Thursday, September 30, 2010


It was easy to forecast the inevitable collapse of America's moral code, as it easy to forecast the pending destruction of our civilized society.

And the reason is simple: a failure on the part of the great majority of Americans to recognize and accept that there is an objectively identifiable and knowable basis for a proper moral wit, the nature of man. Morality is a code of pro-life conduct, and where else to find it than in the particular nature of our species.

In simplest terms: man has only one means of acquiring knowledge, his capacity for scientific thought based on facts about the one reality he lives in, and so rationality is a prime moral virtue. Man's survival requires him to obtain certain values (nutritional food, shelter, etc.) and is enhanced by others (companionship, love, social relationships, etc.), all of which are to be found only in reality, and so productivity and honesty are prime moral virtues.

Those who do not believe there is an objective basis for morality, those who base their moral code on subjective feelings, are destroying our lives. And since morality is the basis of our political beliefs, they are destroying our country as well.

Interviewed the other day by a friend of my daughter, who was writing a paper about atheism, I was asked the predictable question: Without a belief in God, what objective standard do you have for morality? How flagrant the double error! Not only does he presume that without a mystical belief there could be no basis for morality, but he assumes that an objective morality can be found in a nonprovable, unknowable, imaginary. subjective, fantasy.

It cannot. Every parent who tells his child not to steal because "that's not a nice thing to do", is promoting his child's destruction...since "nice" is a subjective term, and when the child grows up, he can and will define it as he sees fit. Every political commentator who supports or rejects a proposed new law because it will "work" or it doesn't "work", is promoting the destruction of our country...since "work" is a term that can and will be defined subjectively and arbitrarily. Every preacher who tells his flock to obey the will of the Lord, is promoting his flock's witness the rationale offered up by today's murderous terrorists.

During a break at one of my classes, some students and I were sitting around talking about extra-terrestrial aliens, and one student asked me: "What do we possibly have that aliens would want?" I answered: "There is one thing". "What's that?", he asked. "Intelligence", said another student.

(And all--all--intelligence is based on objective facts of reality.)

Smart fellow!

Tuesday, September 14, 2010


I do some carving. Soap carving. It's more than a hobby, it's more important to me than that. A few days ago, I decided to carve a throne, though I deplore monarchies and dictatorships. When my daughter asked me, "Who sits on the throne?"...I reflexively answered, "We each do".

I like that thought. I have always liked William Ernest Henley's "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul." But I like mine better: "I sit on the throne of my life. I am king".

Someone say something that riles you? Worried what others think of you? Think others are better than you? Nervous, anxious, depressed? Life not going as you wish it to go? People telling you what you may say, how you must behave? Ha! Throw it out of your mind, change it, do as you wish. You are king, emperor, potentate, high chief, numero uno. There is no one better than you, no other has power over you. There is nothing to fail at, nothing to lose. Your kingdom is yours to make as you wish.

You are king...and always will be.

Sunday, September 12, 2010


I wrote recently about removing the word "easy" from our vocabulary. The next word I would like to see removed is "complaining", and be replaced by "paining".

People complain mostly to friends and family that something in their life isn't going well...which means it isn't going the way they would like it to go...that they have to do things they don't want to do, that others have it easier in life, that life is not fair and "I don't deserve this". Morning to night, day to day, the complaining goes on, spreading like a creeping fog to everything in one's life, captured in the ultimate moan, "life sucks". Complaining quickly becomes, not an expression of sadness over a misfortune, but a way of thinking, a way of life.

Problem is, complaining, as a rule, solves nothing. In fact, the complaining does the reverse. It magnifies the misfortune in the mind of the complainer, generating more unhappiness, it tends to push away those who might be in a position to advise, comfort and help, and perhaps worst of all, it inhibits the action that could help the complainer solve, overcome, or adjust to, the perceived, real or imaginary, misfortune. In other words, it is anti the enjoyment of life.

Why do so many complain so much, despite the many bounties of life? My guess is they likely don't have the confidence in themselves to make their lives better, despite the occasional misfortunes that befall us all. Complaining is, I believe, often a cry of surrender. And often, a needless one.

"Paining" is the far more appropriate and descriptive word to express what complainers do. Want advice, a suggestion, a hope? I'm your man. But "complaining" is not in my game.

Nor are "moaning", "groaning", "griping", "grouching", "squawking", "bellyaching" and "bitching".

Friday, September 10, 2010


There is a word that must be removed from our dictionary. It is no longer applicable, relevant or realistic. It is a word of a bygone day: Easy.

If we wanted to buy something, we went to our favorite store, checked the price, and if we could afford it, we bought it. If not, we didn't...and did without it. There were no "must haves", "have to haves", "can't live without its". That was Easy.

If we didn't yet know what career we would like to work at, we didn't run up a $120,000 college bill to try to find out, we went to work as an apprentice or a delivery boy in the field of our choice, if we could find such a job. If not, we took a job we could find, and put some money in the bank. That was Easy.

When someone we knew needed a helping hand, we helped out, if we could, because that was the right thing to do. We did not need a 2,000 page massive federal bureaucracy to force us to do what those of us who could afford to do, were already doing on their own. That was Easy.

We didn't meddle in the affairs of other countries, it wasn't our place or our right to do so. And when we were attacked, we rallied together and fought tirelessly and with all the might we could muster to protect our country and the lives of those we loved. That was Easy.

And when we fell in love, we meant it to be faithful and forever. That was Easy.

The blessings of our lives were right there for us to see: our families, our food to eat, our beds to sleep in, a day at the beach, a friend to share a smile with. And to those who believed, our God. That was Easy.

Francois Villon, French thief, murderer and poet of the early 1400's, said it well: "Il n'est tresor que de vivre a son aise"...there is no treasure quite like living at one's ease.

Monday, September 6, 2010


I read every word. Everyone should do that. Interesting what you find in the Constitution, and the Declaration. Perhaps more interesting is what you don't find.

I looked high and low but could not find the words "The federal government shall have the power to solve our perceived problems." Couldn't find it, or anything like it.

Also, couldn't find "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but these inalienable rights may be alienated by the federal government when it is deemed by the government to interfere with its solving our perceived problems." Couldn't find it.

What I did find was "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

Also found "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In 200-odd years, the federal government , as generally perceived by members of all parties, has gone from protector of our rights to solver of our problems. Virtually all political discussions these days implicitly include the acknowledgment by those doing the discussing that the government should pass a law to do something to "solve" the particular problem being discussed, the only disagreement being what particular law will "work better".

The Founding Fathers declared that one of the "injuries and usurpations" committed by the British King which impelled them to wrench free from his control was his declaring himself "invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." In other words, to solve their problems for them.

One other thing I did find: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Including my right to solve my own problems?

Saturday, September 4, 2010


The dominant--dare I say, universal--philosophy in the world for the past 2,000 years has included this premise: to one extent or another, we are each indebted to the group (aka, the society, the collective), and we are each morally bound to sacrifice our property, and even ourselves, for the good of the group.

Every--every-- political system, from communism to fascism to socialism to every other ism, has rested on that premise. That premise is the cornerstone of altruism.

Even America was not exempt. Though the Founding Fathers sensed a wonderful new political system, and crafted a Constitution, that rested on the reverse premise...that each individual owned his own life and had inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of his happiness...they had remnants of altruism still flowing through their blood. Which is why they gave the government the power of eminent domain: the power to seize your private property when it was thought that the group needed it. It is why the gave the government the power to seize your property via taxes.

The extension during the past 200 years of the power of the government to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, as it now does, under its enumerated power "to regulate interstate commerce" (it claims that just about every modern human activity does) is misguided. That power was not meant to give government control over our lives, but for it to serve as an objective arbiter in matters involving different states (which were few, at the time)with conflicting laws.

Similarly, the statement by the Founders in the preamble to the Constitution that it was established "to promote the general welfare" was intended to give the government carte blanche power to do whatever it wished. Quite the contrary. The Constitution was meant to voice the independence and sovereignty of the individual, and to restrain--nay, prohibit--the use of force by the government against any person except in retaliation to the initiation of force by such person against others. It was our liberty, our freedom, that was recognized to be in our general welfare and was intended to be protected.

Those ideas made America the most noble, powerful and productive country in history. Every single restraint on our freedom...every one, no matter how minor it may seem...attacks America and promotes not our welfare, but the sacrificial, slave-inducing, philosophy of altruism.

If you want to sacrifice your life, your freedom in any situation, our Constitution gives you the freedom to do so. Isn't that wonderful? You are free to choose how you will live your life. And so am I. The Constitution does not give you is the right to force me to be a sacrificial animal and to do your bidding. (You are against slavery, aren't you? Or are you?) No proposed solution to any perceived social problem can be right if it denies me my freedom in any regard, even to a so-called "insignificant" degree. I put that word in quotes because there is no such thing in regard to freedom.

Isn't that why the Founders gave me this protection: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted".

Be wary. Force in self-defense is one of my rights.