Let me begin by denoting this is an United States "American/English" biased issue that might well apply to other peoples and should be considered in that fashion. Just substitute your own nation/language(s) into the logic.
I stumbled upon the DoNotCall register regarding the US FTC's online process and registered my phone with the government's program. While there, I noted a special section for those who required their information En Español.
Although I have no negative feelings about Spanish or those who speak it, I am gobsmacked by the lack of equal opportunity. Here's what I think:
For those of you who do not speak English or Spanish, PLEASE complain to your US congressman that you are not receiving equal opportunity as the English/Spanish speaking and want all government communication presented in your language of choice as well. Since there are over 750 languages in daily use, you can imagine the instruction "press 749 for Aragonese." Since Aragonese is spoken in Aragon Spain, not even all Spanish peoples are satisfied with "press 2 for Spanish."
For those of you who think the idea of the U.S. Government trying to speak in tongues...(as if they weren't incomprehensible already) is a silly irony...but see a need for translation at times, let me introduce you to a free on line translator of text and even websites:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Try it! Also if you didn't know AltaVista, just know that AltaVista developed the first search able, full-text database on the World Wide Web in 1995 and was THE search engine of its day. (otherwise you'd have no search capability via Yahoo, Google, AskJeeves, AllTheWeb, etc.)
Gemmelsmerch!
And for those of you who are innovative, imagine that instead of spending millions reproducing information in Spanish (and whatever language comes after that ad infinitum) , the United States government instead funded a project to build a universal translator for the world...much like GPS serves the world. Just maybe the rest of the world should help doing this universal translator ability.
Oh, one more thing. Spanish speaking people have some of the richest cultures on this planet and their inclusion at least in America (north and south) is essential. And the same goes for English speaking people specially in the United States of America.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friday, November 09, 2007
No queen can be more mother
Humans, without regard to any cultural, societal or genetic difference,
can experience with equal enjoyment much of what is upon this earth
and the width of this experience grows. Equal in this view is that from the
lowest to the highest, no man can be without happiness nor can he
enjoy any less or more than other men...in this he is equal.
The exquisite rapture of sexual climax, is felt so well by a poor man as one wealthy.
A rainbow delights with prismatic brilliance in equal measure to all who watch.
A grandson held adoring, is to the heart of men the same.
Listen to Williams and Bream play Clair de Lune...as have millions, with
what might have been available to a rich few once but now more and more.
Yet, once presented, to old and young it is a sound which sings the same to all.
We may have race, language, science, religion, and sustenance differences
but we are more alike than different. No queen can be more mother than the
poorest nomad who hums a lullaby to her first born.
Thank God.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Presidential election = an ugly spectator sport
Our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory to the great majority of Americans. Even with hopeful new signs of internet enabled participation, our national elections remain essentially poll-driven, mass media campaigns and little more than an ugly spectator sport, though one with enormous stakes.
NPC Caucus
http://www.nationalcaucus.com/about
"Is this true," he asks with the most innocent expression of bewilderment?
I think our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory because Americans make their decision based upon matters that have little to do with a candidate's qualifications, and rarely upon informed logical process. So that's what politicians give them.
I really don't care if your logical process incorporates szindu gimmelsmerch so long as you examine the facts methodically with equal perspective. If you like a candidate because she espouses szindu that's fine. But do us all a favor and check it out. That candidate may have made reference to szindu based upon a staff prepared speech and otherwise wouldn't know what kind of broad-leafed weed that might be. Check if other candidates espouse szindu.
For goodness sake, don't choose the dimpled chinned yachtboy turned serious crusader because he's got beautiful blue eyes. Of course you wouldn't. But add up enough of these incidental 'likes and dislikes' and you have a predisposition.
When it comes to the 'warm and fuzzy' approach to selecting a president, I try to imagine the candidate, sitting in a conference room deep beneath some granite mountain before a keyboard and a screen that says
Click Here to start global nuclear apocalypse.
Chasque aquí para comenzar apocalypse nuclear global.
I favor a bill that restricts voting in an election to those who can reasonably answer correctly a quiz on the educational qualifications of each candidate. High School, college, major study.
Which candidate was educated and practiced as a gynecologist?
Sitting between the outspread legs of women all day hardly compares to staring into a computer screen prepared to launch nuclear missiles at the touch of a mouse click...no matter how often you do it in either case. So what are the qualifications? Sparse guidance is given by our forefathers.
What qualifies a person to serve as president to a nation such as ours in these times and conditions?
Ask those questions!
NPC Caucus
http://www.nationalcaucus.com/about
"Is this true," he asks with the most innocent expression of bewilderment?
I think our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory because Americans make their decision based upon matters that have little to do with a candidate's qualifications, and rarely upon informed logical process. So that's what politicians give them.
I really don't care if your logical process incorporates szindu gimmelsmerch so long as you examine the facts methodically with equal perspective. If you like a candidate because she espouses szindu that's fine. But do us all a favor and check it out. That candidate may have made reference to szindu based upon a staff prepared speech and otherwise wouldn't know what kind of broad-leafed weed that might be. Check if other candidates espouse szindu.
For goodness sake, don't choose the dimpled chinned yachtboy turned serious crusader because he's got beautiful blue eyes. Of course you wouldn't. But add up enough of these incidental 'likes and dislikes' and you have a predisposition.
When it comes to the 'warm and fuzzy' approach to selecting a president, I try to imagine the candidate, sitting in a conference room deep beneath some granite mountain before a keyboard and a screen that says
Click Here to start global nuclear apocalypse.
Chasque aquí para comenzar apocalypse nuclear global.
I favor a bill that restricts voting in an election to those who can reasonably answer correctly a quiz on the educational qualifications of each candidate. High School, college, major study.
Which candidate was educated and practiced as a gynecologist?
Sitting between the outspread legs of women all day hardly compares to staring into a computer screen prepared to launch nuclear missiles at the touch of a mouse click...no matter how often you do it in either case. So what are the qualifications? Sparse guidance is given by our forefathers.
What qualifies a person to serve as president to a nation such as ours in these times and conditions?
Ask those questions!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
I Would Lie Down
Walking upon dried leaves their edges ragged to decay
In browns, yellows and red, still they show what once they were
Through the forest limbs they fall in brittle cackle
Sunshine embers glow on those few that hang on.
Shuffling in a wishing walk the leaves shush me to quiet
Look down! something says, and capped acorns wink back.
Leaves everywhere clapping along a ground breeze
That I would lie down among them and dream.
In browns, yellows and red, still they show what once they were
Through the forest limbs they fall in brittle cackle
Sunshine embers glow on those few that hang on.
Shuffling in a wishing walk the leaves shush me to quiet
Look down! something says, and capped acorns wink back.
Leaves everywhere clapping along a ground breeze
That I would lie down among them and dream.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Fred Thompson quoted Burke
18th century Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
That's what Fred said when a constituent complained about a vote on a controversial issue in which his vote was contrary to popular opinion.
A consummate actor, Fred knows how to deliver his lines. Nonetheless, the "powers that be (PTB)" supporting Fred are getting some political room in which to work. In this case it may be only to offset the mix of the group. However, each candidate has an agenda, much like a television script, from which to read...delicately prioritized, guided and constructed by a PTB or two. The question becomes, not that an action would be dictated by a PTB or whether their candidate is truly expressing the desired opinion of a PTB that you've become comfortable with (under the guise of whatever candidate you select). The question is, when a matter is significant requiring action which opposes the view of the populace as well as the PTB, will the candidate have the judgement and conviction to do what is best.
If the image portrayed by a PTB is pleasing to your opinions...
is it because you know and agree with them
OR
is it because the PTB knows the right buttons to push and you have not questioned the implications or details?
IF the same viewpoints expressed by the PTB's candidate, were expressed by say a Don Knotts, would you find it equally pleasing?
Maybe we should change our electoral college system, to be selected well before campaigns begin with the agreement enforced that they would not VIEW any candidate in any medium during the process but would thoroughly study,read and listen to the candidates...and strongly consider public opinion as fickle, ignorant, apathetic and easily manipulated.
Hmmmm. As I study the candidates' views on major issues I wonder just what qualifications and experience the candidates truly have to resolve issues that have yet to arrive...even the priorities of PTB's change. The more I study the more I am amazed to discover I seem to agree most with a candidate who also has the best credentials, from another party...who is ugly and hasn't a chance. Based on my current assessment...he would make the best president. And since I have revealed exclusion of one candidate simply because I said HE. So in fairness I will exclude Fred Thompson as well.
But I could be wrong.
That's what Fred said when a constituent complained about a vote on a controversial issue in which his vote was contrary to popular opinion.
A consummate actor, Fred knows how to deliver his lines. Nonetheless, the "powers that be (PTB)" supporting Fred are getting some political room in which to work. In this case it may be only to offset the mix of the group. However, each candidate has an agenda, much like a television script, from which to read...delicately prioritized, guided and constructed by a PTB or two. The question becomes, not that an action would be dictated by a PTB or whether their candidate is truly expressing the desired opinion of a PTB that you've become comfortable with (under the guise of whatever candidate you select). The question is, when a matter is significant requiring action which opposes the view of the populace as well as the PTB, will the candidate have the judgement and conviction to do what is best.
If the image portrayed by a PTB is pleasing to your opinions...
is it because you know and agree with them
OR
is it because the PTB knows the right buttons to push and you have not questioned the implications or details?
IF the same viewpoints expressed by the PTB's candidate, were expressed by say a Don Knotts, would you find it equally pleasing?
Maybe we should change our electoral college system, to be selected well before campaigns begin with the agreement enforced that they would not VIEW any candidate in any medium during the process but would thoroughly study,read and listen to the candidates...and strongly consider public opinion as fickle, ignorant, apathetic and easily manipulated.
Hmmmm. As I study the candidates' views on major issues I wonder just what qualifications and experience the candidates truly have to resolve issues that have yet to arrive...even the priorities of PTB's change. The more I study the more I am amazed to discover I seem to agree most with a candidate who also has the best credentials, from another party...who is ugly and hasn't a chance. Based on my current assessment...he would make the best president. And since I have revealed exclusion of one candidate simply because I said HE. So in fairness I will exclude Fred Thompson as well.
But I could be wrong.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Let me begin by denoting this is an "American/English" biased issue that might well apply to other peoples and should be considered in that fashion. Just substitute your own nation/language(s) into the logic.
I stumbled upon the DoNotCall register regarding the FTC's online process and registered my phone with the government's program. While there, I noted a special section for those who required their information En Español.
Although I have no negative feelings about Spanish or those who speak it, I am gobsmacked by the lack of equal opportunity. Here's what I think:
For those of you who do not speak English or Spanish, PLEASE complain to your congressman that you are not receiving equal opportunity as the English/Spanish speaking and want all government communication presented in your language of choice as well. Since there are over 750 languages in daily use, you can imagine the instruction "press 749 for Aragonese." Since Aragonese is spoken in Aragon Spain, not even all Spanish peoples are satisfied with "press 2 for Spanish."
For those of you who think the idea of the U.S. Government trying to speak in tongues...(as if they weren't incomprehensible already) is a silly irony...but see a need for translation at times, let me introduce you to a free online translator of text and even websites:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Try it! Also if you didn't know AltaVista, just know that AltaVista developed the first search able, full-text database on the World Wide Web in 1995 and was THE search engine of its day. (otherwise you'd have no search capability via Yahoo, Google, AskJeeves, AllTheWeb, etc.)
Gemmelsmerch!
And for those of you who are innovative, imagine that instead of spending millions reproducing information in Spanish (and whatever language comes after that ad infinitum) , our government instead funded a project to build a universal translator for the world...much like GPS serves the world.
Oh, one more thing. Spanish speaking people have some of the richest cultures on this planet and their inclusion is essential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rant is finished :
se acaba el rant; rant is beëindigd; le rant est fini; das rant wird beendet; το rant είναι τελειωμένο; il rant è rifinito; o rant é terminado ; rant закончено ; oh the heck with this - where is that universal translator. Just searching the options to find your language is exhausting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I stumbled upon the DoNotCall register regarding the FTC's online process and registered my phone with the government's program. While there, I noted a special section for those who required their information En Español.
Although I have no negative feelings about Spanish or those who speak it, I am gobsmacked by the lack of equal opportunity. Here's what I think:
For those of you who do not speak English or Spanish, PLEASE complain to your congressman that you are not receiving equal opportunity as the English/Spanish speaking and want all government communication presented in your language of choice as well. Since there are over 750 languages in daily use, you can imagine the instruction "press 749 for Aragonese." Since Aragonese is spoken in Aragon Spain, not even all Spanish peoples are satisfied with "press 2 for Spanish."
For those of you who think the idea of the U.S. Government trying to speak in tongues...(as if they weren't incomprehensible already) is a silly irony...but see a need for translation at times, let me introduce you to a free online translator of text and even websites:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Try it! Also if you didn't know AltaVista, just know that AltaVista developed the first search able, full-text database on the World Wide Web in 1995 and was THE search engine of its day. (otherwise you'd have no search capability via Yahoo, Google, AskJeeves, AllTheWeb, etc.)
Gemmelsmerch!
And for those of you who are innovative, imagine that instead of spending millions reproducing information in Spanish (and whatever language comes after that ad infinitum) , our government instead funded a project to build a universal translator for the world...much like GPS serves the world.
Oh, one more thing. Spanish speaking people have some of the richest cultures on this planet and their inclusion is essential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rant is finished :
se acaba el rant; rant is beëindigd; le rant est fini; das rant wird beendet; το rant είναι τελειωμένο; il rant è rifinito; o rant é terminado ; rant закончено ; oh the heck with this - where is that universal translator. Just searching the options to find your language is exhausting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
A Crucial Time
Never before has their been such a need for advanced citizenship in the United States directed towards our political system and the selection of leaders.
Please go here and become knowlegable:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732/
Remember to consult the enternet for what 'real people' think versus what the media tells us what we think. The source above is a media center but the video clips are "straight from the horse's mouth."
Please go here and become knowlegable:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732/
Remember to consult the enternet for what 'real people' think versus what the media tells us what we think. The source above is a media center but the video clips are "straight from the horse's mouth."
Sunday, May 07, 2006
What issues do Americans say will be most important
What issues do Americans say will be most important to their vote for Congress?
Right now, there isn't one issue that clearly outdistances the others in recent polls.
According to some polls priority of issues are : the economy (16 percent) and gas prices (15 percent) edge out Iraq (13 percent), followed by immigration (12 percent), health care (11percent), and terrorism (10 percent). Two issues that are often included fail to make it into the double-digits are ethics in Washington (9 percent) and Social Security (7 percent).
* * * * * *
You don't need to search for another indicator that "US" Americans are ignorant, apathetic, and oblivious to reality.
***********
Here is the relative priority I would have listed these issues, including why and what I suggest might help.
1. National Defense - Accomplishing goals in our international involvements to include the "war on terrorism, Iraq, etc."
a. No other level of our social structure can address this scope and it isn't free, cheap or avoidable.
b. The need for comprehensive citizen contribution-respect is apparent - everyone should be required to personally do "service to country" for a period of time, full time - "draft" all who don't volunteer a designated period of their life by age thirty and extend "service to country" to non-combat needs. People don't appreciate what they get for free.
2. Immigration control - an enforceable and enforced solution. Immigration is not a right of entitlement - it is a plea for inclusion. There is a price of inclusion which your grandfather and father paid for you to have the advantages.
a. To be included does not mean an expectation for the populace to change according to your personal language, cultural or religious needs.
The cost to bend society to immigrant "rights" has us overextended financially, if not morally or legally. The resources of our country are becoming insufficient to it's current citizenry, so we must not add to the population and must regulate what access to our resources we permit...to our best interest. We must deny the expectation of immigrants to enjoy the benefits of citizenry until they can meet our immigration laws. There is a limit to the number who may safely get on board a ship in shark infested waters...and be responsible to those who maintain the ship and the offspring of those who built it.
3. Energy - Gas prices are an indicator of energy supplies and how they affect every aspect of our lives on a nationwide basis. We must seek solutions to the upcoming real energy crisis. No other level of our social structure can address a nationwide need for secure and reasonably plentiful energy. Carbon based energy sources have limits and their end is surprisingly close.
4. International relations - Only a national entity can fend for us in this arena. The issues within are vigilance, contribution, involvement, development and improvement on a nation to nation basis. It is a shame that the United Nations is primarily successful only in distribution of charities and almost impotent in the security of the earth and its inhabitants.
____________________________________________________
The above are what we need in national perspective from a Federal Government...things that we cannot do otherwise. To what remains of "national issues":
Ethics - like morality laws - impossible to enforce as a preventative measure...useful after the fact to punish offenders but often without restitution to the victims. Concentrate on advanced citizenship to be involved in candidates for office, voting and speaking out ... make unethical unsuccessful.
Health care - if you want medical care really screwed up, let bureaucratic federal government try to control, standardize, regulate etc. ad infinitum, this most personal issue.
a. Concentrate on the obstacles:
(1) Litigation that is unreasonable in value/cost added. Monetary awards in lawsuits do not enhance medical care - they give money to lawyers and individuals often beyond what is fair - and the cost is passed to the consumers (those that can pay). In the medical arena, the concern should be to address criminal transgressions. Malpractice suits, should result in other forms of resolution than money and should only address extremes in levels of risk in medical procedures (to expunge the clearly incompetent). Malpractise insurance should not be expensive, it should just be difficult to get and keep ... commensurate with a reasonable level of competence. A significant percentage of medical costs and obstacles would be reduced herein and thus more people could afford and benefit.
(2) Free health care (someone always pays) or impractical expectations to a degree of it. Health care is a supply and demand process...as an individual you must be responsible for you and yours to pay the price. Getting sick, having genetically predisposed illnesses, having accidents, disease...all these are adverse life issues which inevitably everyone encounters. Expecting others to pay for your personal survival is unreasonable and impractacle. Depending upon it is unwise. The federal government should not be responsibile for your personal health except when you are working fulltime and directly "in service to country." If, and I question the degree, there is a role for government in health, it should be towards education, disease prevention processes and research; and not personal individual-level health.
[NOTE: What is the true cost of medical care? Imagine government taking over the provision of all medical care, personnel, facilities, drugs or devices and making any private effort to do so illegal with extreme punishment for law breakers. The branches of government attention would be intense and eventually fair to all in cost. The black market would make it in the best interest of all to settle on what is reasonable. Oh yeah, and Federal taxes would increase.]
Economy - government entities have been charged with, taken credit/blame for and established controls affecting economy for centuries. Rarely has such involvement resolved inequities in the supply and demand process. When it has, it has often been at a cost to be paid at another time, place, group that resulted in even greater discomfort. A degree of international commerce regulation would appear reasonable in matters of defense, or nationwide scope.
Social security - the term suggests that society is responsible for your security, but that has been irresponsibly extended to your health, sustenance, burial, income, offspring and everything else that truly is your personal responsibility. Many people have wished for guarantees that they will not go wanting, expecting "the government" to do something - and have been sorely disappointed. There are no guarantees. Life is risk. Prepare and accept responsibility for yourself and your offspring. Your ancestors did - or you wouldn't be here. You pay social security tax - consider it forced charity for the deserving but don't expect your small insurance premium to cover all the risks and misfortunes in life for all people. If you never paid the premium, expect nothing.
Iraq (specifically) - Re-examine the goals and commit to a measureable accomplishment. War is certain hell and few want it. The degree to which people will accept the need for war is almost always a concern for personal loss or gain...and the number against it increases relative to those who have taken a personal loss. Many a soldier would have quit his post had it not been for a personal loss - his honor, his life, his freedom - as enforced by the powerful. Many a war would not have begun, had every citizen been required to enter into combat including both sides. So long as evil persons attain power enabled by an apathetic citizenry, war will exist. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that nations with deligent citizenry must eventually fight such evil. Nations, like individuals, must accept responsibility for their actions (or inaction) to include apathy and vigilence, to the degree that war becomes inevitable.
Gas prices (specifically) - Don't buy what you can't afford. Don't depend upon what you cannot obtain. The United States of America enjoys the least expensive petroleum and consumes the most petroleum (and its byproducts) per capita of any nation on earth. As a simple supply and demand perspective, its citizens should be thankful and concentrate intently on energy sources which are sustainable, financially practical and less subject to the interests of other countries. Do what needs be done and quit bitching. You aren't victims on gas prices except by your own avarice and greed.
I welcome additions and counter-perspectives as comments.
Right now, there isn't one issue that clearly outdistances the others in recent polls.
According to some polls priority of issues are : the economy (16 percent) and gas prices (15 percent) edge out Iraq (13 percent), followed by immigration (12 percent), health care (11percent), and terrorism (10 percent). Two issues that are often included fail to make it into the double-digits are ethics in Washington (9 percent) and Social Security (7 percent).
* * * * * *
You don't need to search for another indicator that "US" Americans are ignorant, apathetic, and oblivious to reality.
***********
Here is the relative priority I would have listed these issues, including why and what I suggest might help.
1. National Defense - Accomplishing goals in our international involvements to include the "war on terrorism, Iraq, etc."
a. No other level of our social structure can address this scope and it isn't free, cheap or avoidable.
b. The need for comprehensive citizen contribution-respect is apparent - everyone should be required to personally do "service to country" for a period of time, full time - "draft" all who don't volunteer a designated period of their life by age thirty and extend "service to country" to non-combat needs. People don't appreciate what they get for free.
2. Immigration control - an enforceable and enforced solution. Immigration is not a right of entitlement - it is a plea for inclusion. There is a price of inclusion which your grandfather and father paid for you to have the advantages.
a. To be included does not mean an expectation for the populace to change according to your personal language, cultural or religious needs.
The cost to bend society to immigrant "rights" has us overextended financially, if not morally or legally. The resources of our country are becoming insufficient to it's current citizenry, so we must not add to the population and must regulate what access to our resources we permit...to our best interest. We must deny the expectation of immigrants to enjoy the benefits of citizenry until they can meet our immigration laws. There is a limit to the number who may safely get on board a ship in shark infested waters...and be responsible to those who maintain the ship and the offspring of those who built it.
3. Energy - Gas prices are an indicator of energy supplies and how they affect every aspect of our lives on a nationwide basis. We must seek solutions to the upcoming real energy crisis. No other level of our social structure can address a nationwide need for secure and reasonably plentiful energy. Carbon based energy sources have limits and their end is surprisingly close.
4. International relations - Only a national entity can fend for us in this arena. The issues within are vigilance, contribution, involvement, development and improvement on a nation to nation basis. It is a shame that the United Nations is primarily successful only in distribution of charities and almost impotent in the security of the earth and its inhabitants.
____________________________________________________
The above are what we need in national perspective from a Federal Government...things that we cannot do otherwise. To what remains of "national issues":
Ethics - like morality laws - impossible to enforce as a preventative measure...useful after the fact to punish offenders but often without restitution to the victims. Concentrate on advanced citizenship to be involved in candidates for office, voting and speaking out ... make unethical unsuccessful.
Health care - if you want medical care really screwed up, let bureaucratic federal government try to control, standardize, regulate etc. ad infinitum, this most personal issue.
a. Concentrate on the obstacles:
(1) Litigation that is unreasonable in value/cost added. Monetary awards in lawsuits do not enhance medical care - they give money to lawyers and individuals often beyond what is fair - and the cost is passed to the consumers (those that can pay). In the medical arena, the concern should be to address criminal transgressions. Malpractice suits, should result in other forms of resolution than money and should only address extremes in levels of risk in medical procedures (to expunge the clearly incompetent). Malpractise insurance should not be expensive, it should just be difficult to get and keep ... commensurate with a reasonable level of competence. A significant percentage of medical costs and obstacles would be reduced herein and thus more people could afford and benefit.
(2) Free health care (someone always pays) or impractical expectations to a degree of it. Health care is a supply and demand process...as an individual you must be responsible for you and yours to pay the price. Getting sick, having genetically predisposed illnesses, having accidents, disease...all these are adverse life issues which inevitably everyone encounters. Expecting others to pay for your personal survival is unreasonable and impractacle. Depending upon it is unwise. The federal government should not be responsibile for your personal health except when you are working fulltime and directly "in service to country." If, and I question the degree, there is a role for government in health, it should be towards education, disease prevention processes and research; and not personal individual-level health.
[NOTE: What is the true cost of medical care? Imagine government taking over the provision of all medical care, personnel, facilities, drugs or devices and making any private effort to do so illegal with extreme punishment for law breakers. The branches of government attention would be intense and eventually fair to all in cost. The black market would make it in the best interest of all to settle on what is reasonable. Oh yeah, and Federal taxes would increase.]
Economy - government entities have been charged with, taken credit/blame for and established controls affecting economy for centuries. Rarely has such involvement resolved inequities in the supply and demand process. When it has, it has often been at a cost to be paid at another time, place, group that resulted in even greater discomfort. A degree of international commerce regulation would appear reasonable in matters of defense, or nationwide scope.
Social security - the term suggests that society is responsible for your security, but that has been irresponsibly extended to your health, sustenance, burial, income, offspring and everything else that truly is your personal responsibility. Many people have wished for guarantees that they will not go wanting, expecting "the government" to do something - and have been sorely disappointed. There are no guarantees. Life is risk. Prepare and accept responsibility for yourself and your offspring. Your ancestors did - or you wouldn't be here. You pay social security tax - consider it forced charity for the deserving but don't expect your small insurance premium to cover all the risks and misfortunes in life for all people. If you never paid the premium, expect nothing.
Iraq (specifically) - Re-examine the goals and commit to a measureable accomplishment. War is certain hell and few want it. The degree to which people will accept the need for war is almost always a concern for personal loss or gain...and the number against it increases relative to those who have taken a personal loss. Many a soldier would have quit his post had it not been for a personal loss - his honor, his life, his freedom - as enforced by the powerful. Many a war would not have begun, had every citizen been required to enter into combat including both sides. So long as evil persons attain power enabled by an apathetic citizenry, war will exist. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that nations with deligent citizenry must eventually fight such evil. Nations, like individuals, must accept responsibility for their actions (or inaction) to include apathy and vigilence, to the degree that war becomes inevitable.
Gas prices (specifically) - Don't buy what you can't afford. Don't depend upon what you cannot obtain. The United States of America enjoys the least expensive petroleum and consumes the most petroleum (and its byproducts) per capita of any nation on earth. As a simple supply and demand perspective, its citizens should be thankful and concentrate intently on energy sources which are sustainable, financially practical and less subject to the interests of other countries. Do what needs be done and quit bitching. You aren't victims on gas prices except by your own avarice and greed.
I welcome additions and counter-perspectives as comments.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
They come to America
Regarding illegal immigrants, their protests, and the expectation of United States of America citizens:
Immigration is not a right of entitlement...it is a plea for inclusion. To be included there is a price. Fortunately for those who are born citizens, someone in their ancestry paid that price and to them they should be thankful but the remainder of the price is working within the system to the pursuit of happiness.
People who enter the USA contrary to its laws of citizenship have no ancestry that paid for the right to live here and enjoy the advantages; and those that further seek to enjoy the advantages without paying the price are thieves.
Part of my motivation to work within the system, to serve in our military, to pay taxes, to vote for leaders and improvements in the law, to contribute to our society is to secure a future of these advantages for my children and my children's children.
It may be unfortunate for some to be born of a family in a impoverished country. However, the great majority of mankind is so born. However, there is still an opportunity to join another country and live according to that society's laws and expectations...and many do so to enter the United States of America. It may be that this is an extension of the "survival of the most fit" among societies. The genetic offspring of those willing to work to succeed, would seem best to begin their lives as members of their society.
It is within this framework that I ask those who steal from my ancestors, why they cannot work to succeed within their own country and pass down to their children the resulting advantages. It is within this framework that I ask those who take from this society, why they do not contribute to the welfare of all within it.
Remember the USA was also a colony. It was not a land of great wealth, advanced medical care, or advantages equal to the society from which colonists left. The majority of citizens of this colony did not return to their native country to spend their earnings and support their families there. They did invest themselves and their earnings in improving this society; they did fight tyrants to secure and maintain this country; and they did welcome others who wished to do the same for their lives and a future for their children. Other countries in the Americas began much the same. Why are they not equal to the US in advantage to their citizens?
At this point in history, there are other countries in the Americas with great resources, who could develop within their societies much improved lives for themselves and their offspring.
Herein I have asked many questions. All men are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunity and it is merely a romantic notion to think otherwise. I do not advocate that all mankind should propagate. I do advocate that the survival of mankind depends upon the advance of the brightest, the best and the most capable willing to work for the survival of those societies that have evolved successfully. Let those who can do this in the United States of America live here and come here. Let others fend for themselves in their society.
My concern is that the USA is not fending for itself when it advances the less than bright, welcomes the less than best, supports too many less capable and sustains those unwilling to work in contribution.
Immigration is not a right of entitlement...it is a plea for inclusion. To be included there is a price. Fortunately for those who are born citizens, someone in their ancestry paid that price and to them they should be thankful but the remainder of the price is working within the system to the pursuit of happiness.
People who enter the USA contrary to its laws of citizenship have no ancestry that paid for the right to live here and enjoy the advantages; and those that further seek to enjoy the advantages without paying the price are thieves.
Part of my motivation to work within the system, to serve in our military, to pay taxes, to vote for leaders and improvements in the law, to contribute to our society is to secure a future of these advantages for my children and my children's children.
It may be unfortunate for some to be born of a family in a impoverished country. However, the great majority of mankind is so born. However, there is still an opportunity to join another country and live according to that society's laws and expectations...and many do so to enter the United States of America. It may be that this is an extension of the "survival of the most fit" among societies. The genetic offspring of those willing to work to succeed, would seem best to begin their lives as members of their society.
It is within this framework that I ask those who steal from my ancestors, why they cannot work to succeed within their own country and pass down to their children the resulting advantages. It is within this framework that I ask those who take from this society, why they do not contribute to the welfare of all within it.
Remember the USA was also a colony. It was not a land of great wealth, advanced medical care, or advantages equal to the society from which colonists left. The majority of citizens of this colony did not return to their native country to spend their earnings and support their families there. They did invest themselves and their earnings in improving this society; they did fight tyrants to secure and maintain this country; and they did welcome others who wished to do the same for their lives and a future for their children. Other countries in the Americas began much the same. Why are they not equal to the US in advantage to their citizens?
At this point in history, there are other countries in the Americas with great resources, who could develop within their societies much improved lives for themselves and their offspring.
Herein I have asked many questions. All men are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunity and it is merely a romantic notion to think otherwise. I do not advocate that all mankind should propagate. I do advocate that the survival of mankind depends upon the advance of the brightest, the best and the most capable willing to work for the survival of those societies that have evolved successfully. Let those who can do this in the United States of America live here and come here. Let others fend for themselves in their society.
My concern is that the USA is not fending for itself when it advances the less than bright, welcomes the less than best, supports too many less capable and sustains those unwilling to work in contribution.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
New Orleans : How did we get here?
I received this in an email and checked the authenticity of the author and this article - and it is valid.
I add my comment at the end.
Moral poverty cost blacks in New Orleans
Posted: September 21, 2005
1:00 a.m.Eastern
REV Jesse Lee Peterson
Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:
What would you do?
What would you do if you were black?
Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.
To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger.
Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.
For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you.
This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.
No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out.
This, as we know, did not turn out good results.
Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. ?/FONT≈ap;a?p;g;
Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.
Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform ? legally and practically ? fell first on the mayor of New Orleans.
We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin ? the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."
One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now ? the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?
Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center.
We know how that plan turned out.
About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.
President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans ' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.
All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty ? not their material poverty ? that cost them dearly in New Orleans.
Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated ? they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption.
New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America.
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is a black man.
Now let's take race out as the issue. Other races in New Orleans behaved poorly like this also, just as there were blacks who took responsibility for their own safety and that of their community. White or black isn't the issue. We have developed an attitude of "victim" for all things bad. We have enabled too many to depend upon the providence of government, society and charity for their lifelong sustenance. The result is we are victims of government, society and charities which thus are all bad.
I have been reminded that there is no biblical reference to support the idea that God helps those who help themselves, but I believe we should, and only help those who help themselves.
How did we get here? Irresponsible, missplaced and indulgent charity. The victim as excuse.
How do we get better? Remove the middleman in charity. Help your immediate neighbor up front and personally.
Friday, January 13, 2006
To be honest
P.S.
I've come to adopt a perspective now, with such religious conviction, that truly you cannot cheat an honest man...and that given time and opportunity, most people will do the right thing. It's a comforting feeling to know there is a protective God present at every human endeavor. I think you would agree.
However, I'm practical enough to know that doesn't mean one might consider having been cheated in an exchange, if you didn't at least receive an education and at least learn who not to associate with. But you know God promises to avenge our pain, that he will repay, and I shudder to realize the enormity of that. I cannot fathom what resources are available to an avenging God nor the extremes he is capable of...if they could but be measured. Nothing I could do as revenge could approach that rendered by God.
Just believing is what makes an honest man succeed. Learning that another cannot be trusted, early instead of later when the damage would be worse...improves his odds.
while we know "that not a sparrow falls to the earth...and unto the least of these" to be truths...no interpretation of those words excludes the "most and best", to share in his promise...and you are certainly that.
I've come to adopt a perspective now, with such religious conviction, that truly you cannot cheat an honest man...and that given time and opportunity, most people will do the right thing. It's a comforting feeling to know there is a protective God present at every human endeavor. I think you would agree.
However, I'm practical enough to know that doesn't mean one might consider having been cheated in an exchange, if you didn't at least receive an education and at least learn who not to associate with. But you know God promises to avenge our pain, that he will repay, and I shudder to realize the enormity of that. I cannot fathom what resources are available to an avenging God nor the extremes he is capable of...if they could but be measured. Nothing I could do as revenge could approach that rendered by God.
Just believing is what makes an honest man succeed. Learning that another cannot be trusted, early instead of later when the damage would be worse...improves his odds.
while we know "that not a sparrow falls to the earth...and unto the least of these" to be truths...no interpretation of those words excludes the "most and best", to share in his promise...and you are certainly that.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Advanced citizenship
You are warned.
What follows is a plethora of perspectives which originate from or are promulgated by one single person and his pursuit of the meaning of life. If there is one.
I decide.
I may include items which not only seem but are inconsistent with my views. Do not be alarmed, but do be aware, that in consulting other views one often finds answers or clarification in that other source’s pursuit. This then becomes a matter of interpretation, the lens through which we view data to become “information” in a sense of factual analysis. I see no irony in the observation of police investigators that a crowd viewing a crime in progress later has a thousand variations of what occurred that they can recall and some in complete contrast. I am but one person in the crowd.
I decide what to present as though my perceptions are better than others. I want to think by the inclusion of “materials inconsistent with my analysis” I gain a high degree of accuracy, because I can steer this pursuit against the flow by examining any differences between what I see against what another sees. I can change course based upon the best analysis even if not my own.
I share what I see with any who finds it of value…even…perhaps specially so, those who disagree and will present it as example of inaccuracy. That is another person in the crowd. He is also fallible. However, I must grant the possibility their analysis is accurate and mine is not. Therefore you are warned.
My first concept is that if such individual views and analysis were codified and linked via our existing means of communication medium, it would be possible to arrive at the best decisions of many persons. This concept suggests that it would be possible to not only achieve a government for the people, but a government of and by the people. I believe that the consensus of our personal beliefs and a decision process of our best minds in aggregate can achieve more (or less) in legislation than the representatives in our government houses; more justice in our courts; and much more oversight of the Executives we appoint.
If you can imagine the body politic as a human body, the concept becomes easier to understand.
We have sensors throughout our body that can instantly advise our brains via a nerve system.
Technology can provide a similar communication system that would enable each of us as sensors. My point is not that a majority rule can run our world quickly now. My concept is a system that can be capable of advanced consult with the best of us in making decisions for the public good and individual rights.
History has documented human behavior that government revolution arises eventually when the desires of the citizens are not in the rule of the country.
One argument is the degree and relative environment of dissent necessary to ignite the effort of change.
Another argument is that the means to present the desires of citizens is and has been too slow to effectively steer the course of government.
A third argument is that not every sensor in the body is capable of addressing the variety of input that is presented to our consciousness. Democracy is fine, but we don't seek the advice of every neighbor to determine a majority in making a medical diagnosis for surgery. However, in fact, a majority of some group does determine medical diagnosis and treatment. In fact a majority of some group does make the decisions. My thought is that whatever group that does it is often much less than the available intelligence for any specific discipline.
A fourth argument can be demonstrated as a desire to permit all persons to have their turn at being right - to decide what and how. Their sense of fairness suggests that out of every one hundred decisions, they get to make at least one with no other justification for their decision.
All decisions are arbitrary anyway, so why can't theirs be? Or why do all decisions have to be justified anyway, can't you have some made purely from sentiment, charity or mercy? Their decisions would not necessarily be in the best interest of all of the people.
A fifth argument is that the flaws of government merely reflect the flaws of humanity. This is my thought. The flaws of government are that the reflection of the governed seen by the governing, is a poor one. Further, even seen accurately, some of the governing choose to ignore what they don't want to see. sometimes even for personal gain. It would seem as though any human group is inevitably doomed to flawed government. My thought is that within any area of expertise there are large numbers of people who excel in one or more specific disciplines. Why is it that given a decision to be made, we can't get the best answer from the best mind available for that data analysis? None of us is perfect, yet the sum of our collective best decisions would enable a best of all worlds if not perfect progress in our pursuits.
This concept and details of topics could be expanded in many directions. It is a search or journey as you wish. If you have no interest or expertise in a topic I have presented, do not reply or comment...be quiet and learn. If you do have some degree of interest or expertise then I welcome your input. You extend your ability to form the sensors of government in my concept by the degree of attention or importance a pursuit should receive and provide the most informed decisions and thereafter monitored by everyone.
Although I said I would decide, eventually you decide. You who read these commentaries and post your thought and observations decide and so do I as just one in the crowd and perhaps a more attentive observer.
One of my mentors described systems as a balloon When you push your finger into the balloon in one place, the air just pushes out at another. The bigger the balloon the less effect of a single finger pushing will shape it. His point was that in resolving any specific problem, a resulting problem arises or is created.
What I see is another aspect. If the sum of the areas to be pushed can communicate and be collectively advised...the shape of the balloon will not necessarily be round. The analogy further portrays that while the shape achieved will not be exactly as intended, it will be as close as you could expect overall. In this fashion we could shape the governing and their reach and advantage into our lives.
All of this presupposes advanced citizenship - citizens who contribute their best answers in areas they have interest or expertise. To be unselfishly honest.
I imagine. If I have an automobile accident, I can reliably get the best advice from all those who reported having had an accident, and determine thereby what to do and who best to do it with.
Imagine knowing that you could trust what needed to be fixed was fairly fixed by a competent mechanic. ..because you elected to go in the direction experts advised if you wanted.
I imagine. When an individual asks you for the job as county commissioner you can get the knowledge of everyone who knows him well regarding his ability etc. Not the guy who looks good in a campaign or got the most money to advertise. Not a mouthpiece for one organization special interest group or another. Well, you might get a lot of honest genuinely good candidates who have the ability to do the job... Then you decide. If you have no interest or expertise don't vote. If you do and you've consulted the information of other experts in deciding, then vote.
I imagine. This system would invariably identify dishonesty...people who like sensors that consistently send false reports and thus are ignored. This system does the same regarding accuracy and excellence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
