DaVinci Code Bruhaha

This is driving me nuts. Why are people upset about "The DaVinci Code"? Set aside that it's FICTION. Set aside that it's very easy to debunk it, and find info from people who have (Discovery and the History Channel have done shows debunking it, fer heaven's sake!)

I know my spiritual beliefs are slightly out of the mainstream, but in this case the mainstream seems to have gone over the edge. Whatever Jesus was, it's pretty clear that anyone who can withstand crucifixion would worry damned little about a movie that takes liberties with his life.

To me (haven't seen the movie... did read the book), the more human Jesus was, the more it gives me hope for the rest of us humans. Rather than thinking that my idol was being desecrated, my thought was how hopeful it would be if Jesus was a man like me, but he had attained a relationship with God and an ongoing state of consciousness that was so pure.

And I keep hearing people say, "Jesus WAS God". Where does the Bible say that? Jesus referred to his "Father", and also referred when talking to others about "your Father" (the Lord's Prayer that he taught the people starts "Our Father..."). So, was Jesus not letting us know that, virgin birth aside, we had the same potential for conscious relationship with "our Father" as he did? And was he not also distinguishing himself from God?

Even the statement "I and my Father are one" contains in it a distinction between Jesus and God, though it does speak to a conscious connection.

Jesus spoke about himself in two ways, one was as a man ("the son of man") when talking about his physical activities on earth... his body. He also referred to himself as the "Son of God" when speaking about himself in terms of his conscious relationship with God. He was God's son, but he also referred to God as "OUR Father" as well as his. Isn't there a message in there about OUR potential to reach the level he did? And it doesn't denegrate him in any way to believe that, but it does give us the hope that we have the potential to actually be like him. "Greater works than these shall ye do." Isn't THAT the point. He said "follow me" as in "emulate me". He didn't say "worship me" and in fact he turned away from being worshipped ("YOUR faith has made you whole").

I would love it if people took this controversy around the DaVinci Code to take a long, hard look at what Jesus taught. Contextualize it. Notice what he was saying and how he said it. He didn't distinguish himself from us in any way other than what he had acheived in terms of his consciousness, but he continually let us know that we could acheive it too. Doesn't it denegrate him MORE to say, in essence: "Jesus believed we could be like him, but we've decided instead just to worship him as a god."

Like I said, the fiction in the "DaVinci Code" has been thoroughly debunked. Did you know that the "Priory of Sion" that DaVinci was supposedly part of was completely made up by a guy trying to create bona fides for himself? And he did it in, like, the 1960s and just chose the names on the list ahead of his own, including DaVinci. So... Come on! Let's not get all wound up about fiction. However, let's actually take the opportunity to take another look at Jesus and perhaps alter our relationship from a belief IN him, to a relationship WITH him. What made Jesus worth listening to and learning from was not the virgin birth, or the resurrection, but the consciousness he displayed and taught between the two. If he'd been born to a virgin, resurrected from the dead, and said nothing worth listening to in between, who'd have cared? He'd be an interesting anomoly. But, he gave us incredible teachings and showed us a path to follow. He gave us, among so much more, the parable of the prodigal son, which was a very direct indication to us that we COULD (and should) return to OUR FATHER in our own minds because He's just waiting for us with all of the Love we could imagine and more. How does a question of whether or not Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children diminish that in any way?

Update: Just saw the movie and am even more confused over the bruhaha. In it, it seemed to me that they had Langdon (the Tom Hanks character) go to great lengths to refute the theories about the Priory of Sion (even mentioning that it was exposed as a hoax in 1967 as mentioned in my original post. Now, in the movie it all comes out as true, but that's CLEARLY fiction). The Hanks character also makes a speech about how none of it matters, and that it shouldn't diminish Jesus in any way, which I totally agree with, obviously. Though I have to say I am unconvinced that, Priory of Sion or no, Jesus was married. I don't really care enough about it to delve further into research, because, as I said, my interest is in what Jesus taught, not theories about his life. To me, the movie was completely harmless.

My Answer to Energy Prices

This is a post of what I've written to my Senators and Representative regarding energy prices and a possible solution. I am NOT in love with the solution, because it's not a totally free market solution. On the other hand, I'm hating $3 per gallon for gas, and I do think there's a glitch in the way the market works that, if corrected, could make a difference. Here's the letter... it's self-explanatory (I hope... I sent it to elected officials and if it's not pretty clear, they just won't understand it!):

Dear Senator,

I have a possible solution both for energy costs and for getting popular support for drilling in ANWR and off of the coast.

The biggest problem with gas prices is obviously the cost of a barrel of oil. Oil, no matter what the source, is priced on the world market at world market prices. Therefore, if a well was drilled right next to a refinery in Texas, the cost of the oil is still figured at $70+ because that's the world price.

My solution, though I don't love it because it is not totally free enterprise and I'm a died in the wool capitalist, is to create a DISTINCT MARKET, at least for oil drilled on public lands. Create a subset market, so there is one market for oil on the world market, and a separate market for domestic oil that will never be sold on the world market. There really is no reason that the cost of the oil from the derrick next to a refinery in Texas should cost the same as oil from Venezuela, except that both are purchased on the same market, as though the Texan could or would sell his oil to China.

The solution works like this: Create a secondary (subset) market for oil produced domestically for domestic consumption on public lands. Allow the oil companies to profit as much from the that oil (as a percentage) as they do from foreign oil. Our price at the pump would be the average of the number of foreign barrels used, and the lower cost number of domestic barrels used. Yes, it's government interference in the free market, but it also reflects reality and still provides a profit incentive for the oil companies. Particularly when the risk to the oil companies is reduced by allowing drilling on PUBLIC lands with known oil reserves where their risk of a dry well is greatly reduced.

I don't think the oil companies are gouging, but the way the market works, there is an unrealistic cost because the market is based on a world price, even when the ACTUAL cost for domestically produced oil does not, in reality, have to have that cost.

If people knew that domestically produced oil for domestic consumption was going to be priced in such a way as to reduce the price at the pump through cost averaging, they'd be FAR more likely to support drilling in ANWR and off of the coast. Especially since the reduction of the cost at the pump could be dramatic, since the cost of the domestic oil (even with the appropriate profit margin for the oil companies) could easily be a third of the world price. If it was 50/50 domestic to foreign, and the domestic price was 1/3 of the foreign oil, the average price would go from, say $70 (and the commensurate price at the pump) to $46. If there is a direct correlation between gas price at the pump and cost of a barrel of oil, that means $3 gas would be $1.97. People would FEEL that!

This seems to me to be a really good idea, and one that would actually make a difference, reflect reality, and still allow for profitability. Plus, it has the advantage of being a very REAL reason for people to get behind new drilling an refineries.

Respectfully,

Pat (name withheld for this post)

So... Good idea or bad idea? Don't like the interference, but, then again, if what is created is a separate market, just domestic, it's still capitalism. It's just fixing a hole in the system, because there truly is no reason for domestic oil that will never be on the world market to be priced as though it is. And, the caveat of oil produced on public lands, as opposed to private land, and in the hands of big oil drilling where they KNOW there is oil, rather than wild-catters that are taking a more entrepreneurial risk, assuages my fears that it's too anti-capitalist.

Can Socialism Die?

There's a great article at Tech Central Station on why socialism won't die, despite failure after failure. The article was spurred by yet another socialist (Evo Morales in Bolivia) nationalizing the energy companies.

One of the things I liked about the article was that it did a better than average job of explaining Marxism. One of the things few people realize was that Marx would not have been happy about socialist revolutions that have taken place in the world. Marx believed that socialism would naturally occur at a time when capitalism had gone so far and become so efficient that all of the capital would be in very few hands (the capitalists), because they wouldn't even need workers (or would need very few) anymore. Basically, Marx thought natural evolution of economics would make socialism inevitable because the masses would be extremely poor and unemployed (for the most part) and the capitalists would be rich because they owned the means of production. Unfortunately for the capitalists, the people being poor would hold the unpleasant result of no one being able to afford to buy their wares anymore. Thus, a revolution where all that is needed is basically automatically produced and shared equally among the masses.

Marx's theories went wrong in many places--he obviously missed the point that in a capitalist society there are always new inventions and infinite varieties of products to be created, built and sold which will always require workers at every level, so he saw a finite number of human needs being fulfilled by capitalists who would end up automating the workers out of existance--but Marx wasn't one who believed capitalism was bad, he just believed it was a step... and actually a very efficient and necessary step that was only "bad" when it had gone past a certain point.

Viewing Marx's socialism from where it actually stood, no country would be "ready" for the socialist revolution. Not even the U.S. because capitalism has not yet produced a situation of high automation and comensurate high unemployment. The places that have tried socialism have all been in places that are the least likely to produce the socialist utopia, because they've been in places that were already poor and unproductive. Their backwardness is proven by the fact that even when the Soviet Union broke up, they haven't yet been able to get their productivity together enough to do a decent job of being capitalists. Socialism in an unproductive society is a recipe for disaster. Actually, it's a recipe for disaster anywhere because human beings are simply not motivated to be productive, let alone creative, when there is no reward for it. And, to pass out the "spoils" (or to loot, as Ayn Rand would rightfully call it) of those who ARE productive to give them to those who are not productive
and creative eventually destroys not only the motivation of the productive and creative, but also their ability to be productive and creative. Plus, successful economies operate in chaos. Needs are created, then ways to fulfill them are created. It's not planned, it just happens in the most efficient way possible. And that includes the creation of infrastructure to support the businesses.

Governments can not "plan" an economy. Just to take one example: where would the computer be if the government was left to plan exactly how it should evolve? In the creativity of the chaos, programs were created, the Internet and all of it's uses were created including the recent advent of the blogosphere, Google was created, speed was increased as a result of the programs that people simply HAD to have, the iPod was created and changed the way music was listened to and delivered, and now there are Podcasts... None of that could be "planned". Heck, I love Apple, but I couldn't figure out when the iPod came out why the hell anyone would want one. Now I LOVE mine and my lifestyle would feel greatly diminished if I didn't have it.

In the article, the question is why socialism keeps hanging on despite its record of abject failure every time it's tried. In the article, he sites that socialism is like religion. Plus, most "believers" don't even know their Marx, so they're utopians, rather than Marxists who would understand that you don't take a bunch of starving peasants and suddenly make them "comrades" and solve all of their problems. You merely create more problems trying to impose the utopia upon them, because it's a building with no foundation.

I would assert that another reason that socialism won't die is the human being's enormous capacity for rationalization, denial, and self-deception. It is just far easier to blame someone else for your problems (the capitalist who is "looting" the resources and "exploiting" the workers), and to rationalize and deny your own involvement in your own life situation than to realize that your life situation is due for the most part to your own decisions... did you get an education, or create something, or fight against a corrupt government that doesn't give you those opportunities? The wealthy, "limosine" socialist is the most interesting case. I have no idea what they're thinking, other than some strange belief that they somehow don't deserve what they have. What I want to know is how many socialist leaning Hollywood types negotiate their salary for a movie as high as possible and then distribute it equally among everyone who worked on the film, so that they make not a dime more than the kid who carries the script for the director.

So, as long as someone can rationalize and deny, as long as they can blame someone else, and can hope that someone or something else can give them what they've rationalized they deserve for nothing, socialism will not die. It IS a religion, with all of the least useful aspects of faith, and none of the best aspects of faith. At least most rational religious people I know assume that they have God's support, but if something is failing over and over, they can step back and say, "This isn't working, so maybe this isn't what I should be doing." Socialists don't let that much reality and rationality enter their thinking.