much like Santorum has. In 2010, Tea Party-backed Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle was asked to explain her belief that abortions were unacceptable even in the case of a girl being raped by her father.

"I think that two wrongs don't make a right," she answered. "And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at-risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade." 

Mr. Kim: I don't think this is so black and white. He's compassionate (in perhaps his limited way) for the well-being of both the child and the mother. Though you and I might direct our compassion in a different direction, I don't think he should be demonized for his view. There are at least three things to consider: the psychological distress that may be caused by an abortion, the distress of having an unwanted child on the mom and the child, and the life of the child. No solution is without costs. 

S: It's clear that he thinks that the moment of conception = personhood. And then it would follow that if you think that since every time you have sex, you might be conceiving (since he also believes that any and all forms of birth control are "unnatural" and definitely out ) then, I guess, even married people [pre-marital sex??? oh my god!!! HELL, FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!] should not have sex at all if they don't want kids. But, that too is interfering with what is "natural" and not in [his] book. He seems ready to give others no choice and force his religious beliefs onto others in laws that he would support or veto. I am not sure that is a President's prerogative. Or ??? What about the right to privacy? He would work around that by making it again a crime to perform an abortion? What about the sacredness of medical records? We all have to sign papers now about privacy matters. The medical staff of a doctor can't even confirm with husband/wife an appointment!!! So now, the doctor is going to tell about performing an abortion. That is violating the trust between the woman and her doctor. What about supporting or not supporting personal religious practices: congress shall make no law that supports or does not support any particular religion - [even atheism]. Or? I interpret his religious beliefs are not just for him, but for everybody.

Mr. Kim: Abortion is the perfect opportunity to practice equanimity. As I meditated this evening, I started to mourn for the apple seeds that I throw on the compost pile. How insensitive of me, I thought. Perhaps these seeds should have a better opportunity to sprout. Maybe they will just decay and become dirt.

Abortion is about drawing a line. Actually drawing many lines. We can kill cows but not dogs. We can eat carrots and apples, but not canaries and cats. You could define personhood as when you become an adult, or even when a couple beds down together... or anywhere in-between. Mr Santorum has his views. Everyone has views. Is one view "right" and another "wrong"? Of are views merely fashions, constructed from the world through our particular lens. 

Part of Santorum's religion is to have others do as he believes. Others do not have his religion. Is this a reason to hate the man... to despise him? I think not. Don't vote for him if you want, but why get riled up about it? He draws the line in one sandbox, you draw it in another. Yes, persuade others to do as you do... but don't demonize him. He's a sincere and conscientious human being, as you are.

Kate's comments on prosperity.

Prosperity should appeal to everyone. --- Mr. Kim

True. By definition, being prosperous is good. How individuals define prosperity might be different.

Dictionary.com defines prosperity: 1. a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune.

Any compassionate person would wish prosperity for all. The question is the means toward that prosperity. And what is the cost in terms of money and freedom?

I doubt it will be from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. --- Mr. Kim

Is ‘taking from the rich and giving to poor’ different from ‘redistributing resources more equitably among all peoples’?

Both statements are biased. And each in a different direction. I question who has the right to make giving to charity a law.

Are we talking opportunity or assets? --- Mr. Kim

Assets equal resources. Access to resource is opportunity. The absence of resource is lack of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity infers better access to education, health care, fresh air and water, etc. for all. --- Mr. Kim

Education, health care, fresh air and water are resources. Access to resource is opportunity. Equality of opportunity is Equality of ‘resource’. Resource equals assets.

The advantage of improving resources is that then everyone's assets can grow. Who should be the one doing this? Who can best do this? Who knows best what the individual needs?

I can't think of communist/socialist societies that have provided prosperity and equality of opportunity. So I'll say that Karl Marx is not good. --- Mr. Kim

I can’t think of any society were there is peace and goodwill toward all beings. Does that mean Buddha is not good?

I think the division of labor and the free market have contributed greatly to peace and goodwill. Not necessarily "intentional" goodwill, but knowing that you need your neighbor for your survival encourages you to treat her well.

Kennedy had it wrong when he said, "...ask what you can do for your country." --- Mr. Kim

Because he should have said . . .

He should have said, "ask what your country can do for you." That is the basis by which many people will vote. I like better Abe Lincoln's "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." The cumulative effect should be awesome of everyone voting for a president that would make them more prosperous. Wouldn't everyone become more prosperous and therefore the country would be more prosperous? And prosperous in the way that people want to be prosperous. There is a "virtue to selfishness" as Ayn Ryan's book indicated.

Karl Marx: Is it good or bad? Prosperity and Equality for all.

Kate asked if sounding like Karl Marx is good or bad. I've been thinking about that. And Mr. Obama will be talking tonight about how he (the government) will provide prosperity and equality should he be reelected.

Prosperity should appeal to everyone. Everyone, that is, except the environmentalists who might infer that if we have more then the environment will be further depleted. Prosperity is a goal for many. We believe that we'll be a little happier and will suffer a little less with prosperity.

How can the government provide prosperity for all? I doubt it will be from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That will (superficially) help the poor, but will not contribute to the prosperity of the rich. We'll hear tonight how the government will increase prosperity. Most of what the government does, when it does anything, is spend money. Whose money? Our money, of course. So to increase prosperity, there must be a "value added." They must spend our money more efficiently than we can. For example, when I go to the grocery, I get $10 of fruits and veges. If Uncle Sam takes my $10 and buys me groceries, the inference is that I'll get $11 of fruits and veges. My suspicion is that I'll end up with about $3 of corn syrup... but we'll see.

Equality. That's a big one. Are we talking opportunity or assets? Robin Hood provides equality of assets. Superficially, I believe, because Robin Hood destroys incentive. Why should I try so hard if so much will be taken from me? Or should I hide my $$$ on the Cayman Islands so that I can take care of myself on a rainy day. Equality of opportunity sounds great to me. I suspect that we have more of that in America than has ever existed in any country ever... and we have a long way to go. I'm hoping Obama will have some good suggestions on how equality can be provided. Equality of opportunity infers better access to education, health care, fresh air and water, etc. for all.

I can't think of communist/socialist societies that have provided prosperity and equality of opportunity. So I'll say that Karl Marx is not good. But more importantly (in my view) is that the shortcoming of the planned society is that we have less freedom to pursue our aims. I might have tremendous skills to practice medicine, but tremendous interest in making bad art. I'd rather live where I can pursue bad art. In a planned society, my life will be dictated by the boss. Kennedy had it wrong when he said, "...ask what you can do for your country."

$20,000 an hour

Yesterday a Facebook commenter to my previous post pointed out that Romney earned $20,000 an hour last year, suggesting that no one can be worth that much. Yet he was paid that much. Worth in economics is what the market is willing to pay. The Museum of Modern Art reopened their doors a few years ago charging $20 admission. They are still packed. Is it worth it? Obviously, if people are willing to pay that.

Anonymous wrote,

The wealthy executives and people who have accumulated wealth have done so because they have taken some of the financial worth of their masses of employees. They've already taken money from the bottom, and higher levels of taxes at the top acknowledges that fact and re-balances the system."

This statement could have been written by Karl Marx. The inference that wealth was accumulated because employees are short-changed is highly contentious. "...taking money from the bottom..." suggests that companies should pay their workers more than the going rate. For the vast number of publicly owned companies, paying employees more would mean that the stockholders get less dividends, the companies would have less cash on hand, and/or CEOs would get paid less (or perhaps all three). Either of these actions would start a vicious circle. If the stockholders get less dividends, the stock and the profits will go down. Then there would be less money for the generous CEOs to give away, presumably to rebalance the system. And the CEOs, perhaps not being so altruistic, would go to work for a different company willing to pay them more.

I don't expect to settle this argument. I do wish more people would voluntarily share their riches with those less fortunate. It seems that the great benefactors usually choose to give to the truly unfortunate, or to cultural or educational institutions. And maybe some will pay their workers enough to "balance" the system. I can not think of a business that does that, but maybe one does exist.

Or another note, I would mow my small lawn for $5. Yet, even with the great unemployment we have, I can not find anyone to do it for less that $20. Why is that?

Why is life not fair?

Last year, [Apple] earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google. Much of this money could be distributed to their employees... or it could use the money to hire workers to make their products in USA (instead of China). Is this what they should do? What would happen to their stock if they did this? And what would happen to their research and development?

Romney pays a lot of taxes.

I just read Taxes at the Top, by Paul Krugman. He dished out his usual garbage, this time talking about how little in taxes Romney pays. Let's say that Romney made 387 million last year. At 15% that would be almost 58 million in taxes. For most of us, that's a lot of money. I suspect it goes way way beyond the benefits he derives from the Federal government. In addition, he pays state tax and sales tax, and a host of other taxes embedded in the prices of the items he buys. Let's say that someone who earns 100,000 pays at a 37% rate. They might end up paying 20 or 25 thousand. That's 3-4% as much taxes. Please tell me, Robin Hood, why Romney should be paying more than he is? I think 58 million is plenty.

P.S. This is not a paid ad for Romney.

P.S.S. I'm not voting for Krugman.