Gagablog 45: Pope Gaga, "I don't need these 14k guns", No Nukes of Any Nationality

Some major worldwide news events happened last week and as usual I am writing the gagablog to show how they reveal magic and deepen our understanding of it and how looking to Lady Gaga as our Greatest Magician can show us the Escape Trick that gets us all out of these troubled times.
There are some interesting connections between the events in the news that occurred in the Valentine's week of 2013 but we might not see the connections if we don't look. It might take a little tying things together to actually make the connections but we have an endless supply of hair and wigs to tie with so let's give it a whirl.

The Pope quit last week and scientists discovered a snail that can detach its penis and grow another one. Snails are slow-moving, spineless, so slimy they leave trails, and they both are their own house and carry themselves/their house wherever they go so they can hide from the outside world. And in the same week, maybe the same day, that the first pope resigns in centuries scientists discover that snails can lose one dick and just grow another dick, a new dick, fully functioning but different from the last one. I have nothing against snails, really, I think they are a little gross personally but I love them as part of nature. I'm not trying to diss snails by comparing them to the Catholic Church but to show why it is bad that an organization of people shares these traits that we think of negatively. They aren't negative traits in a snail - it is good for snails to be slimy and slow and hide in their shells, and for some it comes in handy to re-grow a penis. Who knows why they misplace them or give them out in the first place but it's a snail thing. These are negative traits for an institution and it is obvious how this connection provides useful criticism. I made the connection because both events were reported in the same "main news" minutes of a BBC radio broadcast. The Church is too slow-moving, too tied to the past and conservatism (you can see how much of this is true for the conservative wings of all religions, so it is not just criticism of Catholics). When the world's attention and resources have been focused on ending the AIDS epidemic in Africa one man, the Pope, could have made a decision to "allow" condoms that would save millions of lives but he did not and his position on this issue ended up preventing others from providing condoms, including the American government under Bush who provided a lot of money to Africa to fight AIDS but did not provide condoms so that the policy would please conservatives and get their support, including the Pope. I suspect that ancient and false ideas about women and sex are the reason the Church is rotted with pedophilia, they are denying basic natural laws and taking unnatural and sick twists as a result. And the Church has long held vast stores of knowledge they keep secret but if they were shared they would probably force the Church itself to learn and grow or admit they already new better and live up to higher ideals and stop oppressing people based on gender and sexuality. And other people will grow and become their better selves when we have access to the secrets the Church has been holding. Jesus told them not to do this when he warned against the Pharisees who stood in the doorway and would not let anyone enter but also did not go in themselves to the storehouse of mysteries. This is the "slowness" of the Church and how it causes great wrong in our world. The corruption of a culture of pedophilia, and apparently financial indiscretions as well, have left a slimy trail of evil that the Church will not be able to avoid responsibility for even if it grows a new dick. The fact that they have avoided taking responsibility for so long, and ending the evils of pedophilia, even under the last Pope, shows how spineless they have become - again, good for a snail, but not for an institution. The Church has always been a House of People, like a house made out of people and of course Catholics have built some of the most beautiful houses of god in their magnificent cathedrals. But they have kept this all too insulated, too much to themselves and those who agree to do things their way, and the kind of House of God that the Church (and many churches) has become is not an Open House that grows to shelter the world as Jesus intended but has become more like living out of a suitcase or living in your car, where all around you is yours and has to be guarded from other people because it is all you have. This is snail living, again fine for snails but not for people, and most of us are guilty of it in some way, trying to protect what is ours. This is always ultimately a bad principle because we aren't snails we are people who always grow and build and make more, but it is especially a bad principle when it is on a bigger scale. We have countless examples, in every human field of endeavor, that show how people in power who ignore the needs of others and always protect "their own" will fail due to isolation and corruption. A snail goes slow and carries it's house so it can always retreat and escape the outside world. But that is not the intention of religion, to grow it's own way and remake the world to fit into it. Religion should meet people on their own terms and be open to adapting itself to meet their needs and circumstances. In order to keep things their way, to stay slow and show no backbone for change, the Church has jealously guarded it's House from the outside world's criticism and needs. This is why the best joke about the Pope resigning came from Dave Letterman. He said the Pope cited health problems in his resignation, specifically his neck was hurt from looking the other way so much. While the world is changing fast the Church's slowness is holding us all back.

 I guess I was glad to hear this Pope was leaving because I was disappointed that a conservative Pope was chosen in the first place, hoping the Church would go liberal instead because I thought that was what made Pope John Paul more popular, loosening up on some things - just an impression I had. But I was always scared of Pope Benedict so I was glad to see him going. For one, he looks like Emperor Palpatine. That can't be a good sign. But mainly it is for things that I heard on the radio when BBC interviewed people responding to the Pope's resignation. One man with an African said he was upset because the outgoing Pope had been so strong on issues important to them, especially abortion and homosexuality. I know that people in many different cultures and parts of the world are ignorant about the importance of equal rights for gay people and access to safe and legal abortions and I understand how cultural influences like the Church and other conservative religions keep people ignorant, but here in America where it has been such a debated issue it has become increasingly clear that the people opposed to these rights are the stupidest people we have. If we have any faith in humanity we should know that their influence is waning and that the future belongs to the mentality of the most rights for the most people possible instead of the mentality of restrictions. I was worried that the Pope was quitting just so he could influence the selection of his successor in order to pick another conservative Pope. In America electing a President for four years can also result in appointing Supreme Court justices for life so I was afraid resigning might play into Benedict's ploy to retain influence even longer with some sort of Darth. But he said he will not seek to influence the selection of the next Pope, and I appreciate this. I think that the scandal had caught up to the Church, and Benedict, and he recognized his role as a transitional Pope to kind of take the fall as all of this scandal came out. Hopefully the Church is looking to put those ways behind them, including the principles that led to those ways, and transform itself. Not to just say "it's over now that these guys are gone" because they were so associated with it, but to take a whole new direction and make sure that no sliminess remains is the reason they don't leave slimy trails, not because they got good at sweeping them away.

Some have speculated that the Church could elect a non-European Pope and thereby signify a new direction. A Pope from Africa might be the first black Pope in 1500 years but I know a lot of African cultures are conservative and have prejudice against gays and women. I feel like Latin American cultures may have less of that, or may be more open to the liberating messages of Christianity that ultimately overcome those prejudices since they have liberation theology in South America and widespread reverence for female deity in the Virgin Mary, even petitioning the Vatican to expand the Trinity to include Her in some parts of Latin America. I know similar beliefs can be found all over the world and they are the grains of truth hidden by a lot of patriarchal bullshit in many forms of Christianity and other religions, too, I surmise. There is an American Bishop from Boston who I have heard people say is considered for the next Pope, and I have no idea who he is or what his politics are but I hope that being from America would make him more liberal than other candidates or at least more open to changing his mind and accepting more liberal views while having the American influence to encourage that, as we are finally getting more things right in more places in this country. Whoever the next Pope is will be an improvement - not because Benedict was the worst ever but because some of these evils have been in the Church all along: repression of women, demonizing sex or saying it can't be just for fun. As someone who held strong to all these old ideas Benedict was slowing human progress. How much of a jump can we expect to make with a new Pope? I guess it depends on what "they" think we are ready for, so let me lay out some markers for them to consider  - please share this blog and your ideas about it.

The Pope got on Twitter, tweeting in Latin at first, which made the news and got some attention. But he quit a few weeks later, so while all progress is good if it is too slow, too little, it will look pathetic. If the Pope had stayed in office, maybe he could have "changed his mind" about some things, really had a turnaround, and made some drastic changes himself. Unfortunately, other conservative forces in power could have said he was getting too old and questioned his mind - since he is so old - if he started making really radical changes. On the other hand, had he not been selected, had they chosen a liberal Pope who then got the blame for the scandals, whether because he finally addressed them himself or it all just came out, his influence would be tainted by the scandal. It is more fitting that Benedict, who was involved in some of the pedophilia scandal, should be the one associated with it. I think of how I have longed for humanity to outgrow war and how I wished America would lead by example and dismantle the largest military on Earth. War seemed less and less "necessary" or even possible after the collapse of the Soviet Union but the Bushes made up reasons for it. While it is terrible that we did many of the things we did in the Bushes wars it is fitting, if we do finally transcend wars and these are the last ones, that they are associated with Republican, in other words warmongering, Presidents. It is a sharp lesson about what is wrong with that whole mentality. And it is terrible that so many people died to make such a hard lesson, and worse that we still haven't gotten it, but it is the same way with Pope Benedict condom-blocking Africa, it killed many people to show the world how bad it can be when we put the wrong people in power. If Benedict had changed his mind drastically it might have freaked people out. A new Pope will be best able to introduce new ideas and a new direction. I can't help but respect the Pope for recognizing this and knowing that it would be best to get out of the way and let a new Pope take over, maybe he even know how much change is needed and that he could not do it, and that the sooner and faster the changes can take place the better.

My suggestion is to make all the changes at once, do a complete 180, and get this thing on the right track with as many people working together for the common goal as possible, and of course I think this would best be possible by selecting Pope Gaga. Girl can tweet, if that is something they want the Pope to do. We know she can handle the hats. I know what the little monsters are saying "why would she step down to take that position? Why would a Goddess lower herself to be a Pope? And are you saying that she should stop being Lady Gaga???" My answer is that she would do it because we need help. Because meeting people halfway can be the best way to lift everybody up. And that it is not about Ego with Gaga, but about Love and helping people. And of course she would not stop being Lady Gaga, writing songs and performing as much as she wants to - she would just have to do the Pope thing on the side. And in order to get her they would probably have to change many of the Pope duties and expectations to accommodate her schedule, But it would all be worth it. There has not been a woman Pope in 200 years, and Pope Joan had to disguise herself as a man and they killed her when they found out. Selecting a girl Pope, by choice, could do a lot to make up for this evil act of the Church and also would start to turn around all the misogyny and repression of women throughout the Church's history. With Gaga in particular you could also go from demonizing sex to glorifying it, and glorifying femininity, masculinity, and our bodies and sexuality for their beauty in all their variety all at the same time. Gaga has not shown any desire to hoard money, so she could take what has apparently become a financial problem as the Church hoards vast wealth and turn it into a great asset, increasing charity to the whole world. She has done this already by using her celebrity to raise money for disaster victims all over the world. In the same way that she puts her own money into her tour she could use the Church's money to do its real work better, not to ensure that the Church stayed rich in gold but use it to better do the true work of the Church, not to serve itself but to serve other people. Gaga could pay restitution to help people whom priests have abused instead of paying for lawyers to fight this and most importantly could put an end to the culture that leads to sexually preying on children. Gaga would do this just because of her love for children. She expresses love and protection for children more than anyone I can think of since Jesus himself with her messages of love, hope, and empowerment to the youth of the world and even more specifically in her anti-bullying work and Born This Way Foundation. While Pope Gaga would do everything to help children worldwide for their own sake, to help protect them from war and disease and violence and poverty as well as from predators, the changes would take place throughout the whole system of the Church and we can see how it all went wrong in the first place. By allowing women to be priests, and allowing all priests to marry or be appropriately sexually active, you avoid that sick culture of pedophilia. By being open and honest and owning up to mistakes you can seek forgiveness and reach a new relationship with people you have hurt within the Church and also with people outside of it.  By looking towards the future instead of holding on to the past you seek to be the change that others need instead of trying to change others to suit your needs. I know it is "not possible" to elect Lady Gaga as the next Pope (I don't actually believe that I'm just saying it so you will keep reading) but whoever they elect will be more like Lady Gaga than Pope Benedict was so that is a step in the right direction. And I do think suggesting and holding her up as the best possible example sets the bar and shows what we should be going for and increases the chances of getting more of it in the next selection! Good luck to the cardinals who select the next Pope, may they be blessed with wisdom to help liberate the world from suffering, and if, as  late night comedians Craig Ferguson and Stephen Colbert suggest, they send up green smoke or it comes out of bongs in the top of the building, signifying that they have selected Pope Willie Nelson or Pope Snoop Doggy Lion (?), I would be happy about that, too.

But there is something ultimately important about getting the influence of real women in power. Gaga assures us she can be the queen, and I want to assure her that I will indeed love her when she rules the world and that even will make my infinite love for her increase somehow. Being Pope is not necessarily a step on her path to changing the whole world, she is doing a good job of that regardless, but it would be a sweet gesture and could help immensely and might be nice for her as well, a flowering of her Catholic roots. But mostly it would be good for the church to get over their fear of girls, gays, and sex in general, however they do this.

At the risk of writing the longest gagablog in a long line of long gagablogs, I have include some topics from last week in this edition because they all happened in the same week and because of the power in making the subtle connections between them. The analogy of the Pope resigning and the snail with a renewable penis is easy to see but if we can see the connections between a few other events of last week I truly believe we can use that insight and perspective to solve the most dire and dangerous problems in the world. These connections shed light on the most basic principles of happiness: love, respect, safety, making good decisions together and freedom from harsh judgement.

The event of last week that had a huge emotional impact on me, and I'm sure many Americans and some people around the world, was President Obama's State Of the Union Address. This was an amazing speech and I urge you to watch the video of it if you missed it. Most of the speech Obama is making very logical, decisive and forceful points about very important issues. I have to give him major props for saying we have to do something about climate change and really putting it in perspective and addressing this first after the "budget crisis" which everyone has decided must be issue # 1. Finally addressing climate change, the more and the sooner the better, can have profound effects on the entire future of human life on the planet, and Obama gave the issue more of the focus it deserves. Other issues as well were mentioned, but you can watch the speech and should to get the full scope of it, and at the end he takes an emotional turn to address the issue of gun control. In his impassioned refrain "they deserve a vote" he is driving home one of the most important principles of democracy. He had already made a point to end voter suppression with the example of the 102-year old lady who waited for hours to vote in Florida because of the voter suppression efforts of that state's Republican officials. But the principle behind "they deserve a vote" goes even deeper than the right to vote, which is supposed to be the bedrock of democracy. It is the very principle of conversation over conflict. The whole reason we want democracy is so we can all choose and decide instead of being forced by the powerful, that we can use our numbers to keep the more powerful people and institutions responsible to help everyone else. But in every situation, between individuals or groups or nations, even within oneself, there is the potential to move towards conflict or communication, they are opposite ends of the spectrum. We can learn more about each other or keep fearing and defending against each other. The more we learn about each other the more we realize we don't have to fear, so it is merely a tragedy and mistake, and the influence of some bad forces and power structures, that we have not already moved past violence entirely, as countries and as individuals. My friend made this comment: "That is what is wrong with America, even if we had self-driving cars there would still be people who just wanted to drive themselves, would insist on that 'right', even though they would be the only ones still causing accidents." I replied that that might be true but that in that situation those people would increasingly look like idiots and no one would want to be one of them, eventually, and driving your own car would not be a source of pride or masculinity substitute or whatever it is if there was just a safe, easier, universally accepted way. I think the debate about guns should turn out the same way. We should make laws and change our attitudes to end gun violence, but the social conscience needs to be engaged by public debate so we can really get ahead of the changes since the gun lobby will always be trying to hold us back. The difficulty of passing legislation can lay bear the evils and extent of big money lobbying in our political process, but we can also use Internet connectivity and social media to find ways to oppose pro-gun lobbying with lobbying of our own. The organization that we will need to defeat the gun lobby will pay off for other causes after the gun lobby is gone, too. But besides the issues around actually changing policy regarding guns, even if we could somehow never change a single law about guns, we can still end gun violence by changing people's attitudes.

People's attitudes can best be changed by communication. Conflict only makes people defensive and more entrenched in their attitude, but communication helps people see each other's perspectives and gives the chance to learn a better way than the one that has led them to conflict. People who are crazy about guns and refuse to consider any restrictions on them try to deflect the conversation by saying we should focus on the "mentally ill", though there are a couple of flaws with that. One is that while the gun lobby collects and spends a lot of money, I don't think they spend any of it to help mental illness and only talk about how important that is in order to try to not talk about gun control. The other flaw is even worse, that in my opinion even wanting a gun is often the sign of mental illness so we are right back to talking about gun ownership and not only the need for more laws restricting guns but also more scrutiny of the mentality that leads to wanting to own a gun, whether it be the desire to kill animals or to protect oneself or property with lethal force. I'm here to say that both of these things are insane, when we have grocery stores; skeet, cans, and video games to shoot; and other non-lethal options for protection. Its a definition of insanity to want to kill something when there is an option, so if that is a component of one's desire for a gun then their mental health is in question and they probably should not have one. The other reason many of these people claim to want gun rights is to protect themselves from an oppressive (elected) government. There are a couple of problems with this that makes it pretty insane in its own right. The first is that the government has such superior military prowess that the firepower these people are so fierce to protect is no defense against the military anyway - these people act like they are the Taliban but don't even have the same religious craziness, though they do seem just as religious about their own craziness. We call them "gun-nuts" for a reason. Some people complain that the media finds the craziest gun-nuts to make the whole movement look bad but the truth is they have to be a little crazy to want to have anything in common with those people and those people are themselves obviously crazy in a way that having guns has made even worse, maybe far worse. Indeed, like meth or crack can do, with as much certainty, guns make people crazy. Its just not really okay to have that personal power to kill. Oscar Pistorius was a hero to the world and is now a villain for killing his girlfriend and his best defense is that he thought he was shooting an intruder four times to kill him or her, with no warning through a door. Like that should be okay? I understand it might be legal in South Africa as it is in some states in America, but that is crazy, too, because no one's property is worth someone else's life. Pistorius does not have lower legs but he put on his prosthetic legs to shoot someone when, as an Olympic runner, he could have surely gotten away from the "intruder" by fleeing, instead. This is how gun ownership and permissive gun laws lead to craziness, that he thought he should kill someone for invading his house or that he thought his "right" to do that made it okay for him to kill his girlfriend and use that as an excuse, one that would "allow" him to do it because it would therefore be legal - but not right.

It just is not right to kill people. The reason gun-nuts don't want to have any real debate or vote on gun control is this principle, that is is wrong to kill, will eventually come out. You can only dance around it for so long. I agree that we need to talk about other issues as well that contribute to gun violence. If most people own guns for protection we need to look at two things. One is domestic violence and alcoholism, probably the greatest factors in gun murders amongst people who know each other, and addressing these includes addressing all sorts of issues about equality and better conditions and access for women as well as legalizing weed to replace alcohol as the most mainstream recreational drug. Another set of issues is poverty and police enforcement, since the main reason people feel they need to protect themselves from others is from robbery. When we have less poverty we will have less crime and when we have more responsible and effective policing we will have more cooperation and trust in the community and better response. But mostly we will have less crime to respond to when these social injustice issues are addressed. There are ways we need to rethink our whole image and attitudes about gender, masculinity and sexuality to remove the causes of rape and abuse before people have to use violence to protect themselves but we also need to reduce other crimes and improve relations with and quality of law enforcement so that when attacks and invasions do occur we can trust that good, trained people will quickly be there to deal with it. We can reach all of these goals, in addition to creating a new approach to mental health that is less stigmatizing and more helpful and actually helps the whole population not just the severely mentally ill.

There are all sorts of ways we can do things to reduce gun violence but we don't have to do every other one before we do anything about guns themselves. The gun-nuts will turn to anything to avoid discussing the actual principles behind gun ownership and Lady Gaga led them into a trap that could have completely defeated them but at least succeeded in revealing their tactics. A week or so after the mass killing of kids at the Sandy Hook elementary school Gaga wore her assault rifle bra at a performance in Canada. There were news stories the next day asking if it was poor taste or too soon for her to do this and many monsters responded that it was part of her art and a statement she had been making for years. I thought it was particularly meaningful at that time and I knew that Gaga was not using this image and creating this story unintentionally. I thought the conservative media and mindset especially fell for the trap when they expressed outrage and disgust for Gaga wearing this bra but they have not expressed the same outrage and disgust against actual guns, as if she was the Bad Guy, not themselves for protecting reckless gun craziness. They always say it is "too soon" to talk about gun control after every tragedy while they have increased to such regularity that there is never any "grace period" or recovery period from the trauma of these crimes anyway. They say it is "too soon" as if they are showing compassion for the victims but they are really only thinking of themselves because the victims and their families overwhelmingly want more protection from guns and gun-nut policies. The fact that they bother to complain about Gaga's assault rifle bra being "too soon" as well really reveals that they have no concern for victims or the community in general or actual issues but only are about their own feelings about stuff. They rightly don't want to have to address their feelings about gun control because if they did they would have to face the fact that they bear some of the blame for the tragedies that have been committed with guns for being so staunchly opposed to gun control all along. It makes them feel guilty and they don't want to talk about it, even when it is symbolized on Gaga's glorious body they want to say that she is wrong, but guns aren't wrong, which just shows how wrong they are. Her artistic message would have defeated them further had the conservative media fully taken the bait, though. If they had continued to make a story and issue out of Gaga's gun bra, as there is every reason to assume they would with their penchant for misogyny and distraction from real issues, then more and more people would eventually be exposed to Gaga's actual views on gun control and since she is so avidly against violence and guns she would have an even broader impact with her message. Most importantly the real agendas and attempts to avoid guilt of the conservatives and gun-nuts would come out even more in such a debate over Gaga's bra.

Gaga gets people to talk about all sorts of things, she has the artistic magical power to steer the world's imagination. She almost trapped the NRA into a direct confrontation in which she would have utterly defeated them and I think they backed down to wait for a fight they could win. But they are on the way out as people organize and express their views and also as we work to solve issues that make gun ownership feel less necessary to anyone until it becomes as archaic as it has always seemed to me and other non-violent, future-thinking people. Love overcomes all and the reason we ever think we need or resort to violence is because we are afraid to understand someone else. Gaga expresses love for everyone and acceptance of the hurt child within everyone so we can cast off the gross forms of adults we have become that grew out of fear of lost love and for too many into fear of other people. I loved Obama's refrain that "they deserve a vote" because it affirmed the decency of people and of democracy, that if we come together with respect we can surely find ways to live with less violence and ultimately in peace with no violence at all. This calls up the very question of why we feel like we need any weapons. The answer is to defend ourselves against an "other" but when we think about why that is better than trying to understand the "other" or change the conditions that have led to conflict there really is no excuse. We are in a terrible state when we would rather kill people than hear their point of view and try to meet their needs but this is an attitude that pervades all levels of society. I was so proud of Obama for all of the points he made about equal rights for women and gay people, for voter rights and to protect the planet, it all had the strong message that we will do the best when we respect each other the most and work with the most respect for the environment, too. Obama's foreign policy has always seemed to seek making friends instead of enemies, even making friends with former enemies, around the world and working towards mutual peace and security. The "hot spots" of concern have been the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. I appreciate Obama's wisdom to not rush into war with either of the countries and we should be proud for re-electing him just for avoiding immediate war if we had chosen otherwise. Personally I think the best approach to avoid the threat of nuclear attack and avoid all such threats in the future is a little more radically different, though. I think Obama knows on principle that if we talk more about guns we will get a better society with less killings, he knows we will do the right thing. He knows if we talk about violence in general we will have less violence, he trusts that we will come up with solutions that don't require violence. I think that is the basis for the wisdom to never rush to war, but as good as that is in comparison to warmongering I think we need to go further and enthusiastically seek peace.

I have said in previous gagablogs that the best way to disarm someone is not to yell "drop your gun!"at him forcefully and hope he accepts that you are the better shot. A better way would be to lay down your own gun and say "you don't need a gun, I'm not a threat to you." I know this would not be strictly the case in our society where many people are somewhat or a lot maddened by gun craziness but the principle is sound and if we could work toward that principle I think we would see the truth of this more often. The best way to say "you don't need a gun" is to say "I don't need a gun"  - I'm assuming we can work this out without violence. Dr. Who said he never carries a weapon because that implies he expects to need to use one. More than just manifesting bad things in a magical sense, being armed or aggressive changes the way people respond to you and can create a bad situation from nothing. In the case of not needing a gun to protect oneself from a threat, we would like to feel secure that we don't need our own guns because the police are fast enough and well-trained enough to deal with any potential threat better and there are ways we can realize that. If police were the ones expected to use guns to protect others and no one else felt they had to take on this burden that would be an improvement but an even further improvement would be if our law enforcement was done with purely non-lethal force and the same training was used to make that the best response possible to criminals and crazy people alike. We surely have the technology to make new non-lethal methods to detain people if we got off the gun-craziness and focused some resources on developing them. I'll never forget the cop who pulled up when I was stuck with other drivers as a small tree had fallen across the on-ramp. He got out, looked at it, and his first idea was "I might be able to shoot through it." We all tried to push it aside and could not but a minute later a pick-up truck with construction workers in the back pulled up and they all pushed it out of the way. We don't really need guns for anything anymore and the only reason we still have them is a bad habit and being stuck in that mentality. The same is true for nuclear weapons  - they aren't good for anything, and the principle that they are good for threatening other countries to not have them is not sound, as more countries get nuclear weapons and for the most part seem to gain more respect and power when they do. But this is a false power and the stronger principle, that is true and will ultimately win, is that the best way to tell someone they don't need nuclear weapons is to show them "look, we don't need nuclear weapons."

This is based on the very fundamental principle of communication versus conflict and communication triumphing over conflict. All we are saying when we are saying give peace a chance, all we want when we advocate disarmament, is less weapons, less violence. It is not the right approach to pressure North Korea or Iran to not seek a nuclear weapon. Sanctions will only make their people feel more dependence on their governments and threats, rhetorical or military, will only lead them to feel persecuted and justified to respond with violent means or capabilities. We need to coax them to not seek nuclear weapons. We need to coax other countries into giving them up, including ourselves. As the country with by far the most nuclear weapons, as the only country to ever use them, we should lead by example and say "look, we made a mistake, a lot of mistakes, and we don't really need nuclear weapons. No one does." And we could lead by example by disarming, enthusiastically. I was at a training for work recently where the trainer presented ideas from the Love and Logic Institute that I thought were really good. He asked at one point if it was possible to be loving and strong at the same time and I thought that the strongest thing is love so it is not possible to be ultimately one without also being ultimately the other. While bombs and weapons might be the strongest things in one sense they are not loving and the stronger thing than having weapons is finding a way to get rid of them, to get rid of the weapons and the conditions that lead to any feeling that we need weapons.

We basically just need to get over our fears of one another and one reason I love Gaga so much is because she encourages us to really be ourselves, our best selves and our dream selves and to transform ourselves to become better all the time. We don't need to hold on to rigid ideas, about ourselves or about other people. We can find that there is nothing to be afraid about "other" people, that all of our fears have really only been kept in place so that we don't have to learn about each other but once we do we are of course much happier. We have demonized other people, and religions and politics have done some of the worst of this, but once we see beyond labels and prejudices we feel our commonality with our fellow humans. The world is becoming so interconnected that this is bound to improve things with the only thing holding us back being the old mentality of feeling like there is a need for war or defense against others instead of just realizing that if other people have problems we should do what we can to help them. We have to overcome old ideas of ourselves and find new identities that share the concerns of the people we are just becoming more familiar with. I think of how much the American media and politics demonized the Russian people throughout the Cold War but how now we have increasingly better understanding and relations between our citizenry, and how foolish and typical it was for conservative Mitt Romney to try to revive anti-Russian sentiment or ratchet up angst against China. We don't need some "1984" reality where we move from one perceived enemy to another. We can remember how these prejudices are manufactured and learn from that to dismantle the rest of them and prevent more from being made. Conversation instead of conflict is the key. Conversation is based on the idea of respect for the other person - I might not understand you but I am trying to. The reason it is best to be as Loving and as Strong as possible is that it takes that focus to overcome our concern for ourselves in order to understand someone else. We need to get over our posturing to defend our own interests most and really see the other point of view. My training regarded dealing with traumatized children but the same approaches would be best to deal with the negative actions of countries. "Acting out", seeking nuclear weapons, is essentially either a play for control through negative power or a reaction to a feeling of being threatened by the negative power of another. By exerting negative power ourselves, having a nuclear weapons ourselves or imposing of sanctions to punish a country seeking nuclear weapons, we only make the situation worse, making them even more isolated and desperate, further traumatizing them. We say we want to do anything to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but we consider the drastic, strong action to be a military strike while the actual strongest response, and most effective, is setting the example of disarmament and unconditional love and humanitarian support for all suffering people so citizens of oppressive regimes that want to make them more militaristic will realize that is not their best interest. I heard rumors in the 1990's that we had given Israel 75 nuclear weapons and we have probably given them more since then, but we are outraged that Iran would have one, recognizing Israel and Iran as the major opposing powers in the region. Of course one nuclear weapon is too much, but why is 75 or more, or the thousands America still has, okay? The implication is that some people can be trusted with nuclear weapons and that others cannot, that there is some fundamental difference between people in this way and this attitude does not lead to conversation. It is just conflict until we can truly put aside preference for our own self-interest and seek common good. Maybe no one can really be trusted with nuclear weapons, or guns, maybe almost everyone could be, but if all weapons are actually unnecessary then it does not really matter. Since threats are not the way to get compliance, but leading by example and enticing with better ideas is, we should disarm and work to reduce the military as soon as possible, putting that focus and resources towards building cooperation around the world. Our new Secretary of State John Kerry recently said that our most pressing foreign policy concern is actually our own internal budget debate gridlock because we need to set a good example to other countries of being fiscally responsible. The same principle is true for nuclear weapons, as it is true for personal gun ownership. We need to reduce people feelings of fear and threats, we need to get people out of the idea that they need weapons, at every level and all over the world.

We need to take Gaga's advice and transform ourselves and our ideas of each other so we can live without fear, and we need to live up to her example that "I don't need these 14 karat guns to win I'm a woman I insist it's my life". This is a message to the greedy and gun-nuts alike - you don't need money to be happy, money is best used to increase love - not to hold one's treasure for "your own kind" but to share it to help everyone, and you don't need weapons to ensure survival or success, because it is a basic right of existence. She is insisting on being treated with respect, as a woman, and therefore calls into question the many systems that deny equal respect to women but also calls on the principle that she has the right to determine her own life as an individual woman and she expects that right to be honored for her in the same way that she will respect that for others, men and women. This is the most basic principle at work, because it might not be like this yet - which is the reason she has to insist upon it and make this come true  - but it is the way it should be and it is the way it will be. The whole principle of expecting others to respect our life and liberty is to respect theirs as well, it is an agreement between people. But we short-circuit this agreement when we demonize others, when we say that they are not as valid, that their interests are not as important and force a conflict between us instead of seeking to communicate and work together. If we can recreate ourselves and look beyond fear to see each other equally, as Gaga recommends, we can move past all of these conceptions between people that can allow conflict or people to kill each other, whether it is Americans and other countries nuking each other or people arming themselves against criminals or insane people - we still need to find ways to help, not kill, each other. People think they need the "strength" of weapons to "win" a potential conflict but the real strength, and the real victory, is in avoiding conflict and the greatest strength is in changing the conditions that could lead to conflict, to stop it all before it happens. And the best way to do this is remember that it is not about "us", to get over ourselves, to move beyond our ideas of who we are and who we "can't" relate to, and to see everyone as "us" and even to see other's concerns before our own, or strive to since the ego demands that we think first of ourselves. This is what we need to have the greatest strength for, to overcome the force of our own wills, and work for common good, to put aside our egos which are the greatest threats to peace and security, not some outside threats. Because solving problem by working beyond our egos, seeking to help others first, is what will ultimately remove all causes for conflict and violence in the first place.

Gaga reminds us that the real way to win is assertion of equal rights, not the use of force. This fosters communication, not conflict. And we need to be able to move beyond the wrongs we have done to each other and ourselves, or imagine we will do, in order to reach forgiveness and move forward. I've been reading a book on Advaita philosophy by Dennis Waite called "The Book of One" and in order to illustrate a point about different qualities, gunas, that affect all actions and all existence he retells a story told by Ramakrishna (p. 81) about a man attacked by 3 thieves in a forest. The first thief says they should kill them after they rob him and the second convinces them to just tie him up. The third thief returns and unties the man and helps him on his way back to his village. At the edge of the forest the man invited the thief to return with him to his home but the thief is embarrassed for being a thief and goes back to his life in the forest. The story was used to tell how we are all limited or conditioned by our own measure of these different qualities in our lives but to me it also has a message about getting over our ideas of ourselves and seeking and accepting forgiveness. The thief could have changed his ways if he had shed his image of himself and ceased identifying as a thief, and the forgiveness of the robbed man makes this possible. That is what we need in our attitude towards dealing with "dangerous" people: we should not seek to kill them first but should seek to help them. We can do this by relieving the wrong we have endured by forgiving the offender and accepting that there is a deeper connection between us as equals, that even if someone has threatened us by breaking into our house or making a tiny percentage of the weapons we have we should try to help them see that this is not the right way and we can do this by setting a more positive example, showing that we truly want to respect everyone equally. The ego's insistence on preference for ourselves can be overcome with the greatest strength, Love, and once we start acting more out of love for each other it will keep getting easier, we will understand each other and meet each other's needs and concerns better, and there will be less threats and dangerous people all around. We need to all realize that we "don't need these 14 karat guns" and move past those ways of thinking, that we need money to be happy or weapons to protect ourselves. We should live up to our potential, we are smart enough to solve conflicts without violence so we should insist on this and develop the ways to ensure we do it.

Both of the major issues of last week, the change to a Pope who will be more responsive both to the actual needs of the billion people in the Church and to the other six sevenths of the world's population, and the change from an attitude where we need weapons to one where we do not, involve the same basic principle: putting yourself and preference for "your own kind" aside and realizing that we are all in it together and are really all the same, with equal rights and aspirations to happiness. We are finally realizing these principles in order to address gun violence and many other issues in our society. Even to discuss some issues and make any progress at all we need to be able to get over ourselves and our own perspectives enough to compromise and advance. We can all make changes in ourselves to become better and a new era is beginning where those changes will be more widespread and easier to realize with growing support from others. I think the fastest way would be made by selecting Gaga as the new Pope but since this probably won't happen I think even imagining it and the good it represents, advocating for it in the world of discussion, on the Internet, will have a positive effect. This is just an example of how communication wins and defeats conflict, and the best communication comes when we get over ourselves to try to fully appreciate and understand the needs of others. Lady Gaga as a performer and artist and Mother to her family of little monsters has always encouraged people to reinvent themselves as the best they can be. The idea of Pope Gaga is useful to reveal the dangers of clinging rigidly to tradition and the benefits of making radical change, of catching up with the ever changing world and its needs. The goal of non-violence and getting rid of weapons is also a part of realizing the peaceful future we all deserve and should be seeking. Gaga shows us the way clearly, and if our leaders can use the same insight that hopefully will lead us away from selfish violence as individuals maybe they will also learn the lessons of their own advice and really work for peace worldwide. We have to lead by example, showing that the greatest strength is in our love for one another and the power of the truth of our ideals of equality. We set the best example by being the strongest one who walks way from weapons and violence, the one who vows not to hurt but to see those who are hurting as an opportunity to help and committing to trying to help everyone and never writing anyone off as someone who deserves negativity. This means even if we don't understand someone or fear them we don't demonize them or decide there is a reason to justify killing them. In fact, not understanding someone can lead to conflict but should be our sign to communicate instead, to overcome our fears and the limitations of our identities and learn about the other and how we are really the same in order to find ways to work together for common goals.

If we keep in mind that basic respect for each other is of utmost importance we can work through any differences or conflicts without violence. It's only rigid ideas of ourselves and the way things should be that keep us in opposition and ignorance of each other that can lead to conflict. We can follow Gaga's example, and our own insight, to know that we are right to expect respect for ourselves just as individuals, as men and women and girls and boys, and that it is based on having the same respect for every other person on the planet, not on an ability to kill them We should seek strangeness and "otherness" as a chance to grow together, to investigate and learn and find new ways to meet the needs of all of humanity.