A Few obeservations with using a bit of emotional intelligence:

Alaska's Senator Stevens was visibly upset that the Arctic drilling amendment to a defense appropriations bill was removed. His dismay was expressed on the floor of the senate while wearing a tie for the graphic novel character - "The incredible HULK". I think that tie took away some of the impact of his message. Or was he saying I tried to sneek one passed you and I got caught? He may not know. But the tie was saying something as loudly as any of the emotion of his words. It is a shame that the clarity of his message was lost.

-------

I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the President of the United States. I want to be able to follow the emotional reasoning of his policies, words, actions. When I find myself in disagreement with someone - I look to resolve it. I think that if I can empathize with his being - "walk a mile in his shoes" it might be possible to accept him and support his policies. He only wants to do well for the country. beyond that last sentence, I start having difficulty.

It occurred to me recently, that there is at least one fundamental issue. The word "Mankind" has a different interpretation for the President from my understanding. When I think of "mankind" there is a vagueness to it. This ambiguity is derived from the fact that I cannot know or imagine all of the possibilities of what it means. I sense that the President feels he must know.

This in important because his policies involve a lot of anger and revenge. It involves physical pain. He does not see bad guys as human. The History Channel had a show on the WWI Christmas Truce. This is the real story of how ordinary foot soliders from both sides came together at Christmas for a period.

The thought is that in order for peace, this kind of activity must be imaginable. The history suggests the profitability of such sentiments. The Administration does not clarify the nature of the "evil", and therefore one cannot begin to imagine peace with "evil" - so a perpetual state of war will continue.

It suggests that this could be a motivation for the administration. Not even oil is as valuable to the administration and his supporters than a permenant state of war. No one made a buck from peace.

Peace on Earth - 'tis the season. Oh wait - even here Bill O'reilly thinks Christmas is being attacked and eeds defending. The History Channel offers yet another instructive lesson with a show on the History of Christmas. The word that comes to mind from watching the show - evolution.

Christmas in America, according to the broadcast, has not been the same since day one and has been changing. December 25th is not really the actual birth date of Jesus Christ - according to the experts in the show. According to the show it was an accomodation by the church to pagan to bring them into the "fold". It was an evangelical move of sorts. It seems there was a pagan "sun" god name Mithra who was celebrated to be born on the 25th.

The evergreen christmas tree in America was an accomodation to recent immigrants of the "old country" as another means to celebrate.

Many of the things that are considered "traditional" are not religious at all. The are habits or customs started with the design to bring people together in the cold of winter.

Bill O'Reilly would have Christmas be cast in stone and never change. This is predictable of the "conservative" mindset. Never improve, never change - is that why the President is always reminding us of how far we've come? Is it possible that he thinks America is better off with a reality of his choosing that will not change? A culture that will stagnate. A culture full of fear of the new and changing? That's the neo-con ideology. That's a culture that can be politically controlled and mainpulated for profit by the corporations and not the individual.