In the West, God — be it bearded Jehovah or younger Jesus — is always depicted as a man with light skin and a beard.    He controls a piece of the universe called Heaven, and grants entry to people who worship him and who obey him at all times.   If you don’t obey him, then through some power he is able to send you to a pit of eternal sulfur and fire, to burn for eternity.  This sounds more like a mob boss than an enlightened divinity.

While Christianity provides the most obvious examples, the same could be said of most other religions.  Walk into any setting where dogma has taken the place of critical thinking, and you will hear something along these lines:  follow these rules, or you will go to Hell.

Even if you don’t believe in God, or are agnostic, it is this image that is supposed to shape your “spiritual” inclination.  Thus, most western athiests define themselves in opposition to this mafia God-figure but then make the mistake of concluding that this is the most that can be expected of a valid conception of God.

God is presented as something to be feared.  So you see most people today live in fear of God, or live in fear of other people who believe in God, or life in fear of the people who make the rules based on the values of a fearful God.

A true sense of spiritual freedom requires a complete disavowal of these limiting ideas of God.

In fact, spirituality is so unique — and we as individuals are so unique — that every person probably has their own idea of the nature of God. It would be a safe bet that if you were to walk into a church (or synagogue, or temple, or shrine, it doesn’t matter much) and ask two people sitting next to each other to define God, you would get two very different answers.

It is totally fine to have a connection with the larger universe and to have a sense of spirituality without subscribing to any particular church or doctrine.

People don’t need to agree about their conceptions of God.  It is totally fine for there to be a difference of opinion about God. Not only is it totally fine, but in America it is legally expected that people will have different ideas about religion — which is why the First Amendment protects all forms of religious worship.

The important thing is that people make up their own minds about God (or the lack of a God) and not just blindly follow some belief because it makes them feel better. That is not genuine investigation, but simply acting like a sheep.   And human consciousness is too precious to behave like a sheep.

Here is one example of a unique perspective of God:  God as the bridge that connects a person’s intentions, desires, hopes, and prayers to their material manifestation.

A person sits, and quiets her mind, and then opens that mind to all of creation and feels a comfort that all will be well, all can be healed, everything will be OK.  No need to worry.

In this state, it is possible to formulate an intention and ask that it come true, so long as it is in the best interests of all involved.   And if it is, then it happens — that moment is God.

Here is another conception of God:  God as the connection to all of consciousness.

When you sit by yourself, and you feel the presence of a loved one who may be thousands of miles away — that moment is God.

Or when you sit in a garden and can delight in beauty, happy to be alive — that moment is God.

Our purpose here on this Earth is to obtain ever greater freedom.  Freedom means the defeat of fear, and values promulgated on such fear.  When you confront a fear, and you knock it down, and you obtain greater spiritual and psychological freedom — that moment is also God.

And because the mind is God, when the mind grows, then God grows in tandem, maturing with us as we explore this Creation of which we know so little.  God as our twin, as our teacher, as our child, all at the same time.

How pleasant to think of God like that.

Alan Greenspan, perhaps the greatest friend of the banking class since Alexander Hamilton, once remarked that the growing inequality between America’s rich and poor was a “very disturbing trend” that a democratic society could not “really accept without addressing.”  Yet it is this very trend — the hoarding of wealth by a small elite at the expense of the many — that remains the most unaddressed problem in contemporary American society.

Indeed, it is this problem that is the very root of so many other problems facing Americans today.  For example, the problem of health care is a problem of wealth and resource inequality.  A small group of insurance companies and insurance executives make tremendous amounts of money based on the current system; and they have used those resources to prevent meaningful reform.  This, at heart, is a problem of inequality.

The problem of America’s perpetual wars is a problem of wealth and resource inequality.  A small group of military companies and military executives make tremendous amounts of money based on America’s need for enemies and its propensity to bomb and occupy small countries around the world.  These companies and executives, in turn, use their resources to prevent peaceful solutions to conflict and stoke the flames of militarism.  This, at heart, is a problem of inequality.

The problem of America’s flailing economy is a problem of wealth and resource inequality.  A small group of banks and banking executives make tremendous amounts of money based on an economic system that inflates the value of stocks and perpetuates dangerous economic bubbles that become nothing more than sordid pits of speculating.  And as every American has witnessed over the last year, these banks and the bankers who run them use their resources and power to ensure that hundreds of billions of dollars are used to prop up this corrupt system, even when it appeared ready and eager to fall apart.  This, at heart, is a problem of inequality.

America is so rich and so wealthy that it is able to create a society whereby the richest 1% of society live a lifestyle that would have been the envy of any Caesar or any Khan, and still leave enough wealth for everyone else to live a life of relative affluence.  Even a relatively poor family may have a car and a television and a refrigerator — all items that are luxuries for the vast majority of other people on this planet.

But now that the rich have become so rich, they have been able to change laws so maintain that wealth at the expense of society.  And they have also waged a stunningly successful campaign to convince the other 99% of Americans that it is in everyone’s best interest to protect this super-class of wealthy individuals.  Americans today are blinded by the fantasy that perhaps they, too, will have a chance of becoming a multi-millionaire, and thus support policies that let the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.  Anyone who disagrees with this fantasy is labeled a “socialist” or a “communist”, labels which the ignorant latch onto in defense of a system which oppresses them.  There is nothing more pathetic then a slave defending his slavery — yet there are many Americans today who do just that.

At some point, fantasy will hit reality.  And the reality is that everyone today in America works much harder for the little they already have; and, as has been the trend for the last 30 years, they will continue to work harder for less over the coming decades.  The reality is that the triumph of corporate capitalism has created a new feudal system whereby the rich elites — the lords — use their corporate estates to create a society where wage slaves are forced to work long hours for access to money and health care.

Hard work is a wonderful thing, but hard work for the benefit of another is the very definition of slavery.   It is shameful that far from attacking this slavery, Americans celebrate it by agreeing with their corporate masters that greed is good, that bankers know best, and that the rich should be free from taxes. How long until such inequality is addressed?  How long until people decide that a more just distribution of economic resources is necessary, appropriate, and healthy for a democratic society?

Over time, people began to realize that the feudal system was oppressive, and fought against it.  Feudalism was abolished and people were allowed to leave the estates and work for a wage instead.  Kings were overthrown, and philosophers wrote and wrote about the virtues of freedom and democracy.

Today, the benefits of these hard-won victories are being chipped away by the re-emergence of a new feudal system.   In the feudalism of old, the government (in the form of the king) allied with the nobility to oppress the people and take their labor.  In today’s re-emerging feudal model, the government now allies itself with a corporate class — a new form of nobility — to enslave the population.  The corporation has become the new feudal overlord.

The evidence for this reversion to feudalism is becoming increasingly obvious in the wake of the latest economic crisis.  Instead of reforming a decrepit financial system which produced the crisis, trillions of dollars were spent to shore up dying corporations that in any free market would have been allowed to wither and die.  Economic “stimulus” was provided to these same dying corporations instead of providing money directly to citizens.

The health care debate has also highlighted the relationship between government and corporate interest.  Instead of analyzing America’s byzantine and inefficient health care model from the perspective of the health care consumer, the interest of the corporate insurer is given top priority.  If reform cuts into the profitability of the insurance companies, then it is unacceptable to politicians of both parties.

Entrepreneurship is no longer government policy; the “free market” is simply code for the maintenance of a system where powerful corporations provide all goods and services, not small businesses helmed by the next generation of business leaders.  Both Congress and the Supreme Court have stripped down antitrust protections so as to permit huge conglomerates that stifle competition and provide mediocre products.

Because corporations have become so dominant, it is increasingly impossible to earn a wage without joining a corporation.  And it is here where one can see the real parallel between today’s corporate world and the feudal systems of the past.  Health care, money, and a sense of purpose all come from working for a corporate master.  Leave a corporation, and you leave behind all those things and become aimless:  a serf without a lord to provide you with work.

Naturally, this new corporate feudalism is celebrated by the media, which is wholly owned and controlled by large corporations.  The “free press,” always intended as a bulwark for liberty, has now become the chief enemy of democracy as media outlet after media outlet ignore the growing influence of the corporation and instead focus on issues that appeal to the most common demographic:  entertainment, sensationalist news programming, and right-wing mouthpieces who attract a large fundamentalist audience.

Indeed, no where is corporate feudalism more evident than in the peasant mentality displayed by the people themselves.  Like a good serf who answers every whim of the feudal lord, a significant portion of the American population now takes to the street in favor of policies that deprive them of their own wealth, their own freedoms, and their own sense of dignity.  The people who protest in favor of corporate insurers, who hope that “Obama fails” in whatever attempt he might make at reform, are people who rush out to the defend the very entities that oppress them.

Corporate feudalism is a reality, and it is growing.  In time, it will be difficult to hide the new forms of serfdom that are being imposed on Americans.  It is only a question as to what people will do about the rise of these new feudal overlords — whether they will simply accept the imposition of this slavery, or whether they will find the courage and passion to reject these new masters and return to more democratic ways of life.

Why is it that in a world containing so much — be it technology, sensory stimulation, and even basics such as food — people are still unhappy?  What is it that prevents a genuine and lasting sense of happiness from carrying over moment to moment, from resonating in the background of experience like harmony within the choir?

Thousands of years ago, people such as the Buddha taught that achieving a lasting sense of happiness required a reexamination of the assumptions people carry with them about the important things in life.  By letting go of things that bring us suffering — unneeded desires, negative emotions, unrealistic or unnecessary expectations — the Buddha and others taught that any person could begin a journey of spiritual discovery which would lead to a powerful state of freedom:  the state known as enlightenment.

In today’s world, a world dominated by science, spiritual questions such as these are routinely discarded or ignored.  Much of this is a reaction to any form of “religious” thought — religion being associated with the anti-science position of the Western Christian churches — but a lot of this comes from the belief that the realm of the spirit is no longer relevant in a modern consumer capitalist society.  After all, this is a world where people now obtain pharmaceuticals when they feel anxious or depressed, instead of chanting Sanskrit verses.

On the other hand, the world continues to suffer in a variety of forms.  And there continues to be a desire on the part of millions of people to seek deeper meaning to their lives.  It would be easy to label these millions of people as simply deluded; but it would be far more honest to acknowledge these spiritual urges — urges that have existed for thousands of years — and contemplate both their source and potential satisfaction.

In fact, the quest for spiritual meaning and purpose is more necessary than ever before.  We are more atomized, more alienated, and more separated from the Earth and from one another than at any other time in human history.  We see less of each other with less frequency and, more often than not, only in electronic form such as over the computer or cell phone.  We have little to no connection with the food that we purchase, the clothes that we wear, the shelters we call our homes, and the people we call our neighbors.  What we call “the family” is little more than a group of strangers who share only their genes and little else; what we call “the community” is simply a patchwork of neighborhoods dominated by parochial, corporate, or political interest.

If we have stayed sane in this environment, it is because we are better medicated, better entertained, and better controlled than our ancestors.  But let us be clear:  our world today, a world of technology and corporate domination, of the harsh individualism created by consumer culture — this world has not relieved a single person on this Earth from their need for peace of mind.  It has only increased this desire, sharpened it, and caused people infinitely deeper levels of psychic pain and discomfort that they are hard pressed to even identity, let alone acknowledge.

And so, today, we continue to suffer.  But there are real answers out there, answers predicated on thousands of years of spiritual research done by great teachers in almost every religion.  The specific doctrines vary based on the location and language of the teacher who brought the message, but the message has remained surprisingly consistent:  seek freedom in all its forms; love yourself with all your might; and if you can, pass the message along to those who might benefit from hearing it.  Three simple teachings that form the very essence of enlightenment.

Freedom, the first aspect of enlightenment.  What does it mean to seek freedom?  It means to look within and to confront the internal obstacles we put in place to our own happiness.  Political freedom, marital freedom, spiritual freedom — in any forum, in any circumstance, those who are slaves must, in some form, consent to their slavery.  This is a harsh but undeniable truth.

Today, we are the beneficiaries of thousands of years of struggle for the cause of freedom.  Great strides have been made, but tremendous journeys still lie ahead.  The frontier of freedom is vast, and we have only but traversed the gardens in front of the manor; we have yet to even leave the gate and venture outside.

Love, the second aspect of enlightenment — love of oneself first.  All too often, in every country, in every language, people seek the love they crave from the arms of another person.  But they refuse to vibrate that love for themselves.  This is a great tragedy, because happiness cannot exist without love.  Happiness is the fragrance, but love is the flower:  the flower must bloom, and then happiness is the result.

Pass it along — the third aspect of enlightenment.  It is the third aspect because it reminds all seekers of harmony that all things in this universe are interrelated, and that every individual piece of sentience contains a divine strand of the universe that resonates at the same frequency as the cosmic whole.  Just as a wave of the ocean is both separate as well as completely part of that same ocean, and resonates with that ocean, so too is every person distinct yet fully a part of the universe around him.  It is an acknowledgment of that all-too-forgotten idea that we march in solidarity with one another; that enlightenment is the birthright of all humans, and where it can be shared, and taught, without too much trouble to the teacher (see the second aspect on self-love), then it should be divulged as best as can be described.

What is enlightenment?  Enlightenment, at heart, is the recognition that the presence of the entire universe is both contained and controlled by the vibrations of any single person — the vibrations of their thoughts, their desires, and their hopes and fears.  Vibrate fear, and the universe will give you things to fear.  Vibrate greed, and the universe will give you things to be greedy about.  Vibrate hate, and the universe will give you things to hate.

But this is only half the story.  Vibrate love — the strength of self-love that comes from taming one’s fears, calming one’s anger, and relinquishing negative emotions — and the universe will be at your beck and call.  What the Buddha taught, what Mahavira taught, what Jesus taught, what every great Master has taught, is this simple truth:  love is the key to real happiness in this existence.  It is the universal vibration, the missing piece of Einstein’s field theory, and the unifying thread to every force of Nature.  Vibrate love, and the universe will give you things to love, and things to cherish, and opportunities for happiness, compassion, and peace of mind.

These teachings cannot be bought or sold, nor can they be programmed into a computer.  The sentience in our souls cannot be replicated:  peace of mind cannot be invented.  Enlightenment is the birthright of all humans — eventual and unstoppable.  But it cannot happen on its own.  All of us have much to learn while we live out the moments of our lives, but there is nothing more beautiful than the understanding that every trial, every tribulation, every challenge we have ever faced, every moment of suffering, every dark cloud that has ever blocked even one ray of sunshine — all of these things are nothing more than stepping stones to our deeper understanding of the universe, a greater capacity for love, and a widening of our conceptions of freedom:   the promise and preparation of enlightenment.

Not a physical evolution, but a spiritual evolution — a condition of perpetual learning and discovery of wisdom that comes through life experience.

What if the purpose of life was to celebrate this life experience so as to uncover deeper truths about human nature, its condition, and the universe which surrounds it?

Most people’s lives today are rudderless ships, sailing in circles without any destination and without any able crew to guide it towards any meaningful destination.  Today, there is a deep sense of aimlessness in people’s hearts, a sad recognition that this world provides little meaning other than the experiences provided by consumerism and technology.  Indeed, consumer society has provided a useful way by which some of the pressing issues that most people would grapple with in their lives — why am I here?  what is my purpose? — can be put aside in favor of temporary stimulation.

For many thousands of years, most people could not answer these questions because they were too concerned with basic survival.  Droughts, wars, sickness:  the major scourges of humankind have never been kind nor just in their tithes of human flesh.  In the 21st century, tremendous advances have been made in curing disease, ending hunger, attempting to ease the destructiveness of human conflict.  What a tremendous moment to capture something more meaningful about the human condition; yet it is precisely at this moment when such search for answers to life’s pressing questions go most unanswered.

The long historical arc of human progress is an impressive story.  For many thousands of years, people thought it was fine to own slaves, beat their wives, abuse their children, torture their enemies and conquer less powerful countries.  By and large, all of these ideas have been rejected in just the last 100 years.  This is an an amazing example of the evolution of human kind.

Tremendous progress, yes, but at the same time, evolution continues and demands further efforts.  From the perspective of a deeper wisdom, from the perspective that life is a long journey of discovery and education, it is clear that many people remain attached to social practices that are perplexing.  For example, why the need for jails?  If people have made mistakes, it seems terribly wasteful to have society build a concrete edifice, strip people off their basic needs for many years, confine them away from their loved ones, and then expect these people to either take responsibility or learn from that mistake.  The purpose of jails seems to only be to “punish,” but without an understanding of what that punishment will serve or how it will either aid the offender, the victim, or society at large.

Why the fixation on profit?  Material abundance is a wonderful thing, but as a society it seems clear we are taking the emphasis on profit to bad places.  Currently, scientists are concerned that run away economic growth is leading to global warming and the overuse of essential natural resources.  Would it not make more sense to transition to a model of sustainability in order to preserve the Earth for future generations?

Why the need for power?  In an era when people are educated on the benefits of equality and democracy, they seem surprisingly willing to accept differences in power and the breakdown of society between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.  Indeed, there remains a vast subset of the human community that subscribes to an “authoritarian mindset”:  too afraid to think for themselves, they insist on subscribing to the belief systems fed to them by the mainstream media, political leaders and even religious authorities.

The consciousness that resides in every person is energy; and energy, by its nature, is eternal as the universe.  So it is not hyperbole to simply note that within every person is an eternal spark of the universe, a spark that animates the mind, creates desires, feels emotion and learns from experience.  This energy is what is evolving.  It is consciousness itself that grows and creates ever more intricate designs, ever deeper conclusions about the nature of existence.

And when death comes, this consciousness does not simply evaporate — energy does not simply disappear.  It can only change form.  Evolution is permanent; it alters  consciousness, and because consciousness is part of this grand universe, the universe by definition must be altered as well.

Human beings are very adept at programming machines, but they oftentimes forget how much programming has been instilled in them at a young age — by parents, by elders, by society.  And, everyday, people unthinkingly execute these programs.  But instead of blindly executing, they ought to independently weigh these programs, keep the good ones, and discard the bad ones, or ones that were simply appropriate for another era.

Where does evolution take humanity?  It takes humanity to freedom.  The quest for political freedom and the quest for spiritual freedom are one and the same.  In the West, political philosophy related to freedom has been finely cultivated, while in the East one finds treatise after treatise on the pursuit of spiritual freedom.  But if a society is to be truly free, it must accept both the political and spiritual components of freedom.

Political freedom is the call of the revolutionary.  It is a spirit of energy, of action.  It is complemented by spiritual freedom, which is the call of the mystic, of the ascetic, the hermit.   This is an energy of contemplation, of meditation, and of prayer.  Action without contemplation leads to arrogance and zealotry; but contemplation without action leads to stagnation and indolence.

When humanity reaches that point where it sees life as an evolution, as an an opportunity to experience all aspects of life so as to obtain wisdom — at this moment, human behavior and attitudes will change.

At this moment, humanity will see the emergence of a respect for all things, for all forms of consciousness.  People will understand that because consciousness exists to learn, it is inappropriate to interfere with that development.  A rule of reciprocity will emerge:  in order to be allowed to learn, others must be left to follow their own path.  This requires respect for all things and the affirmation of dignity.

Because respect will be a guiding value, there will be fewer needs for laws, for government, for police.  Who needs such things when people can govern themselves?  So, spiritual evolution begets political evolution and the withering away of the state, as naturally as a snake sheds its skin, or as a flower blossoms from its root.  The law of self-reliance and self-regulation will be the governing principles of life.   This is what freedom means — the ability to live one’s live and accept the consequences of one’s own actions.

Take heart in one’s mistakes, because they are the battle scars of evolution and the only indication of spiritual growth.

According to the New York Times, corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending their money on federal campaigns since 1947, and corporate contributions have been barred since 1907.   States have barred corporate expenditures since the late 1800s.

These rules may be set to change, dramatically so.  While the Supreme Court has affirmed as late as 2003 that Congress may curb corporate political contributions, the Roberts Court appears eager and even impatient to strike down these rules and permit a flood of corporate money into state and federal elections.

It is all too easy to bemoan the sad state of corporate influence in American politics; yet the politics of the present may seem like child’s play in a future where corporations are permitted to spend as much as they want, on whoever they want.  Today, a corporation must engage in indirect donations by having its employees donate to “political action committees”; but we may not be too far from a world where a member of the board can simply write a check to the candidate of choice.

For more business-friendly members of the Supreme Court, the issue boils down to “corporate free speech.”  Since the late 1800s, corporations have been defined as “persons” under the law, which has entitled them to legal protections normally entitled only to flesh-and-blood individuals.  Thus, corporations can own property and are entitled to due process.

According to some legal minds, corporations should also be entitled to the full range of free speech protections given to breathing, thinking human beings.  For purposes of election laws, full free speech for corporations would mean the ability to spend money in elections just as a regular person.

Beyond the absurdity of this doctrine, which treats fictitious legal entities that exist only on paper as real life human beings, is also the dramatic and serious consequence of de facto corporate ownership of elections.  A world where corporations can spend freely on elections is a world where corporations purchase their policies in Congress.  It is a world where individual voices would simply be drowned out by the same corporate machinery that promotes the endless torrent of consumerist drivel that we are all exposed to every waking moment of life.

The real problem here is the fiction that a corporation is a “person” under the law.  Why the corporation — a legal entity that exists only on paper, can live forever, and is designed only for profit — is treated the same way as a normal, breathing individual is a rule that makes little common sense.  However, it is a doctrine that has certainly benefited the corporate model.  Even with current restrictions in place, corporations possess frightening levels of influence in government.  Is it really a good idea to give them even more power and control over Congress?

If corporations are “people” for purposes of the law, what we’re really talking about is a social order with two levels of citizenship:  first-class citizenship, given to corporations, and second-class citizenship, given to flesh-and-blood humans.   After all, a corporation can live forever (so long as it is making a profit) and can amass an obscene fortune that would be difficult if not impossible for any one individual to make on his or her own.  And since money talks, and money is equated with speech, this perpetually existing “person” would be able to spend hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars at every election, engaging in the same marketing and public relations brainwashing that we are all so accustomed to in the marketplace, only this time directed towards political policy.  In a world where corporations can “speak” as much as they want, it is clear that laws would be written for the corporations themselves.

This is a matter of constitutional law; if the Supreme Court overturns these rules, Congress could not overturn the Supreme Court.  Only an amendment to the Constitution would prohibit corporations from engaging in the wholesale buying and selling of political candidates, which is really what is at stake here.  This would be a frightening era of American politics:  Halliburton, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil and Citi Group engaging in non-stop political campaigning for their darling of the hour, purchasing laws at their leisure, and crushing alternative candidacies wherever they may sprout.

As in nature, our personal lives are in constant tension between a comfortable status quo and the challenging prospect of growth.  Growth requires tremendous energy.  It takes energy for the butterfly to emerge from the chrysalis, for the snake to shed its skin, and for the tree to plant its roots even deeper into fertile soil.   It is a comfortable thing to never have to grow; thus, for many people, the idea of growing beyond a certain framework, a certain daily routine, or a certain set of assumptions is almost unthinkable.  It is enough to have learned a single pattern and to repeat that pattern day-in and day-out for all of one’s life.

In a healthy, sane society, the greatest value is placed on education.  It is the greatest value because education challenges one’s mental boundaries and encourages growth.  Critical, open discussion in a respectful environment — such as that of a good school or university — is the best way, perhaps the only way, of exposing all sorts of people to challenging ideas about the nature of this universe in all its mysteries.

When we look with open eyes at our society, at Western educational development, we see an amazing amount of advancement in the areas of science and technology.  It is impossible to not stand in awe of the great scientific accomplishments that have been produced from ingenious minds over the last century.  Rocketry, genetics, computers — the innovation that has defined the 20th century has transformed life in almost every possible way.

But when we look at areas outside of science — areas such as ethics, politics, and mental health — we see only stunted development.  In these areas, we are no better educated than our caveman ancestors — the difference being that we are better armed.

Perhaps the most accurate measure of a society’s dedication to education is how it deals with its troublemakers.  A troublemaker is an individual who has broken a rule.  The rule could be universally condemned and serious, such as murder, or one that is more confined to a specific place and era, such as running a red stoplight or downloading a song from the Internet without paying for it.  It is an easy thing to compare contemporary societies and also societies over time to see if troublemakers are given a chance to educate themselves, or if they face some sort of brutal treatment on account of violating the rule.  Educated societies given troublemakers a chance to reform themselves and to move beyond their hurtful behaviors so as to better experience life.  In contrast, societies with no value for education favor strict punishments, where people must languish in prisons for decade, or even face torture and state murder.

In a truly educated society, rules would simply disappear.  A truly educated society would instill in its inhabitants the common sense and good behavior that we hear time and time again — using the Golden Rule and solving conflicts peacefully.  Rules would disappear because they would be seen as bulky and unwieldy to the spontaneous nature of life.  In place of rules, we would see the emergence of standards — maxims for joyful living bereft of penalties for mistakes.  Indeed, mistakes would be encouraged because they reflect new ways of thought, new approaches to old problems.  It is always ok to make a mistake; but never ok to make the same mistake twice.

In an age of consumption, people forget the purpose of life.  Instead, they cling to material possessions and tired old thinking as ways of passing the hours.  This is a deadened approach to existence that makes life a prison.  The purpose of life is to be joyful, and a way to joy is through personal growth.  Growth can be achieved through education — not only technical, but also personal, ethical, spiritual and philosophical.  Growth is achieved by looking at one’s fears and addressing them, point-by-point; by looking at areas of our lives that need improvement and taking concrete steps to improve them; by reflecting on our dreams and desires and then waking up every morning to achieve them; and by cultivating a deep well of patience, compassion, and understanding for ourselves so that we can forgive ourselves for past mistakes and regain the courage required to possibly make new ones.  With this attitude, life becomes a dream, a devoted song that reflects our creative powers and our ability to shape this existence in any way we choose.

And the most beautiful thing about life is that this growth never stops.  Our minds never stop growing, but keep insisting on deeper soils to latch onto, greater heights to emerge through.  The opposite of growth is not death, but sickness; if growth ends, our mental foliage withers and atrophies, the acuity that served us loses its edge, the spiritual force that comforted us loses its warmth and grows pale and sickly.  Growth must continue; the alternative is sickness, a withering away of health — health in its broadest sense — to a state of disease and infirmity.

A person with black skin is afforded the same rights as a person with white skin — both are entitled to all rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution, and all guaranteed equal protection of the law.

Indeed, the American Constitution provides a robust framework for destroying the fiction of race — and it is a fiction — once and for all, and creating a society where skin color is as important to daily life as eye color or hair color.

The idea that human beings belong to separate “races” is a social fantasy with little basis in science.  It is true that people from certain cultural groups have certain characteristics and may even have different genetic make-up.  But the idea that all people with black skin are a “black race” while all people with white skin are a “white race” is childishly simple.

Any person with even an inkling of education knows that “white people”, for example, are composed of a variety of cultures such as French, German, English, Polish, or Irish.  In fact, many of these cultural groups fought wars with each other just 60 or 70 years ago.  Yet it is only in America where people from these cultural groups are considered some monolithic block.

Similarly, “black people” are composed of a variety of cultural groups as well.  While most “African-Americans” are descended from individuals who came from West Africa, African people have greater genetic diversity than any where else on Earth, on account of the long history in which humans lived in Africa before spreading to other continents.  The notion that all “black people” are the same has absolutely no basis in science — in fact, science tells us that “black people” are more genetically diverse than “white people.”

Perhaps 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, it was socially acceptable to treat people differently based on skin color.  The idea of “race” was an outgrowth of power structures that permitted people with white skin to have more freedoms than people with black skin.

Thankfully, and because of decades of struggle, power is no longer correlated with skin color.  Yet America continues to cling too much to the fiction of race.

“Race,” in fact, has become an excuse for inaction, and an excuse for prejudice.  The idea of a “race” allows us to see a person’s skin color and attach a set of values and judgments associated with that skin color.  A person sees black skin and thinks one thing; or brown skin and thinks another; or white skin and still something else.  These prejudgments and prejudices are rarely accurate, but they are easy, and they allow us to go through our lives without having to do much thinking.  Sadly, many people like to go through life without thinking.

There is no dispute that because of history, people with certain skin colors are statistically likely to be worse off in American society than others.  The fact that poverty is proportionately a crisis for people with black skin is a telling reminder that the ghosts of slavery continue to haunt society.  But even here, “race”-based statistics become an excuse for inaction.  The existence of  a woman with black skin who is discriminated at work, who lives in poverty and lacks health care is a travesty to American conceptions of justice because she is entitled, as an American, to her opportunities in life — regardless of the color of her skin.  The deprivation of her rights should be a concern for all people of all skin color, but because she may be classified as a certain “race,” it becomes difficult for people in other “racial groups” to empathize with her.

There is some truth to arguments that it is time for the government to stop classifying people on account of “race.”  The continued use of “race” as a category merely prolongs its idea.  But throwing away race as a category must also be accompanied with serious action against its foundation:  prejudice based on skin color.  All Americans, regardless of skin color, must be challenged to lay down their stereotypes and treat individual Americans as individual Americans, and not as members of some fictional “race” that only exists in a fantasy land, and not reality.

People of any skin color are capable of succeeding in life.  There is great work to be done in ending prejudice and also the lingering effects of slavery and xenophobia which continue to have a disparate impact on some skin colors.  This is the challenge that confronts America.  But the legal framework is already there; the values which Americans cherish need no real alteration — only their application requires a bit more evolution.

America will have conquered its racial demons when the following things are true:

• When the halls of government — legislative, executive and judicial — reflect the demographic make-up of the country
• When people form relationships and get married with as much concern for skin color as eye color or hair color
• When statistics related to skin color have as much relevance as statistics related to eye color or hair color

The heady days of the early 2000s — an economy powered by an unsustainable housing boom — are over, never to return.

With unemployment at record levels, and after trillions of dollars in stimulus and funding to bloated financial institutions, there are growing doubts as to whether the American economy will be able to fully recover.

What will recovery look like?  We’re probably looking at it — a slow, slogging process muddled down by lack of direction and the failure to create lasting economic growth based on investment instead of speculation.

For the last decade, the American economy was running on lies.   The late housing boom was created and nurtured by financial institutions — including the Federal Reserve — as a means of continuing the momentum of the dot-com bubble, which had popped in late 2000.  By keeping interest rates at record lows, and by abdicating responsibility to monitor and audit mortgage and securities markets and institutions, the government looked the other way while banks and securities dealers sold and packaged bad loans in every global market.

Trillions of dollars were created on paper — but nowhere else.  The wealth was a myth.  Home prices rose, but only because of artificially created demand.

Now that everything has popped, people appear to be clamoring for the good old days.  But those days are gone.  As the bankruptcy of General Motors symbolized, America’s manufacturing base has disappeared, and there is nowhere else for money to go.

To date, government efforts have focused on banks, and not citizens.  And those efforts have certainly paid off:  Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase recently announced record profits from the last quarter.  Meanwhile, average people are struggling to make ends meet.

This is perhaps the most sinister outcome of the current recession:  the growing power of banks and financial institutions in directing government action.

100 years ago, financiers and industrialists such as J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie largely controlled American economic and financial policy.  We appear to be returning to an era when large financial conglomerates have their hands at the levers of power.

Ironically, the existence of these mega-financial institutions — “too big to fail” — is the greatest obstacle to genuine recovery.   The growing division of wealth between rich and poor and the concentration of resources into a handful of financial institutions is the root of the problem with the modern American economy.  To date, government has only strengthened this concentration.  A vibrant American economy requires the opposite.  Only time will tell if anyone in Washington D.C. — or anyone at all — will have the gumption and ability to address this fundamental issue.