I don't know if the woman, here on a Chinese passport, accused of defacing a half dozen or so of our national monuments and buildings with green paint, is guilty or not, but I do know her potential punishment...10 years in prison and a $5,000 fine...is wrong. As a first time offender and with time off for good behavior (whatever that means), she could be out of prison in a year or two, have friends or some political organization pay her fine, and be merrily on her way to commit new mischief.
The estimated cost of cleaning up just one of her desecrations is $15,000. We should total up the cleaning cost of all her messes and make her repay that amount solely from her prison wages...which at about $2 a day would take her over 20 years for that one mess alone...and keep her in prison until it is paid in full. No quick buyouts by anti-American groups!
Perhaps that would send out a proper message about how American justice works.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
THE ANIMAL KINGDOM Part 1
I was watching the movie, The Life of Pi, the story of a young man and a tiger who are stranded on a small raft-type boat in the middle of the ocean. It is a story, in part, of how the young man survives the ordeal. And, yes, in part he survives by using some of his human intelligence. He realizes that the first time he blew on his whistle, the ocean was very rough and the tiger became seasick, and by repeatedly blowing the whistle when the boat was rocking, the tiger came to associate the sound of the whistle with feelings of discomfort. The young man could then generate those feelings in the tiger by blowing the whistle even when the waters were calm. The tiger was far less threatening when he was so discomfited.
But the major reason for the young man's survival can be attributed to his reverting from a human being to a human animal.
Some time ago, I noticed that the structure of our face..two eyes centered above a nose centered above a mouth, with an ear on either side of the face...is directly similar to the facial structure of so many animals. Other features of our bodies are similar as well. Now, of course, I learned Darwin's theory that we are descended from chimpanzees, but that has always been treated as something strange, something spectacularly surprising...almost unbelievable. The Bible speaks of God creating the animals on the fifth day and man on the sixth day...the inference being that man is something other than an animal.
But he isn't. He is the human animal. And that, I think, is what the similarity of his physical features to those of animals was telling me. True, he has a brain that can do things that the brains of other animals cannot do (to our knowledge): imagine, create, judge. But many species of animals have capacities that other animal species do not have. Yet they remain animals, as does man.
In my view, man's failure to understand that he stands as an animal alongside all the others is responsible for so much of his pain and anguish and unhappiness, his feelings that "life doesn't measure up", and his futile search for greater meaning to his life.
In THE ANIMAL KINGDOM Part 2, I will list some of the specific errors this failure has led man to make...and what he can do, as the young man in Pi did, to recapture the skills and joys of being a proud member of the great animal kingdom.
But the major reason for the young man's survival can be attributed to his reverting from a human being to a human animal.
Some time ago, I noticed that the structure of our face..two eyes centered above a nose centered above a mouth, with an ear on either side of the face...is directly similar to the facial structure of so many animals. Other features of our bodies are similar as well. Now, of course, I learned Darwin's theory that we are descended from chimpanzees, but that has always been treated as something strange, something spectacularly surprising...almost unbelievable. The Bible speaks of God creating the animals on the fifth day and man on the sixth day...the inference being that man is something other than an animal.
But he isn't. He is the human animal. And that, I think, is what the similarity of his physical features to those of animals was telling me. True, he has a brain that can do things that the brains of other animals cannot do (to our knowledge): imagine, create, judge. But many species of animals have capacities that other animal species do not have. Yet they remain animals, as does man.
In my view, man's failure to understand that he stands as an animal alongside all the others is responsible for so much of his pain and anguish and unhappiness, his feelings that "life doesn't measure up", and his futile search for greater meaning to his life.
In THE ANIMAL KINGDOM Part 2, I will list some of the specific errors this failure has led man to make...and what he can do, as the young man in Pi did, to recapture the skills and joys of being a proud member of the great animal kingdom.
Monday, July 29, 2013
AT THE CLIFF'S EDGE
Conservative talk shows on the radio and tv warn of a potential implosion of America caused by the current Administration's socialist political policies and programs. And they are right. But what is a more imminent threat to us is the seemingly total collapse...not decline, collapse...of morality among our country's politicos. Politicos of all stripes.
.
Now, I am not naive. I know that politicians have never comported themselves in accordance with the highest moral standards. (Were the Founding Fathers an exception?) But via a host of new electronic devices, modern technology has dramatically changed the sheer volume of information available to the public at large, and its accessibility 24/7. This has made the public infinitely more aware than ever before of the politicos lies, deceptions, distortions and double-talk.
And this, I believe, has caused many in the general public to believe that morality is outdated and outmoded, that the only way to succeed in life is to discard the perceived shackles of morality, and that "everybody is doing it, so why shouldn't I?"
Thus the collapse. A society without a generally-accepted reasonable code of morality cannot and will not endure.
What can save us? Two things, I think...and hope:
EDUCATION...in our schools of what morality is and why it is so incredibly beneficial TO YOU to live a moral life, and
EXAMPLE...parents to their children, friends and neighbors to each other, ministers to their congregations, and, yes, politicians to their public.
At stake: civilized life, that's all.
.
Now, I am not naive. I know that politicians have never comported themselves in accordance with the highest moral standards. (Were the Founding Fathers an exception?) But via a host of new electronic devices, modern technology has dramatically changed the sheer volume of information available to the public at large, and its accessibility 24/7. This has made the public infinitely more aware than ever before of the politicos lies, deceptions, distortions and double-talk.
And this, I believe, has caused many in the general public to believe that morality is outdated and outmoded, that the only way to succeed in life is to discard the perceived shackles of morality, and that "everybody is doing it, so why shouldn't I?"
Thus the collapse. A society without a generally-accepted reasonable code of morality cannot and will not endure.
What can save us? Two things, I think...and hope:
EDUCATION...in our schools of what morality is and why it is so incredibly beneficial TO YOU to live a moral life, and
EXAMPLE...parents to their children, friends and neighbors to each other, ministers to their congregations, and, yes, politicians to their public.
At stake: civilized life, that's all.
THE 1865 COMMENT
The desecration of the Lincoln Memorial the other day made me wonder what a comment to a blog post written about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1865, and a reply to that comment, might have read like.
"Smartie
Don't know what Lincoln's talking about. Slaves had a good deal. They were taken out of Africa where they had nothing, given full time jobs here, so the country's unemployment rate went down and our GNP went up, they had a roof over their heads, so the number of homeless declined, they were fed every day, so the number needing food stamps went down, they had free medical care, they and their families were protected by their owners. What's the problem? There were slaves in the Bible. What would their lives be like if they were on their own? How would Lincoln's call for a rebirth of freedom give them more than that? President Stinkin' is nuts!"
"Howzzzat?
we`all have to pay for those benefits given slaves since their owners have to raise their prices to pay for all that, and the unemployment rate did not go down since the slaves only took jobs away from other people, and the Bible has to be updated to modern times. not so smartie, smartie!"
"Smartie
Don't know what Lincoln's talking about. Slaves had a good deal. They were taken out of Africa where they had nothing, given full time jobs here, so the country's unemployment rate went down and our GNP went up, they had a roof over their heads, so the number of homeless declined, they were fed every day, so the number needing food stamps went down, they had free medical care, they and their families were protected by their owners. What's the problem? There were slaves in the Bible. What would their lives be like if they were on their own? How would Lincoln's call for a rebirth of freedom give them more than that? President Stinkin' is nuts!"
"Howzzzat?
we`all have to pay for those benefits given slaves since their owners have to raise their prices to pay for all that, and the unemployment rate did not go down since the slaves only took jobs away from other people, and the Bible has to be updated to modern times. not so smartie, smartie!"
Sunday, July 28, 2013
THE WAR GOES ON
60 years since the start of the Korean War, 36,000 Americans killed, over 100,000 wounded. We are still there.
For what? Are we safer because of it? Are we more respected by allies and foes alike? Is South Korea going to be an important ally if we are attacked? Does our economy benefit substantially because we fought there? What were we fighting there for, our freedom or S. Korea's freedom?
Do you know of ONE Congressman who thought it so critically important for America to fight the Korean War that he or she voted for the draft, who then enlisted in the military so that he or she could join the fight?
South Korea is now thriving, you say? Not the 36,000 who came home in caskets.
Of those who fought and died there, over half were draftees, forced to fight against their will. A deadly example of the Force Full Party philosophy...see`Which Party You Coming To?" post.
The U. S. Constitution does NOT give our federal government the right to impose a military draft. It gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and "to provide and maintain a navy". No specific power to draft. Oh, yes...the Constitution also says: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are not powers of our federal government.
The 60th anniversary of the Korean War. What exactly shall we celebrate?
For what? Are we safer because of it? Are we more respected by allies and foes alike? Is South Korea going to be an important ally if we are attacked? Does our economy benefit substantially because we fought there? What were we fighting there for, our freedom or S. Korea's freedom?
Do you know of ONE Congressman who thought it so critically important for America to fight the Korean War that he or she voted for the draft, who then enlisted in the military so that he or she could join the fight?
South Korea is now thriving, you say? Not the 36,000 who came home in caskets.
Of those who fought and died there, over half were draftees, forced to fight against their will. A deadly example of the Force Full Party philosophy...see`Which Party You Coming To?" post.
The U. S. Constitution does NOT give our federal government the right to impose a military draft. It gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and "to provide and maintain a navy". No specific power to draft. Oh, yes...the Constitution also says: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are not powers of our federal government.
The 60th anniversary of the Korean War. What exactly shall we celebrate?
WHICH PARTY YOU COMING TO?
My proposal today may seem simple, but in fact is`quite`deep and critical.
Our two main political parties--Democratic and Republican--should be shut down and replaced by two new parties:
The Force Free Party
The Force Full Party.
The F Free P does not recognize the`right of the government to force its citizens to do anything. Nada. Nunca. Quite the contrary, it sees the government's only job as protecting each of us from the initiation of force against us.
The F Full P believes the government does have a right to force us to do things in the alleged interest of the common good. Different members of the F Full P may disagree precisely when a particular law does or does not meet that criteria.
The way it is now, it is hard to tell the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties since they both accept, in varying degrees, the government authority to use force against us. That may seem surprising...that our two main parties agree on such a critical point. But it may be explained by the fact that`we are taught as children that the function of our government is to enforce the laws (bad choice of word)...and so government and force have become entwined and related.
Let's make it clear. You either believe we each are free to live our lives as we choose, or you do not. ..And there are no halfway measures. If for even one moment a day you are being forced to do something you don't choose to do, then you cannot be said to be free in any proper use of that term.
To paraphrase the words sung so beautifully by Shirley Bassey, "Get these parties started right now". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqNcyFNMfLM
Our two main political parties--Democratic and Republican--should be shut down and replaced by two new parties:
The Force Free Party
The Force Full Party.
The F Free P does not recognize the`right of the government to force its citizens to do anything. Nada. Nunca. Quite the contrary, it sees the government's only job as protecting each of us from the initiation of force against us.
The F Full P believes the government does have a right to force us to do things in the alleged interest of the common good. Different members of the F Full P may disagree precisely when a particular law does or does not meet that criteria.
The way it is now, it is hard to tell the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties since they both accept, in varying degrees, the government authority to use force against us. That may seem surprising...that our two main parties agree on such a critical point. But it may be explained by the fact that`we are taught as children that the function of our government is to enforce the laws (bad choice of word)...and so government and force have become entwined and related.
Let's make it clear. You either believe we each are free to live our lives as we choose, or you do not. ..And there are no halfway measures. If for even one moment a day you are being forced to do something you don't choose to do, then you cannot be said to be free in any proper use of that term.
To paraphrase the words sung so beautifully by Shirley Bassey, "Get these parties started right now". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqNcyFNMfLM
Saturday, July 27, 2013
STAND YOUR GROUND
The Stand Your Ground laws found in over half the States is rooted in the fundamental right of self-defense: I have a right to use deadly force to protect myself when being unlawfully attacked, without having to retreat even if I could. I am not obliged to leave a place where I am lawfully located. I am not required to do anything possible to evade the unlawful assault being made against me. I am not required to allow criminals to push me around. I am not the villain.
Antagonists of Stand Your Ground laws are generally proponents of gun control laws and want to limit my right to use my weapon even when my life is threatened. It is an attempt to shift the focus away from the criminal perpetrator, and to shift responsibility for a deadly outcome onto the innocent victim. Why do they want to do that? I'll leave that answer to you.
Antagonists of Stand Your Ground laws are generally proponents of gun control laws and want to limit my right to use my weapon even when my life is threatened. It is an attempt to shift the focus away from the criminal perpetrator, and to shift responsibility for a deadly outcome onto the innocent victim. Why do they want to do that? I'll leave that answer to you.
HULLABALOO
Are you as tired as I am of all the hullabaloo...is that how you spell it?...about athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs? My guess is a zillion do and I, for one, see no harm in it. Athletes do all sorts of thing to enhance their abilities...exercise, dietary, special training things...why not a drug? My taking one will not on its own make me a superstar. I still have to have natural abilities that the drug can enhance.
I was wondering if there was`a`drug that would make you smarter, would we say: "Nope, no way. We live in a`competitive world. Taking brain-enhancing drugs is not fair. The druggie is more likely to get the better job and make more money, but he is not really smarter. It's just the drug. Unfair advantage!" Would we say that?
This is for the guys only. What if there was`a drug that would get you any girl you wanted. Take a couple?
A drug that allowed you to speak in public without being nervous. That completely eliminated the pain of childbirth, Would you take them?
And what if there was a drug that would immediately add 10 years to your life. Take it?
What's the problem?
What? Oh, athletics is the special, sanctified, God-purified, hallowed, beatified, consecrated, aspect of our lives? Didn't know that. Ban him for life!
I was wondering if there was`a`drug that would make you smarter, would we say: "Nope, no way. We live in a`competitive world. Taking brain-enhancing drugs is not fair. The druggie is more likely to get the better job and make more money, but he is not really smarter. It's just the drug. Unfair advantage!" Would we say that?
This is for the guys only. What if there was`a drug that would get you any girl you wanted. Take a couple?
A drug that allowed you to speak in public without being nervous. That completely eliminated the pain of childbirth, Would you take them?
And what if there was a drug that would immediately add 10 years to your life. Take it?
What's the problem?
What? Oh, athletics is the special, sanctified, God-purified, hallowed, beatified, consecrated, aspect of our lives? Didn't know that. Ban him for life!
Friday, July 26, 2013
DO YOU THINK?
The Zimmerman juror who came out on tv and said "Zimmerman was guilty, he got away with murder, but there was no proof", was voicing a very common error in our society: that feelings = knowledge.
Proof is what we poor rational human beings need in order to KNOW. That's the only way we know things. So for her to say she KNEW he was guilty but had no proof of it, is a contradiction, an impossibility.
Now thinking takes effort and time and carries with it the possibility of error. It also carries with it some possible name-calling: egghead, highbrow, snob. We don't like any of that. Much easier and safer to base our knowledge on our personal subjective feelings...which is what this juror was doing without specifically referring to her feelings. What else could it possibly be that would lead her to say, without proof, that Zimmerman was guilty? Nothing.
But your feelings tell you NOTHING about truth, about reality, about what is out there. Feelings are nothing more than how you feel about what you BELIEVE is out there. Problem is: your beliefs, without proof to back them up, may be dead wrong.
What is truly scary is that a person with that wrong a theory of knowledge could be sitting on a jury in a murder case...and might have voted Guilty and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment or worse based on mistaken feelings.
I blame our school system that does not teach children what our species, in the absence of instincts, desperately needs to learn: what is thinking and what is the right way to do it. Kids are taught a lot of things they don't need and will likely never use...when was the last time you used the Pythagorean Theorem?...but not how to use their brain. Maybe some are not likely to use that either.
Proof is what we poor rational human beings need in order to KNOW. That's the only way we know things. So for her to say she KNEW he was guilty but had no proof of it, is a contradiction, an impossibility.
Now thinking takes effort and time and carries with it the possibility of error. It also carries with it some possible name-calling: egghead, highbrow, snob. We don't like any of that. Much easier and safer to base our knowledge on our personal subjective feelings...which is what this juror was doing without specifically referring to her feelings. What else could it possibly be that would lead her to say, without proof, that Zimmerman was guilty? Nothing.
But your feelings tell you NOTHING about truth, about reality, about what is out there. Feelings are nothing more than how you feel about what you BELIEVE is out there. Problem is: your beliefs, without proof to back them up, may be dead wrong.
What is truly scary is that a person with that wrong a theory of knowledge could be sitting on a jury in a murder case...and might have voted Guilty and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment or worse based on mistaken feelings.
I blame our school system that does not teach children what our species, in the absence of instincts, desperately needs to learn: what is thinking and what is the right way to do it. Kids are taught a lot of things they don't need and will likely never use...when was the last time you used the Pythagorean Theorem?...but not how to use their brain. Maybe some are not likely to use that either.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
BIG IS BETTER
What befuddles me is why the liberal media is making such a fuss over New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner putting out nude photos of himself and engaging in some "explicit sexual talk" on the Internet. Pervert, they are calling him.
Hey, they didn't say that about those brothers...you know, Jackie, Bobby and Teddy.
"Ask not, Marilyn, what the President can do for you. Ask what you can do for the President."
"Bobby, go out and see if Marilyn is ok."
"She's not ok, Jack. She is great."
"Ted, you got out of the car and left that girl you were fooling around with to drown? Why didn't you call for help? You could have saved her life."
"Didn't have a phone and all the houses I walked past were dark, people were probably sleeping. Didn't wanna wake 'em up."
And then dear Bill, who didn't have sex with that girl, only some of that oral stuff, while he was on the phone in the Oval Office working on matters that affect 300 million of us. "Bill is da man!"
So why, I wonder, is the media coming down on Weiner? He didn't do all that much.
Aha, there it is. That must be it! He didn't do that much. Hey, this is America, remember. The land of opportunity. We like big-time winners. Big time doers. He didn't do enough...and he's a small time guy. Weiner, after all, is only running for mayor.
If I lived in NY, I would vote or not vote for Weiner based on his political philosophy and his competence to administer it...and not how his wife feels about him. But, alas, most voters seem more interested in basing their vote on his sexual proclivities. Perverts!
Hey, they didn't say that about those brothers...you know, Jackie, Bobby and Teddy.
"Ask not, Marilyn, what the President can do for you. Ask what you can do for the President."
"Bobby, go out and see if Marilyn is ok."
"She's not ok, Jack. She is great."
"Ted, you got out of the car and left that girl you were fooling around with to drown? Why didn't you call for help? You could have saved her life."
"Didn't have a phone and all the houses I walked past were dark, people were probably sleeping. Didn't wanna wake 'em up."
And then dear Bill, who didn't have sex with that girl, only some of that oral stuff, while he was on the phone in the Oval Office working on matters that affect 300 million of us. "Bill is da man!"
So why, I wonder, is the media coming down on Weiner? He didn't do all that much.
Aha, there it is. That must be it! He didn't do that much. Hey, this is America, remember. The land of opportunity. We like big-time winners. Big time doers. He didn't do enough...and he's a small time guy. Weiner, after all, is only running for mayor.
If I lived in NY, I would vote or not vote for Weiner based on his political philosophy and his competence to administer it...and not how his wife feels about him. But, alas, most voters seem more interested in basing their vote on his sexual proclivities. Perverts!
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
THE HONESTY EXPERIMENT
This is an invitation.
My daughter Kira is running an Honesty Experiment http://honestyexperiment.com in which volunteers agree to be 100% honest for one month. Sound easy? Sound like fun? Perhaps. But there is a serious side to the Experiment, as well.
Studies show that the average person is lied to about 200 times each day...and most of those lies are being told by other average people...like you and me. Many of the people who lie to us are not strangers, but family and good friends, people we trust. And sometimes we lie to ourselves. Technology has skyrocketed the frequency and scope of human communication and interaction. But much of that, unfortunately, is apparently rooted in falsehoods and unreality. There is much for us to gain if we commit ourselves to living the truth.
The Honesty Experiment is an important one and I hope that one day in the near future my daughter will write the definitive work on this subject. You can help Kira by volunteering...and perhaps yourself, as well. She is looking for volunteers of all ages and backgrounds...and is running a special Honesty Experiment for Couples in August.
You can reach Kira at honestyexp@gmail.com.
My daughter Kira is running an Honesty Experiment http://honestyexperiment.com in which volunteers agree to be 100% honest for one month. Sound easy? Sound like fun? Perhaps. But there is a serious side to the Experiment, as well.
Studies show that the average person is lied to about 200 times each day...and most of those lies are being told by other average people...like you and me. Many of the people who lie to us are not strangers, but family and good friends, people we trust. And sometimes we lie to ourselves. Technology has skyrocketed the frequency and scope of human communication and interaction. But much of that, unfortunately, is apparently rooted in falsehoods and unreality. There is much for us to gain if we commit ourselves to living the truth.
The Honesty Experiment is an important one and I hope that one day in the near future my daughter will write the definitive work on this subject. You can help Kira by volunteering...and perhaps yourself, as well. She is looking for volunteers of all ages and backgrounds...and is running a special Honesty Experiment for Couples in August.
You can reach Kira at honestyexp@gmail.com.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
PETTY CASH
Secretary of State Kerry laid out the specific terms of the settlement Obama wants Israel and the Palestinians to agree to.
Who cares? Why is the President of the United States involved in other countries' affairs? Is it that everything is going along so swimmingly here in the U. S. that he has spare time on his hands? Does the Israeli-Palestinian dispute threaten the United States? No. Is he just being a nice guy and trying to help two friends`work out their problems? No. He certainly is not a friend of Israel, evidenced by his cordially hosting at the White House Arab leaders who have vowed to destroy Israel and kill all Jews.
So I guess he is a friend of the Palestinians. The problem is that as President, it is not his job to help out foreigners and foreign nations. It is his job to work for Americans, and Americans only. Obama gives away $137 million each and every day to foreign nations as our economy sinks and our federal deficit soars. That's money that will never be repaid. (What's a little petty cash between friends?) Know how much money Obama spends every single day? Over $10 billion. $10 billion...a day! Know how much of that is money we don't have and by how much that increases our deficit? Over $3 billion each and every day. But who's counting?
Your children should be counting. They are going to have to pay for it.
Aren't you glad our President has friends?
I thought it was time to look up "anarchy" in the thesaurus. Here's some of what it said:
disorderliness, unruliness, misrule. disorganization, confusion, turmoil, chaos, nihilism, mob rule, lynch law, law of the jungle, revolution, rebellion
Isn't that what we have now...except for the last two, which we ought to have now.
Who cares? Why is the President of the United States involved in other countries' affairs? Is it that everything is going along so swimmingly here in the U. S. that he has spare time on his hands? Does the Israeli-Palestinian dispute threaten the United States? No. Is he just being a nice guy and trying to help two friends`work out their problems? No. He certainly is not a friend of Israel, evidenced by his cordially hosting at the White House Arab leaders who have vowed to destroy Israel and kill all Jews.
So I guess he is a friend of the Palestinians. The problem is that as President, it is not his job to help out foreigners and foreign nations. It is his job to work for Americans, and Americans only. Obama gives away $137 million each and every day to foreign nations as our economy sinks and our federal deficit soars. That's money that will never be repaid. (What's a little petty cash between friends?) Know how much money Obama spends every single day? Over $10 billion. $10 billion...a day! Know how much of that is money we don't have and by how much that increases our deficit? Over $3 billion each and every day. But who's counting?
Your children should be counting. They are going to have to pay for it.
Aren't you glad our President has friends?
I thought it was time to look up "anarchy" in the thesaurus. Here's some of what it said:
disorderliness, unruliness, misrule. disorganization, confusion, turmoil, chaos, nihilism, mob rule, lynch law, law of the jungle, revolution, rebellion
Isn't that what we have now...except for the last two, which we ought to have now.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
CASE CLOSED
In what may be the most egregious offense by the Obama administration against traditional American values, the Department of Justice has set up a hotline requesting anyone who has "available information" on George Zimmerman to email it to the DOJ. Shades of communist Russia!
Not a general hotline for information about anyone who is committing treason, but a specific hotline in an attempt to nail Zimmerman. And what does "available information" mean? Available for what? He has been acquitted of murder, and there are no outstanding charges against him...but the DOJ, you see, wants to get him for something, anything. You and I are being asked to tattle, blab, snitch and squeal on Zimmerman and feed the DOJ with as much dirt, rumor and gossip as we can, true or not.
And that is as unAmerican as you can get. We are a nation rooted in concepts of fair play, equality, innocent until proven guilty, with individual rights designed to provide us with a serene, peaceful. friendly, trusting society. We are the most open and generous nation on the planet. My neighbors are not my enemies, which is what the DOJ wants them to be.
Obama and his henchmen and women are not American in any sense of that term. They don't know what it means to be American, they have no idea of the glory of our founding principles, they have no love for our country, they have no pride and joy at being American. They have declared war on George Zimmerman. And I have nothing but disgust for all of them.
From where I sit, it's case closed.
Not a general hotline for information about anyone who is committing treason, but a specific hotline in an attempt to nail Zimmerman. And what does "available information" mean? Available for what? He has been acquitted of murder, and there are no outstanding charges against him...but the DOJ, you see, wants to get him for something, anything. You and I are being asked to tattle, blab, snitch and squeal on Zimmerman and feed the DOJ with as much dirt, rumor and gossip as we can, true or not.
And that is as unAmerican as you can get. We are a nation rooted in concepts of fair play, equality, innocent until proven guilty, with individual rights designed to provide us with a serene, peaceful. friendly, trusting society. We are the most open and generous nation on the planet. My neighbors are not my enemies, which is what the DOJ wants them to be.
Obama and his henchmen and women are not American in any sense of that term. They don't know what it means to be American, they have no idea of the glory of our founding principles, they have no love for our country, they have no pride and joy at being American. They have declared war on George Zimmerman. And I have nothing but disgust for all of them.
From where I sit, it's case closed.
CRYSTAL CLEAR
So the President (1) identifies with Trevyor Martin, the teenage black boy killed by George`Zimmerman, in self-defense according to the jury, and (2) thinks the not guilty verdict may well have been different if Martin were white.
(It is revealing to note that though Zimmerman is from a multi-racial family like Barack Obama's own, one white one black parent, he is referred/ to as being a white Hispanic. Makes it easier, I guess, to foment the racial divide and hatred the President and the liberal media seem so anxious to promote.)
The President's views contain numerous errors, including the following two gigantic ones:
1. The President's identification with Martin conflicts with his job specifications: it is intended that he represent all of the people, not one segment in preference to another.
2. He besmirches the entire American legal system, including the jury, as being racist without offering one scintilla of proof that his racist views are warranted. I say "the entire American legal system" because he has no way to distinguish the Florida court system and this jury from the rest of the country, nor does he try to do so.
So without proof (aka facts), what does the President have to rely on? Feelings, whims, prejudices. The message the President is sending out to the young black community is as follows:
* Live and act on your preconceived notions, to hell with facts, truth, reality
* Everyone outside our community is out to get you
* If someone is black but doesn't look it, he is not one of us
* You must take justice into your own hands, for it is nowhere else to be found for you
I listed above three error the`President made. But I truly do not believe Obama acted mistakenly. The consistency of his actions and statements in regard to many issues over the past five years strongly suggests that he knew exactly what he was doing, and what he is trying to achieve is crystal clear to him: a broken, divisive, fragmented, vulnerable America.
To how many others is it crystal clear?
(It is revealing to note that though Zimmerman is from a multi-racial family like Barack Obama's own, one white one black parent, he is referred/ to as being a white Hispanic. Makes it easier, I guess, to foment the racial divide and hatred the President and the liberal media seem so anxious to promote.)
The President's views contain numerous errors, including the following two gigantic ones:
1. The President's identification with Martin conflicts with his job specifications: it is intended that he represent all of the people, not one segment in preference to another.
2. He besmirches the entire American legal system, including the jury, as being racist without offering one scintilla of proof that his racist views are warranted. I say "the entire American legal system" because he has no way to distinguish the Florida court system and this jury from the rest of the country, nor does he try to do so.
So without proof (aka facts), what does the President have to rely on? Feelings, whims, prejudices. The message the President is sending out to the young black community is as follows:
* Live and act on your preconceived notions, to hell with facts, truth, reality
* Everyone outside our community is out to get you
* If someone is black but doesn't look it, he is not one of us
* You must take justice into your own hands, for it is nowhere else to be found for you
I listed above three error the`President made. But I truly do not believe Obama acted mistakenly. The consistency of his actions and statements in regard to many issues over the past five years strongly suggests that he knew exactly what he was doing, and what he is trying to achieve is crystal clear to him: a broken, divisive, fragmented, vulnerable America.
To how many others is it crystal clear?
Friday, July 19, 2013
TELL ME WHY
Why is it ok to donate your time to an organization and work for zero pay, but you cannot work for a nickel less than the minimum wage?
Why can't a terminally ill person legally take a drug that has`helped cure people in other countries but has not as yet been approved by the FDA?
Why must a 15-year old who just won $500 million in the lottery be required to attend school?
Why are you old enough to marry and have a family but not old enough to buy a beer?
Why does a citizen who doesn't have income not have to file a 1040 and help support the government?
Why do most who are stridently opposed to abortion on the grounds the fetus is alive, make an exception in cases of rape?
Why aren't all professional baseball fields required to have the same dimensions, as playing fields are in every other sport?
Why is a competent President required to leave office after 8 years, but an incompetent Supreme Court justice may serve for 50 years, or more?
Why does it cost the same to mail a letter across the street as it does to mail it 3,000 miles away?
Why is prostitution illegal but selling your kidney isn't?
Why do we say "you are" rather than "you is" when speaking to one person?
Why do we add an "s" to make a noun plural (book, books) but we remove the "s" to make a verb plural (he reads, they read)?
Why does 12pm and not 12am come right after 11am?
Why can't a terminally ill person legally take a drug that has`helped cure people in other countries but has not as yet been approved by the FDA?
Why must a 15-year old who just won $500 million in the lottery be required to attend school?
Why are you old enough to marry and have a family but not old enough to buy a beer?
Why does a citizen who doesn't have income not have to file a 1040 and help support the government?
Why do most who are stridently opposed to abortion on the grounds the fetus is alive, make an exception in cases of rape?
Why aren't all professional baseball fields required to have the same dimensions, as playing fields are in every other sport?
Why is a competent President required to leave office after 8 years, but an incompetent Supreme Court justice may serve for 50 years, or more?
Why does it cost the same to mail a letter across the street as it does to mail it 3,000 miles away?
Why is prostitution illegal but selling your kidney isn't?
Why do we say "you are" rather than "you is" when speaking to one person?
Why do we add an "s" to make a noun plural (book, books) but we remove the "s" to make a verb plural (he reads, they read)?
Why does 12pm and not 12am come right after 11am?
WHAT...?
When you go to bed this evening, ask yourself:
* what do you now know you didn't know this morning?
* what one thing did you do today that you had never done before?
* what human being did you get to know for the first time today?
* what thought did you have today that you never had before?
* what did you see today that you never saw before?
* what new question about life do you now have?
* what question do you now know the answer to?
* what new thing are you looking forward to tomorrow?
* what problem did you solve today?
If you had an answer to one or more questions, it was a good day to be alive. If not, you are suffering from an acute case of humdrumitis.
* what do you now know you didn't know this morning?
* what one thing did you do today that you had never done before?
* what human being did you get to know for the first time today?
* what thought did you have today that you never had before?
* what did you see today that you never saw before?
* what new question about life do you now have?
* what question do you now know the answer to?
* what new thing are you looking forward to tomorrow?
* what problem did you solve today?
If you had an answer to one or more questions, it was a good day to be alive. If not, you are suffering from an acute case of humdrumitis.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
KILLER BOUNDARIES
The killer boundaries are not the borders between Mexico and the United States, or between Afghanistan and Pakistan, or between Syria and Israel. They are the multitude of restraints, restrictions and attitudes imposed by societies around the globe that delimit what we think, what we do, what we dare to dream for ourselves for tomorrow.
Like the suffocating alleged gods of tradition, conformity, normalcy and propriety that we must obey at the risk of being shunned and excommunicated.
Like the ubiquitous family of Not: You cannot, you must not, you ought not, you could not, you would not, you should not, you dare not, you will not, and the threatening, you better not...that shackle our dreams and our hopes.
Like the repulsive array of slurs against human life: “Hey, we’re only human” and man as “the only animal that blushes or needs to”, “nature’s sole mistake”, “the quintessence of dust” and “breath and shadow, nothing more”.
Like the freedom-destroying euphemisms for choiceless duties imposed on you as a member of society, including obligations, responsibilities, expectations...or in verb form:it behooves you, you are bound, you are beholden, it is incumbent upon you, and on and on.
You are born and instantly become a member of a family, a society, a race, a religion, a nation...each of which lay claim to your body, your mind, your time, your energy, your talents, your life.
No aspect of human life...not one...is exempt from the arbitrary boundaries, limitations. denigrations, imposed on you by those who claim to love you, but who, by their actions and attitudes, are in fact your assassins. And because the assault starts when the victims are so young, it is most often accepted as proper and moral and uplifting....and those few who reject them are labeled iconoclastic, anti-social rebels, and treated as pariahs.
Killer boundaries delimit what you should think, what you should do, and slowly, steadily and surely, chip away at the glorious limitless beauty, potentiality and glory of human life.
A few thousand years ago, someone wrote: "And God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good." Will you join me in honoring that wisdom?
Like the suffocating alleged gods of tradition, conformity, normalcy and propriety that we must obey at the risk of being shunned and excommunicated.
Like the ubiquitous family of Not: You cannot, you must not, you ought not, you could not, you would not, you should not, you dare not, you will not, and the threatening, you better not...that shackle our dreams and our hopes.
Like the repulsive array of slurs against human life: “Hey, we’re only human” and man as “the only animal that blushes or needs to”, “nature’s sole mistake”, “the quintessence of dust” and “breath and shadow, nothing more”.
Like the freedom-destroying euphemisms for choiceless duties imposed on you as a member of society, including obligations, responsibilities, expectations...or in verb form:it behooves you, you are bound, you are beholden, it is incumbent upon you, and on and on.
You are born and instantly become a member of a family, a society, a race, a religion, a nation...each of which lay claim to your body, your mind, your time, your energy, your talents, your life.
No aspect of human life...not one...is exempt from the arbitrary boundaries, limitations. denigrations, imposed on you by those who claim to love you, but who, by their actions and attitudes, are in fact your assassins. And because the assault starts when the victims are so young, it is most often accepted as proper and moral and uplifting....and those few who reject them are labeled iconoclastic, anti-social rebels, and treated as pariahs.
Killer boundaries delimit what you should think, what you should do, and slowly, steadily and surely, chip away at the glorious limitless beauty, potentiality and glory of human life.
A few thousand years ago, someone wrote: "And God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good." Will you join me in honoring that wisdom?
IN THE WINGS
, Was it Karl Marx or Lenin or Stalin, I forget, who said,
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society"
and, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good".
And in the name of the common good, and presumably on its behalf...which certainly did not include liberty...those regimes went on to kill 75,000,000 of their own people.
Thank God, I say, we live in a country that recognizes and respects an individual's right to life and liberty, where slavery to anyone or any group has been banned, and where the would-be tyrants who voice such extreme socialist, nay, communist, ideas would never gain political office.
Thank God my father emigrated from Russia to the United States when those dictators came into power. Whew!
Oh, I just remembered who it was that said those things.
It was Hillary Clinton.
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society"
and, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good".
And in the name of the common good, and presumably on its behalf...which certainly did not include liberty...those regimes went on to kill 75,000,000 of their own people.
Thank God, I say, we live in a country that recognizes and respects an individual's right to life and liberty, where slavery to anyone or any group has been banned, and where the would-be tyrants who voice such extreme socialist, nay, communist, ideas would never gain political office.
Thank God my father emigrated from Russia to the United States when those dictators came into power. Whew!
Oh, I just remembered who it was that said those things.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL RULES
I got to thinking...with the mess our country is in...if I could choose the next President, who would it be? Who was it that could straighten us out and get us back on the right path? And the answer totally surprised me. It was someone who never indicated an interest in the job, somebody who actually thought it was one of the worst jobs imaginable. It was someone who has had not one day of political experience.
Who? Me. That's right, me. And these are the rules that will be implemented on my first day in office:
1. Any public employee who lies to the American people once...once...is fired.
2. Any public head of a department who incurs an expense one cent greater than the budget I set for that department is fired and will pay that excess out of his or her own personal funds.
3. Any public employee who refers to anyone by reference to his skin color, ethnicity, religion, age or wealth, is fired.
4. Every member of the Armed Forces who is stationed in a country with which we are not in a declared war will be brought back to our country.
5. No foreign aid will be paid.
6. Every benefit program paid for by general revenues will be terminated.
7. Our border will be shut and every person found to be in our country illegally will be placed on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean inhabited solely by other illegals.
8. Anyone who initiates force against another person will be placed on an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean inhabited solely by other initiators of force.
9. Every person shall be free to ingest what he wishes, work for the wages he wishes, run any business he wishes, and marry as many mates from as many genders as he wishes.
10. All income, sales and estate taxes will be made voluntary.
11.The U.S. will withdraw from the U.N. and the U.N. will withdraw from the U.S.
12. Public schools will teach courses on logical thinking, how to be happy, proper parenting, philosophy, choosing a career. and automobile care.
13.The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance will be replaced by the words "under the Constitution".
Remember, when you walk into the polling booth:
A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR YOU.
Who? Me. That's right, me. And these are the rules that will be implemented on my first day in office:
1. Any public employee who lies to the American people once...once...is fired.
2. Any public head of a department who incurs an expense one cent greater than the budget I set for that department is fired and will pay that excess out of his or her own personal funds.
3. Any public employee who refers to anyone by reference to his skin color, ethnicity, religion, age or wealth, is fired.
4. Every member of the Armed Forces who is stationed in a country with which we are not in a declared war will be brought back to our country.
5. No foreign aid will be paid.
6. Every benefit program paid for by general revenues will be terminated.
7. Our border will be shut and every person found to be in our country illegally will be placed on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean inhabited solely by other illegals.
8. Anyone who initiates force against another person will be placed on an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean inhabited solely by other initiators of force.
9. Every person shall be free to ingest what he wishes, work for the wages he wishes, run any business he wishes, and marry as many mates from as many genders as he wishes.
10. All income, sales and estate taxes will be made voluntary.
11.The U.S. will withdraw from the U.N. and the U.N. will withdraw from the U.S.
12. Public schools will teach courses on logical thinking, how to be happy, proper parenting, philosophy, choosing a career. and automobile care.
13.The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance will be replaced by the words "under the Constitution".
Remember, when you walk into the polling booth:
A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR YOU.
READY, SET...
Over 50 years ago, Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, a fictional novel in which some of the country's major producers went on strike against an oppressive government, and set up The Valley...a hidden community where individualism reigned.
My bags are packed.
My bags are packed.
Monday, July 15, 2013
PARADOX RESOLVED
Interesting paradox.
When it comes to the abortion issue, the political Left refers to itself as Pro-Choice: from conception to birth, it says, the woman should have the exclusive right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy.
But when it comes to every other issue, the Left is not Pro-Choice...it is Pro-Control and Regulation: the Government, it says, has the authority and power to determine what the individual may/must do. It is the political Right (particularly conservatives) who are Pro-Choice: each man and woman has the inalienable right to choose the course of his/her life.
Can the paradox be reconciled, I wondered. Is there something that could tie the Left's opposing polar positions together? A little thought unearthed it.
On the abortion issue, the Right is referred to as being Pro-Life. And since the Left is opposed to that position, it could logically be said to be, Anti-Life. And, I realized, when it comes to all other issues, the Left is Anti-Life as well. It is anti the fetus' life before birth, and anti man's life after birth. That is its cohesive policy.
Freedom is a requisite of human beings because their nature requires it. They are each a composite of mind and body: the function of the mind to collect data about the world in which we live, make judgments and choices, and direct the body what action to take. That mind/body harmony is man's natural functioning state. When he lives with that harmony intact, he is functioning at his maximum, living on all four cylinders, achieving and experiencing life to the maximum. When outside government or other regulation interferes with and breaches that harmony, denying him the freedom to choose the course of his life... replacing his mind with someone else's...man's nature is violated and he is relegated to a living death.
For man to live a fulfilling and glorious life, man's nature must not be commanded. It must be obeyed.
When it comes to the abortion issue, the political Left refers to itself as Pro-Choice: from conception to birth, it says, the woman should have the exclusive right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy.
But when it comes to every other issue, the Left is not Pro-Choice...it is Pro-Control and Regulation: the Government, it says, has the authority and power to determine what the individual may/must do. It is the political Right (particularly conservatives) who are Pro-Choice: each man and woman has the inalienable right to choose the course of his/her life.
Can the paradox be reconciled, I wondered. Is there something that could tie the Left's opposing polar positions together? A little thought unearthed it.
On the abortion issue, the Right is referred to as being Pro-Life. And since the Left is opposed to that position, it could logically be said to be, Anti-Life. And, I realized, when it comes to all other issues, the Left is Anti-Life as well. It is anti the fetus' life before birth, and anti man's life after birth. That is its cohesive policy.
Freedom is a requisite of human beings because their nature requires it. They are each a composite of mind and body: the function of the mind to collect data about the world in which we live, make judgments and choices, and direct the body what action to take. That mind/body harmony is man's natural functioning state. When he lives with that harmony intact, he is functioning at his maximum, living on all four cylinders, achieving and experiencing life to the maximum. When outside government or other regulation interferes with and breaches that harmony, denying him the freedom to choose the course of his life... replacing his mind with someone else's...man's nature is violated and he is relegated to a living death.
For man to live a fulfilling and glorious life, man's nature must not be commanded. It must be obeyed.
BUT FOR ONE WORD
We know that the Founders favored a small federal government, limiting the areas of our lives over which it was to have authority. We know, too, that today we have a massive federal bureaucracy involved in virtually aspect of our lives. How did that happen? What could possibly account for our getting the precise government the Founders rejected?
I believe it was one word...one erroneous word used by the Founders in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. Congress had the power, wrote the Founders, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with Indian tribes"...the so-called Commerce Clause.
The erroneous word used was "regulate". With 13 competing individual States, and some trade moving between States, it was understandable that the Founders would anticipate that there could be and likely would be conflicts and disagreements. What the Founders should have written, and what they likely intended, was that the federal judiciary would resolve those interstate disputes. That would have been appropriate since maintaining an independent judiciary to peacefully resolve disputes is one of the clear functions of our government. The word "regulate" was a totally different can of beans.
Roget's Thesaurus lists the following words as synonyms for "regulate": govern, wield authority, command, manage, supervise, stand over...and the government has done all of that and more. Compounding the problem has been the judicial extension of the meaning of "commerce" from its original intention "trade" to "any interchange"...which subsumes all relationships between people...which means "our total lives". A single nail imported from another State and used in the building of a skyscraper made totally from materials in the State where it is located, and built solely by workers from within that same state, has judicially been ruled to bring that skyscraper within the scope of the Commerce Clause and the control of the federal government. With the scope and domain of its authority all-encompassing, the federal government grew like a dinosaur, and is still growing.
It is not likely that the Supreme Court will ever redefine "regulate" to its original intended narrower meaning. That would probably have to be done by a Constitutional Amendment. Which is also not likely.
Game, set, match?
I believe it was one word...one erroneous word used by the Founders in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. Congress had the power, wrote the Founders, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with Indian tribes"...the so-called Commerce Clause.
The erroneous word used was "regulate". With 13 competing individual States, and some trade moving between States, it was understandable that the Founders would anticipate that there could be and likely would be conflicts and disagreements. What the Founders should have written, and what they likely intended, was that the federal judiciary would resolve those interstate disputes. That would have been appropriate since maintaining an independent judiciary to peacefully resolve disputes is one of the clear functions of our government. The word "regulate" was a totally different can of beans.
Roget's Thesaurus lists the following words as synonyms for "regulate": govern, wield authority, command, manage, supervise, stand over...and the government has done all of that and more. Compounding the problem has been the judicial extension of the meaning of "commerce" from its original intention "trade" to "any interchange"...which subsumes all relationships between people...which means "our total lives". A single nail imported from another State and used in the building of a skyscraper made totally from materials in the State where it is located, and built solely by workers from within that same state, has judicially been ruled to bring that skyscraper within the scope of the Commerce Clause and the control of the federal government. With the scope and domain of its authority all-encompassing, the federal government grew like a dinosaur, and is still growing.
It is not likely that the Supreme Court will ever redefine "regulate" to its original intended narrower meaning. That would probably have to be done by a Constitutional Amendment. Which is also not likely.
Game, set, match?
Sunday, July 14, 2013
NO FRONTIER SHORTCUT
I have wondered what distinguished the frontiersman from the rest of us.
Was it his brute strength? Not particularly. He tended to be strong because of the work that he did, but many others were as strong as he was, or stronger.
Was it his schooling? No, most left schooling at a very early age.
Was it his resourcefulness? To an extent, yes. Venturing forth into previously unexplored, unknown, potentially dangerous, territory, he had to be resourceful and self-reliant if he were to survive. Where, I wondered, did that resourcefulness come from?
My answer may surprise. I believe it stemmed from his epistemology, his theory of knowledge. It was simple: I know only what I can see with my own two eyes. He heard Indians chanting on the other side of the frontier. Were they friendly Shawnee or warring Navajo? Were there 10 on a scouting mission, 50 on patrol, or 100 on an attack mission. The frontiersman had to know...no guessing, no surmising. He had to carefully, meticulously, quietly, reconnoiter, and get the facts.
It is said that the internet has made`available to humans more information than they ever had before. And that is a good thing. The problem is: if we have to wade through all of that information before we can say we know something, it would take enormous energy and time. Google anything and hundreds and hundreds of sources of information will likely crop up. Who's got the time? The strength? The patience? We need a shortcut. Expand "knowledge" to include what we feel to be true, what we want to be true, what we fear to be true. Joila! Instant knowledge...or instant error. The frontiersman could not afford the luxury of that epistemological shortcut. His life and the lives of those on the expedition he was leading were dependent on his knowing the absolute truth.
There is a yoga mantra that in part says "Ek Ong Kar Sat"...meaning "there is one Creator whose name is Truth." Now I don't know whether the Creator is Truth or Truth is the Creator...but I do know we can, and better, learn from the frontiersman how to find it.
Was it his brute strength? Not particularly. He tended to be strong because of the work that he did, but many others were as strong as he was, or stronger.
Was it his schooling? No, most left schooling at a very early age.
Was it his resourcefulness? To an extent, yes. Venturing forth into previously unexplored, unknown, potentially dangerous, territory, he had to be resourceful and self-reliant if he were to survive. Where, I wondered, did that resourcefulness come from?
My answer may surprise. I believe it stemmed from his epistemology, his theory of knowledge. It was simple: I know only what I can see with my own two eyes. He heard Indians chanting on the other side of the frontier. Were they friendly Shawnee or warring Navajo? Were there 10 on a scouting mission, 50 on patrol, or 100 on an attack mission. The frontiersman had to know...no guessing, no surmising. He had to carefully, meticulously, quietly, reconnoiter, and get the facts.
It is said that the internet has made`available to humans more information than they ever had before. And that is a good thing. The problem is: if we have to wade through all of that information before we can say we know something, it would take enormous energy and time. Google anything and hundreds and hundreds of sources of information will likely crop up. Who's got the time? The strength? The patience? We need a shortcut. Expand "knowledge" to include what we feel to be true, what we want to be true, what we fear to be true. Joila! Instant knowledge...or instant error. The frontiersman could not afford the luxury of that epistemological shortcut. His life and the lives of those on the expedition he was leading were dependent on his knowing the absolute truth.
There is a yoga mantra that in part says "Ek Ong Kar Sat"...meaning "there is one Creator whose name is Truth." Now I don't know whether the Creator is Truth or Truth is the Creator...but I do know we can, and better, learn from the frontiersman how to find it.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
THE RACIAL ERROR
It was thought by many that President Obama's election and re-election might serve to stem the tide of racism in this country for two reasons:
first, African Americans would see that many whites voted for him to be their leader, and
second, whites would see that an African American could serve as Chief Executive.
If anything, racism is as pervasive as ever, if not more so. The Zimmerman trial, as evidence, has devolved into a seemingly purely racial event outside the scope of justice.
A little thought explains why expectations were misguided. It is, from my perspective, in the inherent error contained in the two reasons stated above. They are both racist statements. They perpetuate the racial divide. both identify people on basis of the immaterial color of their skin. They should have read as follows:
So-and-so percentage of Americans voted for Obama's election, and
So-and-so percentage of Americans think Obama is a good President.
I heard a review of the movie, The Lone Ranger. It said that the original radio show of the 1940's and 50's was racist. A white Lone Ranger was dominant, Tonto the Indian was subservient to him, and not his equal. In the movie, which the review said seeks to redress the racism of the radio show, Tonto is shown as the dominant one. What utter nonsense. I will make a wager that not one person involved in making the movie was even alive when the radio show was so popular. I was. The relationship of the two men was not a racist one but a beautiful one...two men from different cultures who worked together for justice and who were trusting and loyal friends (kemosabe). There wasn't a hint of racism in their relationship. But today's society is so saturated with a racial focus and bias, that it often sees things that aren't there.
We cannot end racism by being racist. Or by a program that is inherently racist (see affirmative action). The one and only way to stop racism is to stop being racist. Of course. Every time the boy Zimmerman killed is referred to as "African American", every time Obama is identified as "the first black President", racism is deepened.
Perhaps, when racism is long gone, people of all colors will laugh together and scream out racial epithets without awakening the ghost of racism past. Perhaps.
And hopefully.
|
Friday, July 12, 2013
THE RIGHT VOTE
A short time ago, I heard a radio commentator say that a U.S. Senator should do two things when he (or she) votes on bills in Congress:
* take his constituency into account, .and
* vote his conscience.
I have no idea what "take his constituency into account" means. The people in his State overwhelmingly want slavery to be legalized, or a $20 minimum wage, so he should vote for those things? That would make him a participant in mob rule, which is a form of dictatorship, which is not what this country is intended to be.
And what does "vote his conscience" mean? We all have a conscience which tells us what's right and what's wrong? Horsefeathers, we don't! We have no built-in knowledge about anything. Now if that expression means the Senator should vote according to what he believes is the right way to vote, that is a bit better...but shouldn't he vote according to what he KNOWS is the right way to vote?
But that is not going to happen. Because the idea that there are rights and wrongs has vanished from American politics. Truths that are self-evident have become desires that are self-created. Feelings have replaced truths. Politically speaking, if you think it serves your interests, 2 plus 2 is 5, today, and could be 4-1/2 tomorrow.
James Madison said it well:
"There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong."
Still current.
* take his constituency into account, .and
* vote his conscience.
I have no idea what "take his constituency into account" means. The people in his State overwhelmingly want slavery to be legalized, or a $20 minimum wage, so he should vote for those things? That would make him a participant in mob rule, which is a form of dictatorship, which is not what this country is intended to be.
And what does "vote his conscience" mean? We all have a conscience which tells us what's right and what's wrong? Horsefeathers, we don't! We have no built-in knowledge about anything. Now if that expression means the Senator should vote according to what he believes is the right way to vote, that is a bit better...but shouldn't he vote according to what he KNOWS is the right way to vote?
But that is not going to happen. Because the idea that there are rights and wrongs has vanished from American politics. Truths that are self-evident have become desires that are self-created. Feelings have replaced truths. Politically speaking, if you think it serves your interests, 2 plus 2 is 5, today, and could be 4-1/2 tomorrow.
James Madison said it well:
"There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong."
Still current.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
THE CANOE MAN
This is from an article about canoe men, who were frontiersmen:
"It was the voyageur who struck my imagination--the canoe man who carried loads of hundreds of pounds and paddled eighteen hours a day fighting waves and storms. His muscle and brawn supplied the motive power for French-Canadian exploration and trade, but despite the harshness of his life--the privation, suffering, and constant threat of death by exposure, drowning, and Indian attack--he developed an unsurpassed nonchalance and joy in the wilderness. These exuberant men, wearing red sashes and caps and singing in the face of disaster, were the ones who stood out."
And that exuberance is what you get when you are doing the things that you want to do, that you freely choose to do. And that zest for living is the priceless treasure you lose when you are bombarded by a government dictating what you must do, and burdening your life with endless restraints and restrictions.
If you think, like the blog commentator who said, "Obamacare may deny you some freedoms, but it's still a good thing"...then you have never met a canoe man and you don't know the exhilarating and glorious potential of human life.
Read my post, THE PROOF OF FREEDOM...and see why freedom is not a negotiable idea.
"It was the voyageur who struck my imagination--the canoe man who carried loads of hundreds of pounds and paddled eighteen hours a day fighting waves and storms. His muscle and brawn supplied the motive power for French-Canadian exploration and trade, but despite the harshness of his life--the privation, suffering, and constant threat of death by exposure, drowning, and Indian attack--he developed an unsurpassed nonchalance and joy in the wilderness. These exuberant men, wearing red sashes and caps and singing in the face of disaster, were the ones who stood out."
And that exuberance is what you get when you are doing the things that you want to do, that you freely choose to do. And that zest for living is the priceless treasure you lose when you are bombarded by a government dictating what you must do, and burdening your life with endless restraints and restrictions.
If you think, like the blog commentator who said, "Obamacare may deny you some freedoms, but it's still a good thing"...then you have never met a canoe man and you don't know the exhilarating and glorious potential of human life.
Read my post, THE PROOF OF FREEDOM...and see why freedom is not a negotiable idea.
MY GOSH!
Did the frontiersman...
insure his horse, his rifle?
pay income taxes?
pay Social Security taxes?
have unemployment or disability or life insurance?
pay sales taxes?
work for a minimum wage?
have a gun permit?
get permission from the government to marry?
have a Conestoga driving license?
get fined for speeding on roads?
get fined for riding his horse while intoxicated?
get government permission to leave the country?
have a radio, tv, phone, ipod, computer?
collect store coupons?
have a credit card?
drink low fat milk, reduced fat ice cream?
take medications for anxiety, depression?
pay alimony?
need a college degree to get a job?
NO!
My gosh! How did he survive? How could the country survive and prosper? HOW???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE9vc2cO170
insure his horse, his rifle?
pay income taxes?
pay Social Security taxes?
have unemployment or disability or life insurance?
pay sales taxes?
work for a minimum wage?
have a gun permit?
get permission from the government to marry?
have a Conestoga driving license?
get fined for speeding on roads?
get fined for riding his horse while intoxicated?
get government permission to leave the country?
have a radio, tv, phone, ipod, computer?
collect store coupons?
have a credit card?
drink low fat milk, reduced fat ice cream?
take medications for anxiety, depression?
pay alimony?
need a college degree to get a job?
NO!
My gosh! How did he survive? How could the country survive and prosper? HOW???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE9vc2cO170
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
DISCONNECT
I was on my way out of the house the other morning, heading for a casual walk in the park, and there was a long line of people there, quibbling and agitating and maneuvering to get to the front of the line.
"I'm hungry," said the first guy, "I'll take a look in your frig to see what I can eat."
"My three kids want to go to college," said the second in line. "Make the check out to cash."
"Not workin'. I can sell that painting over there. It should bring in enough for a month or so."
"I and the wife and the seven kids should have health insurance, shouldn't they? I'll put it on your tab."
"The roads in my country need a lot of work. We only need $7 billion."
"We have no place to stay. We can bed down over there by the tree."
"The company I was working for isn't doing well. $175 a month should help them. Cash only."
A sudden surge of the ever lengthening line of screaming people flooded into my home, taking, grabbing anything and everything I had worked so hard for. Someone pulled my sweater off. The surge threw me down and the mob trampled over me, knocking me out.
When I awoke, I thought it had been only a dream, a nightmare.
It hadn't been. It was real. 2013 America.
I could hear the mob chanting:
WHAT DO WE WANT?
WE WANT IT ALL
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
WE WANT IT NOW
"I'm hungry," said the first guy, "I'll take a look in your frig to see what I can eat."
"My three kids want to go to college," said the second in line. "Make the check out to cash."
"Not workin'. I can sell that painting over there. It should bring in enough for a month or so."
"I and the wife and the seven kids should have health insurance, shouldn't they? I'll put it on your tab."
"The roads in my country need a lot of work. We only need $7 billion."
"We have no place to stay. We can bed down over there by the tree."
"The company I was working for isn't doing well. $175 a month should help them. Cash only."
A sudden surge of the ever lengthening line of screaming people flooded into my home, taking, grabbing anything and everything I had worked so hard for. Someone pulled my sweater off. The surge threw me down and the mob trampled over me, knocking me out.
When I awoke, I thought it had been only a dream, a nightmare.
It hadn't been. It was real. 2013 America.
I could hear the mob chanting:
WHAT DO WE WANT?
WE WANT IT ALL
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
WE WANT IT NOW
Monday, July 8, 2013
ZERO PROOF
If you read my posts, you know I frequently complain that no proof was given in support of a particular political or ethical position. The argument virtually always made is a consequential one: look at the past and see what happened. Did the position taken cause certain things to happen (higher or lower unemployment, improved or reduced stock market indexes, increased or reduced crime rate, etc.). But that argument is logically fallacious in a number of ways, which make the argument nonpersuasive, nonconvincing.
The first logical error is that the fact that A was followed by B does not mean that A caused B to happen. A thousand other things were going on at the same time, and any one of them, or combination of them, may have caused B to happen.
Second, even if it can be shown that A caused B to happen in the past, that is not proof that it can and will make it happen in the future. People, circumstances and other influential factors may have also changed.
Third, the fact that something "good:" happened after a certain policy was implemented does not prove the policy is a right one. Slavery may have lowered the unemployment rate, but slavery is wrong. The death rate increased after America entered World War II, but entering the war was the right thing for America to do. The "rightness" of a political policy must stand on its own. The Founders knew that and so spoke of "truths" that were self-evident. Proof is all about truths. How do you prove something? You point to something in reality, that's the truth, and say, "See".
Today, proof has been tossed by the wayside. Few need it to stridently proclaim their point of view. As a mater of fact, the need to prove political ideas is no longer even discussed or talked about. It's been 100 years, at least it seems that long, since I 've heard anyone offer proof to support his or her political beliefs.
What to do if you hear a proofless political pundit pontificating? Say adios!
The first logical error is that the fact that A was followed by B does not mean that A caused B to happen. A thousand other things were going on at the same time, and any one of them, or combination of them, may have caused B to happen.
Second, even if it can be shown that A caused B to happen in the past, that is not proof that it can and will make it happen in the future. People, circumstances and other influential factors may have also changed.
Third, the fact that something "good:" happened after a certain policy was implemented does not prove the policy is a right one. Slavery may have lowered the unemployment rate, but slavery is wrong. The death rate increased after America entered World War II, but entering the war was the right thing for America to do. The "rightness" of a political policy must stand on its own. The Founders knew that and so spoke of "truths" that were self-evident. Proof is all about truths. How do you prove something? You point to something in reality, that's the truth, and say, "See".
Today, proof has been tossed by the wayside. Few need it to stridently proclaim their point of view. As a mater of fact, the need to prove political ideas is no longer even discussed or talked about. It's been 100 years, at least it seems that long, since I 've heard anyone offer proof to support his or her political beliefs.
What to do if you hear a proofless political pundit pontificating? Say adios!
Saturday, July 6, 2013
SCOTUS
The Founding Fathers gave the President the power to appoint Supreme Court justices (Error #1), and the appointments were for life (Error #2). The reasoning behind the life appointment was that without having to be concerned about re-appointment, the justices could be apolitical, impartial and make their decisions non-ideologically and purely on the law.
History has proven that reasoning flawed. The reverse has happened. Not having to worry about re-appointment, the justices feel free to be as political as hell, and they virtually always vote on the basis of their ideological biases. It makes for screaming headlines when, on rare occasions, they do not. Court onlookers predict the Court's ultimate ruling with a very high percentage of accuracy, even before the case begins.
The law is primarily based on fundamental principles expressed in the Constitution. To be sure, different justices may disagree on the application of those principles in a particular case...but the application is intended to be done objectively and logically.
What to do?
First, having the President, the chief political figure in the country, appoint the justices is patently absurd (and unConstitutional). It builds politics into the Court, even before the justices hear their first case. It clearly violates the separation of powers clause. The Constitution should be amended to have the justices appointed by groups outside the government and less likely to be politically motivated... like, perhaps, state bar associations.
Second, the term of service should not be for life but for, say, ten years. That is a sufficiently lengthy term for a justice to serve, and a not-too-lengthy term if the justice turns out to be incompetent and/or political (which, in a way, is but another form of incompetence). And one term only.
"and Justice for all" demands these changes.
,
History has proven that reasoning flawed. The reverse has happened. Not having to worry about re-appointment, the justices feel free to be as political as hell, and they virtually always vote on the basis of their ideological biases. It makes for screaming headlines when, on rare occasions, they do not. Court onlookers predict the Court's ultimate ruling with a very high percentage of accuracy, even before the case begins.
The law is primarily based on fundamental principles expressed in the Constitution. To be sure, different justices may disagree on the application of those principles in a particular case...but the application is intended to be done objectively and logically.
What to do?
First, having the President, the chief political figure in the country, appoint the justices is patently absurd (and unConstitutional). It builds politics into the Court, even before the justices hear their first case. It clearly violates the separation of powers clause. The Constitution should be amended to have the justices appointed by groups outside the government and less likely to be politically motivated... like, perhaps, state bar associations.
Second, the term of service should not be for life but for, say, ten years. That is a sufficiently lengthy term for a justice to serve, and a not-too-lengthy term if the justice turns out to be incompetent and/or political (which, in a way, is but another form of incompetence). And one term only.
"and Justice for all" demands these changes.
,
Friday, July 5, 2013
LIAR, LIAR...COUNTRY ON FIRE
So, after pictures showed that Secretary of State Kerry was indeed out yachting and kayaking on the day of the military coup in Egypt, a Department of State spokesperson retracted her original statement that he wasn't doing those things, that he was too busy monitoring developments there...and she admitted he was.
Ho hum. She lied to us. What a surprise! No government spokesperson or politician would lie to us, would they? Why would they? To look better than they are? To cover their ineptness? To avoid responsibility...and recrimination? To gain our future vote? This must be a first.
The spokesperson listed the phone calls Kerry had that day relating to the coup, to make the Administration look better, I guess. But in my eyes, she made it look worse. John Kerry is the next to last person I would want handling any world issue...Hillary Clinton is the last one. Or is it Obama? I was glad to hear the Secretary was out relaxing and frolicking on the water. It is good to relax while the world is crumbling around you. Especially if you are Secretary of State. Too bad his phone was working, I say.
My daughter Kira is a writer and she is running a project called The Honesty Experiment in which volunteer participants promise to always tell the truth for one month. I suggested to her that it would be interesting if she got some politicians to participate. Silly me. What was I thinking? Or not thinking?
One further thing. What's happening in Egypt or other parts of the world is not our concern until America or Americans are threatened or assaulted. Securing our borders, getting out of our national debt and restraining an overbearing government, are.
Ho hum. She lied to us. What a surprise! No government spokesperson or politician would lie to us, would they? Why would they? To look better than they are? To cover their ineptness? To avoid responsibility...and recrimination? To gain our future vote? This must be a first.
The spokesperson listed the phone calls Kerry had that day relating to the coup, to make the Administration look better, I guess. But in my eyes, she made it look worse. John Kerry is the next to last person I would want handling any world issue...Hillary Clinton is the last one. Or is it Obama? I was glad to hear the Secretary was out relaxing and frolicking on the water. It is good to relax while the world is crumbling around you. Especially if you are Secretary of State. Too bad his phone was working, I say.
My daughter Kira is a writer and she is running a project called The Honesty Experiment in which volunteer participants promise to always tell the truth for one month. I suggested to her that it would be interesting if she got some politicians to participate. Silly me. What was I thinking? Or not thinking?
One further thing. What's happening in Egypt or other parts of the world is not our concern until America or Americans are threatened or assaulted. Securing our borders, getting out of our national debt and restraining an overbearing government, are.
THE SECOND REVOLUTION
The entire political system is corrupt and decayed through and through. I know it, you know it, we all know it. All major parties. Federal and local officeholders. Driven by an apparent lust for power, they all have little problem saying what they think must be said, voting the way they think they must, to win re-election. They presumptuously talk to us as if we were all ignorant children in their care, and they wizened sages...neither of which is true. They are not our masters; they are our employees. They fritter away our funds on wasteful ventures and expenditures as if they had found a bottomless gold mine. They are mostly inept, making judgments on matters about which they have little if any knowledge or experience, passing laws they brazenly admit they haven't even fully read.. Their word is as good as their bond, and their bond is worthless.
What do we do? We the people have the power, we hold the purse strings. The nature of the political landscape is such that if even only 10% or 20% of us agree to the following, it will alter the course of politics in our country and return our government and our nation to us.
First, we re-elect no one. Throw them ALL out of office at the end of their term. We start anew, a la the Founding Fathers.
Second, we vote only for those who agree to support the following amendments to the Constitution:
1. there will be midterm recall elections that may be called by the people to throw the corrupt and incompetent out of office
2. to cut the cost of government, each State will have one Senator and one Representative
3. no new bill may be passed for which required funds are not presently available
4. all existing welfare programs are shut down at the end of the year.
5. any elected official.who takes or votes for a different position than he or she took in the campaign is ipso facto removed from office
6. judges will be appointed by State bar association.
And those are our first steps. Behind them, whatever it takes to restore our unfettered rights.
WHATEVER.
What do we do? We the people have the power, we hold the purse strings. The nature of the political landscape is such that if even only 10% or 20% of us agree to the following, it will alter the course of politics in our country and return our government and our nation to us.
First, we re-elect no one. Throw them ALL out of office at the end of their term. We start anew, a la the Founding Fathers.
Second, we vote only for those who agree to support the following amendments to the Constitution:
1. there will be midterm recall elections that may be called by the people to throw the corrupt and incompetent out of office
2. to cut the cost of government, each State will have one Senator and one Representative
3. no new bill may be passed for which required funds are not presently available
4. all existing welfare programs are shut down at the end of the year.
5. any elected official.who takes or votes for a different position than he or she took in the campaign is ipso facto removed from office
6. judges will be appointed by State bar association.
And those are our first steps. Behind them, whatever it takes to restore our unfettered rights.
WHATEVER.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
HAPPY JULY 4TH!
It is July 4th. The nation's day of origination.
The Founders first declared our core principles: we are all equal, we are a nation of independent, sovereign beings. They then listed the egregious acts against them by the king. Today, they would list the oppressive acts of the President:
He has repeatedly exceeded his Constitutional authority; he has refused to enforce existing border security laws in violation of his oath of office; he has burdened future generations with $17 trillion of debt, $!00 trillion of unfunded liabilities; he failed to respond to the pleas for help by Americans he had sent to Benghazi, and he lied to us about it as he has lied to us about other things; he inaugurated the unConstitutional surveillance of the American people; he interfered with the free election process; he has invited and hosted terrorists in the White House; he has repeatedly announced his desire to transform America from its glorious founding past.
The Founders declared our independence. What shall we declare?
Christopher Houston Carson (1809-68), nicknamed Kit, was born in Kentucky, moved to Missouri, and left home at age 14 to became a mountain man, fur trapper, and frontiersman. He pioneered the way West, to Santa Fe, Sierra Nevada, across the Continental Divide, to California, and along the Oregon Trail. He led a number of expeditions by famed explorer, John C. Fremont.
The Founders first declared our core principles: we are all equal, we are a nation of independent, sovereign beings. They then listed the egregious acts against them by the king. Today, they would list the oppressive acts of the President:
He has repeatedly exceeded his Constitutional authority; he has refused to enforce existing border security laws in violation of his oath of office; he has burdened future generations with $17 trillion of debt, $!00 trillion of unfunded liabilities; he failed to respond to the pleas for help by Americans he had sent to Benghazi, and he lied to us about it as he has lied to us about other things; he inaugurated the unConstitutional surveillance of the American people; he interfered with the free election process; he has invited and hosted terrorists in the White House; he has repeatedly announced his desire to transform America from its glorious founding past.
The Founders declared our independence. What shall we declare?
Christopher Houston Carson (1809-68), nicknamed Kit, was born in Kentucky, moved to Missouri, and left home at age 14 to became a mountain man, fur trapper, and frontiersman. He pioneered the way West, to Santa Fe, Sierra Nevada, across the Continental Divide, to California, and along the Oregon Trail. He led a number of expeditions by famed explorer, John C. Fremont.
Carson was described as intrepid, just and resourceful. He fought some Indians and traded peacefully with others. Though he could neither read nor write English, he was fluent in a number of Indian languages and married Indian women. His family intermarried with the family of Daniel Boone. During the Civil War, he fought on the side of the North as a general.
On July 4th, I remember Kit Carson and others who helped forge the spirit of young America.
On July 4th, I remember Kit Carson and others who helped forge the spirit of young America.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
BELIEVE ME!
1. Religious beliefs are not knowledge...one doesn't KNOW there is a God, one BELIEVES it. Is the distinction between those two words not clear?
2. Since they are only BELIEFS, yours are no better...no more true, no more right...than ANYONE else's. Is that not clearly clear?
3. Because of #2, believers promote and endorse terrorism. Today's terrorists base their terrorism and wanton killings on BELIEFS. Throughout recorded history, religious beliefs have been used as the basis for murderous violence. If your argument for doing right, doing good is based on your unproven subjective beliefs, then how can you say that what the jihadists are doing is wrong, is evil? Their beliefs, their God, is allegedly commanding them to kill nonbelievers. What makes their beliefs any less reliable, less appropriate, than your beliefs? NOTHING.
4. Believers are frequently heard to claim that God alone is the source of our rights. Nonsense. There are hundreds of religions, hundeds of thousands of different religious beliefs, and each belief system sponsor its own list of rights, and each list would be as valid...or invalid... as any other.
5. I have written before about where your rights come from.
When a cat tries to fly like a bird off the roof of a 10-story building, it is not God that punishes him (to answer those believers who blindly claim that without God there would be no punishment)...it is his nature. The cat can't fly like a bird. You cannot escape the reality of your nature and the punishments (mental and physical) which it inflicts when you seek to evade or deny it.
Freedom is not a right given to us by God; it is given to us by our nature. Humans are not programmed by instincts or anything else to do the right things to sustain and nourish our lives. We have to make choices using the facilities nature has given us...our thinking mind, our five senses to learn about and KNOW the world we live in...so that we can make good decisions that further our lives.
Are you not yet sure where your rights come from? Take that "fly off a 10-story building" test and find out.
6. In line with #5, political policies are not right because the Founders believed them. I enormously admire their contributions to civilization, but they were not always right (remember slavery), THEY WERE NOT GODS. And even if they were all believers...they weren't...it is not their BELIEFS that made them right when they were right. It was the fact that they recognized man's natural state, and needs. See #5 again.
7. America was not formed on Judea-Christian beliefs, as is commonly claimed, but, in part, on a separation of Church and State.
Conservatives believe you should act not on knowledge but on beliefs.
Correction: They want you to act not on beliefs but on THEIR BELIEFS.
THE HAPPY MEDIUM ISN'T
Compromise is the name of the game today. Middle of the road is where most of us are urged to be and seemingly want to be. Dems and Repubs are urged to meet halfway on virtually all issues: abortion (ok, lets allow them for the first 6 months), border security (lets let another 40 million illegals in and then we can tighten security), mandatory health insurance (lets limit premium increases to 40%), and on and on. Holding firm to a political position because you believe it is right is considered hard-nosed, and you an extremist. Don't want any of those around here!
Where would we be today if the Founding Fathers had compromised their views? I guess we would have unalienable rights on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays only. If Lincoln had freed only half the slaves, if the Allies had opened only half the concentration camps, if Rosa Parks had moved to the middle of the bus?
We wouldn't be America, that's for sure. We wouldn't be a semblance of it. Is it not clear to all that when the good compromises with evil, when right meets halfway with wrong, it is evil that wins, and wrong that prevails. Should the FBI meet with the underworld and agree not to crack down on its members until they have killed a certain minimum number each year, or sold a minimum amount of hard drugs to children? Are you not an extremist, an absolutist, when it comes to protecting your family and those you love?
I suspect many who hold the right views on the issues are happy to surrender halfway because they can't prove the correctness of their positions...and thus, in a way, are not sure they are right. When I first heard Ayn Rand speak, the very first thing she said was "Don't accept a thing I say unless I prove to you that it is right." I had never before heard any public figure say that...and haven't heard another since.
Saving our country from overbearing, controlling, politicians begins with education. Which is why the government should not be in charge of it.
Read my post, Proof of Freedom. It can come in handy some day.
Where would we be today if the Founding Fathers had compromised their views? I guess we would have unalienable rights on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays only. If Lincoln had freed only half the slaves, if the Allies had opened only half the concentration camps, if Rosa Parks had moved to the middle of the bus?
We wouldn't be America, that's for sure. We wouldn't be a semblance of it. Is it not clear to all that when the good compromises with evil, when right meets halfway with wrong, it is evil that wins, and wrong that prevails. Should the FBI meet with the underworld and agree not to crack down on its members until they have killed a certain minimum number each year, or sold a minimum amount of hard drugs to children? Are you not an extremist, an absolutist, when it comes to protecting your family and those you love?
I suspect many who hold the right views on the issues are happy to surrender halfway because they can't prove the correctness of their positions...and thus, in a way, are not sure they are right. When I first heard Ayn Rand speak, the very first thing she said was "Don't accept a thing I say unless I prove to you that it is right." I had never before heard any public figure say that...and haven't heard another since.
Saving our country from overbearing, controlling, politicians begins with education. Which is why the government should not be in charge of it.
Read my post, Proof of Freedom. It can come in handy some day.
Monday, July 1, 2013
FREEDUMB 2
Makes no sense...at 18 you are legally old enough:
to vote
to get married
to get divorced
to have children
to have an abortion
to drive a car
to serve in the military
to be a police officer
to be a college professor
to be a Supreme Court justice
to bungee jump
to buy a knife
...but but but, not to buy a Bud.
to vote
to get married
to get divorced
to have children
to have an abortion
to drive a car
to serve in the military
to be a police officer
to be a college professor
to be a Supreme Court justice
to bungee jump
to buy a knife
...but but but, not to buy a Bud.
THE ONE TRUE REALIGION
...that is based solely on universally-known truths, including the
nature of the human species and the world in which it lives...
...no tenet of which is based on mystical beliefs, fantasy, revelations or subjective feelings
...that preaches the supreme glory of human life here on Earth
...that reveres the value of each human life, and respects the dignity of each human being, until he/she forfeits that dignity by denying it to any other
...that offers the rewards of certitude of knowledge and indestructible convictions
...that has no commandments
...that places none in an authoritative position to another, nor imposes any duties on its members
...membership to which is not bestowed on any individual by reason of birth but by such individual's independent and continuous manner of thinking and choices of action
...that does not claim to know the unknown
...that does not offer the incongruous promise of life after the end of life.
Welcome to the realigion of Reason.
...no tenet of which is based on mystical beliefs, fantasy, revelations or subjective feelings
...that preaches the supreme glory of human life here on Earth
...that reveres the value of each human life, and respects the dignity of each human being, until he/she forfeits that dignity by denying it to any other
...that offers the rewards of certitude of knowledge and indestructible convictions
...that has no commandments
...that places none in an authoritative position to another, nor imposes any duties on its members
...membership to which is not bestowed on any individual by reason of birth but by such individual's independent and continuous manner of thinking and choices of action
...that does not claim to know the unknown
...that does not offer the incongruous promise of life after the end of life.
Welcome to the realigion of Reason.
FREEDUMB I
* We are not free to represent our child or spouse or friend in a
court matter, even though they want us to, if we don't happen to be
lawyers
* We are not free to purchase a medication in a foreign country that is not approved by the FDA and bring it back to our home in the US, even though we have a critical/terminal disease and will die without it
* We are not free to open a shop anywhere in our country and sell alcohol, open a casino, drive a taxi, perform marriages, get a divorce, and a thousand other things without first meeting arbitrary government requirements
* We are not free not to risk our lives and fight in a war even though we think the war is unjust, if the government insists we do so
* We are not free not to help pay for our neighbor's college education if the government mandates we pay taxes to do so
* We are not free to serve as President of this country even though 100% of the population wish us to, if we were not born 35 or more years ago here in the U.S.
* We are not free not to have personal health insurance.
* We are not free throughout this country to marry another person or adopt a child with another person who doesn't have different genitalia than we do
* We are not free to burn a piece of material that has been made to look like the image of an American flag
* We are not free to kill a cat and eat it even though we are starving to death, though we kill millions of other animals each day for the same purpose, or for pleasure
* We are not free not to serve as a juror
* We are not free to retain the home (and the property it sits on) which our family has lived in (and on) for generations if the government unilaterally decides it wants it
* We are not free not to testify in a criminal case even though our lives and the lives of our family are in jeopardy if we do so
* We are not free to choose our own name without government permission
* We are not free not to put money aside for our retirement...money we desperately need now
* We are not free...
* We are not free to purchase a medication in a foreign country that is not approved by the FDA and bring it back to our home in the US, even though we have a critical/terminal disease and will die without it
* We are not free to open a shop anywhere in our country and sell alcohol, open a casino, drive a taxi, perform marriages, get a divorce, and a thousand other things without first meeting arbitrary government requirements
* We are not free not to risk our lives and fight in a war even though we think the war is unjust, if the government insists we do so
* We are not free not to help pay for our neighbor's college education if the government mandates we pay taxes to do so
* We are not free to serve as President of this country even though 100% of the population wish us to, if we were not born 35 or more years ago here in the U.S.
* We are not free not to have personal health insurance.
* We are not free throughout this country to marry another person or adopt a child with another person who doesn't have different genitalia than we do
* We are not free to burn a piece of material that has been made to look like the image of an American flag
* We are not free to kill a cat and eat it even though we are starving to death, though we kill millions of other animals each day for the same purpose, or for pleasure
* We are not free not to serve as a juror
* We are not free to retain the home (and the property it sits on) which our family has lived in (and on) for generations if the government unilaterally decides it wants it
* We are not free not to testify in a criminal case even though our lives and the lives of our family are in jeopardy if we do so
* We are not free to choose our own name without government permission
* We are not free not to put money aside for our retirement...money we desperately need now
* We are not free...
STOP SALUTING GENERAL WELFARE
What confounds me is why it isn't as obvious to everyone as it is to me.
All questions we humans have are ultimately to be answered by Nature...man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.What is good for us or bad for us to do, what is pro life or anti life, is determined by Nature...nothing else.
When the Founders talked about freedom..."rights" they called it...they manifested their understanding of the singular significance of the point I am making when they said that the source of our freedom, our right to live our lives as we choose, was given to us by our Creator. In other words, not given to us by other men, nor by society, nor by government...but by our very nature as humans. That idea was further strengthened when the Founders characterized our rights as "inalienable". Not retractable, not subject to limitation or abridgement nor temporary suspension...neither God nor Nature would take kindly to that...bur cast in stone forever and ever and ever.
So what is it I don't understand, what is it that confuses me? How virtually EVERYONE thinks the passage of laws curtailing our freedom is justified if the curtailment is warranted by the perceived general welfare of society. With convoluted reasoning that betrays a lack of appreciation of the source of freedom, they think nothing of limiting, restraining, in one way or a thousand ways, how I can choose to live my life. More appropriately said: they think not.
There is NOTHING...no law, no program, no so-called benefit...that could possibly enhance the general welfare of society if it entails the denial of my freedom...that is, my nature.
Nothing, nil, nada, naught.
All questions we humans have are ultimately to be answered by Nature...man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.What is good for us or bad for us to do, what is pro life or anti life, is determined by Nature...nothing else.
When the Founders talked about freedom..."rights" they called it...they manifested their understanding of the singular significance of the point I am making when they said that the source of our freedom, our right to live our lives as we choose, was given to us by our Creator. In other words, not given to us by other men, nor by society, nor by government...but by our very nature as humans. That idea was further strengthened when the Founders characterized our rights as "inalienable". Not retractable, not subject to limitation or abridgement nor temporary suspension...neither God nor Nature would take kindly to that...bur cast in stone forever and ever and ever.
So what is it I don't understand, what is it that confuses me? How virtually EVERYONE thinks the passage of laws curtailing our freedom is justified if the curtailment is warranted by the perceived general welfare of society. With convoluted reasoning that betrays a lack of appreciation of the source of freedom, they think nothing of limiting, restraining, in one way or a thousand ways, how I can choose to live my life. More appropriately said: they think not.
There is NOTHING...no law, no program, no so-called benefit...that could possibly enhance the general welfare of society if it entails the denial of my freedom...that is, my nature.
Nothing, nil, nada, naught.
CEO HILLARY? SERIOUSLY?
Why would anyone in his right mind want the federal government or any
other government to run any industry...the way our current President
wants to run the auto industry, the gas and energy industry, the health
industry, the education industry, the farm industry and every other damn
industry he can get his hands on?
Aide from the "minor" point that our Constitution does not give the government the right to run any business, and that powers not granted to the Government are reserved to the people, here are a few other things to keep in mind:
1. Competition between companies drives them to produce better products at lower prices...to get your business. That competition benefits all of us.
When the Government takes over an industry, it is a MONOPOLY...they have no competitors. It freely does what it wants to do.
2. The profit motive in the free enterprise system drives companies to come up with innovations that will attract the consumer dollar. Government has no profit motive. It loses money? It raises taxes, it prints new money (which devalues our currency), it borrows profusely (notice our $16,000,000,000,000 federal debt).
3. The`Government is run by people who almost always have DONE NOTHING, ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING and KNOW NOTHING about the business world. Obama never ran a candy store for one day in his life. You seriously, prudently, logically, want him to be CEO, chief honcho, top dog, of your company, or smiling Biden to run the oil industry?
Businesses that cannot make it in the free marketplace will fold, leaving the marketplace open to those who can produce the goods the public wants at a price the public is willing to pay...a sort of "economic survival of the fittest".
Our goal should not be full employment (all the slaves had jobs), nor lower interest rates, nor a reduced rate of inflation. Our goal should be a free marketplace, the only marketplace which affords to each of us the economic environment to which we have a moral right.
Aide from the "minor" point that our Constitution does not give the government the right to run any business, and that powers not granted to the Government are reserved to the people, here are a few other things to keep in mind:
1. Competition between companies drives them to produce better products at lower prices...to get your business. That competition benefits all of us.
When the Government takes over an industry, it is a MONOPOLY...they have no competitors. It freely does what it wants to do.
2. The profit motive in the free enterprise system drives companies to come up with innovations that will attract the consumer dollar. Government has no profit motive. It loses money? It raises taxes, it prints new money (which devalues our currency), it borrows profusely (notice our $16,000,000,000,000 federal debt).
3. The`Government is run by people who almost always have DONE NOTHING, ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING and KNOW NOTHING about the business world. Obama never ran a candy store for one day in his life. You seriously, prudently, logically, want him to be CEO, chief honcho, top dog, of your company, or smiling Biden to run the oil industry?
Businesses that cannot make it in the free marketplace will fold, leaving the marketplace open to those who can produce the goods the public wants at a price the public is willing to pay...a sort of "economic survival of the fittest".
Our goal should not be full employment (all the slaves had jobs), nor lower interest rates, nor a reduced rate of inflation. Our goal should be a free marketplace, the only marketplace which affords to each of us the economic environment to which we have a moral right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)