Something From/For Nothing

When I was young, my father had one phrase that he kept using with me: “You don’t get nothing for nothing.” He had trouble with English and didn’t know about the problem with double negatives.  What he meant was that you can’t get something from nothing.  Apparently, many Americans never heard that same information.

Today, I see many Americans expecting something for nothing or at least for a discount. Today half of the American families pay no state or federal income tax.  They expect to receive all government services for nothing because it is coming to them. Seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare say they expect it to take care of them forever because they paid into it and deserve it.  The fact of the matter is that most received more benefits in one year than they paid in 30.  They didn’t work hard and even if they did it was to be paid at the time not so that the government will take care of them in their last 30 or 40 years.

The hard working also want something for nothing.  Corporate CEOs and Wall Street brokers expect to receive millions of dollars a year even if they fail, to get multi-million dollar golden parachutes if they are fired for accomplishing too little and then a low tax rate on the money they never really “earned” to begin with.

We also have people who come here illegally wanting all the benefits of American citizenship while still declaring their loyalty to their beloved homeland which they left because they couldn’t stand living there.  We have naturalized citizens who don’t learn English expecting all government services from passports to voters pamphlets to be also in their native language if that language is Chinese or Spanish.

We have fellow Americans who can trace their ancestors’ residence here back to the 1700’s expecting to live on government benefits without working because their distant ancestors worked too hard under terrible conditions.  We have people who contribute nothing to the country expecting to get as much medical treatment as possible for free because they don’t buy insurance and know that American hospitals must take of them regardless.

But now there is a new twist to the something-from-nothing theorists.  It comes from the worlds of theoretical, particle, cosmological and quantum mechanics physics.  Stephen Hawkins, who has the best reason in the world to be an atheist, has theorized that the world could exist without a creator because everything comes from nothing and there was never anything before nothing since nothing has no time or space. ( And yet he also says he does not believe in philosophy). Other notable physicists have come up with varieties of the big bang theory (also the name of the funniest comedy on T.V.) with many supposing that it all started when nothing exploded into something causing a chemical reaction which then created all the planets and every element found on earth today including hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and even gold and silver. They say our bodies come from exploding stars.  All of it they say was born from nothingness.

One group of quantum mechanic physicists is coming close to what sounds like the right answer.  They believe that the universe is one big quantum mechanical computer system which creates the universe the way a quantum mechanical computer can create different realities.  This begs the question:  where did the universal quantum computer come from?  The answer is not China.  Another school of theoretical physics, a very small one, believes that it is all just in our minds and that we have created the universe.  If that is true, I want to make some big changes in the universe that I have created, starting with better weather, good health and fewer insects.

I believe that physicists should stop trying to justify their atheism and see creation as something close to the quantum computer analogy.  Here is my theory.

I believe that the universe is driven by three basic realities:  the infinite is finite (as above so below); everything has and is consciousness (making the infinite finite and the finite infinite, while every outside has an inside); and that everything that begins must end, also known as entropy.

To the theist this translates to: G-d is infinite and finite and His consciousness creates the universe.  There was nothing before consciousness because nothing can precede it.   Like the Zen koans - “what is the sound of a tree falling in the forest if no one hears it?”  and “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” What both are saying is that without consciousness, nothing can be said to exist.

Physicists are slowing coming to these conclusions.  They already have endorsed the notion of entropy being life’s way of changing energy (consciousness) without ever losing or gaining energy in the universe.  It has also found the existence of fractals which are infinite iterations of form within all objects.  So a leaf, which is finite, has an infinite number of fractals - the infinite is finite, the finite infinite. And now some theoretical physicists have realized that everything is conscious - from sub atomic particles to single cell organisms to the earth, outer space and the entire universe.  They are about to realize that everything is and has consciousness.  The Zen Buddhists call this big mind, small mind - the latter being part of the former.   In Vedanta, G-d is said to be Sat, Chit Ananda or Truth, Consciousness and Joy.

My theory makes all the theoretical physics theories also correct.  The world is in our minds because our minds are part of the universal mind.  Everything did come from nothing in the sense that consciousness in not a thing but the space that contains and creates all things.  The universe is like a quantum computer and is creating everything because this computer is consciousness.  The big bang was the originating cause of our universe because it was what happened when consciousness created the objects of its awareness, like a brain getting great ideas.

So something comes from a nothing that is the source of everything as well as its constant companion.

Why Is Romney Running and Who Should Vote for Him?

The first question we could be asking is why is Romney running to be President of the United States? It’s not the money.  Romney makes more than $20 million a year without lifting a finger. He surely doesn’t need the $400,000 a year salary that goes with the job.  He does not need to live in the White House because he has many fine homes and with his net worth at about a quarter of a billion dollars, he could live anywhere he wants.

He surely has no ideology or plan to help our country. He has suggested no plan for tax reform other than making the rich richer and the poor poorer.  His plans for the military is to increase it to equal a certain percent of the GNP, regardless of our defensive needs.  He has no plans for increasing hiring or for reducing the number of home foreclosures.

He has no national political experience and worked in government for only four years.  When he left the governor’s office he had all evidence of his time there removed from computers and file cabinets.  When he left office, his state was number 47 out of 50 states in job creation.  He introduced health care reform which was the model for the Affordable Care Act, but now is against it even though it has been one of his few successes.

He says that he is the man for the job because he has 25 years of business experience but he doesn’t want us to know what that experience really was.  It appears that his company got into buying struggling companies, borrowing large amounts to pay for them, shrinking their work force and benefits, taking large commissions and then letting them go bankrupt.  This does not create jobs.  Many of the jobs his firm did create were in China and India by outsourcing the work.

He wants to reduce taxes on the rich but won’t share his tax returns with the public. The one year’s return he did reveal showed that he had much of his wealth offshore and in Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes himself while not using his wealth to create jobs in America.

He calls himself severely conservative which means that he is against gay marriage,  abortion and unions. But when he was in government he said that he was in favor of those social issues.

So why is he running?  Why was McCain running when he too had no need of the money having married well the second time.  I think it was for the same reason and might have even been George W.’s reason for running.

They were competing with their fathers. 

George W,’s father was a war hero, a member of Congress, head of the CIA, Vice President and President of the United States.  George W. joined the Air Force reserves to avoid battle and then was AWOL at that.  He was a failed businessman and sports team owner.  He had problems with substance abuse.  He then became a successful governor and ran for President like his father had done.  He had twice as many terms as his dad, but almost destroyed the country in the process.

John McCain's father and grandfather were both four star admirals in the Navy.  John had less than one year of combat experience flying planes in Viet Nam.  He was captured and held as a POW for five terrible years.  He realized soon that his military career would never equal his father’s.  He remarried well, marrying a rich heiress whose father helped John get into Arizona politics. But being rich and a senator was not equal to a four star admiral, but being President, Commander-in-Chief, would trump old dad. The admiral is still ahead on points.

Mitt Romney's father had been head of an American car company and governor of Michigan.  He was a contender for the Republican nomination for President even though he was a Mormon and was born in Mexico, coming to America at age five.  His son Mitt got into and through high school, college and graduate school because of his father and was then given a moneymaking business to run soon after school.  He made a lot of money at Bain capital outsourcing jobs, reducing payrolls and benefits and sometimes, bankrupting the affected companies.  He was governor of Massachusetts for one term.  But still had not equalled his father.  Becoming President would surpass his father.  The essence of Romney is competition and who better to beat than his own father?

I have come to realize, after talking about this to a friend, that the result of these three men trying to compete with their fathers, is that none ended up doing what they would have really wanted to be or for which they were best suited .

That explains why Romney seems so uncomfortable in the political arena.  His father wanted to be President but failed so if Mitt runs he wins.  But Mitt could have been great at something meaningful.  With his looks and little passion, he could have been a matinee idol. He could have been a successful male model.  He could have been the Marlboro man.

The same with the other two.

John McCain got into, attended and graduated from Annapolis, paid for completely by taxpayer dollars, only because of his father and his father's father.  He was the second worst student in his graduating class, perhaps just ahead of Oliver North.  He apparently didn't like it and had no talent for it.  With his charm and good looks, he could have been a business major at some state school and become a successful salesman, actor or male model.  He could have worked in his second wife's liquor business as sales manager.

George Bush also was accepted into, attended and graduated from his father's alma mater because of his father.  He became a pilot, like his father but did it in the reserves and after a while stopped going on required flights.  He went into business like his father and failed terribly.  He went into politics, like his father, and did pretty well, but it was in Texas. He ran for President as his father had and we know what happened.  He hated the job but he did beat his father, he had two terms to Dad's one.  He could have pursued a vocation that he actually enjoyed and had some talent for.  He too was an attractive and charming guy who like McCain was not very bright.  He would also have been great at sales.  He had great people skills.

Unfortunately, all three men wasted their talents and happiness trying to compete instead of being who they really were.  This is probably most painfully true about Mitt.


The next question is: who should vote for Mitt Romney?  First, they must be Republican - 24% of the electorate.  Being Republican also means being white and Christian.  A recent study found that 90% of Republicans are white and 90% are Christian.  The other 10% either didn’t understand the question or just don’t understand what their best interests are. Besides being a white Christian Republican ( a redundancy), they should also be rich, at least in the top two percent of family income, receiving more than $250,000 a year because if reelected, President Obama will raise their taxes while Romney might even lower them.  But they have to be aware that lowering taxes on the rich in 2001 and 2003 helped create the economic disaster from which we are currently recovering.  If taxes are lowered even more for the rich, regulations loosened and military spending increased our deficit will grow even more rapidly putting even the rich at risk of losing money, customers and stock value.

Other potential Romney voters might be white Christian Republicans who are not in the top 2% of income recipients but hold very strong cultural values.  Some, like the evangelicals, love their Savior and hate gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims and foreigners in His name.  They feel compelled to vote against the President even if it makes them suffer more economically affected by the service program cuts that have been promised by candidate Romney.  These evangelicals might even believe that Mormons are not Christians, but prefer them to what they perceive as a black, Muslim, socialist, pro-gay, pro-abortion and anti-gun foreigner (Kenyan or Hawaiian) President. 

And of course every Mormon and everyone who contributes to Fox “news” is duty bound to vote for challenger Romney.

I think that that covers all the likely Romney voters.

That means that if you are not white or Christian or very rich, you shouldn’t vote for the challenger unless you care nothing about your own or your country’s best interests. If you are a member of a union, work for the government, need health care coverage, are against the U.S. military build up, are in favor of women’s reproductive rights, approve of gay unions, care about the poor, want to avoid saber rattling that could lead us into war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or Yemen, care about the environment, believe in voter’s rights, want to be able to look forward to receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits in the future and/or think that gun violence has gone too far, should and must vote to reelect the President.  “Should” because it would be in your best interest as well as the nation’s and “must” because every vote counts.