Volunteers Have A New Football Coach (Supposedly)

The Tennessee Volunteers apparently have its new football coach lined up in Derek Dooley. But we will know for sure at a scheduled press conference at 9 p.m. EST (after the department originally stated that the conference would take place at 9 tomorrow morning). Anything can happen between now and then. I will reserve judgment on Dooley specifically until after he has been given a chance.

Unlike most people, I know better than to believe everything I hear or read including official reports. I have to give the local media a poor grade for just jumping on every tidbit of info and rumors as if it meant anything. First it as Muschamp, then Cutcliffe, then Fulmer and everyone in between. Whatever happened to accuracy and fairness? Such is the world we live in. I think I speak for many people when I say that there is a part of me that is disgusted with the undue influence that money and politics has in pro sports. We've witnessed the same nonsense at the college level. This topic is nothing new. I've read accounts from the 1920's dealing with these same issues.

I figured as early as September of 2008 that it was probably going to be Phil Fulmer's last year. I had mixed feelings about it all. I had to acknowledge his dedication and passion for the university, but also recognized that perhaps he became too comfortable and with that, he was so set in his ways that he was unable to make necessary adjustments. Then again, making adjustments wasn't his strong point in coaching.

Too often, football coaches and administrators only look at the $$$ and ignore people who are in coaching or want to coach because they love it. Mike Hamilton has set the UT football program back a few years with this nonsense. He couldn't even get Will Muschamp to come here for $3 million a year. Either Mr. Hamilton is doing a poor job of salesmanship or there is something I am missing. Neyland Stadium speaks for itself. 100,000+ fans, fantastic facilities, and the traditions speak volumes. Yet, there were a handful of coaches turning the position down before they were even approached. So my conclusion is that Mr. Hamilton is way in over his head as Athletic Director. His background is in banking and fundraising. He is an administrator. He should just sign the paychecks and accept donations. But the tasks of hiring and firing coaches, contract negotiations and day to day operations of the athletic department should be reassigned to someone else.

Of course, if this hire doesn't work out, Mr. Hamilton could still contact me.
I'm willing and able.

Cui Bono from Airport Scanners?

As I already gathered, the so-called attempted bombing on Christmas was nothing more than another false flag designed to further the grips of tyranny over the people. Did you notice recently Michael Chertoff has been making the rounds on the news channels suggesting that body scanners be installed in the airports?

Rapiscan Systems which is a subsidiary of OSI Systems Co is the company that stands to benefit from the installation of the body scanners in the airports. Michael Chertoff is one of their major stockholders and their Congressional lobbyist. I will leave you to connect the dots from here.

What Are You Supposed To Do With Your Life?

"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU...WILL...ATONE! [calmly] Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?"

When I was a kid, I dreamed of being a professional baseball or football player. Unfortunately, I never had the size or pure athletic ability to go with my desire. I am doing reasonably well. I'm not where I want to be in terms of a career, but I'm working on it. I am working towards getting a degree in physical education and perhaps teach it or go into coaching. Then again, ten years ago, I had dreams of working in the movies or producing music videos. But then there was a layoff, didn't get calls back in spite of sending out hundreds of resumes, you know the drill. What can I say? I should have been born in the earlier half of the 20th century, not the later half. So if my own past experiences are any indication, I expect my current plans to be disrupted by forces outside my control. I am not loaded with money nor did I descend from the royal families of Europe. I'm rich in terms of how I look at the world and my ideas about how to make things better. I've come to realize my purpose doesn't involve being famous, rich or even to be acknowledged. I'm answering to a higher calling. Over the past number of years, my mind has thought less in terms of what I wanted to be when I grow up and more to do with the world at large. In fact, I've even given a great deal of thought to how the galaxies are formed and the age of the universe. It makes me realize that in comparison, we are microscopic and that our natural lives on Earth amounts to a few seconds.

We think that more education or getting a college degree will solve our problems. But it is no secret that something is seriously lacking in the education field. How many people are just going through the motions and collecting a paycheck? How many people have a college degree, yet they can't even get a job cleaning dishes or houses? I don't think the problem is with teachers per se, but a system that punishes success and creativity and rewards partisanship and failure.

Clearly, something is wrong, bad wrong. Sadly, most people are so stuck in their ways that they refuse to change for the better. Fortunately, I came to realize we were heading in this direction at the turn of the century. We have not a free-market economy, but a combination of communism and fascism rolled up into one. This can be traced back to the so-called Progressive Era. You have to get the government's "permission" to get married, tie your shoes, pray to your God, etc... If the bureaucrats don't give you permission, I guess you are out of luck. Real substantial change will have to come at the grassroots level, not the top down. Until enough people understand this, we can forget about improving the national or international situation anytime soon. Hopefully on an individual level, you can go about freeing yourself so as not to get pinned down or killed by the zombies.

So if you had no obstacles standing in your way, what would you do with your life? Would you be playing professional baseball, running a dance studio, or baking wedding cakes? Perhaps the 21st century should be about doing what YOU want to do and not allow obstacles to stand in your way whether real or imagined. Don't let someone else plan your life. Follow your heart! Short-term, it will be frustrating and painful, but there could be a pot of gold at the end of the road.

So I've taken the following quote by Fox Mulder to heart: "Whatever happened to playing a hunch, Scully? The element of surprise, random acts of unpredictability? If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

What is America Supposed to Represent?

Many Americans particularly if they were born here in the civil and literal sense will say they are "Proud to be an American". For others, being an American would be going through the naturalization process and handling all the paperwork. Is being an American merely about paperwork? Perhaps the Native Americans should have been asking for ID and passport when the Europeans started coming over en masse beginning around 500 years ago. The primary reason at least for most northern Europeans was to escape religious persecution that was coming at the hands of the monarchs and bishops. The second wave of immigration from southern Europe that would come in the 19th-20th century was primarily economic and cultural more than religious.

What about assimilation? Are people from China or Mexico supposed to dress the same way Europeans do? Speaking of Mexico, the Aztecs were there first. Are English speaking Americans supposed to eat the same foods as Greek-Americans or Italian Americans? Should a man's name be John Smith or Bob Wilson? Or would Kim (Marilyn) Novak be an issue? At least the Hollywood studio boss Harry Cohn had an issue with it. It was "too Polish" to him although Novak is actually Czech-American.

What about languages? I could understand perhaps learning English or some dialect of English in order to function on a day to day basis. But suppose the French had won the French and Indian War? Would it be an issue if the American people turned out to be generally French speaking? If I was to visit Spain or live in Finland part of the year, perhaps it would be fitting to at least learn some of the language. But if a person wants to keep some of their cultural heritage, then it shouldn't be held against them. After all, didn't immigrants come to this land because it was to be about the opportunity to be themselves?

Are we supposed to be of the same religion? If we are of the same religion, denomination or what have you, is that by choice or coercion? I can tell you as a Baptist, that contrary to what is being portrayed, Baptists are not walking lockstep beating to a single drummer. It is diverse to the point of having disputes about various issues. The issues are less about theological doctrine and more about personalities and politics.

Is being an American about belonging to a political party? If you believed most of the stories you hear, you would think that there are two parties: Democrats and Republicans. But yet, there are the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party among others. If you go back further, there was the Bull Moose Party, the Whigs, and the Federalists to provide a small sampling. Any way you cut it, it is absurd to think that two political parties which in reality aren't all that different can sufficiently represent 300 million people. Or as the saying goes, put ten people in a room and you will get eleven different opinions.

How about our entertainment choices? Entertainment choices during ancient times generally were for civic and political purposes. Also the notion of individual rights and free-market economics in a societal sense only started to take hold in the past 200+ years. The main reason this notion took so long to gain traction is because human beings are primarily social animals. We want to associate, belong, be part of the team, tribe, or organization. In one sense such as being part of a football team, that is fine. But taken to its extreme, you end up with the gladiators (who were mostly slaves) or the rise of the Third Reich. So these days, entertainment is primarily personal. I like to watch some TV shows and not others. One person may like to watch pro wrestling whereas someone else likes to watch ladies oil wrestling.

What about the American Flag? What does it stand for? What do the colors represent? One take on the colors is that red means hardiness and valor.
White signifies purity and innocence. Blue is the color of the Chief. The star symbolizes heaven and the goal all man have been striving for. The stripe is a ray of light from the sun. Should one salute the flag? I suppose the simple act isn't a problem and I've done it before too. But as I became an adult and learned more about the history of the Pledge and symbolism, there has been a certain unease that overcomes me. Do I put my allegiance to the flag over my allegiance to God? Sadly most Christians in 1930's Germany did just that. While practicing your religion and attending church wasn't prohibited initially, loyalty was to the state first and foremost. It was the same way during the time of the Roman Empire.

What about interactions between people of different skin colors or different religious beliefs? What about a man who is originally from England, is Anglican and a writer marrying a woman who is from Turkey who is a Gypsy and a belly dancer?

Is one un-American if they criticize the president or disagree with official state policies? Or is one un-American for not criticizing the president or questioning official state policies?

What do you make of Samuel Adams when he wrote "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

It seems like a swipe at the John Rockefellers and J.P. Morgans or the military-industrial complex itself which is a topic that I've written a great deal on.

Does being an American represent something else? Perhaps it is about ideas. Was Thomas Jefferson wrong when he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Is this idea strictly limited to Americans or to the physical United States of America itself? I suggest we take the ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and spread it throughout the world. This is ultimately an intellectual and moral endeavor, not a military endeavor.

Needless to say, this country is diverse to the point of having a sense of opportunity, mystery, frustration and tension all rolled up into a ball of fire.
It is what we do with our own ball of fire that makes the difference.

Why Socialists Love War And The State

"Neocons are not classical liberals nor are they conservatives in the Old Right sense. They are in fact socialists who derive their inspiration from national socialism (hence all the talk about the homeland aka fatherland) and support the social welfare programs of the Progressives thus appealing to the communist branch of socialism. It is an attempt to unite socialism under one roof."

For a little run-down in our times where this approach has been used, go to "Will There Be A War With China?"

According to "The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich" by Klaus Hildebrand, "Göring was certainly an ardent Nazi and utterly loyal to Hitler. But his preferences in foreign policy were different. Besides Hitler's foreign policy program that there existed three other rival foreign programs held by factions in the Nazi Party, whom Hildebrand dubbed the agrarians, the revolutionary socialists, and the Wilhelmine Imperialists. Göring was the most prominent of the "Wilhelmine Imperialist" group in the Nazi regime. This group wanted to restore the German frontiers of 1914, regain the pre-1914 overseas empire, and make Eastern Europe Germany's exclusive sphere of influence. This was a much more limited set of goals than Hitler's dream of Lebensraum seized in merciless racial wars. By contrast, Göring and the "Wilhelmine Imperialist" faction were more guided by traditional Machtpolitik in their foreign policy conceptions. Furthermore, the "Wilhelmine Imperialists" expected to achieve their goals within the established international order. While not rejecting war as an option, they preferred diplomacy, and sought political domination in eastern Europe rather than the military conquests envisioned by Hitler. And they rejected Hitler's mystical vision of war as a necessary ordeal for the nation, and of perpetual war as desirable. Göring himself feared that a major war might interfere with his luxurious lifestyle."

In our modern times, U.S. political policy runs between progressive communism and incremental fascism which is derived from the Latin word fasces. This nation has not had a free market economy in around 100 years or so. Fascism and communism are merely two brands of socialism. Both find classical liberalism (rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to be repulsive.

In terms of economic policy, many fascist leaders have claimed it was a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of the free market and state socialism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labor. Italian fascist leader Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state".

In theory, communism and its derivatives is supposed to result in a classless, stateless and oppression-free society. Generally, communists would be opposed to the imperial aims that most European nations have embarked on since ancient times, but see a struggle of the workers rising up in every nation against what they see as oppressive capitalism. Economic decisions are supposedly made in a democratic fashion, but in fact is determined by a central planning committee. In a nutshell, whenever communism theory has been put to practice, the end result was a disaster. Communist leaders like Stalin and Mao justified their collectivist policies as being for the public good or that he was modernizing society and his means of doing this led to a cult of personality, famine or terror. According to R.J. Rummel, in the 20th century alone, 262,000,000 people have been murdered as a result of democide.

So basically, while both systems were undoubtedly collectivist, they differed greatly in their socio-economic content. For Communism was a genuine revolutionary movement that ruthlessly displaced and overthrew the old ruling elites; while fascism, on the contrary, cemented into power the old ruling classes. Therefore, fascism was a counter-revolutionary movement that froze a set of monopolistic privileges upon society. This was the reason that Fascism proved so attractive (which Communism, of course, never did) to big business interests in the West throughout much of the 20th century.

Given that the Communist approach would not work in the revolutionary sense, it had to adopt a different tactic. Thus it adopted the ways of the Fabian Society vis a vis gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary. In a nutshell, communism became institutionalized. Is it any wonder why people are graduating from college with economic degrees, but couldn't tell you the first thing about how to run a small business or know what fractional reserve banking is?

Essentially war is done for the benefit of the state and to detriment of the people. Historically, wars have been justified in the name of building an empire that reflected a rulers rightful sphere on Earth similar to the God's sphere in the universe. They would even admit that they were doing it "because the Gods told me to". Given that this method of explanation would not work in Western society, it had to be subtextual. Progressive communists would justify war as being for the public good, to liberate the poor from evil capitalism, or to make us all "equal" which flies in the face of recognizing every person as a unique individual with a unique personality. "The ends justify the means!"

National Socialism hence the word NAZI (National Socialist Workers Party) would justify war in terms of racial purity, or that one nation is infinitely superior to another nation in terms of its culture, industry, religion, etc... Thus if a nation wants to attack another nation, it was justified as we were just civilizing them. "Might makes right!"

In any event, tyranny is almost always justified along the lines of God's will or "the will of the people." That being said, it is the inherent right and duty of the people, regardless of what labels you attach to yourself or to others, to resist socialism in all its forms. Only when we recognize that individual liberty and the right of each individual to have the opportunity to make something of themselves however they may see fit that we can reduce pain and suffering and solve many of the problems that occupy our existence.

Revealing The Book of Revelation

Perhaps the most talked about and most misunderstood book of the New Testament is Book of Revelation. Most people recognize that the language is symbolic. Where most people fall short is in their interpretation and the method of storytelling that is being used. Revelation is NOT a prediction of what is going to happen in the future, but is instead referring to the author's own time and the past and is being addressed to "the seven churches in Asia." The modern day claims that Revelation is referring to the modern United Nations creation of Israel are false and heretical. If that were true, then why didn't John of Patmos just write in his letters: "In 1948, ..." or "In 2010, Jesus will return?" Not even Jesus knew when he would return. The doctrine of dispensationalism was advocated heavily by John Nelson Darby (thought to have been inspired in part by an incident involving Margaret MacDonald). Later, it was seized upon and tinkered with twists that fit the times by Hal Lindsay, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye among others. The Anti-Christ has been everybody and thing from Nero, the Pope, The Black Death, Martin Luther, Napoleon (20th century view), Hitler, Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union and now Islam. Anybody can twist words to fit an agenda or viewpoint. Beware of false doctrines. The conflicts in the Middle East while historically rooted in thousands of years of precedence is not due to some uncontrollable chain of events that would usher in an Anti-Christ or cosmic battle, but in large part due to distortions of religious texts and propaganda designed to keep the masses dumbed down if not dead altogether. "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think" Adolf Hitler

This book was composed near the end of Domitian's reign, around the year 95 by John of Patmos who most likely was living in exile. What is clear is that the Christians are in the minority and being persecuted by both local audiences who object to their emphasis on monotheism and from Roman governors because they serve one master, thus the false claim that Christians were attempting social unrest. Religion primarily had been a endeavor of the state for the purpose of social harmony and worship of the state as the God's supposed emissary on Earth. So as you can imagine, the notion that the state has no say in matters of religion didn't sit well up until a few centuries ago.

It would be helpful to be familiar with Daniel 7-12, Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in coming to understand Revelation. The use of symbols and numbers stand out in this text. Babylon is a reference to Rome as both of them destroyed the temple. The same goes for the numbers used. Numbers in ancient times were used for symbolic representations whereas in modern times, we use numbers for adding, subtracting, budgets, etc... Keep in mind, that only around 5% of the general population could read and write sufficiently. So symbols and images were used to communicate messages. The seven seals, seven trumphets, seven bowls, etc... are all used symbolically to represent God's perfect plan. 12 stood for the people of God. Hence 144,000 is 12x12x1,000. It does not mean that only 144,000 people are going to heaven as some have claimed. If that were true, all of us would be out of luck.
6 meant imperfection or falling short of God's plan. So what do you think 666 referred to? It was referring to Satan who really falls short of God's perfection.

Revelation used an ancient method of storytelling called recapitulation i.e. repeating the same story in different ways or circular storytelling. Modern audiences tell stories using a linear concept. Recapitulation was primarily relating the past and present times to its audience, not what was going to happen 200 years or 2,000 years later. John was not using a crystal ball. The central message of the book is that we should hold fast to our convictions in spite of persecution and while things are bad now, in the long run, God's justice will prevail.

A Citizen's Guide to Political Activism

"All politics is local." Tip O'Neill
Before you read any further, I recommend you read this: I'm Taking A Break From Politics!

For those who have been at this political stuff for a while, you already know what I'm talking about. Chances are that you are reading this because you want to change unfair drug laws, be part of that "reform movement" you've heard about, reduce property taxes, etc..., but you are unsure how to begin. Chances are you or either someone you know was affected in some manner and it made you realize that something wasn't right and it inspired you to get involved.

You don't need experience in organizing to take action now. If you're motivated to make (real) changes, and to work with others who feel the way you do, then that is a start. Events can be a neighborhood planning meeting, a media interview, or a potluck, to name a few examples.

My own experiences have taught me three important lessons: First, real change begins with you. Think Globally, Act Locally! Today, it is a given that "everyone" has an automobile or cell phone. But how did we get here? Well because 100 and something years ago, some people had the crazy idea to create a mechanical horse in their kitchen or the stable. Now if we were to see a horse today, we wouldn't know what to think. Things don't all of the sudden happen at once. Real change operates very much in the same manner as dynamite. It doesn't blow up at once, it begins with a spark.

Second, network with like-minded people. Once in the distant past, people lived as family units, tribes, hunter-gatherer types. Over the course of time, as more people with all their unique aspects come into interaction with each other, some people had the idea that we should find a way to handle disagreements and various disputes that inevitably arose. Thus we had the appointment of councils in which sitting members were chosen by the general population or the heads of the families. From there, we had the rise of city-states, empires, and republics to name a few.

Today, it is easier to find people with common interests all over the world and locally to get involved by simply joining a social networking site like Facebook or Meetup. It is very much the technology of our time much like the telegraph and printing press were in another era. Through the use of these technologies which are more cost-effective and easier to operate, it enables the average person on the street to get more involved in the process whereas creating and owning a television network, a newspaper company or radio station generally takes a bit more investment and capitol which may not be readily available.

Thirdly, be your own leader. Be yourself even as you work with like-minded people or work to hash out differences that you have. For more, read "When You Have To Rely on Bredesen." I'm a Christian who is single, has no kids, and a college student to put it in a nutshell. Yet I have worked with atheists, Jews, homosexuals, democrats, republicans, blacks, women to name a few where we had an issue or several issues in common. My way of looking at it is that it won't make much of a difference what your label is when in the end, we are rounded up and sent to a death camp. Some people prefer the terms concentration camp or reservation. It is merely a matter of semantics. Just as real change for the better doesn't happen all at once, tyranny doesn't come in a single night either. It took Adolf Hitler in the neighborhood of 10-15 years from the time he began until the time he was even appointed chancellor of Germany. The rest should speak for itself.

In any given situation where you are interacting, be it family members, friends, classmates and so on and so on, you are always going to have those who are more assertive than others, those who stand out more or those who have this thing about them. Put me in a small discussion group and I can generally do pretty well. But if you ask me to give a speech in front of a bunch of people, I would most likely decline and just refer people to my blog. I am very much in my element being the person who organizes the campaign, but I will never been the candidate so help me God.

So, go ahead and get it done. Best Wishes!