This month's Shambhala Sun magazine has an article on choosing peace by Pema Chodron. Between that piece and some conversations in my local sangha, I've been thinking a lot about peace and the current reality of peace and war.

Here in the United States, you see all manner of anti-war bumperstickers and signs.

DEMOCRAT FOR PEACE
REPUBLICAN FOR PEACE
HE'S NOT MY PRESIDENT

Those are just a few. What always strikes me about these is how divisive these statements are. People want to be sure that we know they want peace, and that they disagree with the current administration. That they are NOT part of the problem.

This is just another example of classic "us vs. them" thinking. Divisive thinking. And divisive thinking does not bring about peace. It never has, not in the history of the world. As humans, we aggregate into groups that make us feel comfortable and protected -- our families, our churches, our political parties. But even within those, we subdivide. People are not just Democrats, but pro-Hillary Democrats, or anti-Hillary Democrats. People are not just Christians, but Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics. It seems no matter how much we self-identify in order to come together, we further identify to separate.

So we come back to those who say they want peace above all else. No more war, no more suffering, especially the suffering that we feel has been caused by our own country's actions in the world. So often, even in this noble wish for peace, we slip into "us vs. them" thinking that poisons any positive action we could take to influence more peace. We self-identify with the victims of violence, and we separate ourselves from the perpetrators. We throw all our support behind, for example, the Buddhist monks and protesters in Myanmar, and we withhold compassion and positive thoughts from the rulers that have caused the suffering.

But we know from thousands of years of human history that division does not promote peace. When we separate ourselves from those we disagree with, we do not help the problem.

So my question to you is this: Do you want peace enough to actually allow yourself (in your head and your heart) to rejoin with those you have separated yourselves from? Do you want peace enough to wish for happiness and the end of suffering for all people, without excepting the perpetrators? Do you want peace enough to have compassion in your heart even for your "enemy"? Do you want peace enough to stop separating yourself from the Bush administration and those who want the war in Iraq? Do you want peace enough to see that the difference between the Myanmar protesters and those in power is just as flimsy a mental construct as the dotted lines on a map that denote cities, states, or countries?

If you knew that only by universal compassion can universal peace occur, would you still want peace enough to extend your compassion and love to everyone, including your enemies? Would you still want it enough to unite -- even with those you dislike -- rather than divide yourself from them?

from The Dhammapada, teachings of the Buddha:

1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.

3. "He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me," -- in those who harbor such thoughts hatred will never cease.

4. "He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me," -- in those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred will cease.

5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.

Distributed from the Austin Eco Network mailing list:

As Austinites, we hold ourselves up as a national model for environmental protection. Now, we have a new opportunity to once again prove our environmental bona fides – by banning the distribution of plastic shopping bags in our city.

Following other global leaders, San Francisco became the first American city to ban the distribution of plastic bags earlier this year. Now, more than a dozen major cities across North America are contemplating similar initiatives.

In our own community, City Council Member Lee Leffingwell recently sponsored a successful Council resolution directing city management to consider ways to limit the use of plastic bags in Austin . Our goal is to help persuade the Council, city management, and the Austin community as a whole that the best way to limit the use of plastic bags is to ban them.

I invite you to please visit http://www.BagTheBags.com today to learn about the importance of banning the distribution of plastic shopping bags, and to view our comprehensive plan to reduce our community’s use of disposable bags of all kinds.

You can also see a list of coalition partners and community leaders that have already joined this campaign at http://www.BagTheBags.com. I hope that you will seriously consider joining them in this effort.

Finally, I also want to invite you to join with other community leaders in kicking off this campaign with a press conference at City Hall this coming Monday, 9/24, at 2:30 pm.

Please feel free to email or call me any time with any questions, and thanks again for considering joining our campaign.

Sincerely,
Rick Cofer
Bag The Bags Coalition
Rick@RickCofer.com
Cell: 512-771-6266

Cleeeek it. Eeeeeees funny!!

http://www.beegs.com/?p=406

x-posted
I'm selling my 4-thread BabyLock serger for $50. See the craigslist posting:
http://austin.craigslist.org/hsh/298778381.html

Someone animated Wormwood (my current absolute favorite comic) with some nice gothy music!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EZzX2MslDMw

oh and also, since I am grumpy, from this day on, any technical writer that duplicates files instead of using conditions or profiling will be shot on sight. that is all. bastards.

One thing I hated about advertising and media targeting was that it proved a lot of social stereotypes. And interestingly enough, by simply changing my gender from "unspecified" to "female" in the LJ advertising customizations, now all of a sudden the LJ advertising thinks I'm interested not in music or cell phones, but in shopping. Specifically with Austin classifieds and on ebay. Interesting.

Evidently by giving no identifying information for my advertising preferences, I am "interested" in cell phones, music, and cars. I think I'll set some preferences now and see how it changes. (Just remember I have a degree in advertising with a focus on media planning/audience analysis, so this is why I find this interesting and amusing...)

I just upgraded to a Plus account, mostly because I wanted to see what sort of advertising I would get if I didn't specify any preferences, or if I messed with them in certain ways. So I apologize to anybody who hates seeing ads if they visit my journal pages to comment and so forth, but it's an interesting experiment for me. (I do, after all, have a degree in Advertising...)

I have inherited a project at work that I will bet $5 was originally authored by this woman Pam B., who authored a project that I inherited last summer. (Pam was fired some years ago from our department by our current Vice President, but then she got jobs doing writing for other projects on contract, so her footprint remains on some of these projects.)

Her writing is fraught with phrases such as, "If desired..." and "If you want to (do this thing)..." It's ungodly annoying.

I say that good concise tech writing should be casual in tone but dictatorial in content. TELL THE READER WHAT TO DO. That's the only reason they're reading this damn document to begin with, because everything else they've tried has failed and they're desperate to complete a task. They aren't reading it because they want to be told what a great product it is (chances are they've already got their opinion on that, and nothing you can say in the documentation is going to convince them otherwise). They also don't want a cheerleader, therapist, or friend. They just want to know WHAT THE HELL DO I DO NOW???

So tell them. And if you care about them at all, you'll tell them like a mom dictating commands to an unruly child. You DON'T say, "Now now, dear, now is the time when you can, if desired, use the shopping cart's Safety Strap Feature (tm). If you want to use this feature, place yourself squarely on the seat of the cart, aligning your legs carefully through both patented Individual Leg Openings. Carefully locate the straps to either side of your torso, and clasp them gently together until you hear the "click" that indicates they are fully fastened."

Well, you don't say this if you want compliance. You say, "SIT DOWN AND BUCKLE UP." And truly, your kid is smart enough to get it. And so is your reader. So just tell them what to do, and they will. And they'll love your documentation for making it quick and easy for them to stop using it. Nobody really WANTS to read the stuff anyway, and if you think any different, you're sadly mistaken...

Here are the details:

Wylie Reeves passed away Saturday, December 23rd. It was an accidental death.

Please join his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Reeves, and his friends at his Memorial this Friday.

It will be Friday, Dec 29th,
11am at The First Methodist Church of Seguin
710 N. Austin, Seguin, TX 78155
(830) 379-4112

I'll be driving down there and should be able to give at least two additional people a ride, if anybody needs one.

Side note: I have no idea if plans have been made for the wake, but I suggest Wednesday, January 3 (Wylie's 40th birthday) at Opal Divine's South/Penn Field, 7pm. I have at least two bottles of scotch I will bring, even though I doubt they'll let us get away with bringing it in.

In case any of you haven't already seen this in doc's LJ:

http://jdmyrick.livejournal.com/234024.html

What's the last thing that goes through your mind?