When the government controls businesses, it also controls, by proxy, all those people who supply goods or services to those businesses, as well as those who patronize that business. When the government tells Walmart they can’t build a store in a town because it would drive the mom and pop stores under, the government is also limiting the freedom – ie, control of private property – of: the truckers who would haul goods to that store, the people who would be employed by that store, the people who would patronize that store, the people who would build that store, and the people who would provide goods and services to the truckers, employees, construction workers associated with that store.
There is another element of this that is UNIVERSALLY ignored by both the Left and the Right: If the premise is that Walmart must be prevented from undercutting their prices of the little stores and thereby breaking them, then IT IS AXIOMATIC that the people of the community will be forced by their government to pay artificially inflated prices for goods and services. The employees who might have left the little stores for the higher wages and better benefits of Walmart will be forced to endure a lower standard of living than they would otherwise have. The money that shoppers might have saved, and the wages the workers might have earned will NOT be available to support new businesses in the community, new technology that might enrich the lives of the human race, or charities that might have sustained and succored the needy.
Thus, the little stores have been saved, but at what cost? The cost is the freedom of everyone associated with that community or that Walmart. How many new businesses will be denied existence? How many young people will be denied the opportunity to start their own businesses? Yes, it is sad to see the little stores with which we grew up go under, but that is life. Yes, life. Everything dies. Even Walmart will die. Under a free, ie, capitalistic market, the people decide what businesses live and die. Under statism, the government decides. Either way, businesses will fail.
But under a statist government, freedom fails, too.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
THE MYTHOLOGY OF ABOLITION AND THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
I'm not trying to justify the South or slavery. It just aggravates the snot out of me to hear the old Republican party held up as saints of liberation and justice. Barack Obama would have fit in just fine.
Andrew Johnson was a Southerner who loved the South. He wasn't an abolitionist, but he hated the wealthy, powerful planters and career politicians. He believed the radical, hard line they had taken had caused the war. For all that, though, Johnson was not even in the same league with Thaddeus Stevens, et al, who were driven by hatred of everything Southern, and more so by anything that challenged federal power.
It would not be right to say that all Republicans lusted for power, and through carelessness, I pretty much did say that. Sorry. But there was a powerful, radical core in the Republican party, and they caused no end of mischief. The Radicals in Congress were determined to keep them out of public service, especially positions of power. Contrary to popular mythology, the KKK was not initially the terrorist group it became, and Nathan Bedford Forrest did not start it. Forrest was contacted by the founders of the Klan and asked to rep for them. As the Klan was explained to Forrest, it was to be sort of a fraternal organization of former Confederate officers, dedicated to helping each other find work and adjust to living among the corpses of their dreams. (Whatever one might think of Southern politics, those men put everything they had, and then some, into the cause.) Forrest thought that was a good idea and agreed to be the public face of the Klan. The organization very quickly turned ugly, and Forrest not only disassociated himself from it, he wrote to his Congressional delegation and suggested that the Klan be outlawed. The treatment Forrest has received from modern academians, liberals, and the NNACP is utterly shameful.
The War Between the States was not a civil war. A civil war is a war between factions within a nation for control of that nation. Southerners did not want to control the nation. They wanted nothing to do with the United States, most especially its government. They said, “You folks go on and do what you want, but we’re going to strike out on our own.” It was a war of independence, every bit as much as the one in 1775. Many Southerners were surprised when Lincoln mustered an army and sent it south; much as they despised him, they didn’t believe even he could be that crazy.
Here is the critical point: The South did not threaten the Federal government. It did not try to alter it or hinder it in any way, save to deny its control over the South. The war waged by the North was not to protect the federal government. It was a war for one purpose, and one purpose, only: to make sure those damned white trash down there never tried to do anything on their own again. In that, it succeeded. Maybe.
Lincoln was no lover of Blacks. Apparently he hated slavery, but not because it degraded the slaves. He hated slavery because association with Blacks, even as masters to slaves, was corrosive to the character of the White race. He was not an abolitionist to any degree, at all. Shortly before the war, he said that his objective was to preserve the Union, and if he had to destroy slavery to do it, he would, but if he had to preserve slavery to do it, he’d do that, too. The Emancipation Proclamation is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on the American people by professors – and that’s going some!
There was a preliminary proclamation issued in Sept. of ’62, right after Antietam. That proclamation differed subtly but significantly from the final one issued in January of ’63. The preliminary proclamation urged Slaves to take whatever means necessary to secure their freedom, and said that the US government would protect them and help them if possible. Lincoln, who possessed an almost supernatural grasp of human nature, knew that Southerners would interpret that to mean that the US government was encouraging and edifying slave revolt and the murder of Whites (which, in fact, it was). They remembered Nat Turner’s Rebellion, and the very thought of what Lincoln was suggesting made the mildest Southerner a diehard radical. The entire South rejected the Proclamation vehemently, and it was during that reaction that the Confederate Congress issued the infamous extermination notice – that any former slave caught in US uniform, or serving the US army in any way would be executed. (The movie “Glory” mentioned this.)
So Lincoln deliberately wrote the preliminary Proclamation in such a way as to infuriate the South and solidify its resolve to fight to the death. In private, Lincoln and his cabinet assured the Congress and Northern governors that the Proclamation was just a political ploy to make it appear that the war was over slavery. If France or England were to come in on the side of the South, they’d have to deal with being called pro-slavery by the rest of the world. When the final Proclamation was issued, it caused havoc in the North. Vermont debated secession. The entire 15th Corps, one of the finest in the Army of the Tennessee, broke camp and headed back to Illinois, saying, “We’ll be damned if we’ll die for the Niggers.” Only the charisma of Black Jack Logan kept them in the order of battle. There were race riots and large-scale lynchings of Blacks in Detroit, New York, and even Washington, DC. Northern editors excoriated Lincoln for murdering good White people for the sake of Blacks.
Lincoln’s ploy for international opinion worked. The preliminary Proclamation was never published abroad, so it appeared that Southern rage was associated with the final one, which was more reasonable. Lincoln stood there, with his palms up, shrugging his shoulders, and saying, “See what I have to deal with? These hillbillies are really terrible people.” England and France breathed a sigh of relief because they could posture on the “moral high ground,” and stay out of the war. Privately, their governments had been horrified at the casualties being taken by both sides, and had no desire to feed their men into such slaughter.
The radical abolitionist faction notwithstanding, there is no way any reasonable person could conclude that the War Between the States was fought to end slavery – not by the politicians, and certainly not by the vast majority of men who fought in it. Of course, the NAACP and other organizations like them should never be mentioned in the same breath with the word – (breathe in, breathe out) “reasonable.”
If further evidence is needed that the war was fought for the subjugation of the Southern people, consider what happened following the war. Secessionist states were not allowed to be readmitted to the Union or have seats in Congress until they ratified the 13th Amendment. If the North had been fighting for abolition, wouldn’t one think that perhaps Washington, DC, might have outlawed slavery BEFORE the 13th Amendment? In fact, mightn’t they have passed the amendment at the outset, since they did it without participation or consent of the South, anyway? Mightn’t the Emancipation Proclamation have freed slaves in areas controlled by the Washington government, rather than saying, EXPLICITLY, that if the South would cease its rebellion and send representatives back to Washington, they COULD KEEP THEIR SLAVES? The Proclamation did NOT declare slaves free! Oh, hell no! It defined the conditions under which slave owners could keep their “property!”
The US government killed a couple hundred thousand Southern men, destroyed millions of acres of farmland, burned out tens of thousands of families and businesses, wrecked ports and railroads, then sent Black troops into the South to enforce the eviction of Southerners from farms and plantations that had been in their families for generations – even centuries – with no regard to whether or not those families had owned slaves. Those properties were then broken up and given to former slaves, and, in some cases, free Blacks. At the same time, the KKK actually grew faster in states like Illinois and Pennsylvania than in Georgia because all those former slaves headed north like a plague of locusts – filthy, ignorant, and unskilled. No, it was most emphatically not their fault, but the fact is they didn’t make very good neighbors, and all those pious damnyankees didn’t want ‘em anywhere near.
(In the early 1960’s, Dick Gregory, who later used his brain for a tether ball, said, “In the north, they don’t care how big I get, as long as I don’t get too close. In the south, they don’t care how close I get, as long as I don’t get to big.”)
Then, after crushing the South militarily, seizing their governments and institutions, putting armed troops – and Black troops, at that - in their streets, the Federal government passed the 13th Amendment. Passed it without the participation or consent of Southern delegates, as if the secessionist states were not part of the Union. Thus, the federal government, led almost solely by Lincoln, prosecuted a war that slew 600,000 Americans, under the premise that the South was still part of the Union, and the uprising was criminal, not diplomatic – and after all that, passed a nation-changing measure without the participation of those who had supposedly never left the Union. And then, while holding the Southern people by the throat and at the points of bayonets, the Southern people were told that, if they ever wanted to be permitted to kiss the boots of the tyrants they’d given 200,000 lives to be rid of, they had to accept the 13th Amendment. The hypocrisy is beyond staggering!
So. Yes. I think Abraham Lincoln is the greatest mass murderer in American history. I think the Federal government waged a war of subjugation against the South, and I think the 13th Amendment was passed without the consent of people who were forced, at gunpoint, to ratify it.
Lest I be accused of defending pro-slavery Democrats, I should say that, in my opinion, they deserved everything they got - a taste of being helpless and hopeless. It's a shame they couldn't have had a little taste of being owned! I just hate to see people twist history to make Lincoln, et al look like friggin' saints.
I have heard Northerners express variations on, "Why can't you damned inbred hillbillies accept the fact that we kicked your asses, and shut up and accept it?" I tell them, "Well, I think you just answered your own question." I was at a trade show in Boston, and at the kick-off luncheon, was sitting with several people from that area. One lady commented on my accent and asked if I were from the south I said, "Yes, Ma'am, I'm from Texas."
Without missing a beat, she said, "Are you in the Klan?" I said, "No. Are you?" She threw her napkin at me and left the table. Not one of the yankees (pardon my use of half-words) said another word to me, or about the incident.
Neither I not any other Southerner I know are looking for reparations or apologies. We're just looking for the truth. For example, movies have been made about Andersonville, and I've been accused of approving what happened there. Whenever anyone talks about the moral reasoning of the two sides, Andersonville comes up pretty quick. But consider this comparison: Andersonville was open less than a year, and right at 3000 men died there. The commandant was hanged, and to this day, the entire Southern people are scourged for it. The federal prison at Elmira, NY, was open for a little over 6 months, and right at 3000 men died there. The commandant was given a medal and promotion, and not one American out of 10,000 ever heard of Hellmira.
Andrew Johnson was a Southerner who loved the South. He wasn't an abolitionist, but he hated the wealthy, powerful planters and career politicians. He believed the radical, hard line they had taken had caused the war. For all that, though, Johnson was not even in the same league with Thaddeus Stevens, et al, who were driven by hatred of everything Southern, and more so by anything that challenged federal power.
It would not be right to say that all Republicans lusted for power, and through carelessness, I pretty much did say that. Sorry. But there was a powerful, radical core in the Republican party, and they caused no end of mischief. The Radicals in Congress were determined to keep them out of public service, especially positions of power. Contrary to popular mythology, the KKK was not initially the terrorist group it became, and Nathan Bedford Forrest did not start it. Forrest was contacted by the founders of the Klan and asked to rep for them. As the Klan was explained to Forrest, it was to be sort of a fraternal organization of former Confederate officers, dedicated to helping each other find work and adjust to living among the corpses of their dreams. (Whatever one might think of Southern politics, those men put everything they had, and then some, into the cause.) Forrest thought that was a good idea and agreed to be the public face of the Klan. The organization very quickly turned ugly, and Forrest not only disassociated himself from it, he wrote to his Congressional delegation and suggested that the Klan be outlawed. The treatment Forrest has received from modern academians, liberals, and the NNACP is utterly shameful.
The War Between the States was not a civil war. A civil war is a war between factions within a nation for control of that nation. Southerners did not want to control the nation. They wanted nothing to do with the United States, most especially its government. They said, “You folks go on and do what you want, but we’re going to strike out on our own.” It was a war of independence, every bit as much as the one in 1775. Many Southerners were surprised when Lincoln mustered an army and sent it south; much as they despised him, they didn’t believe even he could be that crazy.
Here is the critical point: The South did not threaten the Federal government. It did not try to alter it or hinder it in any way, save to deny its control over the South. The war waged by the North was not to protect the federal government. It was a war for one purpose, and one purpose, only: to make sure those damned white trash down there never tried to do anything on their own again. In that, it succeeded. Maybe.
Lincoln was no lover of Blacks. Apparently he hated slavery, but not because it degraded the slaves. He hated slavery because association with Blacks, even as masters to slaves, was corrosive to the character of the White race. He was not an abolitionist to any degree, at all. Shortly before the war, he said that his objective was to preserve the Union, and if he had to destroy slavery to do it, he would, but if he had to preserve slavery to do it, he’d do that, too. The Emancipation Proclamation is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on the American people by professors – and that’s going some!
There was a preliminary proclamation issued in Sept. of ’62, right after Antietam. That proclamation differed subtly but significantly from the final one issued in January of ’63. The preliminary proclamation urged Slaves to take whatever means necessary to secure their freedom, and said that the US government would protect them and help them if possible. Lincoln, who possessed an almost supernatural grasp of human nature, knew that Southerners would interpret that to mean that the US government was encouraging and edifying slave revolt and the murder of Whites (which, in fact, it was). They remembered Nat Turner’s Rebellion, and the very thought of what Lincoln was suggesting made the mildest Southerner a diehard radical. The entire South rejected the Proclamation vehemently, and it was during that reaction that the Confederate Congress issued the infamous extermination notice – that any former slave caught in US uniform, or serving the US army in any way would be executed. (The movie “Glory” mentioned this.)
So Lincoln deliberately wrote the preliminary Proclamation in such a way as to infuriate the South and solidify its resolve to fight to the death. In private, Lincoln and his cabinet assured the Congress and Northern governors that the Proclamation was just a political ploy to make it appear that the war was over slavery. If France or England were to come in on the side of the South, they’d have to deal with being called pro-slavery by the rest of the world. When the final Proclamation was issued, it caused havoc in the North. Vermont debated secession. The entire 15th Corps, one of the finest in the Army of the Tennessee, broke camp and headed back to Illinois, saying, “We’ll be damned if we’ll die for the Niggers.” Only the charisma of Black Jack Logan kept them in the order of battle. There were race riots and large-scale lynchings of Blacks in Detroit, New York, and even Washington, DC. Northern editors excoriated Lincoln for murdering good White people for the sake of Blacks.
Lincoln’s ploy for international opinion worked. The preliminary Proclamation was never published abroad, so it appeared that Southern rage was associated with the final one, which was more reasonable. Lincoln stood there, with his palms up, shrugging his shoulders, and saying, “See what I have to deal with? These hillbillies are really terrible people.” England and France breathed a sigh of relief because they could posture on the “moral high ground,” and stay out of the war. Privately, their governments had been horrified at the casualties being taken by both sides, and had no desire to feed their men into such slaughter.
The radical abolitionist faction notwithstanding, there is no way any reasonable person could conclude that the War Between the States was fought to end slavery – not by the politicians, and certainly not by the vast majority of men who fought in it. Of course, the NAACP and other organizations like them should never be mentioned in the same breath with the word – (breathe in, breathe out) “reasonable.”
If further evidence is needed that the war was fought for the subjugation of the Southern people, consider what happened following the war. Secessionist states were not allowed to be readmitted to the Union or have seats in Congress until they ratified the 13th Amendment. If the North had been fighting for abolition, wouldn’t one think that perhaps Washington, DC, might have outlawed slavery BEFORE the 13th Amendment? In fact, mightn’t they have passed the amendment at the outset, since they did it without participation or consent of the South, anyway? Mightn’t the Emancipation Proclamation have freed slaves in areas controlled by the Washington government, rather than saying, EXPLICITLY, that if the South would cease its rebellion and send representatives back to Washington, they COULD KEEP THEIR SLAVES? The Proclamation did NOT declare slaves free! Oh, hell no! It defined the conditions under which slave owners could keep their “property!”
The US government killed a couple hundred thousand Southern men, destroyed millions of acres of farmland, burned out tens of thousands of families and businesses, wrecked ports and railroads, then sent Black troops into the South to enforce the eviction of Southerners from farms and plantations that had been in their families for generations – even centuries – with no regard to whether or not those families had owned slaves. Those properties were then broken up and given to former slaves, and, in some cases, free Blacks. At the same time, the KKK actually grew faster in states like Illinois and Pennsylvania than in Georgia because all those former slaves headed north like a plague of locusts – filthy, ignorant, and unskilled. No, it was most emphatically not their fault, but the fact is they didn’t make very good neighbors, and all those pious damnyankees didn’t want ‘em anywhere near.
(In the early 1960’s, Dick Gregory, who later used his brain for a tether ball, said, “In the north, they don’t care how big I get, as long as I don’t get too close. In the south, they don’t care how close I get, as long as I don’t get to big.”)
Then, after crushing the South militarily, seizing their governments and institutions, putting armed troops – and Black troops, at that - in their streets, the Federal government passed the 13th Amendment. Passed it without the participation or consent of Southern delegates, as if the secessionist states were not part of the Union. Thus, the federal government, led almost solely by Lincoln, prosecuted a war that slew 600,000 Americans, under the premise that the South was still part of the Union, and the uprising was criminal, not diplomatic – and after all that, passed a nation-changing measure without the participation of those who had supposedly never left the Union. And then, while holding the Southern people by the throat and at the points of bayonets, the Southern people were told that, if they ever wanted to be permitted to kiss the boots of the tyrants they’d given 200,000 lives to be rid of, they had to accept the 13th Amendment. The hypocrisy is beyond staggering!
So. Yes. I think Abraham Lincoln is the greatest mass murderer in American history. I think the Federal government waged a war of subjugation against the South, and I think the 13th Amendment was passed without the consent of people who were forced, at gunpoint, to ratify it.
Lest I be accused of defending pro-slavery Democrats, I should say that, in my opinion, they deserved everything they got - a taste of being helpless and hopeless. It's a shame they couldn't have had a little taste of being owned! I just hate to see people twist history to make Lincoln, et al look like friggin' saints.
I have heard Northerners express variations on, "Why can't you damned inbred hillbillies accept the fact that we kicked your asses, and shut up and accept it?" I tell them, "Well, I think you just answered your own question." I was at a trade show in Boston, and at the kick-off luncheon, was sitting with several people from that area. One lady commented on my accent and asked if I were from the south I said, "Yes, Ma'am, I'm from Texas."
Without missing a beat, she said, "Are you in the Klan?" I said, "No. Are you?" She threw her napkin at me and left the table. Not one of the yankees (pardon my use of half-words) said another word to me, or about the incident.
Neither I not any other Southerner I know are looking for reparations or apologies. We're just looking for the truth. For example, movies have been made about Andersonville, and I've been accused of approving what happened there. Whenever anyone talks about the moral reasoning of the two sides, Andersonville comes up pretty quick. But consider this comparison: Andersonville was open less than a year, and right at 3000 men died there. The commandant was hanged, and to this day, the entire Southern people are scourged for it. The federal prison at Elmira, NY, was open for a little over 6 months, and right at 3000 men died there. The commandant was given a medal and promotion, and not one American out of 10,000 ever heard of Hellmira.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
RIGHT TO WORK VS. PUBLIC OBSCENITY
There was an article under the heading of "Political Intelligence" at Boston.com, about a businessman who is campaigning for a so-called "right to work" bill. Here's the link: http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/union-protests-company-owner-who-backs-right-work-bill/L2nrR9evkjGaptw1b1sCsM/index.html
and here's my response:
First, only two of the union leaders' statements were published, and one of them was, "...there’s going to be a price to pay for that,” said Kurt Ehrenberg,..." I would interpret that as a threat of something more than peaceful protests. There is also a reference to the incident when 300 unionists (to use a 19th century term) swamped a Legislative hearing last year. Contemporary reports of that incident described it as very nearly violent, and most emphatically intimidating.
Now this is a bit more abstract: As the law reads right now, the unions can not force people to join them, but they CAN force people to pay dues, whether or not they are members of the union. In my opinion, any defense of such a practice, no matter how eloquent or civil, is obscene and should be punishable by imprisonment, at least.
Consider this - which I do not mean to be a definitive argument, but merely an example: Telling people what they can eat, what they do with their spare time, or what kind of art they may hang in their homes would violate any number of articles of the Constitution, not to mention basic laws of human decency. So the union is allowed to tell people, "You know that 20 bucks a month you were going to use to take your wife to dinner, or put in your vacation fund, or decorate your home? Well, screw you. Give it to us."
Now consider this: what if it weren't a government-sanctified union, but a street thug, demanding dane geld? I believe a citizen would be justified in setting the law on that thug, and if it turned out the law were in collusion with the thug, I believe a bit of gun play would be fully justified.
In this particular case, while the immediate behavior of the union HINTED at thuggery, their moral principles are, as they say, "in the tank" for thuggery.
and here's my response:
First, only two of the union leaders' statements were published, and one of them was, "...there’s going to be a price to pay for that,” said Kurt Ehrenberg,..." I would interpret that as a threat of something more than peaceful protests. There is also a reference to the incident when 300 unionists (to use a 19th century term) swamped a Legislative hearing last year. Contemporary reports of that incident described it as very nearly violent, and most emphatically intimidating.
Now this is a bit more abstract: As the law reads right now, the unions can not force people to join them, but they CAN force people to pay dues, whether or not they are members of the union. In my opinion, any defense of such a practice, no matter how eloquent or civil, is obscene and should be punishable by imprisonment, at least.
Consider this - which I do not mean to be a definitive argument, but merely an example: Telling people what they can eat, what they do with their spare time, or what kind of art they may hang in their homes would violate any number of articles of the Constitution, not to mention basic laws of human decency. So the union is allowed to tell people, "You know that 20 bucks a month you were going to use to take your wife to dinner, or put in your vacation fund, or decorate your home? Well, screw you. Give it to us."
Now consider this: what if it weren't a government-sanctified union, but a street thug, demanding dane geld? I believe a citizen would be justified in setting the law on that thug, and if it turned out the law were in collusion with the thug, I believe a bit of gun play would be fully justified.
In this particular case, while the immediate behavior of the union HINTED at thuggery, their moral principles are, as they say, "in the tank" for thuggery.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
MY QUEST FOR CIVILITY
Set humor and sarcasm to "off." I struggle with this every day. When I got out of the Marines, I'd been so brutalized BY Blacks for 4 years that I was filled with hatred - a real candidate for the KKK. A string of miracles (that I used to call "coincidence") pulled me back from the edge of that pit. When I was finally able to get some distance from myself and see what I had almost become, it filled me with shame and regret. I never became what you'd call a pacifist, or anything close to that, but for the past 35 years or so, I have worked very, very hard at rooting out and exorcising the racism and hatred from my thinking and my character.
As the old saying goes, "God knows I'm not what I should be, but I thank God I'm not what I used to be."
In about the last 4 or 5 years, though, that old devil has regained a lot of lost ground. The Scriptures tell us that, "...there must needs be opposition in all things." If there is a love that transfigures and saves a man's soul, mustn't there also be the polar opposite of that love? I think this is one of the greatest tasks Heavenly Father has set us: to practice the one extreme while denying the other. For much of my life, this challenge has been beyond my ability - and vastly beyond my faith!
So I find myself in the position of having found an earthly love that is the greatest I've ever known. It has, literally, transfigured me and brought me to my knees in supplication that I might be worthy of the smallest part of it. The love of which I speak is what I feel for my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. (For those about to castigate me for calling them mine when they aren't - you're right. They are my step-children and grandchildren. But if you who bite from behind at the sinews of my heart had the faintest notion of the love that drives me, you might close your serpent's mouths, and wonder.)
The great love that has moved me so far demands that I do all I can to leave these precious ones a legacy - an inheritance - of the the best I have - the firstlings of my life, as it were. I have no money or worldly wealth to leave them. I have only honor and liberty. If they have these, they will find their own way to those other virtues: forbearance, charity, gratitude, humility, and all of those other traits that prove Mankind to be the child of our Father.
What do I see now? I see that honor attacked and ridiculed on all sides. I see that liberty thrown down and trampled under the feet of entities not worthy of the phlegm of those who gave it birth - who sewed the stripes of its banner with their muscle and bone, and dyed it with their blood. I see the liberty that ought to be guaranteed to my precious ones defiled and perverted with a wanton maliciousness that would make the demons of the pit hang their heads in shame. I see the future of my children squandered for cheap, ephemeral political glory and power.
I see the sacrifices of generations of men and women who shed oceans of sweat and blood to secure the liberty decreed by My Father in Heaven as the birthright of His children. And I see those sacrifices, not just disagreed with - not just pushed out of style - but kicked through the sewers of the vilest imaginations of the human mind.
Then the emotions that swamp this old scrapper's heart turn hard and hot, and I say things that I know are wrong, and think things that have no place in a Christian mind. I fight these things at the same time I'm fighting what gives them rise. Some days are better than others.
I ask you, though, my dear and gentle friends: do not think me so low and savage that I would feel these things because of a disagreement, or a difference of opinion.
As the old saying goes, "God knows I'm not what I should be, but I thank God I'm not what I used to be."
In about the last 4 or 5 years, though, that old devil has regained a lot of lost ground. The Scriptures tell us that, "...there must needs be opposition in all things." If there is a love that transfigures and saves a man's soul, mustn't there also be the polar opposite of that love? I think this is one of the greatest tasks Heavenly Father has set us: to practice the one extreme while denying the other. For much of my life, this challenge has been beyond my ability - and vastly beyond my faith!
So I find myself in the position of having found an earthly love that is the greatest I've ever known. It has, literally, transfigured me and brought me to my knees in supplication that I might be worthy of the smallest part of it. The love of which I speak is what I feel for my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. (For those about to castigate me for calling them mine when they aren't - you're right. They are my step-children and grandchildren. But if you who bite from behind at the sinews of my heart had the faintest notion of the love that drives me, you might close your serpent's mouths, and wonder.)
The great love that has moved me so far demands that I do all I can to leave these precious ones a legacy - an inheritance - of the the best I have - the firstlings of my life, as it were. I have no money or worldly wealth to leave them. I have only honor and liberty. If they have these, they will find their own way to those other virtues: forbearance, charity, gratitude, humility, and all of those other traits that prove Mankind to be the child of our Father.
What do I see now? I see that honor attacked and ridiculed on all sides. I see that liberty thrown down and trampled under the feet of entities not worthy of the phlegm of those who gave it birth - who sewed the stripes of its banner with their muscle and bone, and dyed it with their blood. I see the liberty that ought to be guaranteed to my precious ones defiled and perverted with a wanton maliciousness that would make the demons of the pit hang their heads in shame. I see the future of my children squandered for cheap, ephemeral political glory and power.
I see the sacrifices of generations of men and women who shed oceans of sweat and blood to secure the liberty decreed by My Father in Heaven as the birthright of His children. And I see those sacrifices, not just disagreed with - not just pushed out of style - but kicked through the sewers of the vilest imaginations of the human mind.
Then the emotions that swamp this old scrapper's heart turn hard and hot, and I say things that I know are wrong, and think things that have no place in a Christian mind. I fight these things at the same time I'm fighting what gives them rise. Some days are better than others.
I ask you, though, my dear and gentle friends: do not think me so low and savage that I would feel these things because of a disagreement, or a difference of opinion.
Monday, August 1, 2011
TRICKLE DOWN
A comparison: Secenario 1 - the government takes money from them that has it and gives it to them that don't. Them that has just gotten it spends it on... whatever, and then they don't have it no more. Them to whom it was spent has it now, so they spends it on... whatever. So on and on.
In this scenario, the money was placed in the hands of a chosen elite, and from there, it distilled out across the economic society - or, dare I say, "trickled down."
Scenario 2 - the government lets them that made the money keep it. Some of it they spends on... whatever, then they don't have so much no more. Them to whom it was spent has it now, so they spends it on... whatever. And so on and on. Now, them that made the money didn't spend all they had 'cause they's so stinkin', flithy rich. So what does they do with the rest of it? They invests it. What does that mean? It means that the money is loaned to them that needs it to start new businesses or expand existing businesses, or buy houses, or take vacations, or send their babies to college, or... whatever. And, as in every case, them to whom the money was given spends it, and them to whom it was spent spends it... and so on and on.
In this scenario, the money was left in the hands of the organizers (or creators) of wealth, and from there, it distilled across the economic society - or, dare I say, "Trickled down."
In spite of the apparent equivalency of the bottom line, the two scenarios are vastly different. In the first, there is chattel slavery of anyone the government chooses to call "rich." In the second, there is liberty.
In the first, decisions on the seizure and redistribution of wealth are made by government flacks who are known, beyond any shadow of a doubt, to be stinkin' crooks. In the second, some distributions may also be made my corporate flacks who are stinkin' crooks, but some will be made by those who understand things like honor, courage, integrity, risk, desire, drive, and persistence.
And here is a difference that I have never read anywhere else: In the first scenario, graft is a recognized, institutionalized part of the culture, to be aided, edified, sucked-up to, and bartered for more of the same.
In the second scenario, graft is a crime, and is punishable to the extent that the people have the will to punish it.
In this scenario, the money was placed in the hands of a chosen elite, and from there, it distilled out across the economic society - or, dare I say, "trickled down."
Scenario 2 - the government lets them that made the money keep it. Some of it they spends on... whatever, then they don't have so much no more. Them to whom it was spent has it now, so they spends it on... whatever. And so on and on. Now, them that made the money didn't spend all they had 'cause they's so stinkin', flithy rich. So what does they do with the rest of it? They invests it. What does that mean? It means that the money is loaned to them that needs it to start new businesses or expand existing businesses, or buy houses, or take vacations, or send their babies to college, or... whatever. And, as in every case, them to whom the money was given spends it, and them to whom it was spent spends it... and so on and on.
In this scenario, the money was left in the hands of the organizers (or creators) of wealth, and from there, it distilled across the economic society - or, dare I say, "Trickled down."
In spite of the apparent equivalency of the bottom line, the two scenarios are vastly different. In the first, there is chattel slavery of anyone the government chooses to call "rich." In the second, there is liberty.
In the first, decisions on the seizure and redistribution of wealth are made by government flacks who are known, beyond any shadow of a doubt, to be stinkin' crooks. In the second, some distributions may also be made my corporate flacks who are stinkin' crooks, but some will be made by those who understand things like honor, courage, integrity, risk, desire, drive, and persistence.
And here is a difference that I have never read anywhere else: In the first scenario, graft is a recognized, institutionalized part of the culture, to be aided, edified, sucked-up to, and bartered for more of the same.
In the second scenario, graft is a crime, and is punishable to the extent that the people have the will to punish it.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
NO FREE LUNCH - CAUSE AND EFFECT VS. THE WELFARE STATE
One who is more dear to me than breath said she had left the church behind because it has too many rules that kept her from enjoying her life. I hear that from many people, young and old, and from all religious and philosophical backgrounds.
I say to my beloved and to all others that God has not given us rules. He has given us choices.
A rule is something that says, “You must do this, period.” A choice is something that says, “If you want this reward, you must fulfill that condition.”
Even in the atheistic universe, there are natural laws: gravity, thermodynamics, motion and energy, and, most relevant, identity. The law of identity is much despised by those who would love to convince us we don’t really exist, and it is therefore of no consequence that they take from us our possessions and our freedom. But the law of identity is immutable and inescapable, even for them. It says, simply, that everything is what it is, and that nothing can exist as something other than what it is.
If something exists, it must have some identity – features, characteristics, etc.. Otherwise, how would we be aware of it, in the first place? That’s not nearly as abstract as it sounds. If something did not have the characteristic of reflecting light, we could not see it. If it did not have characteristic of emitting molecules that stimulate our olfactory nerves, we could not smell it. If it did not have the characteristic of mass, we could not lift it.
If something exists, it must exist as something, which means it must have the characteristics that identify it as whatever that something is. If it had no characteristics, how would you know it was there, anyway?
There is a second part of the law of identity: nothing can exist as whatever it is and as something else in the same way and at the same time. I love it when nihilists smirk, “But what about something that is hot to me and cold to you?” and then rear back with their arms crossed as if they’d really said something intelligent. Here’s the answer: the definition says, “…in the same way…”. Your measurement of temperature and mine may be different; there is no violation of identity. Quote the contrary, the object has the very specific and measurable identity of, “That which, when perceived by the nihilist is hot, but when perceived by the Mormon is cold.” And that, friends and neighbors, is what I’d call a specific identity.
Or, the slightly better-educated nihilist loves to say, “Well…[that’s when you know you’ve got ‘em – their eyes flicker around and their voice changes pitch, and they whine…] Well, what about light? It is both a particle and a beam!”
Wrong again! If measured by method A, light has the characteristics of a particle, but when measured by method B, it appears to be a beam. In order for the nihilist position to be valid, it would have to appear simultaneously as both a particle and a beam when measured by method A, and that ain’t the case!
“Well… well… [more eye flicking and stammering…] what about wood! If you take a log, it is hard and heavy, but if you burn it, it turns into ash. It’s not the same as it was, but it’s still the same log!” Well, you say, with more patience than this dreck deserves, “You have measured the log at different times, so, yes, it has changed. Your position could be true only if it were both solid and ash at the same time.” In fact, a log has the very specific and measurable identity of, “That which is combustible, and when burned, transforms from heavy and sold into ash.”
(I might get more into Heraclitus later, but for right now, sufficeth it to say that he was a freakin’ idiot.)
So how does this relate to the choices God gives us? Bear with me; we’re almost there.
The law of identity applies to action, too. By the same principles just described, how do you know when something has happened? When you are aware that something has changed – that is, when you perceive change – by one of your senses. When the basic law of identity is applied to action, it is expressed as the law of cause and effect. How do you know something happened? You can see the results. You can see the baseball flying out of the park; you can see the flowers blooming; you can smell the match burning, and feel the heat from it.
Nothing happens unless it was caused, and nothing happens without an effect. Period. We may not know or understand what causes something, but that doesn’t mean it was causeless. Here’s the natural law: “There is no causeless effect, and there is no effectless cause.” You better get used to it. If you want the effect of having your belly full, you better get hopping and cause that effect. If you want the effect of having that good lookin’ person next to you to like you, you better figure out how to cause that effect.
The welfare state that so many people want today consists of a fundamental denial of the law of cause and effect. They want the effects – food, clothes, nice cars, nice vacations, etc – but they don’t want to do what’s necessary to cause those effects. [Let me clarify that: they don’t want to causes those effects themselves. They want someone else to do it for them.]
The laws of identity and cause and effect are merciless! They can’t be ignored or subverted! The good news is, though, that they can be obeyed! If you want food, you can enact the cause of that effect; you can buy food – you can work to get the money to buy food – you can ask a friend for a loan to buy food. However you cut it, it is really cool that you can know exactly what you have to do to cause a full belly. Do you have to do it? Nope. And that, friends and neighbors, is called “agency.” If you enact the cause of a full belly, you’ll get it, but if you don’t, you won’t.
Believe it or not, this is GREAT news! Cause and effect is not a limiting rule; it is the key that unlocks the universe to you… if you have the guts to make it work. You have the choice: cause the desired effect or do without. But guess what? God has agency, too. He will not give you anything unless you have enacted the cause of it, and that cause is, invariably, obeying his commandments.
Our agency is the second most priceless of God’s gifts to us. He does not require us to do anything, but He gives us the opportunity to choose what we will get from Him. He has agency, too; otherwise, He would not be God.
I say to my beloved and to all others that God has not given us rules. He has given us choices.
A rule is something that says, “You must do this, period.” A choice is something that says, “If you want this reward, you must fulfill that condition.”
Even in the atheistic universe, there are natural laws: gravity, thermodynamics, motion and energy, and, most relevant, identity. The law of identity is much despised by those who would love to convince us we don’t really exist, and it is therefore of no consequence that they take from us our possessions and our freedom. But the law of identity is immutable and inescapable, even for them. It says, simply, that everything is what it is, and that nothing can exist as something other than what it is.
If something exists, it must have some identity – features, characteristics, etc.. Otherwise, how would we be aware of it, in the first place? That’s not nearly as abstract as it sounds. If something did not have the characteristic of reflecting light, we could not see it. If it did not have characteristic of emitting molecules that stimulate our olfactory nerves, we could not smell it. If it did not have the characteristic of mass, we could not lift it.
If something exists, it must exist as something, which means it must have the characteristics that identify it as whatever that something is. If it had no characteristics, how would you know it was there, anyway?
There is a second part of the law of identity: nothing can exist as whatever it is and as something else in the same way and at the same time. I love it when nihilists smirk, “But what about something that is hot to me and cold to you?” and then rear back with their arms crossed as if they’d really said something intelligent. Here’s the answer: the definition says, “…in the same way…”. Your measurement of temperature and mine may be different; there is no violation of identity. Quote the contrary, the object has the very specific and measurable identity of, “That which, when perceived by the nihilist is hot, but when perceived by the Mormon is cold.” And that, friends and neighbors, is what I’d call a specific identity.
Or, the slightly better-educated nihilist loves to say, “Well…[that’s when you know you’ve got ‘em – their eyes flicker around and their voice changes pitch, and they whine…] Well, what about light? It is both a particle and a beam!”
Wrong again! If measured by method A, light has the characteristics of a particle, but when measured by method B, it appears to be a beam. In order for the nihilist position to be valid, it would have to appear simultaneously as both a particle and a beam when measured by method A, and that ain’t the case!
“Well… well… [more eye flicking and stammering…] what about wood! If you take a log, it is hard and heavy, but if you burn it, it turns into ash. It’s not the same as it was, but it’s still the same log!” Well, you say, with more patience than this dreck deserves, “You have measured the log at different times, so, yes, it has changed. Your position could be true only if it were both solid and ash at the same time.” In fact, a log has the very specific and measurable identity of, “That which is combustible, and when burned, transforms from heavy and sold into ash.”
(I might get more into Heraclitus later, but for right now, sufficeth it to say that he was a freakin’ idiot.)
So how does this relate to the choices God gives us? Bear with me; we’re almost there.
The law of identity applies to action, too. By the same principles just described, how do you know when something has happened? When you are aware that something has changed – that is, when you perceive change – by one of your senses. When the basic law of identity is applied to action, it is expressed as the law of cause and effect. How do you know something happened? You can see the results. You can see the baseball flying out of the park; you can see the flowers blooming; you can smell the match burning, and feel the heat from it.
Nothing happens unless it was caused, and nothing happens without an effect. Period. We may not know or understand what causes something, but that doesn’t mean it was causeless. Here’s the natural law: “There is no causeless effect, and there is no effectless cause.” You better get used to it. If you want the effect of having your belly full, you better get hopping and cause that effect. If you want the effect of having that good lookin’ person next to you to like you, you better figure out how to cause that effect.
The welfare state that so many people want today consists of a fundamental denial of the law of cause and effect. They want the effects – food, clothes, nice cars, nice vacations, etc – but they don’t want to do what’s necessary to cause those effects. [Let me clarify that: they don’t want to causes those effects themselves. They want someone else to do it for them.]
The laws of identity and cause and effect are merciless! They can’t be ignored or subverted! The good news is, though, that they can be obeyed! If you want food, you can enact the cause of that effect; you can buy food – you can work to get the money to buy food – you can ask a friend for a loan to buy food. However you cut it, it is really cool that you can know exactly what you have to do to cause a full belly. Do you have to do it? Nope. And that, friends and neighbors, is called “agency.” If you enact the cause of a full belly, you’ll get it, but if you don’t, you won’t.
Believe it or not, this is GREAT news! Cause and effect is not a limiting rule; it is the key that unlocks the universe to you… if you have the guts to make it work. You have the choice: cause the desired effect or do without. But guess what? God has agency, too. He will not give you anything unless you have enacted the cause of it, and that cause is, invariably, obeying his commandments.
Our agency is the second most priceless of God’s gifts to us. He does not require us to do anything, but He gives us the opportunity to choose what we will get from Him. He has agency, too; otherwise, He would not be God.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
A LESSON IN DECEIT FROM MOVEON.ORG
In Feb., 2011, a friend posted on her Facebook page a link to an article at moveon.org. The title of the article was “Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women.” My friend is pretty conservative on most things, and posted this strictly to start conversation and get people’s reactions to it. The first several responses were critical of the article and of moveon.org. I wanted to read it for myself, and see what sorts of things they were talking about. I read the article, and decided to look carefully into the first item on it: “Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.”
After doing my research, I posted a reply in the thread on my friend’s Facebook page. This reply, and some of the conversation that followed, is the subject of this blog post.
Here is the link to moveon.org: http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/?rc=fb
And here is my response to the article:
Let's look at the first of moveon.org's charges, that Republicans want to "redefine rape." First, the authority for this claim is an op-ed on "The Huffington Post," long known for its objective reporting of the news. That article, in turn..., references an op-ed in the "New York Times," ditto and ditto. Neither article contained a link that I could find to the text of the bill, H.R. 3. So I, left-brained, white male that I am, looked it up. Here's the page with the text: -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112%3AH.R.3:
And here's the text that deals with rape:
"SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
"The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
"(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or..." [the next paragraph deals with the health of the mother.]
Clearly, this does NOT redefine rape. It attempts to define the circumstances under which the Federal Government will pay for an abortion. (Personally, I think "forcible rape" is a redundancy. If it isn't forcible, as in the seduction of an underage girl, we need another term for it because it's a different thing - NOT less heinous or despicable! - but different.)
However, see that statement, "The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion-?" Well, those sections say only that no federal funds shall be used to provide abortion, nor to fund any insurance plan that pays for abortion coverage.
Now here's the kicker: sections 305-308 very specifically state that this bill will not be construed as restricting the ability of states or non-federally funded insurance programs from providing abortion coverage. I gave you the link. Go read it, yourself.
So - huge surprise! - moveon.org has twisted and propagandized the real story to promote their pet agenda - that Republicans are moral cannibals. They deliberately misused the concept of "define," and they deliberately failed to include the entire context. They also very carefully avoided any reference to the bill, itself, using instead other cookie-cutter liberal bilge.
I will not waste my time dissecting their other charges. If this does not thoroughly discredit them in the eyes of all who read this, oh, well.
Rebsarge
Feb., 2011
After doing my research, I posted a reply in the thread on my friend’s Facebook page. This reply, and some of the conversation that followed, is the subject of this blog post.
Here is the link to moveon.org: http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/?rc=fb
And here is my response to the article:
Let's look at the first of moveon.org's charges, that Republicans want to "redefine rape." First, the authority for this claim is an op-ed on "The Huffington Post," long known for its objective reporting of the news. That article, in turn..., references an op-ed in the "New York Times," ditto and ditto. Neither article contained a link that I could find to the text of the bill, H.R. 3. So I, left-brained, white male that I am, looked it up. Here's the page with the text: -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112%3AH.R.3:
And here's the text that deals with rape:
"SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
"The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
"(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or..." [the next paragraph deals with the health of the mother.]
Clearly, this does NOT redefine rape. It attempts to define the circumstances under which the Federal Government will pay for an abortion. (Personally, I think "forcible rape" is a redundancy. If it isn't forcible, as in the seduction of an underage girl, we need another term for it because it's a different thing - NOT less heinous or despicable! - but different.)
However, see that statement, "The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion-?" Well, those sections say only that no federal funds shall be used to provide abortion, nor to fund any insurance plan that pays for abortion coverage.
Now here's the kicker: sections 305-308 very specifically state that this bill will not be construed as restricting the ability of states or non-federally funded insurance programs from providing abortion coverage. I gave you the link. Go read it, yourself.
So - huge surprise! - moveon.org has twisted and propagandized the real story to promote their pet agenda - that Republicans are moral cannibals. They deliberately misused the concept of "define," and they deliberately failed to include the entire context. They also very carefully avoided any reference to the bill, itself, using instead other cookie-cutter liberal bilge.
I will not waste my time dissecting their other charges. If this does not thoroughly discredit them in the eyes of all who read this, oh, well.
Rebsarge
Feb., 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
