Thursday, July 29, 2010


Yesterday's decision by Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton one in the Arizona immigration law case, is a dangerous and horrendous one, and symptomatic of the escalating decline in respect for the law in our country. The decision is seemingly rooted in political ideology rather than judicial principle.

Judge Bolton forbids Arizona police from inquiring into an individual's legal status to be in this country, even when he is being interrogated in regard to, and suspected of committing, another crime. To protect its citizens from rampant crime, including human and drug trafficking and violence being committed by illegals, Arizona passed a law parallel to the federal law which Pres. Obama has steadfastly refused to enforce. Her rationale, allegedly, is that immigration questions are solely within the province of the federal authorities.

The Constitution grants Congress the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization". First, it is not been shown that all illegals seek to be naturalized. Second, if the entire immigration issue does fall within the authority of the federal government, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from seeking to fulfill its responsibility to protect its citizens by upholding federal laws. States do so all the time when they work closely with the feds in interstate crime cases, kidnappings, terrorist-related cases, etc. And no sensible reason for them not to do so in immigration matters. Under Arizona's law, those found to be in the country illegally are to be turned over to federal authorities.

Illegals are committing crimes in Arizona that certainly do fall within the province of Arizona authority. To restrain its police officers from fully questioning suspects, is to tie its hands to the endangerment of its citizens.

America is at war. The President refers to it as a "war of containment". Soldiers complain they are asked to risk their lives and to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Sound familiar? The President's policy is to seek to contain our sworn enemy, the Taliban, to countries outside our own. How in heck does he propose to do so when he chooses to leave our borders wide open for terrorists to enter with impunity...and with increasingly dangerous weapons?

The liberals' rantings that the Bolton decision is correct because "we don't want to violate the Constitution, do we?" is hypercritically laughable. They avidly support the President's violation of the Constitution when he refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, as he is Constitutionally required to do, and when he fights a war that has not been declared a war by Congress, as it is Constitutionally required to be.

The President is succeeding in destroying the safety of America. That is the only way in which he is succeeding.

Wanna bet who the President's next nominee to the Supreme Court will be?

Wednesday, July 28, 2010


"And I say unto you, he that presumeth to tell another how to live his life has forfeited his own"

"You shall one day face Final Judgment for the way of your life, but your feelings punish or reward you today"

"It is not for you to know your future, the wise man remembers his past"

"If you think you have not enough, think again"

"Far greater are the riches of spirit and courage and hope than all the jewels of the sea"

"It is folly for man to think he should not think"

"Trust yourself first, and last"

"If you open your mind to the unknown today, you shall become wise tomorrow"

"Action without thought is like a fruit without seed"

"The true bonds between us are golden, beware of offerings falsely gilded"

"Life is like a symphony: the more you play it, the richer and more meaningful it becomes"

"What's true for you but not for me is not true for either one of us"

"Wishful thinking, isn't"

Tuesday, July 27, 2010


From todauy's ;local news headlines, to be tossed into the What's It Got To Do With Me file, aka the Who Cares? file:

"Obama to appear on View"...can't wait for the incisive probing into the Obamas' sex life

"Inmates are sick of Lohan"...nahhh, you're kidding

"Jury finds she killed for love"...imagine that, first time, what are humans capable of?

No Clinton wedding for Obama"...too busy with the View, I guess

"Boy falls 16 stories, lives"...whew, finally, no need to worry about our kids bouncing around drugged on roof tops

"Humans now power"...what next, for heaven's sake

"Marriage counseling saved my marriage"...first time, made my day

"Vagrant breaks into bar, sells drinks"...hooray, the American entrepeneurial spirit at work, made my day II

So the venerable accounting proverb GIGO has been recast as GIWO: "Garbage In, Wisdom Out"? Wishful thinking!

Monday, July 26, 2010


I have written before about the "truth be damned" mentality in modern civilization. Three stories in the news this morning reveal that mentality is flourishing.

1. WikiLeaks released thousands of national documents which purport to show that our "ally" Pakistan has been cavorting with, aiding, the Taliban in Afghanistan: The response by National Security adviser General James Jones: "the release of the documents was irresponsible". But do the documents tell the truth? Truth be damned.

2. Howard Dean accused Fox News of being racist because one of its talk show hosts released a portion of a videotape in which Shirley Sherrod, a Dept. of Agriculture official appointed by Pres. Obama, made racial comments, without having first checked the full video for the context in which those remarks were made. The host has since apologized for his negligence.

Does that error make the host a racist, or is he a non-racist who made an error? If he is a racist, does that make the Fox News organization, presumably as reflected by its policy, a racist network, as Dean labelled them? Does Fox News have a policy with regard to racism? What is it? Truth be damned.

3. Lieutenant Dan Choi was discharged from the US Army for openly opposing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. (Is there a more vivid example of truth be damned then that policy?) Lt. Choi fought for 2 years in Afghanistsn as a platoon leader...that is, risked his one life in defense of America. He is a graduate of West Point, fluent in Arabic. He was openly gay. Did his sexual orientation provoke military problems? Did it make him an inefficient soldier? Truth be damned.

Truth = reality, since reality is the only thing that can be true. To hell with reality. Let's survive, say the the truth avoiders, on the basis of unproven facts, feelings, biases, whims.

But we won't survive. Not that way. Reality cannot be avoided or denied. If we are to survive, reality, the IS, must first be obeyed.

"The truth will set you free" says the Bible. That does not refer to being politically free but to being psychologically free to enjoy the full glorious potential of being alive as a human being. Adherence to truth is a precondition of such enjoyment.

And that's the truth!

Friday, July 23, 2010


I had occasion the past few days to be out on the highway the past few mornings and witnessed a portrait of modern urban civilization: rush hour traffic. It poignantly exemplifies and captures the following:















Every human being on the planet could stand on the ground in the state of Texas and each would have over 1,000 square feet to themselves. Space enhances identity.

Why oh why were they all on the same highway this morning?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Shirley Sherrod, coerced into resigning from her post in the Department of Agriculture because of statements she made at an NAACP meeting about racist attitudes she had had 15 years earlier, sought to explain them away by saying they taught her that her job was not about blacks or whites or Hispanics, but "it's really about those who have versus those who have not".

Sorry, Shirley, that doesn't pass muster. That is but another form of racism, of discrimination. As a government employee, implementing and enforcing the law, you must do so uniformly without regard to irrelevant groupings or classifications. Our government represents all the people all the time all the same.

* It is not about being rich or being poor, as federal and state governments believe when they tax higher income earners at higher rates;

* It is not about chronological age, as the Obama administration believes when it proposes to reduce health benefits to older people;

* It is not about sexual orientation, as the federal government and 45 states believe when it fails to recognize same sex marriages;

* It is not about religious beliefs as President Obama believes when he proposes to use NASA to help benefit Muslims;

* It is not about the nature of the organization as federal and state governments believe when they exempt religious and charitable organizations from paying for government services;

* It is not about the identity of your employer as the federal government believes when it provides immunity from criminal prosecution by foreign diplomats-.

What it is about, Shirley, is E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y. So, take out a clean piece of paper and write the following 100 times:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

Then, take out another piece of paper and write the following 100 times:

"Neither the Federal Government nor any State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws"

Then, take out another piece of paper and write the following 100 times:

"Equality, parity, identical, exactly alike, evenhandedly, impartially, same-O same-O, even stephen, justice"

Got it?


On his Fox News program yesterday, Bill O'Reilly argued forcefully that "mainstream" news stations, including ABC, CBS and CNN, do not cover news worthy stories that might put the present Administration in a bad light. And he is 100% right. He said something to the effect of "The news media is hurting and not doing its job".

True, but it's worse than that. There is no news media. It is dead, deceased, expired, kaput. ABC, CBS and CNN...and, yes, Fox News, too...are not news stations, they don't air news programs. They are opinion stations, predominantly one opinion stations, presenting a particular view, a biased nonobjective slant, of the Administratin in power and of events. O'Reilly's show itself is loaded with opinionators, like Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley and Dennis Miller and Laure Ingraham and John Stossel, etc. All of whom smilingly spew their predictable harangues absent convincing proof that their views are correct.

Typical support by opinionators for their positios sound like these:

* "Look at what the political party you support did years ago"...the two wrongs do make a right argument

* "Most people don't agree with you"...the old mob rule argument that supported slavery

* "It won't work your way"...the old undefined argument, leaving unanswered what standard is used to rank the betterness of different positions?..and why is that the right standard

* "Your position is not in the Judeo-ChristIAn tradition on which this country was founded"...the old can't you just feel it, baby, argument.

Why the demise of news--objective facts--and the rise of personality-driven subjective opinioN shows? In what conceivable way does it matter to me what Alan Colmes et al think about a particular matter? Do they represent some influential groups in our country? When Stossel says he is a libertarian, does he speak for all libertarians? Or Crowley speak for all conservatives? No, no, no.

News programs give you untainted, uncolored, facts. And now you, the viewer, the listener, must do something to make those cold facts meaningful, relevant, to your life. That doing is called "thinking"...and it is something many of us, unfortunately, are not willing to do, or capable of doing very well. Takes effort. Takes time. Takes knowing how to go about contemplating and evaluating those facts. Few of us are intellectual artists: few of us enjoy drawing our own conclusions.

Most like to be spoon fed ideas. Problem is, most only like to be fed that which they already believe. Though, in the last poll I took, 12 people in the country, more than I thought, had actually once changed their minds after listening to an opinionator.

I guess there is still hope.

Sunday, July 18, 2010


When I was young, I was brought up religious and each morning I would begin the day with a 5-minute or so prayer to God, and each evening I would say a 1-minute prayer. When I got older and became an atheist, I, naturally, stopped saying the prayers.

I have come to realize recently that the prayers had more than just religious meaning. They also brought me important secular benefits:

* They were palliative, calming my spirit, healing my psychological setbacks and wounds, and allowing me to enter the day's work enlivened and inspired, and my rest time, composed and relaxed.

* They prioritized my focus on various aspects of my life, very clearly placing at the peak the preciousness of life, and the splendid power I have as to how to live it.

* They endowed me with feelings of positivity, the ability to solve life's problems, the great likelihood of success in my endeavors.

* They kindled love in my soul for all the beauties of life in my life.

* They heightened my sense of self.

To recapture the serene healings of prayer, in all its manifestations, I quietLy and alone begin and end each day now with my silent reflections on the glory of my life. Unlike my childhood prayers, they are not the same each day, but are fashioned anew from the feelings within my soul. I know no more from whence they come.

I have found my reflections to be, as were my prayers, the pathway to my entering a spiritual dimension, where the enduring wisdom and rewards of life are to be found.

This morning's reflection, in part:

"I have awakened. The day has awakened. I am a part of the day, a part of nature, the infinity of goodness, which abounds. The painting of my life is replete with faces and stories, sentiments and passions, and I shall embellish it yet more today.

"What is that new color over there? Something I learned yesterday, something yet unclear, something, perhaps, I shall refine today. Yesterday's travails are muted and gone. I am blessed, for each day my will, my courage, my strength, are unabated and brimful.

"It is time to celebrate the grand creation."

Friday, July 16, 2010


The glory of the individual or of the group? The subservience of the individual to society, or the reverse? Are you an independent sovereign soul, or a link in a chain? Those are the fundamental questions at the root of all political systems.

The group/society/link in a chain philosophy is at the heart of all statist/socialist/communist/authoritarian/dictatorial governments. The glory/nonsubservience/ independence of the individual philosophy is at the heart of capitalism. To be sure, differences exist in the extent and application of these fundamental views to particular issues, but they remain true and valid.

I was thinking the other day that honesty and honor are virtually nonexistent among politicians. Statements/promises made in campaigns are 100% meaningless, bogus. The candidate who resolutely announced "You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" is now President of the United States and is promoting increased income tax rates, estate tax rates, a federal sales tax.

Why the blatant lying, deception, dishonesty? It's easy to say "Politicians want to get elected and they'll say whatever they think they have to say to get your vote". And, no doubt, there is some truth in that. But I think another phenomenon is at play here: the growth in power and influence of yet another group/collective, the political party.

The identification of a candidate is by political party. A candidate's qualification for office is heralded by his being a member of a particular party. Few voters know the details of a candidate's political philosophy, specific voting record, nor do they seem to care. "He or she is a Democrat, or whatever, and that is good enough to get my vote". What exactly qualifies a candidate to label himself a member of a particular party? Must he agree with all of the party's positions on issues? "Don't know, don't care. He says he's a blank and that's all I need to know".

The political party has power: financial support for expensive campaigns, the availability of prominent speakers to appear at rallies and fundraisers, campaign management and administrative technicians, promises of future political endorsements for favored appointments, etc. A politician's loyalty and allegiance and commitment are no longer to the people he represents, though he will continue to say they are, but to the party, the group, that helped him get elected. States are no longer individuals who happen to live in proximity to each other, but are political enclaves. We now refer to states by the assigned color of the party in power.

George Washington warned of the potential dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address. We are seeing some of those dangers manifested today. The critical separation of powers endorsed by the Founding Fathers collapses when the head of the executive branch is also head of the party to which a majority of the legislative branch cower and bow.

The growing rise in the number of people who now label themselves Independents is a breath of fresh political air...perhaps a sign that the spirit of the individual, the spirit that founded this country,the spirit that made us free, powerful and prosperous, though under attack, is still alive.

I hope so.

Thursday, July 15, 2010


We have all sorts of annual awards: Emmys, Tonys, Oscars, Nobel Prizes, Time Man of the Year, Playmate of the Year, etc. But there's one mising: Thinker of the Year.

The Thinker of the Year award will be given to that person who met the following 3 criteria during the year:

1. Listened to at least 500 hours of political debate during the year, on radio and tv news and talk shows

2. Those debates were between dems and reps, liberals and conservatives, tea partyers and libertarians, anarchists and atheists, and included a fair share of ardent, angry, verbal scrapping, bickering, wrangling and squabbling over nonessentials, irrelevancies, incinsequentials, immaterialities, trivia and trifles.

3. As the result of those arguments, the Thinker changed his mind on a political issue.

In this year 2010, I nominate...let's see, I nominate...which one?...there must be many...uh...what's wrong with me?...can't think of anyone who qualifies for the award this year...not one. But there must be someone, some 1, no? Otherwise, what's going on here? Those are professional talk show hosts and commentators earning lots of bucks, that are doing the talking, and with all their research people to help them look good...someone must have learned something and changed his little ole mind, wouldn't you think? Know anyone?

Did YOU ever change your mind?

Wednesday, July 14, 2010


A New Jersey court just ruled that a police officer who stops a driver suspecting he is DUI, must advise the driver that there will be penalties if he does not consent to a breathalyzer a language the driver understands. If the officer does not speak the driver's language, he must take the driver to the police station, where the warning about penalties may be available in the driver's language. If not, the driver must be released.

Of course, the time it takes to get to the police station can affect (lower) the driver's alcohol/blood level content. And, oh yes, there are over 150 languages spoken in New Jersey. There are over 300 languages spoken in the U.S.! Miranda rights, too, must be understandable. And, if a driver speaks one language fluently, and "some" English, how and when and by whom will he or she be tested to see if he knows enough English to "understand" the warning.

Wanna see a "Right Turn on Red Light Permitted" sign in hundreds of languages? And wait 10 minutes while somebody finds a language he understands? I'll bet you he understands the honking and fingers he gets. They are universal. And if a driver can't read and understand English, what's he doing driving on our roads in the first place, unable to read signs, and endangering other drivers?

For 82% of American residents, English is their native language. 96% speak English well, or better. Time to do what should have been done hundreds of years ago: declare English to be our native language, to be used in all official matters. And if anyone says that that is racial discrimination, ha, I am going to say this to him: "Gergund frisplinus yunderon" and laugh all the way home.

Don't know what that means? It's Ytsvekian.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


You may ask why Helen Mirren, renowned stage and film actress, Academy Award winner, chose to pose nude in New York Magazine recently at age 65. Age 65, for heaven's know, over the old hill! Why would she dare to do that?

* Because she is alive, perhaps more so than many of her critics

* Because today is a new day to her, and its purpose is not merely to repeat yesterday

* Because she is proud of who she is

* Because she refuses to allow others to delimit the spices on her plate

* Because she knew it would be fun

* Because you only live once

* Because the proper question to her is not "Why?" but "Why not?"

* Because she is beautiful, inside and out.

Why'd you ask?

Sunday, July 11, 2010


Americans, for the most part, are not socialists...their talk sometimes is, but their thinking is not.

Fueled by lack of education and knowledge in politics, philosophy and history... spurred by random feelings of empathy, guilt for their success, or jealous of others' success...subservience to an unidentified "common good"...many talk socialism.

But at heart in their thinking, deep within their souls, there lives a "don't lean on me, don't tell me what to do" attitude...and they love HAVING: success, pride in achievenent, money and all it can buy...and they'll fight like crazy if the poorest person tries to steal from them. That is not socialism...that is capitalism.

Confronted by an Administration that is to the left of socialism, by an influx of demanding illegals bred on socialist principles, the at heart capitalists are rebelling. Polls that not long ago ran in support of Obama and his socialist or worse programs (mandatory universal health care, open borders, bailouts to failures, redistribution of wealth schemes), have turned and now run against them all.

A shadow world will begin to emerge. Off the books employment to avoid taxes on all or a portion of one's income, will be common. Assets will be kept in secure places inside or outside the country immune from accessibility to government. Fraudulent identity cards, Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, will be in vogue. Real estate will be purchased in the names of the unborn. Lies and deception will rule. (It has already begun.)

Or, the phantom capitalists will shed their masquerade, throw the anti-Americans out of office, and proclaim, loudly and forcefully, "Don't push me around".

That is the choice: fight in the shadows or fight in the light.

But fight we must.

Friday, July 9, 2010


Hundreds of millions of barrels of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. What will President Obama do? (Blame BP)

Ten Russian spies are caught in the U.S. What will the President do? (Send them home)

Our country is over 12 trillion dollars in debt. What will the President do? (Spend more)

Unemployment is over 15%. What will the President do? (Discourage hiring by raising taxes on businesses)

Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon. What will the President do? (Bow)

A new Supreme Court justice must be nominated. What will the President do? (Nominate someone who hasn't one day of experience as a judge)

A new commander is needed for our forces in the Middle East. What will the President do? (Appoint someone who thinks its fun to kill)

Arizona wants to protect itself from criminal illegals. What will the President do? (Sue to stop them)

Those are the easy questions. Now let's get to the hard one:



"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew.

"Why does the world shed crocodile’s tears over the richly merited fate of a small Jewish minority?"

Adolf Hitler

"It's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

General Mattis, Obama's pick to head the Central Command of American Forces in Middle East

Thursday, July 8, 2010


Among the groups, the people, the sources, the statements, I assume are not being honest, valid or true, are:

Politicians explaining their background, what they really meant when they said what they said, what they plan to do.

Advertisements, commercials, salesmen, heralding the value of products/services and the competitive nature of their prices.

Anything said by anyone who says "to tell you the truth" when they don't say "to tell you the truth".

Anything said at the United Nations.

Anything said/promised/agreed to by leaders/spokesmen of immoral nations.

Surveys which fail to prove they are of a representative group from which a generalization can be made, which means all surveys.

Arguments based on an unproven cause and effect relationship.

Oaths/promises by men of sexual fidelity and lustlessness.

The alertness of television news alerts.

Anyone who claims to be doing "all I/we can".

Anyone who professes to tell me what God wants.

Anyone who claims to be clairvoyant/have extra sensory perception or can levitate at will.

Antique dealers.

Pool players who say "let's play for a few bucks just to make it interesting".

"You have the cutest baby".

"Like new".

Cosmetic surgeons who promise "no one will know".

"Your expected waiting time is 2 minutes".

And, of course, ".........................".

Wednesday, July 7, 2010


Human beings have the capacity to make choices...something no other species, to our knowledge, can do. And we love to do it. Choosing new friends, new clothes, a new car, new software for our new computer. Isn't that all a helluva lot of fun?

So why then the great irony? Why have we set up a society that minimizes choices, if not eliminating them completely. in so many aspects of our lives? I was driving somewhere this morning and saw lines of cars carrying people to work. And I thought: How sad! For years and years, they drive the same route each day, at about the same time, see the same signs on the road, perhaps listen to the same morning hosts on their radios, get to the same office, sit at the same desk, handle the same problems, lunch with the same coworker(s)at the same time at likely one or two of the same restaurants, return to the office at the same time, return home at the same time, to eat the same foods they ate last week, to watch the same tv shows. to go to sleep at about the same time for about the same length of time, to awaken at the same alarmed time, to wear the same clothes, to get back on the same road heading to the same office. What happened to the variety we love?

We...that is, whoever set up this anti-human idiocy...must be nuts! Totally.

Why would they have set up rigid routines and taken away our beautiful ability to choose, which no animal can do? Why would they put us on the same roads, reading the same signs, riding behind the same people, doing the same work for year after year? Don't we really like variety in our lives?

But, no. Goodbye variety, goodbye choices, get in that same car and drive the same route to work, reading those same advertising signs, to work in the same colored building, on the same floor, at the same desk, same phone calls, same food at the same diner for lunch with other workers, home at the same time, looking forward to watching the same shows on television (saw this one before, but it was good, like to see it again).

Were the people who set all this up, were they not humans who had the same unique capacity to choose as we all do, and didn't they realize that ironically they were taking away the variety we enjoy so much?

Why would they (humans?) have set up a society of repetition, duplication, regurgitation, rehashing, redundancy, parrotlike, regularity, uniformity? Why?

Isn't it a helluva lot of fun to make choices and have variety, changeability, modifiability, permutability, plasticity, instability, mercuriality, oscillation, pendulation, in your life?


The liberals' vitriolic disdain for Big Business, and denunciations of BB and their characterization as "the enemy", are as spurious and phony as is imaginable.

1. Tens of millions of them invest in BB, directly own shares in BB, or indirectly do so through mutual funds, participation in pension funds, etc. One in four American households receive dividend checks from BB.

2. They continue to crave/purchase/use BB products, and when they get ill, they are delighted to learn of kidney transplants, cancer cures, potent medications, virtually all of which are enabled by BB.

3. Millions of them are members of and support unions, major BB's.

4. Millions belong to, support and revere a worldwide BB: the Catholic Church, despite its known abuses.

5. 99.9% of them would be delighted to discover they have been bequeathed sole ownership of their family's BB...and would pay out a small fortune in legal fees to protect their larger income fortune.

6. They actively support enlarging the largest BB in the country: the federal government despite its known deficiencies.

So, unless you renounce at least half of the above, keep your anti-BB hypocrisy to yourself.

By the by, is that an Apple BB computer you're using? Gonna drive to work in your Toyota BB auto or you gonna take your new Harley BB bike? Still using Exxon BB fuel? Did you save a few bucks shopping at Walmart BB yesterday? How's the quality on your SONY BB stereo? Prefer watching WNBC BB or CNN BB?


Tuesday, July 6, 2010


For centuries, we have been taught to engage in a moral cover-up, which has been promoted under the admonition to "judge not lest ye be judged." When coupled with the idea that we should only speak well of each other, that admonition could be paraphrased into "If you don't say anything bad about me, I won't say anything bad about you." At least, not publicly.

I call that the "nonjudgmentality." It is one of the most dangerous errors to commit: not to judge. Judgment, ultimately, is the assessment of whether someone or something is good for your life, or isn't. The purpose of judging is not to put someone else down, but to lift the odds that your life will be safe and successful. It is moral to judge because, properly done, it is pro-life.

Judgment presupposes two things:

First, that your life is not predetermined or preordained, but that it is determined, in substantial measure, by the choices you make. Judgment is a prerequisite to making rational choices. Were your life predetermined, pre-set, there would be no choices you need make, no choices you could make.

Second, judgment presupposes a standard against which everyone and everything can be measured. Without a standard, there could be no judgment. The only rational standard for life is your life and its happiness. If you believe life has no value or happiness is impossible, judgments are unnecessary and irrelevant.

Some of us refuse to judge, or to acknowledge our secret judgments, out of a reluctance to hurt someone else's feelings and of making them feel bad. But that is unjust. A person who has done something morally wrong, ought feel bad. If a person ought not feel bad when he does something wrong, then he ought not feel good when he does something right.

The well-being of your life demands that you treat people for what and who they are. It is a moral imperative that we judge and pronounce our judgment, and that we be prepared to be judged.

Life requires judgments...a daily host of judgments as to what actions to take in various facets of our lives. And because most actions involve other people, our judgments often rest on our judgment of their character, their integrity, their trustworthiness, their honor. The ones who think they have something to gain from not judging others are likely those who have something to lose by being judged themselves.

That's the cover-up.

Monday, July 5, 2010


Our Constitution needs to be amended. Articles II and III dealing with the appointment of judges to the U. S. Supreme Court. Here's why:

1. The growing belief that the Constitution is a "living document", to be seen not as a statement of enduring principles but as to be interpreted by the sway of changing times, places undue and inappropriate importance on the subjective beliefs and attitudes of individual members of the Court.

2. The appointment of new judges by the President and the consent of Senate members has become a politically-based, rather than a judicially-based, matter. Particularly true when, as now, the President and majority of Senators are of the same political party.

3. The appointment of judges for life was likely meant to keep them independent of political pressures by excluding them from the need to be re-appointed after a period of years. That may have made sense in 1776 when life expectancy was 35 years, but no longer true today with life expectancy is at 75(M)-80(F) years. And the pressure can be avoided by simply setting a specific period for service on the Bench (eg, 6 years, 10 years), with no re-appointments possible.

Judges appointed today can be expected to remain on the Court for decades...too great a power to give the President and Senators in a separation-of-powers government. And because of the for-life appointments, we can anticipate having some senile, doddering, dotards sitting as judges making vital decisions. Have some now and they aren't even all that old.

4. No requirements for service on the Supreme Court is required. No minimum age requirement, no educational requirements, no prior experience as a judge required. Odd. Few of us would hire someone who has never repaired one before, to fix that clogged and leaking toilet bowl in our home. But experience as a jurist for a Supreme Court nominee? Nah!

I am not 100% certain yet how to solve all of these critical problems, but solve them we must. Our future, the future of our country, depends on it. Send me your genius solutions to one or all of the problems I have outlined above and I will be happy to post them.

Listening to the Senate confirmation hearings going on today, a nominee's sense of humor seems to rank higher in importance to the Senators than top level, astute, legal wisdom. (Come to think of it, how would they possibly recognize that even if it hit them in the face?) And their priorities shouldn't surprise me. The whole confirmation thing is a public relations joke.

Problem is: the joke's on us.

Sunday, July 4, 2010


I looked up "unalienable" in the dictionary and it said: not transferable to another, or capable of being repudiated, inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent. Clear? Crystal clear? Untouchable. Unassailable. Sacred. Sacrosanct.

So, I wonder on this July 4th, if the Founding Fathers described our rights, our freedom, as unalienable, by what conceivable contorted reasoning do virtually ALL politicians and political pundits blithely say as a presumed given that "of course, we must balance (aka, give up) our individual rights when the public good, the public welfare, the public interest prevails".

So, yes you have the right to choose the course of your life...but, no, not if society "conflicts" with what is deemed to be in the public interest. Yes, you own the money you earn, you can save it in a bank or buy and own real property with it, etc., but we can forcefully take it from you via taxes and eminent domain when we, society, wants it. In the name of the general welfare, we can limit what you can legally put into your body, we can require you to risk your life in a war you do not believe in, we can force you to stay alive when you no longer wish to do so.


Our Founding Fathers understood the destructive nature of big government, and specifically and deliberately crafted a country rooted in the unimpeachable sovereignty of the individual. The government did not rule the people; the people ruled the government. The government does not tell us what we must do, we tell it what it can do. Every balancing act of our rights with anything...ANYTHING...every diminution, qualification, of our rights is an obscene violation and denial of the precious wisdom and ideals that our country and our flag were based on and represent.

Today is Independence Day. But it is not the independence of our country that we celebrate with parades and fireworks. It is our own individual glorious independence and freedom.

So, happy 234th birthday, America...and happy Independence, my fellow Americans!

Saturday, July 3, 2010


There is a question most of us never seriously ask, and fewer of us ever convincingly answer, even to ourselves. It's the "What's it all about?" question and it comes in various forms:





The answers are as varied as the questions, including:





Each of those answers has a sub-question: How?

And a second sub-question: Am I certain of my answers?

Ironically, these pivotal questions are not only rarely seriously addressed, but the raising of them is disdained with a casual, blow away "Hey, Buddy, lighten up, you're too serious."

So we go through life often without knowing if we are going in the right direction, achieving less than we could if we only knew what it was we wanted to achieve. And some of us reach the conclusion that there are no answers to what glorious life is all about.

Is it time for questioning? The reward is energy, motivation, excitement, passion.

I have designed a set of T-shirts. On the back there is a choice: FUN, GOD'S WILL, SERVE OTHERS, MOVE THE WORLD. Or you can make one of your own.

Which one you want?

Friday, July 2, 2010


Last time, I wrote about EXTREME BEAUTY. Here are some of one morning's headlines from CNN on the news of the day:


Nary a word about the wonderful inventions patented this day, the beautiful children born, the number of safe airplane travelers, the successful kidney transplants, the just published book of poetry.

And the main blame for the torrent of depressing world-sucking, spirit and energy draining, negativity? The public, who watch it, read about it, love to talk about it, do nothing to stop it.

Tell CNN and all other purveyors of rampant hell on earth stories what you think BY NOT WATCHING ANYTHING THAT OUTLET PRODUCES. NOTHING. That drop off in audience, no matter how small, will speak louder than any complaints you send them in the mail. They do what they do for the money which is produced by advertising revenue, which is determined by size of audience.

That's us. Shut them off. Today. Now. Off.

And if you try to talk with me about negative stories in other than a positive, constructive, healing way, I shut you OUT.