"We come from the planet Atari in the TriLunia Galaxy. We have studied your world with great interest and in much depth. We have read all of your profound writings and listened to your esteemed wise men. We admire your intellectual and esthetic achievements. We come because there is a word you use here on Earth that is causing great damage on our planet, as it has caused on yours. It is a word that we abandoned centuries ago as an anathema to our species.
"Many of our children have innocently accepted this word as representing an honorable, even noble, principle, when in fact it represents a concept that is a vile and menacing enemy to our existence. In the name of celestial affinity and harmony, we have come to ask you banish this word forever from your use and memory. It is the word 'must'.
"The beings on our planet are called essentia, as yours are called humans. The essentia mind is as the human mind, and unlike anything else in the Universe. It is a choosing instrument, with the unique power to select, to prefer, to decide. Our capacity to choose our actions is at the core of essentia and human genius, and it is what makes us...we and you...the most evolved and astounding beings that we are.
"Freedom of choice is incompatible with what the word 'must' represents...unchosen duties and obligations to other members of society. It is understandable to us that young essentia are captivated by the notion that others 'must' do things for them. It brings to them an endless bounty. Under the banner of what must be done for them rather than chosen to be done for them, they would have other essentia labor to gift them with shelter, clothing, toys, education, health maintenance, and more. They are too young to realize that the word 'must' is incompatible with their nature, and that one day that word, in ever growing scope, will be directed at them. They will be mandated to live their lives in ways they don't wish because others decree they do so. The elder beings on our neighboring planet, Dioxus, adopted 'must' as the cornerstone of their socio-political structure, as many of your elders have done here on Earth...and never saw its terminal dangers even as their planet imploded.
"To remove choice from the mind is deadlier than ingesting fatal poisons into the body...for if the mind is given freedom to choose, it can choose steps to remove or neutralize the poisons. Without choice, essentia and humans become as sand, to be blown about by the winds and drowned by the tides.
"We ask you to remember that choosing to surrender choice is a prelude to extinction.
"Essentia bestow upon you a lavishness of the Six Pillars of Life: purity, love, courage, beauty, serenity and simplicity."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
WHAT SAY YOU, PALIN?
On his television show yesterday, Bill O'Reilly had this exchange, in essence, with Sarah Palin:
O'R: What would you do if she were President about Iran,who is this close(he emphasized, by puttubg two fingers a 1/4" apart) to having nuclear weapons?
P: Impose economic sanctions in concert with other friendly nations.
O'R: Including a blockade? Russia won't go along with that.
Pailin didn't directly respond. Had she persisted in the imposition of a blockade, O'Reilly's next question, increduloisly asked, would surely have been, "And risk nuclear war?"
What would Sarah Palin have answered to that?
John F. Kennedy answered that question "Yes" when he imposed an arms blockade of Cuba and was confronted by a Russian ship heading to that country, presumably with weapoms, and bent it seemed on breaking the blockade. "Stop," said JFK, "or we will stop you". Nuclear war hung in the balance..The Russian ship turned back.
Ronald Reagan answered "Yes" to O'Reilly's unasked question when, pointing to the degradation that was the Berlin Wall, he fearlessly exhorted the Soviet Union to "Tear down that wall"...the implication being, "or we will". The wall was taken down, the Cold War ended.
Presidents Kennedy and Reagan knew what children around the world know...that bullies are afraid of only one thing: force. Bullies, whether individuals or nations, use force to gain their ends and cower when faced with the threat of greater force. Few in Washington today seem to know this.
If civilization is to endure around the globe, it will be only if America and other nations stand steadfastly and resolutely against tyrants and terrorists, with the willingness and courage to risk all for the sake of victory.
Winston Churchill also knew the answer to Bill O'Reilly's unasked question:
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival"
O'R: What would you do if she were President about Iran,who is this close(he emphasized, by puttubg two fingers a 1/4" apart) to having nuclear weapons?
P: Impose economic sanctions in concert with other friendly nations.
O'R: Including a blockade? Russia won't go along with that.
Pailin didn't directly respond. Had she persisted in the imposition of a blockade, O'Reilly's next question, increduloisly asked, would surely have been, "And risk nuclear war?"
What would Sarah Palin have answered to that?
John F. Kennedy answered that question "Yes" when he imposed an arms blockade of Cuba and was confronted by a Russian ship heading to that country, presumably with weapoms, and bent it seemed on breaking the blockade. "Stop," said JFK, "or we will stop you". Nuclear war hung in the balance..The Russian ship turned back.
Ronald Reagan answered "Yes" to O'Reilly's unasked question when, pointing to the degradation that was the Berlin Wall, he fearlessly exhorted the Soviet Union to "Tear down that wall"...the implication being, "or we will". The wall was taken down, the Cold War ended.
Presidents Kennedy and Reagan knew what children around the world know...that bullies are afraid of only one thing: force. Bullies, whether individuals or nations, use force to gain their ends and cower when faced with the threat of greater force. Few in Washington today seem to know this.
If civilization is to endure around the globe, it will be only if America and other nations stand steadfastly and resolutely against tyrants and terrorists, with the willingness and courage to risk all for the sake of victory.
Winston Churchill also knew the answer to Bill O'Reilly's unasked question:
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival"
Thursday, November 19, 2009
BLESSINGS OF A SPIRITUAL LIFE
A few years ago, I became aware that many religious people perceive Eternal Life in Heaven as the prime reward for their beliefs and lifestyle. Although not religious, I set out to design a painting to illustrate the many blessings offered by a spiritual life that are enjoyed here on Earth, including Benevolence, Compassion, Courage, Optimism, Grace, Honor, Serenity, Renewal and Exaltation. Blessings are illustrated with contemporary figures in the beautiful painting by Delton Gerdes titled Blessings of a Spiritual Life, and each blessing is referenced to an inspiring quotation from the Bible, as follows:
ETERNAL LIFE: "In Christ, all shall be made alive" 1 Corinthians 15
BENEVOLENCE: "God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good" Genesis 1
COMPASSION: "Forgive and you will be forgiven, for the measure you give will be the measure you get back" Luke 6
COURAGE: "Put on the whole Armour of God" Ephesians 6
OPTIMISM: "Abound in hope for that we see not" Romans 8, 15
GRACE: "The path of the just is as a shining light" Proverbs 4
HONOR: He that endureth temptation shall receive the crown of life" James 1
SERENITY: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven" Matthew 6
RENEWAL: "And Jesus touched them and their eyes were opened" Matthew 9
EXALTATION: "Praise the name of God with a song, magnify Him with thanksgiving" Psalms 69
During my work on the painting, I came to realize a simple truth: the blessings portrayed in the painting are not restricted to those who are believers, but can be experienced in full and in their own way by all those who live a loving, moral, spiritual life.
Color poster copies measuring 17-1/2" x 25", suitable for framing, are available at $% each (for shipments in the U.S.; add actual shipping cost outside the U.S.).
ETERNAL LIFE: "In Christ, all shall be made alive" 1 Corinthians 15
BENEVOLENCE: "God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good" Genesis 1
COMPASSION: "Forgive and you will be forgiven, for the measure you give will be the measure you get back" Luke 6
COURAGE: "Put on the whole Armour of God" Ephesians 6
OPTIMISM: "Abound in hope for that we see not" Romans 8, 15
GRACE: "The path of the just is as a shining light" Proverbs 4
HONOR: He that endureth temptation shall receive the crown of life" James 1
SERENITY: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven" Matthew 6
RENEWAL: "And Jesus touched them and their eyes were opened" Matthew 9
EXALTATION: "Praise the name of God with a song, magnify Him with thanksgiving" Psalms 69
During my work on the painting, I came to realize a simple truth: the blessings portrayed in the painting are not restricted to those who are believers, but can be experienced in full and in their own way by all those who live a loving, moral, spiritual life.
Color poster copies measuring 17-1/2" x 25", suitable for framing, are available at $% each (for shipments in the U.S.; add actual shipping cost outside the U.S.).
A DIVINE GIFT
"Divine" is defined in the dictionary as:
"sacred, godlike, characteristic of a deity, heavenly, celestial, extremely good, unusually lovely, of superhuman or surpassing excellence, the qualities regarded as godly"
I came across a young boy on a farm who was playing with a gift he had received from his parents. It was an inordinately sophisticated, futuristic, robot-like technological apparatus, no batteries, that could do amazing things. The pure joy the boy had in playing with it and discovering its powers was manifest on his smiling face.
The mechanism had the capacity to:
wonder
imagine
question
judge
recall
create
anticipate
predict
enjoy
be excited
be thankful
love
The boy's parents told me that once their son realized the unique capabilities of their gift, he would play with it from morning to night...alone, sometimes with friends. He seemed always to find new things it could do, new things he could do with it. No other toy he had ever had could generate the pleasure and excitement and awe that this gift did. Every day, he marvelled at it ever more. He never wanted to be without it. It had become and would surely remain his forever friend and companion.
It was his divine mind.
"sacred, godlike, characteristic of a deity, heavenly, celestial, extremely good, unusually lovely, of superhuman or surpassing excellence, the qualities regarded as godly"
I came across a young boy on a farm who was playing with a gift he had received from his parents. It was an inordinately sophisticated, futuristic, robot-like technological apparatus, no batteries, that could do amazing things. The pure joy the boy had in playing with it and discovering its powers was manifest on his smiling face.
The mechanism had the capacity to:
wonder
imagine
question
judge
recall
create
anticipate
predict
enjoy
be excited
be thankful
love
The boy's parents told me that once their son realized the unique capabilities of their gift, he would play with it from morning to night...alone, sometimes with friends. He seemed always to find new things it could do, new things he could do with it. No other toy he had ever had could generate the pleasure and excitement and awe that this gift did. Every day, he marvelled at it ever more. He never wanted to be without it. It had become and would surely remain his forever friend and companion.
It was his divine mind.
1 COUNTRY, 2 VIEWS
From the beginning, there have been two fundamental, and divergent, ways of seeing man:
1. One way is to see each man as an independent individual who is sovereign over his his life, with no unchosen obligations to anyone. A person with such a view favors freedom and equality, believes it is moral to act in his own rational self-interest, and would tend to politically support capitalism.
2. One way is to see man as a link in a social chain, a member of a group, with sovereignty resting with the group. A person with such a view favors altruism, the moral code that denounces acting in one's own self-interest rather than in the perceived common good and tends to favor some form of political socialism (fascism, communism) with government ultimately in control of man's life.
The first view was the prevailing view of the Founding Fathers, hence their emphasis on the unalienable rights of individuals, and the limitation of the powers of Government to those expressly granted to it by the people.
They extended this view of man's independence and sovereignty to man's political agency, the United Colonies. Hear the deep meaning of their words:
In the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, we declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states...and alll political connections to Great Britain (their enemy) be dissolved.
President Obama manifests the other view of man and of his Government. He befriends, and supports agreements and alliances with, terrorists and known enemies of America. He favors lessening our defense capabilities, placing us in greater danger of those who would welcome our destruction. He sees America as but an indistinguishable link in a chain of united nations, no better, no worse, than any of the others, and with obligations to all. He believes America must redistribute its wealth and resources around the world. He has moved the Government toward socialism, taking over sectors of industry and financial institutions, seeking to influence what we eat, how much we drive, how we heat our homes, what health insurance we must have, etc. He is repeatedly apologetic for our country and its freest, most productive, most charitable, people on the planeT.
Maybe not for long.
1. One way is to see each man as an independent individual who is sovereign over his his life, with no unchosen obligations to anyone. A person with such a view favors freedom and equality, believes it is moral to act in his own rational self-interest, and would tend to politically support capitalism.
2. One way is to see man as a link in a social chain, a member of a group, with sovereignty resting with the group. A person with such a view favors altruism, the moral code that denounces acting in one's own self-interest rather than in the perceived common good and tends to favor some form of political socialism (fascism, communism) with government ultimately in control of man's life.
The first view was the prevailing view of the Founding Fathers, hence their emphasis on the unalienable rights of individuals, and the limitation of the powers of Government to those expressly granted to it by the people.
They extended this view of man's independence and sovereignty to man's political agency, the United Colonies. Hear the deep meaning of their words:
In the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, we declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states...and alll political connections to Great Britain (their enemy) be dissolved.
President Obama manifests the other view of man and of his Government. He befriends, and supports agreements and alliances with, terrorists and known enemies of America. He favors lessening our defense capabilities, placing us in greater danger of those who would welcome our destruction. He sees America as but an indistinguishable link in a chain of united nations, no better, no worse, than any of the others, and with obligations to all. He believes America must redistribute its wealth and resources around the world. He has moved the Government toward socialism, taking over sectors of industry and financial institutions, seeking to influence what we eat, how much we drive, how we heat our homes, what health insurance we must have, etc. He is repeatedly apologetic for our country and its freest, most productive, most charitable, people on the planeT.
Maybe not for long.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
UNMASKING CONSERVATISM
Commentators on radio and television who label themselves Conservatives generally support their political arguments with undefined talk of "limited government" and their "Biblical roots"...both being open to many interpretations. Their rantings opposing the Obama Administration give me a sense of what they are against, but not precisely what they are for...and more importantly, what exactly are their guiding principles and what proof, if any, do they offer that their positions on the issues are correct.
If Conservative Republicans are to become a serious alternative to both liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans, and for them to obtain the support of thoughtful voters, they will need to answer the following questions with specificity:
1. Which particular federal programs should be eliminated in their entirety? Why?
2. Which particular federal programs should be reduced in size? To what size? And why?
3. What new federal programs should be implemented? Why? At what cost? How will it be paid for?
4. Should the federal deficit be eliminated, and if so, how? Should all new federal programs that would generate a deficit be rejected?
5. Should an abortion be legal if the pregnancy was the result of incest? Rape? If it endangers the life of the mother? If the mother-to-be is under age? What age?
6. Should homosexual unions be legally recognized as fully as are heterosexual marriages, and would the parties to such unions enjoy the same rights as marriage partners? If not, in what ways? And why?
7. What specifically should be the principles guiding our country's relationships with other countries? To what extent, if any, should we have diplomatic relationships with countries whose priniples and actions are antagonistic to American ideals of freedom and equality?
8. What should our missions be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan...one of total victory over the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other terrorists, or one of containment?
9. Once those missions are set, should their military implementation be determined by the President or by the military?
10. Should nuclear weapons be used against our enemies? If so, under what conditions?
11. Should our income tax system have each adult pay the same dollar amount of tax on the theory they each receive the same government services and protection?
12. Should a military draft be declared unconstitutional, as violating a pperson's freedom and right to life?
13. Should the use of hard drugs by an adult be decriminalized on the theory that the only restraint there ought be in a free country is the initiation of force against others?
14. Should adult prostitution be legalized since it does not entail the use of force against others?
15. Should the Bible or other religious writings continue to be used as the ultimate authority of what is moral or immoral> Or should that be determined by know, rather than merely believe on faith: the reality of man's nature and the nature of the world he lives in? Do you recognize that your belief in God is no stronger than the terrorists' belief in their God?
16. Is it the Conservative view of man that he is a link in a social chain, a member of a group obliged to act in the interest of the group? Or is each man an independent sovereign being?
Answers to the above questions, and others, will determine whether Conservatism will become a central political force in our country, or remain on the vociferous fringe.
If Conservative Republicans are to become a serious alternative to both liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans, and for them to obtain the support of thoughtful voters, they will need to answer the following questions with specificity:
1. Which particular federal programs should be eliminated in their entirety? Why?
2. Which particular federal programs should be reduced in size? To what size? And why?
3. What new federal programs should be implemented? Why? At what cost? How will it be paid for?
4. Should the federal deficit be eliminated, and if so, how? Should all new federal programs that would generate a deficit be rejected?
5. Should an abortion be legal if the pregnancy was the result of incest? Rape? If it endangers the life of the mother? If the mother-to-be is under age? What age?
6. Should homosexual unions be legally recognized as fully as are heterosexual marriages, and would the parties to such unions enjoy the same rights as marriage partners? If not, in what ways? And why?
7. What specifically should be the principles guiding our country's relationships with other countries? To what extent, if any, should we have diplomatic relationships with countries whose priniples and actions are antagonistic to American ideals of freedom and equality?
8. What should our missions be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan...one of total victory over the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other terrorists, or one of containment?
9. Once those missions are set, should their military implementation be determined by the President or by the military?
10. Should nuclear weapons be used against our enemies? If so, under what conditions?
11. Should our income tax system have each adult pay the same dollar amount of tax on the theory they each receive the same government services and protection?
12. Should a military draft be declared unconstitutional, as violating a pperson's freedom and right to life?
13. Should the use of hard drugs by an adult be decriminalized on the theory that the only restraint there ought be in a free country is the initiation of force against others?
14. Should adult prostitution be legalized since it does not entail the use of force against others?
15. Should the Bible or other religious writings continue to be used as the ultimate authority of what is moral or immoral> Or should that be determined by know, rather than merely believe on faith: the reality of man's nature and the nature of the world he lives in? Do you recognize that your belief in God is no stronger than the terrorists' belief in their God?
16. Is it the Conservative view of man that he is a link in a social chain, a member of a group obliged to act in the interest of the group? Or is each man an independent sovereign being?
Answers to the above questions, and others, will determine whether Conservatism will become a central political force in our country, or remain on the vociferous fringe.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
IF IT'S WAR YOU WANT
The Obama Administration's decision to try the Gitmo detainees in American civilian criminal courts raises anew the spectre of the exclusionary rule...only this time its foreboding shadow threatens to impale civilization's ability to defend itself.
The exclusionary rule blocks the introduction into a trial of any evidence that was obtained by authorities in violation of Constititionally-protected rights...including the right to counsel, the right against unlawful searches and seizures, the right against cruel and inhuman treatment, the right to a speedy trial. the right to be Mirandized and advised of your rights. All of which were apparently violated with regard to the detainees, and that fact will no doubt be raised by the detainees' counsel in motions to exclude confessions and damaging evidence and to have the confessed ringleader of the 9-11 attack, and his cohorts, be set free in the name of...justice!
And so a court may feel reluctantly compelled to rule...to the endangerment of our country, our people, our way of life, our future.
The principal argument in favor of the exclusionary rule in civilian criminal matters is that it, hopefully, will dissuade the authorities from violating our Constitutional rights. The wisdom of that reasoning is questionable. If the authorities have evidence, no matter how obtained, that will help them obtain a conviction and remove a danger from our streets, why should those facts of reality be ignored? Could it possibly be in our interest to do so? Policemen and others who obtain evidence via unlawful searches or seizures, or otherwise, ought be severely punished, even discharged...but facts are facts and ignoring reality is a fool's path.
Here are some additional facts:
1. The Gitmo detainees are not American citizens.
2. Our Constitutional rights do not apply to them.
3. They are not criminals, but warriors engaged in wardare.
4. Civilized nations established the Geneva Convention to regulate waefare. Neither the Gitmo detainees nor their leaders signed to be bound by the Convention...nor are they entitled to its protections.
5. The right venue for warmongers is the military court and the right time is after the war has ended...so as not to to remove personnel from their war duties, so as not to have to reveal our secret operations and sources, so as not to divert our attention from the war at hand.
The argument that our not giving the detainees our Constitutional rights "lowers us to their level", is untrue and absurd. They INITIATED warfare against us, we are DEFENDING against that warfare, for our survival...and the difference between the two is the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, life and death.
The message we ought send the world is this: Attack us, terrorize us, seek to destroy us, and we will fight you not on your level but at levels you cannot imagine...not with one hand tied behind our backs, not with protocols or restraints, but by unleashing the full unrestrained might at our command. You do not set the terms of our battle, our survival does!
The exclusionary rule blocks the introduction into a trial of any evidence that was obtained by authorities in violation of Constititionally-protected rights...including the right to counsel, the right against unlawful searches and seizures, the right against cruel and inhuman treatment, the right to a speedy trial. the right to be Mirandized and advised of your rights. All of which were apparently violated with regard to the detainees, and that fact will no doubt be raised by the detainees' counsel in motions to exclude confessions and damaging evidence and to have the confessed ringleader of the 9-11 attack, and his cohorts, be set free in the name of...justice!
And so a court may feel reluctantly compelled to rule...to the endangerment of our country, our people, our way of life, our future.
The principal argument in favor of the exclusionary rule in civilian criminal matters is that it, hopefully, will dissuade the authorities from violating our Constitutional rights. The wisdom of that reasoning is questionable. If the authorities have evidence, no matter how obtained, that will help them obtain a conviction and remove a danger from our streets, why should those facts of reality be ignored? Could it possibly be in our interest to do so? Policemen and others who obtain evidence via unlawful searches or seizures, or otherwise, ought be severely punished, even discharged...but facts are facts and ignoring reality is a fool's path.
Here are some additional facts:
1. The Gitmo detainees are not American citizens.
2. Our Constitutional rights do not apply to them.
3. They are not criminals, but warriors engaged in wardare.
4. Civilized nations established the Geneva Convention to regulate waefare. Neither the Gitmo detainees nor their leaders signed to be bound by the Convention...nor are they entitled to its protections.
5. The right venue for warmongers is the military court and the right time is after the war has ended...so as not to to remove personnel from their war duties, so as not to have to reveal our secret operations and sources, so as not to divert our attention from the war at hand.
The argument that our not giving the detainees our Constitutional rights "lowers us to their level", is untrue and absurd. They INITIATED warfare against us, we are DEFENDING against that warfare, for our survival...and the difference between the two is the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, life and death.
The message we ought send the world is this: Attack us, terrorize us, seek to destroy us, and we will fight you not on your level but at levels you cannot imagine...not with one hand tied behind our backs, not with protocols or restraints, but by unleashing the full unrestrained might at our command. You do not set the terms of our battle, our survival does!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)