image via dadavidov on flickr

Recently, Sam Harris caused another uproar over the interwebs for his defense — more like endorsement — of racial and religious profiling. When I read his article I find myself *emotionally* in agreement with the first parts of what he wrote, until I read the closing part. I had to read and re-read it to make sure that I haven’t missed any nuance on Sam’s part. But after reading it a few times, I’ve come to the conclusion that Sam Harris is either terribly misinformed and/or that his bigotry against Muslims is now rearing its ugly head for everyone to see. Here’s what he wrote (emphasis mine):

“We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it. And, again, I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye (after all, what would Adam Gadahn look like if he cleaned himself up?) But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

“Needless to say, a devout Muslim should be free to show up at the airport dressed like Osama bin Laden, and his wives should be free to wear burqas. But if their goal is simply to travel safely and efficiently, wouldn’t they, too, want a system that notices people like themselves? At a minimum, wouldn’t they want a system that anti-profiles—applying the minimum of attention to people who obviously pose no threat?”

Now, if that doesn’t sound like racial and religious profiling to you, I suggest you read those paragraphs again and again.

My initial thought after reading Sam’s post is that, he went to the dark side on this one. Apparently, I’m not the only one among his thoughtful supporters who are now calling him out to reconsider his position. Here’s a very spot on critique from one of Sam’s fans.

“I am not sure how you’d recommend that the TSA go about identifying Muslims. Unless all Muslims are forced to don a star and crescent on their clothing, I am assuming that you are advocating for the profiling of people who appear to be from the Middle East and other Muslim countries, i.e. identifying them by their race. My missive is based on the assumption that you are advocating for racial profiling at airports. I hope that I am dead wrong on that, and if I am, I owe you a sincere apology.

“Religion, of course, does not determine a person’s race. You have unjustly been called a racist in the past due to your views on Islam. But in your call for profiling people who “could conceivably be Muslim,” aren’t you assuming that Islam should be viewed in terms of race and ethnicity? Is there any other way to distinguish people from other religions? As you say, the TSA might miss frisking a potential terrorist by spending more time on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. But if we went with your recommendations, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “Underwear Bomber” who is a black man from Nigeria, would also slip through security while the TSA frisks a Pakistani family heading to Disney World for holiday. If the TSA was to use “Muslim names” instead of race and ethnicity, I doubt that your friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be happy to be subjected to excessive TSA inspection just because her name fits a certain profile.”

Here’s another thoughtful response to Sam Harris by one of his fans.

“This is the latest example of Sam Harris’s questionable suggestions about Islam. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I read The End of Faith (in which he does make some good arguments on the topic of why religion is incorrect) as some of his suggestions were written in a way that one could say they were a thought experiment, rather than a full endorsement. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I read that article from 2005, as the part about profiling was a sentence with no elaboration on it. I can’t give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue anymore. He is, plainly, advocating that discriminatory actions are justified in dealing with the problems in Islam, and that is something I must condemn.”

And yet again, here’s another thoughtful response to Sam Harris on profiling. (What can I say, the thoughtful takedowns just keep on coming!)

“I’m inspired to dredge up this history because Harris just blogged a defense of racial and religious profiling, a piece which joins his defense of torture and his defense of pre-emptive nuclear war as reasons no one should ever take Harris seriously on policy matters (his philosophical failings are another matter altogether).

“Harris’s defense of profiling doesn’t really advance anything new. There’s a lot of criticism of TSA screenings out there, and the apparent absurdity of watching grandmothers with walkers be groped by agents while folks in djellabas and turbans wander past is a standard part of such complaints. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of TSA screenings (and I’ve made some of them here), but the randomness of screenings isn’t one of them.”

Exactly.

And to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with PZ Myers on his critique of Sam. Serendipitously, Myers quoted Bruce Schneier on profiling.

“Harris is right to complain about the superficial show of frisking down a subset of people passing through the security chokepoint — it’s a stupid way to prevent terrorism. It would be far more effective to catch them before they show up at the airport, on the basis of associations and activities, rather than their skin color or the shape of their nose; it would also be better to have more robust recognition of identity at the airport, in order to connect information about threatening behavior to the individual.

“But never mind me. Ask a security expert, Bruce Schneier, about profiling. He advocates behavioral profiling (are they acting hinky? Is there something unusual about their activities?) but rejects the stupidity of profiling by ancestry.”

And that is my main point of contention with Sam. I disagree with Sam not because I’m coming from it from a *politically correct* perspective. I’m coming from it from a pragmatic (i.e. ineffectiveness of racial profiling), as well as civil liberties, perspectives!

I’m familiar with Sam’s arguments on torture and pre-emptive war. I believe that he has made some nuanced arguments on those topics (even if I disagree with him). But I couldn’t see the nuance of his arguments on this one (if there’s any). His ADDENDUM didn’t add anything except of him being coy on the criticisms. On his addendum, Sam said (emphasis mine):

“Many readers found this blog post stunning for its lack of sensitivity. The article has been called “racist,” “dreadful,” “sickening,” “appalling,” “frighteningly ignorant,” etc. by (former) fans who profess to have loved everything I’ve written until this moment. I find this reaction difficult to understand. Of course, anyone who imagines that there is no link between Islam and suicidal terrorism might object to what I’ve written here, but I say far more offensive things about Islam in The End of Faith and in many of my essays and lectures.”

Um, duh?! Sam, it wasn’t that difficult to understand the strong reactions to your post. Any intellectual worth his salt would know that profiling is a very sensitive issue and that it would surely ruffle feathers on both sides of the debate. So I doubt that you “find this reaction difficult to understand.” It’s easy to understand. You may not agree with the reactions but an intelligent person like you should know that would illicit strong reactions from people. You’re a neuroscientist, a meditator, and a public intellectual fer Chrissakes, so you should know these things. So I don’t buy your addendum. You can post as many ADDENDA as you want on this one, but unless you recognize the fact that racial and religious profiling doesn’t work (or maybe make the case for racial profiling and cite examples and statistics that that kind of profiling really works), then all you have on this is his your own biased and uninformed opinion, to which I emphatically disagree with passion and compassion.

I’m waiting for a security expert to take on Sam Harris on a debate on this topic of profiling. And while I often sided with Harris on debates, I firmly believe that he will get bitch-slapped on this one. Bruce Schneier should slap him silly.

Having said that, I think it would’ve been more intellectually honest of Harris if he highlighted the *debate* on airport security profiling. And if he is confident of his opinion, then he could have offered a rebuttal to security experts who are in disagreement with his opinion rather than acted coy in his ADDENDUM. But that’s just my suggestion. Maybe it’s too much for Sam to do some more detailed research on security before putting himself out there like a sitting duck.

Bottom line: Sam Harris is wrong on this one. Sam will not stand a chance on a debate with a security expert like Bruce Schneier. Here’s what Schneier says on profiling:

“And, even worse, profiling creates two paths through security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. And once you do that, you invite the terrorists to take the path with less scrutiny. That is, a terrorist group can safely probe any profiling system and figure out how to beat the profile. And once they do, they’re going to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time.

“As counterintuitive as it may seem, we’re all more secure when we randomly select people for secondary screening — even if it means occasionally screening wheelchair-bound grandmothers and innocent looking children. And, as an added bonus, it doesn’t needlessly anger the ethnic groups we need on our side if we’re going to be more secure against terrorism.”

Exactly.

I’d also like to add that *behavioral* profiling is different from *racial and religious* profiling. If Sam had taken a more nuanced position on behavioral profiling then I might’ve taken his side. But no, like I said, he went to the dark side on this one.

My other point of contention with Sam Harris on his profiling piece is that he seems to have bought the “War on Terror” narrative (fed to us by the National Security State of America as if we’re all mushrooms in a dark room) hook-line-and-sinker. But that is another deep rabbit hole that I don’t need to dive into just to demonstrate the flaw in Sam’s arguments in support of racial/religious profiling. My arguments on the ineffectiveness of profiling from the perspectives of security experts are more than enough to demolish Sam’s misinformed position on this issue.

From a BIGGER perspective, maybe Sam DIDN’T HAVE A CHOICE but to express his support of racial and religious profiling. And that I DON’T HAVE THE FREE WILL to resist calling out his intellectual inanity on the issue of security. So be it.

And finally, Sam Harris admitted that he’s a dead ringer for Ben Stiller — and he does remind me of the movie “Meet the Fockers” every time I see his profile photo. So I’ll channel Robert De Niro and put Sam on my crosshair on matters of national security and geopolitical policy. I’ll be watching you, Sam. I’ll be watching you…

Dear Sam, please wake the f**k up and witness the National Security State that we’re all swimming in right now. As a fellow meditator who’s been profoundly influenced by Buddhist thought and philosophy, I suggest to you that what needs to be done is to lessen the suffering of other people as much as we can, not add to it by endorsing racial and religious profiling. Sit on it for a while, be mindful of your breath and the entangled perceptions that give rise to the activity known as Sam Harris. Have a Zen moment. And then have the guts to reconsider your position on this issue.

P.S. This post is a consolidation of my thoughts generated on my EPIC — Sam Harris takedown on his position on profiling — THREAD on my Facebook page (here, here, and here).

Whatever the mainstream thinks about these topics, in my view, the real test of one’s critical thinking faculties is not to avoid and brush off everything that doesn’t fit within one’s perception of conventional reality, but to jump into the rabbit hole of the mystery and still come out sane on the other end.

In my exploration of Ufology my strategy has been to seek out those researchers whom I think are honest, level-headed, highly intelligent, scientific-minded, objective, and stick to the facts and evidence as much as possible. I recently picked my top three kick-ass Ufologists, and one of them is Richard Dolan.

Anyone who jumps into the UFO rabbit hole will most probably can’t avoid Richard Dolan. That guy is everywhere in the UFO circuit, and rightly so, because his no non-sense approach to Ufology from a historian’s point-of-view is very detailed, meticulous, and scholarly. Among the Ufologists that I’ve encountered so far, Dolan is one of the most level-headed, logical, eloquent, courageous, and intellectually honest. I don’t make that pronouncement lightly. I have (literally) watched all his lectures and interviews available on YouTube so I know his beat. That’s why I was excited when I heard that he is hosting a new radio program at Global Radio Alliance.

Today I listened to the pilot broadcast of “Truth Out Radio, Live with Richard Dolan” using my iPad streamed to my Apple TV via Airplay while taking care of my two-year old boy and changing diapers during commercials. It was a three-hour program with just Dolan talking about topics that he is passionate about. No gimmicks. No guests. No sound effects (other than cool soundtracks from Tracy Chapman and Rage Against the Machine). Just Dolan talking from his head, and I presume, his heart as well, with just a glass of water to clear his throat during breaks. It was epic! He didn’t disappoint. Don’t take my word for it. You can listen to the archive once it gets posted.

So what did Dolan talked about for three hours? After starting off with a short introduction, he let out a series of critiques within the UFO community, the skeptics, the government, and other alternative media. In the Ufology front, he lamented on the failure of MUFON to get the attention of the mainstream media and the general public. He then offered a constructive critique suggesting that MUFON should publish an annual list of its *best*  UFO cases and present it to the general public. I think it’s an excellent suggestion. Then he expressed his critical opinion on the Chilean UFO case that Leslie Kean recently broke on The Huffington Post. Dolan said that until the rest of the videos of the event are released he’ll temporarily accept the skeptical analysis that the UFO is most probably an insect. He then offered a cautious reminder to his listeners that UFO sightings, even those with alleged video footage posted on Youtube, are very difficult to prove without looking at different angles and multiple lines of evidences. So it is best to not get excited on any claims of sightings.

Continuing with the UFO topic, Dolan gave props to Skeptic.com eSkeptic’s even-handed review of Leslie Kean’s book, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On Record. Then he casually mentioned that he’s been looking forward to debate Michael Shermer on the topic of UFOs. Oh, snap! I hope this gets to Shermer and his accolades. I’ll put my money on Dolan any day.

However, Dolan saved his intellectual wrath on Neil deGrasse Tyson. After playing a sound clip of Tyson’s stand-up comic presentation wherein he made fun of UFO sightings and alien abduction, Dolan basically ripped Tyson a new one. Dolan admitted that he likes and respects Tyson when he’s talking about matters within his area of expertise, but Dolan lamented the fact that even intelligent people say stupid things in public. Is this another challenge by Dolan to debate Tyson? I say, bring it on! I’ll bring the popcorn!

During the last hour of the show I had to drive to downtown Seattle to pick up my wife. So I  switched to listening to my iPhone on my car via bluetooth connection using Talk Stream Live app. Thanks to streaming technology and my iOS devices I get to listen to alternative media anytime and anywhere.

In the last segment of the program Dolan switched to another of his favorite topic: government secrecy. He covered the recent news about how the FBI engages in “entrapment” in the Muslim community. Then he expressed his dismay with the Obama administration (aka The Most Transparent Administration Ever) for being worse than the Bush administration when it comes to government secrecy. Then he turned his critical attention to other more popular alternative media personalities, specifically, Alex Jones, for playing the fear card too often.

Finally, Dolan wrapped up the show by disclosing that he tries to adhere to the Zen philosophy of not taking one’s beliefs to be the ultimate reality. I find that very serendipitous because the title of my Safari browser folder wherein I collect my UFO bookmarks is, “Zen of UFOs.” How cool is that?

All in all I loved listening to Dolan’s new radio program. If the pilot program was an indication, Dolan’s program is very promising. That said, I have a couple of suggestions to make his program more engaging for listeners. I’m not sure whether Dolan is in front of a computer during his radio program, but if he is, in addition to the live chat, I think it would be great if he could use his Facebook fan page (or even Twitter) to take questions from his “friends” during the show. Also, I’d like to see Dolan post the news article that he is discussing on his FB wall in real-time. This way his listeners who are logged in to FB during the show (or even after the show) could get more context on the topics that he is discussing. Using his FB fan page during the broadcast will add a social media component to his radio program. Other than that I think the radio program is off to a great start. Looking forward to Dolan’s future shows. I’m optimistic that his program will live up to its promise of exploring topics that are ignored or misrepresented by our mindless mass media.

Here they are:

1) Stanton Friedman – Known as the “Father of Roswell” for breaking the Roswell case into the public. He’s a nuclear physicist who had worked on classified projects so he knows the ins and outs of the classified world. Due to his science background, and for him being a stickler to facts and evidence, not to mention his fierce debating skills, he can stand his ground against the nastiest of the so-called skeptics and debunkers and not blink. He had debated well-known skeptics like Michael Shermer and Seth Shostak and smoked them to bits. I guess it’s because he has the facts on his side. He believes that *some* UFOs are real (he preferes to call them “Flying Saucers“) and that extra-terrestrials are behind the technology. He’s a very vocal critic of SETI and calls it “Silly Efforts to Investigate.” Oh, snap!

Here is Stanton debunking the debunkers.

2) Richard Dolan – I call him the “Arnold Toynbee of Ufology” due to his approach to Ufology as an uber-objective historian. He’s already written two volumes (out of the planned trilogy) of UFOs and the National Security State (with each book having more than 500 pages!). His knowledge is deep and vast and he has an almost super-human ability to eloquently flow during lectures and interviews. But don’t get fooled by his boy-next-door looks. He is a fierce debater and takes no prisoners. He recently debated John Alexander on the topic of “UFO coverup”. It was a no-contest. He smoked Alexander and reduced his arguments to pixie dust. Dolan’s beliefs, opinions, and speculations on UFOs are very nuanced yet logically coherent. He sticks to verifiable facts and is not afraid to take on controversial topics such as 9/11 and government secrecy. He believes that “Disclosure is impossible yet inevitable.” The only thing missing with Dolan’s credentials is a Cosmic Ops security access. But all in all, he’s the geekiest of the bunch and an all around nice guy who tells it like it is.

Here is Richard Dolan in action.

3) Leslie Kean – She’s a top-notch journalist whose latest book, UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On Record, is making waves and turning hard-ass skeptics into open-minded realists. Her book convinced astronomer Derrick Pitts of the validity of UFO research and got an endorsement from physicist Michio Kaku. She is soft-spoken but carry a big stick of *facts* when it comes to UFO research. She believes in the strong plausibility of the ET hypothesis but never publicly jumps to the conclusion that ETs are real. She is an exemplar of how journalist *should* approach the subject of UFOs. Her book is a must-read and should be given as a birthday gift to your card-carrying “skeptic” friends and relatives.

Here is the documentary on History based on Leslie Kean’s book.

For those who are new to Ufology, I suggest that you start out with the people I just mentioned. They will guide you and teach you how to separate the wheat from the chaff in Ufology.

Stay open, critical, skeptical, and sane. You’re welcome.

UPDATE (04/04/2012):

Got this response from Leslie Kean on Facebook.

Thanks CChaos! I appreciate it even if you are calling me a “ufologist.”… If you look at my bio, you can see I am a trained journalist. I originally got into this as a journalist, and that has been the field from which I’ve reported and investigated the subject. The word “ufology” does not relate to what I do.

So from now on I will refrain from calling Leslie a “ufologist.” But she still kicks ass in my book.

“A history of Ufology is a history of human consciousness.” ~ Richard Dolan

In November of 2011, for the first time in U.S. history, the White House was obligated to publicly release a statement regarding its official position on UFOs and Extraterrestrials, thanks to a petition (which had gathered enough online signatures) submitted to the “We the People” site. The gist of the White House response was this:

The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.

This response is not surprising. It has been the official position of the U.S. government on this issue since the early history of UFOs back in the 1940s. But what’s significant here is that the White House has finally issued an official statement, and it has opened itself up to a follow-up petition — a bolder and more strongly-worded petition that mentioned actual names along with documentations which implicated the Clinton administration. The petition reads as follows:

“WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO immediately investigate UFO/ET Disclosure efforts during the Clinton administration – the Rockefeller Initiative.”

Disclosure Petition II – The Rockefeller Initiative

The Obama administration has formally stated, “The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race.”

If true, what was Clinton’s Office of Science and Technology Policy investigating from March 1993 to October 1996 in concert with billionaire, Clinton friend, Laurance Rockefeller?

Those who knew and have not spoken publicly of this initiative include: President Bill Clinton, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Obama transition chairman John Podesta, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. Bill Richardson.

UPDATE: Here’s an audio snippet from an interview with Stephen Bassett wherein he explained Disclosure Petition II.

But that’s not the only reason why I signed it.

I believe that the UFO phenomenon is real, and we the people have a right to know whatever it is. I’m referring to the authentic sightings (about 5% of the reported sightings) that cannot be explained by lame explanations like “weather balloon,”  ”the planet venus,” and “swamp gas.” The next logical question of course is, are UFOs from outside of Earth, or are they some advanced technology which are hidden from the denizens of this planet, or both? The White House can keep saying that there is no evidence that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged the human race, but it can never deny the U.S. government’s interest in UFOs, especially when there are historical documents that prove that the government is not being truthful.

It doesn’t take a paranoid conspiracy theorist to know that the U.S. government lies to its citizens and the world. And anyone who says that the people in the government can’t keep a secret has a very short-term memory, or just plain naive. The U.S. government has power over its people and it controls the mightiest military in the world. We can only wonder what the Military Industrial Complex is up on its sleeves with its unlimited black budget. In the eyes of its informed citizens, the U.S. government has lost its credibility long ago, without even bringing up the subject of UFOs.

The UFO cover up is the mother of all cover ups, but at the same time, it is the Elephant in the Cosmic Room. Based on the opinion polls on UFOs and ETs, the majority of people already believe. It’s also interesting to note that the more educated and intelligent the person is, the more likely he/she is to believe that UFOs are from another planet. Of course, polls don’t necessarily prove anything. But what it does is show that majority of the people are more than ready for a Disclosure.

But Disclosure is one thing, the real impact of a Disclosure is another. Maybe the majority of people can handle the psychological shock of a disclosure that UFOs are real and that we are being visited by extraterrestrials, but are we ready as a society to face global disruptions of epic proportions?

I can almost sympathize with the U.S. government (or even the shadow governments around the world) for keeping this a secret. An official disclosure would cause unimaginable disruptions to our global economy (think the end of petroleum and the collapse of the stock market), geopolitics, religion, academia and scientific establishments. The book After Disclosure by Richard Dolan and Bryce Zabel intelligently speculates and deals with all these scenarios. It’s a must-read to prepare ourselves psychologically, emotionally, politically, financially, and even spiritually should disclosure finally happen within our lifetime.

As Richard Dolan would say, “disclosure is impossible, but inevitable.” I believe that he is right. It’s a logical conclusion because our technology is accelerating exponentially and we are on the verge of leap-frogging our own evolution as a species. As communication becomes instantaneous and global, and smart phones with cameras become ubiquitous, it’s only a matter of time before the secret-keepers concede that they can no longer hide the secret from the masses. But here’s the rub. Maybe we can accept the reality of UFOs and ETs (thanks partly to Hollywood), but can we handle the revelation of a breakaway civilization? (watch Richard Dolan’s presentation for more context.)

swimming: like being back in the womb

In the spirit of #OpenPractice, below is my latest conversation with Shinzen Young regarding my chosen form of practice. I hope this will be of some use for others out there who have a similar form of practice.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:54:24 -0800
Subject: Re: The Dark Night
From: "~C4Chaos"
To: Shinzen Young

a.k.a. ~C4Chaos

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:54 -0500
Subject: Re: The Dark Night
From: Shinzen Young
To: "~C4Chaos"

Shinzen


Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:10:27 -080
Subject: Re: The Dark Night
From: "~C4Chaos"
To: Shinzen Young

~ Sent from my iPhone

via david_shankbone @ flickr

Twenty-five hundred years ago the Buddha occupied the Bodhi tree. He sat there in deep meditation until he awakened and saw reality as it is. Then he got up, moved about, and delivered his monumental four-point message that changed—and continues to shape—history and every Buddhist practitioner’s perception of “reality.”

Two months ago the Occupy Wall Street protesters camped out at Zuccotti Park. They had a rude awakening courtesy of Mayor Bloomberg, the police, and the New York County Supreme Court: It’s okay to protest but you just can’t stay here forever. Occupy Wall Street just had its Bodhi tree moment. The time is ripe to get up, move about, and deliver a laser-like message to the public, the people in office, and the powers that be.

This Economist blog, Democracy In America, put it very succinctly.

“Banding together with a bunch of like-minded citizens to make a big noise is a great way to get noticed, to rally similarly-outraged others to a cause, and to shift the terms of the public debate. OWS has done all that. Now they’ve got to get some sympathetic folks elected to public office, because that’s how this democracy thing works, when it does.”

I believe that the OWS protesters should stand proud, raise their heads, and pat their selves on the back for a job well-done. Then channel the sympathetic public attention and its collective passionate energy to disrupt the political process via the State legislatures, all the while continuing to make their voices heard in a rolling non-violent peaceful protests. It’s high time to Occupy the Courts, the Ballot Box, Washington, Congress and participate in a democratic process which is the very soul of this nation, without being co-opted by any political party or any partisan organization. 

Corruption is the root of all “evil” that has hampered our social and economic democracy. We need a swift and focused surgical strike at the root that rules them all. In my opinion, the top specific policy that Occupy Wall Street ought to focus on moving forward is:

Get money out of politics and move to amend the Constitution to eliminate corporate personhood.

Once the root of the problem is dealt with, we can then shift to a Four-Point Plan to Save America:

1. Tax the rich also.
(e.g. let the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich to expire, or more radically, rollback Reaganomics as kick-ass Economist Ravi Batra recommended.)

2. Get rid of corporate welfare.
(e.g. close corporate tax loopholes and reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act)

3. Downsize the Global War Machine.
(e.g. end the U.S. warmongering and reduce the Pentagon budget by at least 25%)

4. Bring the jobs home.
(e.g. increase the taxes for offshoring and kick off re-shoring initiative)

And when all is said and done the OWS meta-movement will unfold as it will like the law of karma. Protesters will continue to occupy spaces where they are allowed to by the courts. They will continue to march and yell their demands on top of their lungs on behalf of the majority of us who are frustrated with partisan politics and Crony Capitalism that corrupts our government. We’re all bearing witness to a revolution in action. This is what a revolution looks like. It’s messy, chaotic, and full of tensions as opposing forces push and pull, expand and contract, while giving birth to a new social and political cycle. I just hope that the protesters remain non-violent especially in the face of violent treatments by the police and the government that have sworn to protect, serve, and uphold their rights. If Ravi Batra is right—and I believe he is—what we’re seeing is a growing seed of a revolution that will bring the demise of Crony Capitalism and usher in a golden age of economic democracy.

May the central ideas and grievances of OWS continue to flourish around the country and around the world. May we all benefit from the shift in political and public conversations. May we all look back to this time in history with gratitude for the people who put themselves on the line by being *our* collective voices and conscience. And may everything unfold as it will with less suffering as possible.

My dear fellow occupiers, carry on, stay non-violent, take care of yourself and one another, kick ass and be still…. Here’s to the next phase of a revolution on its way to shape our political and social reality.

If you don’t know American economist Ravi Batra, do yourself a favor. Read his books and get to know PROUT (PROgressive Utilization Theory). I highly recommend watching the 4-part video, especially part 4. Again, take note that this video was way back in 2007. Batra not only accurately predicted Occupy Wall Street, he even had the balls and foresight to ask everyone to join it!

Batra has been called the Prophet of Boom (and Bust). Yes, some of his forecasts and predictions were off but his track record is impressive for someone who doesn’t have a crystal ball. Or does he?

Anyway, I’m already impressed with Batra’s predictive and prescriptive mojo. But what impresses me more is the spiritual backbone of his economic theory. My basic moral intuition agrees!

Batra’s writings should be considered in terms of the philosophy of his mentor, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, who has had a profound influence on him. The ideas of Sarkar are in the tradition of Hindu idealism—a cosmology stating that the universe, both inanimate and animate matter, is permeated with a singular consciousness, a living God. The basic premise is that the souls of all life forms have a singular embedded motive over the evolutionary eons, going from birth to death to birth again, to develop their consciousness. Once they reach the level of human reflective consciousness it is their duty to seek to ultimately unite it with the God consciousness. Part and parcel of this view is that humans should regularly practice yogic meditation—ideate on God—and follow an ethical and vegetarian life style. But Sarkar goes further than anyone else in declaring that God realization is easier with full participation in social service. According to this philosophy, Batra rejects the basic foundations of materialist economics, including the need to consume and acquire without limit, as well as the premise that the saving of capitalists promotes the greater good through investment, itself the penultimate justification for allowing inequality to exist. Instead, Batra promotes raising the incomes of people with the sole purpose to increase their consumption, but in a balanced and sustainable way—in harmony with nature, each other and other life forms. An equitable distribution is not seen as a means to only ensure material welfare but also to secure the ability of all to develop a full personality. This is an integral part of Sarkar’s practical theory of PROUT—PROgressive Utilization Theory.

But only time will tell whether Batra is right or wrong. Let’s wait ’till 2016 for the demise of crony capitalism. If and when that happens I hope this guy gets a Nobel Prize and give Krugman a run for his popularity.

I am an economist and historian and made many forecasts in the past about the economy and social change. While 5 percent of my economic forecasts have been wrong, to my knowledge I have never made an error about forecasting a revolution. My latest estimate is that monopoly capitalism will go the way of Soviet communism by 2016.

Now that is my kind of kick-ass economist!

UPDATE: Another case in point why Dr. Ravi Batra is my kind of kick-ass economist. Check out this interview with Dr. Ravi Batra by Thom Hartmann on why the need to rollback Reaganomics.

Hey, maybe this should be one of the top demands of Occupy Wall Street: ROLLBACK REAGANOMICS!

The Occupy protest in downtown Seattle was peaceful and orderly. There were police presence but there were no tensions. The gathering was organized. The environment was clean. The people were respectful and cheerful. The only disturbance in the usual downtown noise were the honking of cars expressing their approval of the protest signs held by the protesters on the side of the street. 

I don’t consider myself an activist. I’m not even that interested in politics. In fact, this is my first time to support a protest of any kind. However, there is something big happening here and I want to be part of it, no matter how small my participation is. I brought my 19-month old son with me so he could be a part of it as well. I believe that when my son is old enough to understand the relevance of the occupy meta-movement he will appreciate that he and his father were there, even for a brief moment, to express solidarity with the people who are on the right side of history.

Here’s to the shift that is currently sweeping the nation, and the world. May all beings be free and may happiness be.

P.S. A revolution without laughing is not a revolution worth having. So here’s something to make us laugh. It’s funny coz it’s true. ~ Bill Maher on Occupy Wall Street [New Rules] -

P.P.S. Like many people who are feeling that there’s something big happening and that there’s a shift that’s occurring, I’m also wondering, Where do we go from here? -

George Lakoff said: “Frame yourselves before others frame you.” So here’s my own way of framing the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Why Occupy Wall Street? You Be the Jury

#OccupyWallStreet: Four-Point+ Plan to Save America

And for those who are still confused about what Occupy Wall Street is all about, I’d like to share this video of Micah White from Ad Busters. He really nailed it and put it very succinctly. If after watching this, and you still don’t get it, go out there on the streets and talk to the protesters so you can learn what it’s all about firsthand.

Godspeed to all the protesters. Thank you for your courage in putting democracy in action.