Thich Nhat Hanh in 2003

Here's a video sketch of Thich Nhat Hanh from 2003 that I enjoyed and decided to share. A sample quote:

THICH NHAT HANH: Using violence to suppress violence is not the correct way. America has to wake up to that reality. [Interviewer]: That’s not a sentiment you hear everyday at the Capitol. Nor is Nhat Hanh’s recommendation to this bitterly divided Congress that its members practice what he calls deep listening (to each other) and gentle speech.
At the persistent urging of Lisa Rokusek (an author at this website), I've been reading some of the works of Thich Nhat Hanh lately, and enjoying their elegant wisdom. Here are a few of his quotes:
Keeping your body healthy is an expression of gratitude to the whole cosmos - the trees, the clouds, everything. People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar. The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air,but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child -- our own two eyes. All is a miracle. Many of us are not capable of releasing the past, of releasing the suffering of the past. We want to cling to our own suffering. But the Buddha said very clearly, do not cling to the past, the past is already gone. Do not wait for future, the future is not yet there. The wise people establish themselves in the present moment and they practice living deeply in the present moment. That is our practice. By living deeply in the present moment we can understand the past better and we can prepare for a better future.

Continue ReadingThich Nhat Hanh in 2003

Why bailouts might not be long-term solutions for distressed homeowners

Well-founded criticism abounds that we shouldn't be bailing out large banks that have profited by providing imprudent (and oftentimes scandalous and even criminal) sub-prime loans to homeowners. One oft-mentioned alternative to bailing out the banks is to bail out the homeowners. One might justify this move on the ground that many recipients of sub-prime loans were invited to take out loans with exploding ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages). These are not the ARM's from decades past, mind you. Rather, these are loans that, within a few years of the loan closing, are guaranteed to require monthly payments that the homeowners couldn't afford, regardless of market fluctuations. Imagine, for example, a loan requiring payments of $1,000/month that would rise to $1,800/month within a few years, even when the cost of money stays relatively stable. The mortgage companies offering these types of refinances would be long gone by the time that this kind of loan explodes, forcing many of these homeowners into foreclosure or bankruptcy. In addition to the exploding ARMS, many distressed homeowners were victimized by hidden fees and penalties, including substantial pre-payment penalties, as well as "yield spread premiums," which are essentially under-the-table bribes paid to brokers. But why did so many homeowners sign up for loans they wouldn't be able to afford? Many of them were lied to by the mortgage companies (disclosure: In my law practice, I've represented many of these folks). Other borrowers were clearly irresponsible. Most of of the borrowers suffer from a condition mathematician John Paulos calls “innumeracy”: the “inability to deal comfortably with the fundamental notions of number and chance.” I'm not accusing the borrows of stupidity; rather, they tend to lack a specific skill set, the origin of which often extends all the way back to the grade school struggles with mathematics. The above observations serve as context to a discussion of a potential plan of action. The simple question are these: Should we bail out distressed homeowners? [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingWhy bailouts might not be long-term solutions for distressed homeowners

Illusions and personal decision-making

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely uses classic visual illusions and his own research to show that we are often not in personal control of our own-decision-making. Outside factors often compel our decisions, even though we always insist that we are always in control or our choices. The organ donation and ibuprophen examples are phenomenal. He also advocates a method for bar-hopping. Fun-filled and educational talk. The serious message is that we need to understand our vulnerabilities as "rational" people and then build our way around these vulnerabilities. This talk thus has implications for those who believe whole-heartedly in free will.

Continue ReadingIllusions and personal decision-making

Asexuality: nature or nurture?

As many as 1% of the population claim to be asexual--they claim that they do not experience sexual attraction. They are "indifferent to and uninterested in having sex with either gender." According to this article, some academic researchers have been trying to determine whether asexuality is a biological phenomenon or "a slippery social label that some people may prefer to adopt and embrace." It turns out, the topic is fraught with definitional issues. For instance, there are allegedly many ways of not being sexual:

[T]here is tremendous variation in the sexual inclinations of those who consider themselves to be asexual. Some masturbate, some don't. Some are interested in nonsexual, romantic relationships (including cuddling and kissing but no genital contact), while others aren't. Some consider themselves to be "hetero-asexual" (having a nonsexual aesthetic or romantic preference for those of the opposite sex), while others see themselves as "homo-" or "bi-asexuals." Yet many asexuals are also perfectly willing to have sex if it satisfies their sexual partners; it's not awkward or painful for them but rather, like making toast or emptying the trash, they just don't personally derive pleasure from the act. Others insist on being in completely sexless relationships, possibly with other asexuals.

AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network) provides additional information regarding asexuals. In fact, I am related through marriage to the founder of AVEN (David Jay), a thoughtful young man who is absolutely sincere about his views on asexuality. I do struggle with the claim that one can be an asexual when one has lots of sex. On the other hand, I do know several adults who I suspect are asexual--I doubt that they have any sexual cravings. One of them is a woman with a chronically flat affect. The other is a man who had a horrific marriage, several decades ago, which apparently turned off his sense of sexuality permanently. Though it is my suspicion that virtually all healthy adults experience sexual feelings, I also suspect that there are some bona fide asexuals. I would like to see more science that might enlighten us as to whether this rather quiet segment of society is asexual due to nature, environment, choice, or something else.

Continue ReadingAsexuality: nature or nurture?

Left, Right, Center, Lunacy Is Still Lunacy

Several years ago at a science fiction convention I saw a charlatan in the dealers room fleecing people with bogus "kirlian aura" photographs. The person in question had constructed an elaborate chair with complex armrests with hand-shaped inserts and cables. The victim sat in the chair, placed the hands on the plates, and a photograph was taken (a polaroid) that showed a bust portrait int he midst of swirling colors. I got a glimpse of the set up---there were mirrors on either side of the lens reflecting brightly-colored streamers that flanked the magic chair. Somehow, this created a lens flare of multi-hued cloudiness. I am a photographer by training. I know a little something about Kirlian "aura" photographs, enough to know that (a) you can't take them in full light and (b) Polaroid never made a film sensitive enough in the format this person was using to record the faint electrical tracings. You also couldn't run enough electricity safely through a whole human body to create even a thin outline much less the solar flare explosion these prints displayed. They looked nothing like a Kirlian photograph. But people were buying them, fifteen bucks a shot, and I expect the photographer in question made nice change that weekend. When an acquaintance of mine was showing hers off later I made a couple of remarks about the fraudulent aspects of it and all I got for my trouble was frostiness and dismissal as a hopeless skeptic. I confess I took that as my cue to say nothing further. I did not unmask the fraud, which would have been brave and ethical, but might well have gotten me pilloried as a spoil sport. This past year I sat on a panel about alternate religions and mythology at another convention. I was the only self-professed atheist on the panel. When I made my introductions and stated my position, a co-panelist asked me "So you're not a Christian? What are you then?" I was a bit dumbfounded. Did she not know what the word Atheist meant? I expounded. "I'm a humanist and rational materialist. I think all religions are essentially the same. Some are more benign than others but all of them are based on assumptions I can't accept. So I'm not only not a Christian, I am not a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or any variety of Pagan or New Age mystic. As far as I'm concerned, they're all bunk." I was not pilloried. We had a good discussion. I chopped up every religious assertion regardless its source and we all had a rousing good time fencing with each other and I was even congratulated later for having the guts to state my position clearly and forcefully. But afterward, the same co-panelist who asked my what I was if not a Christian came up to me and pressed me further. Do I believe in reincarnation? "No. There's no proof for it. It seems to me to be the same sort of wishful thinking all the rest of them embrace and I have no use for it." I think she was offended at that point. Thinking about it now, I'm beginning to realize why we have such difficulty in public forums discussing religion, especially religion in our political life.

Continue ReadingLeft, Right, Center, Lunacy Is Still Lunacy