|
Politics, like philosophy, is a process that we are constantly engaged in. Most
individuals do not take
the time to logically and objectively meditate on the positions they hold or the
candidates they support. The fact is, most of us do not even
vote.
The three most important things that a poor
man needs to do are to own a gun, join a labor union, and vote.
After that, it would be the most wonderful thing if that poor man would take a
little time away from the television and everything else, even just a half hour
a day, to sit and think about how things are with the country, and how it should
be. I believe that, taken as a whole, all those poor men would know what’s
best.
The problems we have had with
incompetent administration of the ballot is the price we pay for having personal
sovereignty in this country. Each individual does whatever he or she wants and we
trust that it will all come out right in the end. We delegate some of our powers to
the states and they also do what ever they want, usually in a slipshod, mediocre manner,
because that is the way the majority of common people conduct their business all over the
world, except that in this country they happen to be in charge. This is obviously a
ridiculous way to conduct a government, were it not for the fact that in doing so we have
become and continue to be the greatest nation and power on the face of the earth.
The alternative is having one large national election
instead of fifty state elections. Instead of having to campaign and cater to
the political interests of the people in each state, the politicians would probably be
able to conduct their campaign totally through the medium of television. Then our politics
would be just like our national cuisine, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, etc. Those who
believe in big government (both Republicans and Democrats alike) would be happy to shove
it down our throats.
As for the voters, it is a shame that so many of us
do not know how to read and follow simple instructions (those wacky Americans again). But
this has been happening forever and everyone who is in the know, knows it. I believe in decentralized government
manifested in the several state governments, operating within a framework of federal laws
focused primarily on preserving the rights of all citizens, enacted by a representative
government substantially free of special interests. Factions will always exist and
can serve as checks and balances to each other, but we should strive as a nation for
impartial and rational government.
I believe in personal sovereignty and the
necessity to bear arms in order to protect it and the unalienable rights of men. This and
the sanctity of human life, even though I am prepared to sacrifice it on the altar of
liberty. What a paradox.
I think that
Ambassador Alan
Keyes explained it very clearly when he said,
"Well, simply put, it's right there in the Declaration--when they penned the great
words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Do I speak of the
rights? No. They are very important. No. That principle that above all involves us in the
recognition that the basis for human justice and dignity and rights is the will and
authority of our Creator God.
The importance of that principle we have to look at because that principle allows us to
understand that, since we claim our rights by virtue of the authority of God, we must
exercise our rights with respect for the authority of God....Either we must respect the
integrity of God's choice in every human being, in every human life because it is God's
word and God's will before we have anything to do with it, or not a single one of us are
safe in our claim to rights and freedoms."
I believe in Capitalism
because it appears to me that it creates tremendous wealth and innovative new
technologies. So I believe wherever possible capitalists should be left
alone to accumulate wealth. However, I am familiar the capitalist
personality and I know that capitalists cannot be allowed to operate unchecked.
I believe in a high personal income tax , at least 30% paid equally by all.
A flat tax of this kind is egalitarian and society directly benefits from
the wealth earned by capitalists. Society, after all, creates the
environment within which capitalists may successfully operate. I believe
in a sales tax to remind people that when they consume they must put something
back and because it seems to me a fair way of paying for government. I do
not believe businesses should be taxed because this essentially raises the price
the consumer pays for a product. I do not believe in property tax for personal
dwellings, but would tax the owners of property held for business purposes on
the rental income they received from its use, but not if they owned the
businesses that were operating within them.
I believe in safety nets for the very young, the desperately poor, and the
elderly, but I believe that the receipt of these charitable benefits should be
accompanied by a loss of certain political rights and privileges so that people
and families will think twice before availing themselves of them. I
believe everybody should be able to retire when they reach a certain age and not
want for food, clothing or shelter. I believe that everyone in a society
should have access to heath care, so that they may be fit to contribute to the
greater good and because it seems to me that if society is not prepared to take
care of its citizens when they are ill, it cannot reasonably expect the loyalty
of its citizens when they are healthy.
I believe in free education for anyone who can pass the tests, most assuredly
for young people and training in a trade for the rest so that all may live
enlightened productive lives that are personally rewarding and beneficial to
their fellow man. I believe in mandatory two year government service for
young people, either in the military or in some other civilian corps, so that
all will understand that they are equal under the law and part of something
greater than themselves.
I believe that the family, church and state are three separate sovereign
entities. I believe that all men and women, cultures, and creeds are equal
under the law and that people have a God given right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. I believe in the Bill of Rights, especially the
first and second amendments. I believe that what applies in public life
between men and women and children does not necessarily apply within the family
or within the church.
If you agree that politics
equals economics, then perhaps you will concur that we are well on our way to one-world
government. The question that remains to be answered is: Who will govern and
how? Are men really "endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights", and that among those rights are "Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness"? Are these concepts worth dying for? Are
they worth killing for?
Consider the "Man with a Hoe"
This poem,
written by Edwin Markham in 1899, describes the brutalization of man, by economic
circumstances. The poet lays the blame for this desecration of the human spirit at
the feet of the rich and powerful. He infers that they could have ameliorated
the
suffering of the masses, if they had not lacked the desire and compassion to do so.
Because they did not, they and all the rest of humanity are bound to pay a terrible
price.
Arms = The Vote
The right to bear arms in
America is a non negotiable issue. Yes guns are instruments of death and violence.
That's why we have them. We gained our independence from the British by violently
shooting them to death, with guns. You can be sure that the Black Panthers had a
great influence on Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act because they were
shooting at the Chicago police, with guns. When federal officials decided to enter
the private home of the relatives of Elian Gonzalez, they wore helmets, and vests, because
they were afraid they might be shot at, with guns. They do not have basic political
rights in Cuba today because they have no guns. The students in Tianamen Square were
executed because they did not have the guns to shoot back.
A deadly weapon with a
mandatory lock on it is no longer a deadly weapon, it is a useless paperweight. A
registered weapon is a targeted item on a list, waiting to be gathered up by a tyrannical
government some day in the future. Any bureaucracy, prefers a nation of powerless sheep to
govern rather than an armed, active citizenry. Americans do not keep guns primarily for
sporting use, not even so much for home defense. We keep guns to protect ourselves from
the Congress, from the State Legislature, and from the local constabulary against that day
when they become so corrupt that they begin to practice tyranny. There are examples
all over the world today of oppressive and evil governments. Our government is not
immune. Even today, can anyone be so naïve as to say as to say our elected
officials are to be absolutely trusted. Idiocy!
Whether you venerate the
Trumans or the Reagans of this world; whether you despise the Nixons or the Clintons of
this world; the power and majesty of the American democracy rests with well armed citizens
who will defend it from enemies both without and within. Citizens who remain ready to give
their lives for democracy, and to take lives in defense of it as well. Isn't it sad
that we need guns to protect our liberty? Yes it is, sad but true. There are
hundreds of things we can do to protect our children, from guns, hate, crime, pornography,
racism, abuse, drugs, it's a long list. We need to protect them from tyranny as
well, and from stupidity.
Self Defense
I own a Smith & Wesson, five shot, 357 Magnum
revolver. I have had a license to carry a gun since I was twenty-one. That is
over thirty years ago. I am now fifty-two. For eight of those years, I was a law
enforcement officer for the State of Florida. Over that time I have known and
associated with people who carry guns. Good people and some very bad people.
Most of them carried a gun without the benefit of a license and probably still
do. I think people would be surprised at how many others around them are armed.
I have a God given right to be able to defend myself
if necessary. I am a law abiding citizen and am happy that the prevailing
government still acknowledges that right in the form of the Second Amendment to
the Constitution. After thirty years, I am inconvenienced and offended because
I have to leave my sidearm locked in my safe when I come to work. I see no
reason why it is anybody’s business but my own if I am armed. To be sure the
criminal or the crazed killer does not care anything about the law and will be
carrying his gun no matter how many laws are passed. Whenever we read about some
great tragedy where innocent people were shot down, it is important to realize
that there was no one there who was armed and in a position to return fire. Every
day armed citizens prevent crime. While these incidents are often documented,
they are rarely reported by the media because they are not all that sensational.
I can appreciate the position of
the weak and the frightened. They wish with all their hearts that violence
would never rear its ugly head and that every sword was beaten into a
plowshare. Their desire for this is so great that they wind up believing it to
be true. But they are self deceived. The veneer of polite society is thin indeed
and underneath it there are those who would rape, rob, and murder. You will find
them in the parking lot as well as in the statehouse. The police rarely arrive
in time. I think it better if every honest and upright man and woman was
prepared to destroy such evil when it was encountered, even if they waited all
their life and never met it face to face.
I've Got My Rights!
There
are those who think that average people are too stupid to decide what is right for
themselves, for their families, or for their country. They would rather have a king, or a
dictator, or a government agency decide. But democracy is based on the idea that the
people are able to make the right decisions. We elect people to make the decisions for us.
We hope they spend their time learning what they need to know to make the right decisions.
They decide the issues while we work at our jobs. If we think they made the wrong
decisions we elect someone else the next time. That’s the way it works in America.
The
people we elect are just like us. Some are smart, some are stupid, most are just average.
Some of them are good guys and some of them are criminals. Just like every where else. We
are too busy working to pay much attention to what they are doing. We trust them to do
what's right.
The gentlemen who wrote the Declaration of
Independence thought that:
It's obvious that everyone is more or less the
same
"We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are
That God gives us rights no one can take away
created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with
like Life, Freedom, Being Happy, and more…
certain
unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these
We elect the government so they can help us
rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
When they don't help us anymore we can get rid of them
whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
and start over.
it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Good times come and go,
taxes go up and sometimes down. There is never enough money. Everywhere. But this is the
first country where they wrote down in the law that the power belongs to the people.
Soon everyone overseas will be using the same kind of money. Soon they will all have the
same laws, and soon we will have to join with them, having the same money and the same
laws worldwide in order to buy and sell. The great question of this century will be
whether Americans will keep our rights and share them with the world or whether we will
have to give them up in order to eat and buy and sell. This decision is going to be up to
you, the citizen.
Next to the Bill of Rights, individual sovereignty is the touchstone of the American
democracy. If sovereignty resides with the state, we are at the mercy of an unthinking,
unfeeling, legal entity, much like any other corporation. I tell you, under those
conditions, I would prefer a monarch for I might at least be able to gain his favor.
Rather, our government is based on the idea that the people are sovereign, and allow the
state and federal governments such power as they please at any particular time. We
collectively reserve the right to take back that power, and reestablish new forms of
government, should the present forms fail to protect our liberty. A difficult prospect to
be sure in this age of intergovernmental relations, and I am very concerned about the ever
increasing role the federal government appears to be playing in the life of the
individual. Granted, the federal government must be delegated the authority in many
things. But it is only by keeping the decision making power at the lowest possible level
that the conditions for tyranny can be avoided.
My greatest
concern is that no one thinks about the loss of their personal freedoms. Sovereignty is not a nice concept that is not really
practical today. It is the antithesis of apathy, and should be the cornerstone of any
education in a free society.
I was a correctional officer for
almost nine years, I would like to state my opinion that LEO's are no better or
worse than any other segment of society. They are not any more or less
honorable, inspired, intelligent, dedicated, trained, or competent than any
other segment of society. However, unlike most individuals, they do constantly
find themselves in dangerous situations. It is true that they are more often
challenged to rise to the level of hero than the average citizen. But like most
individuals placed in similar situations, they rise to the occasion.
Like any other segment of society,
Law Enforcement Officers have their own particular set of quirks. They tend to
socialize only with other law enforcement officers, creating an us versus them
mentality, a closed society that references an entirely different culture and
set of ethics than the society they are tasked with protecting. They constantly
are dealing with the worst that our society has to offer and have a tendency
towards cynicism. Because of the stress of their profession, they are more often
subject to burnout, and alcoholism. As civil servants they often tend to do the
least amount of work that is required of them. Many of them have power and
control issues, which manifest on the job and in their home lives. Their divorce
rate is high.
It has been said that the police was
created to keep an eye on the fire department. The heroism required of these two
groups has recently been brought into sharp focus. Nevertheless, I do not think
it is productive to idolize these two groups or to expect more from them than
they are actually capable of delivering.
On Racism and
Eclecticism
Race
relations is a favorite subject of mine, because it is the only significant
political debate that can be conclusively proven to be based on a fallacy. The
fallacy is that there is such a thing as race in the first place. Imagine the
thought of stratifying an entire civilization on the basis of appearance! Where
is the queue for the fat, bald men? I need to get in line. The Romans enslaved
the Greeks, the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, the English and then the Americans
enslaved the Africans. The English, by the way enslaved scores of other peoples
across the globe before their sun finally set. At every turn some guilt ridden
half brain offered the lame excuse that it was “all right you know, because
they’re not like us at all, they’re an entirely different race”. Race is the Big
Lie, the biggest lie, the one that has provided an excuse for everything else.
The truth is out now, most recently with the announcement of the Nobel Prize for
genome research. The National Geographic Human Genographic Project conclusively
proves that we all have sprung from a common ancestor. There is no such thing as
race.
What does exist are cultural factions, groups of people that share the same
history, music, cuisine, rituals and yes, more often than not the same general
appearance. These cultural factions, nations if you will, have often worked for
their own advancement at the expense of the well being of other nations, and
sometimes have enslaved them, or attempted to annihilate them. Many nations
continue to do so. I believe that the media explosion can make a difference.
Through the dissemination of information and entertainment across a worldwide
multicultural network we may all come to know each other a little better, and
realize that we are all humans living on a very small planet. While this may
mean the end to the lie that is racism, it will probably not mean the end of
serious armed conflict. There are plenty of other ideas that people are going to
have to fight about over the next century.
The Greeks and the Romans appear to have made great strides in eliminating the
animosity between them. It has only taken 1700 years. As for the Jews and the
Arabs, well, at least the treaty with Egypt is still holding. In America, racism
is a virulent cancer of ignorance within the body politic. I believe it will
continue to flourish as long as we continue use the vocabulary of racism, and
make our arguments or apologies within the framework of a racist worldview. For
America, the dilemma is this. Many African-Americans may consciously or
subconsciously be repelled by the idea of swearing allegiance and buying into a
political and social system that in the past so brutally abused and excluded
them.
I am unimpressed with the term "black man". I am not a white man nor do I see
the sense in describing myself as one. I am a Christian man, I am an educated
man, I am a compassionate man, and I am a passionate man. To say that I am a
white man or a black man is akin to saying that I am a sweat gland man or I am a
pimpled man. If your allegiance is to those with skin whose color is the same as
yours, we have no basis for reaching out to one another. The color of a man’s
skin must be as incidental and unimportant as the color of his hair (or the lack
of it). Men should not seek to be Black leaders or Hispanic leaders, or White
leaders, but leaders of Men.
As a young boy growing up in the City of New York, I occupied a large portion of
my time reading biographies of great men. Among others I read about George
Washington Carver, Jackie Robinson, Paul Robeson, Adam Clayton Powell, and Roy
Innis. I was encouraged to listen to a wide variety of music and have listened
to, among others, Cab Calloway, Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Pearl Bailey,
Johnny Mathis, Nat King Cole, Count Basie, Stevie Wonder, Fats Waller, Fats
Domino, Chubby Checker, Jimi Hendrix, Duke Ellington, Mahalia Jackson, Ray
Charles, and James Brown. I had my attention directed to great actors, athletes
and politicians, among others, Sydney Poitier, Dick Gregory, James Earl Jones,
Roy Innis, Bill Cosby, Red Fox, Quincy Jones, Adam Clayton Powell, Ralph
Abernathy, Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, John Shaft, Shirley Chisolm, Thurgood
Marshall, Andrew Young, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell. Many of
these people changed the very core of my being, the way I think and react. Do I
admire them because they are black? I admire them because they are great. So
should we all.
Cultural diversity is a gift to be celebrated, but political assimilation must
be recognized as a first principal. A democratic republic cannot exist if its
members wave different flags and speak different languages. Racial prejudice
must be replaced with political prejudice. Racists must become the ones that we
are most prejudiced against. Their views must not be heard any longer. They must
be legislated against, their rights curtailed, their activities made illegal,
their assets seized, and their philosophies ridiculed from the podium, pulpit,
and in the press. We, as a nation, must not be concerned with which skin color
you pledge your allegiance to, but to which flag. Democracy has proved itself
over and over, to be the highest form of government to which humans can
subscribe. We must tolerate only those who will support and swear allegiance to
it, or to its allies.
Individually, we must fight our own fight against racism, and that within our
own minds. It is an old truth that "what we do not know, we fear, and that which
we fear, we hate." Americans should strive for eclecticism. While we celebrate
our own culture and the traditions of our parents, we must learn to delight
ourselves in the culture, the music, art, literature, the food, dress, and
traditions of our fellow citizens. Let us all celebrate Kwanzaa as well as Saint
Patrick’s Day. More importantly, let us celebrate the Fourth of July and
Memorial Day as days that bring us together as one nation.
Terrorism
We applauded in the
past, or at least
condoned terrorism when the Irish blew up the British, or when the French blew up
the Germans, but are quick to condemn it when the Palestinians blow up the
Israelis, or a legitimate military target like an American warship in their own
waters, or when our government pays some other terrible price for its legendary
insensitivity and heavy handedness. Yes, we are the good guys, and as
holders of that title we are bound to conduct ourselves honorably. We are
the greatest military power on the earth today. Our political opponents
are unable to match us on the field of battle and are left to use other historically effective political
weapons, assassination and terrorism.
While often employed by madmen, these weapons are also used when desperate
individuals are confronted by non-negotiable issues such as have been enumerated
in our Bill of Rights. Even as we do what
precious little we can to thwart the efforts of those who would employ these
horrible means, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we are on the side
of liberty when considering those political issues that stir men's hearts.
Only by doing that, can we guarantee our safety, and our freedom as a people.
While I strongly support the
separation of church and state, I encourage the mixture of religion and
moral values with politics. The Apostle Paul was a citizen of Rome and I am a
citizen of the United States. While his apostolic call was greater than mine, we
both have the received the same measure of the Holy Spirit.
Like Paul, I hold dual citizenship. My ultimate allegiance is to the
Heavenly Kingdom, a kingdom whose reality supercedes and outlasts any earthly
kingdom. On Tuesday, September 11th,
2001, the United States of America was struck a cruel blow, resulting in great
suffering, death, and destruction. The
day before, and on many days before, there was great suffering, death, and
destruction in the world. I do not
recall much being said about it in the United States of America.
My desire is that all Christians, all Americans would pray that God gives
them the grace to love their neighbor as themselves, and the will to do what
must be done to relieve suffering, death, and destruction all over the world.
In military terms, I am an old man now, fifty-one.
The government only took men up to age forty during WWII.
I have lived a very full life and perhaps my perspective is different
because of it. But I would have no
hesitation sacrificing my life on a suicide mission, if I felt that my country
and the way of life I would like to guarantee for my children was being
threatened.
Our
own military history is filled with examples of men who "gave their last
full measure of devotion". If
not outright suicide, these military actions were taken in face of obviously
overwhelming odds. One of the
qualities of young soldiers is that you can get them to die for their ideals.
It's part of politics. Why
should we think that the men of the Middle East are any less committed to their
way of life?
In "Echoes of Another War", Chris Summers quotes Dr. Silke as
saying, "There are Islamic communities all over the world - most famously
the Palestinians - who have grievances and until these are dealt with the
suicide bombers will keep coming." I
believe that Dr. Silke is right in that the proliferation of terrorist acts here
and in Europe is directly related to the failure of American and British foreign
policy. If we are not willing to
play the conqueror, and wipe out every last man, woman and child who oppose us,
then we need to stop playing the bully. Bullies after all, are just blustering
cowards who are ultimately destined to be vanquished by a swift kick in the
groin.
Government by committee, or by legislature, or by League of Nations, is
possible only among men and women of good will, who share common values. When you are approached at gunpoint in the street by a
robber, that is not the time to talk about social programs for rehabilitation.
No, that is the time to wrest away the gun and shoot the attacker in the head,
so they will not be able to later bring a civil suit against you for damages,
because you have mercifully shot them in the leg.
For all its talk of retribution, I do not believe that our government has
yet developed the will to rid the world of terrorism.
They have not even been able to formally declare war, and will not.
If they had, you see, the insurance companies would not have had to pay.
It is this type of subtle pressure both at home and abroad, in my opinion
that will keep the United States from developing the resolve and using the type
of force that is necessary to wipe out terrorists and their sympathizers from
the face of the earth. I sincerely
hope I'm wrong, but I believe a much larger percentage of Americans will have to
die before someone steps up who is willing to take unilateral decisive action.
I am a
carnivore. I kill to eat, or
someone kills for me I will kill to insure my survival and the survival of my
loved ones. I have the capacity and at times the inclination to strive
with other members of my species in mortal combat.
It is my firm
belief that I should not murder another human, or kill without cause, and that I
should in every possible situation seek reconciliation and forgiveness. I have
very specific reasons for believing this.
I also believe
that some people warrant killing, and that it is preferable to have an impartial
agency execute justice, rather than to have individual sovereign families
execute revenge. The main
difference between government and other entities in the polis is that they have
the authority, ceded by the people, to use deadly force in the implementation of
policy and law. I have very
specific reasons for holding this view as well.
It is a
wonderful thing that in this country, we give the alleged offender an
opportunity to defend themselves in court, and insist that a jury of their peers
examine the matter, and pass a death sentence upon them if warranted, rather
than just shooting them down in the street. Complaints that the death
penalty is administered unfairly should result in calls for the improvement of
the process, not for it's abolition. However given the present state of
the judicial system, calls for a moratorium on the death penalty while the
process undergoes close scrutiny and general overhaul, are valid and should be
heeded.
A government
that cannot bring swift and impartial justice for its citizens will not long hold their
respect, loyalty or cooperation.
July 1, 1994
We recognize that there is a fundamental difference between management and labor. Being
part of labor means that, at least for right now, you are destined to make your way
through life with a little less than you’d hoped for. Not quite enough education, not
quite enough capital, and not quite enough influence to make things go your way. You are a
member of the working class instead a member of the leisure class. An employee instead of
an employer. A worker instead of a supervisor. You have heard it said, "It’s a
dirty job but somebody has got to do it!". Well, that somebody is you. You are the
person actually doing the work, and while you care about getting the work done, what you
care most about is your well being. Management on the other hand, is not doing the actual
work. They are supervising and making sure that the work gets done. Making sure that you
do the work. And while they may care about you, what they care most about is seeing that
you get the work done. That is the fundamental difference between management and labor.
Sometimes what’s best for you may not be what is best to ensure that the work gets
done. Sometimes management may act as if they couldn't care less, as we all do at times,
about whether you’re getting a fair shake or not. As long as the work gets done.
After all, it’s your fault that you’re a worker isn’t it? You could have
gotten a better education when you were younger, or saved your money and opened your own
business. Isn’t that right? Then you could be the supervisor. But you’re not.
You have to ensure that you will be treated fairly and with respect, because you are the
one who does the work. Here is how to do it. First of all, take pride in your work. Do the
work you are supposed to do in return for what you are paid. Next, decide that , as far as
you are able, you will not allow yourself or other workers to be treated unfairly or
disrespected. Be bold enough to take advantage of the communication lines between labor
and management. Don’t be quiet. File a grievance if you have to . Don’t leave it
for the other fellow to do it. Finally, make a conscious effort to act jointly with your
fellow workers to make sure that your place of work is a good place to work, where the
needs of everyone are taken into consideration, as we all give our best effort to get the
job done. There is a price to be paid for all this . It may mean having a conflict or
misunderstanding with management. It may even mean finding another job. But if every
worker will decide that their first loyalty will be to their fellow employees, we can have
a work place that we can look forward to coming to every morning. When that happens you
can be sure that all the work will get done and management will be happy too. Are you a
member of the union? The real union? The one where the dues are paid in reputation, and
backbone, and caring? Isn’t it time you joined? Isn’t it time you made it clear
to your coworker that they need to join too? Then you’ll see what a union can really
do.
Any student of history can cite dozens of instances when artistic
media, paintings, plays, poems, and music have been used either overtly or
covertly to make strong political statements. Even something as simple as a
Punch and Judy show has been used to make biting satirical commentaries of the
English government at one time or another.
So those who dismissed TV as a powerful force for change had to have been
largely uninformed. There were many who had great hopes for the medium to educate
and elevate the state of man.
From 1981 until 1992 I did not own a television,
and for all practical purposes did not watch television, or go to movies. I did any number of things instead, read books, listened to
or played my own music, wrote letters and poems, improved my house, argued
incessantly with my mate. I wish I
did not own a television now, but alas have been unable to persuade the woman I
am currently married to. I watch TV
an average of two hours per day. This
works out to 730 hours or 18 ½ workweeks.
If I use my present rate of pay after taxes as a minimum value, I spend
approximately $5500 a year of productive time to watch television.
And as I said before, I wish I did not even own one.
But I find it impossible to stop watching, much like a person finds it
difficult not to pick up the telephone when it is ringing.
Anyone who was
around in the sixties will remember the famous quote by Marshall McLuhan, dubbed
by Playboy Magazine as the "high
priest of pop-culture". McLuhan said "The medium is the message” I
believe what he meant by that is that you can learn as much about people by
studying the way they communicate ideas, as you can from what they are actually
saying. I think that it might be
profitable to consider the way that television and its precursor, radio, have
fundamentally changed our social and political structure by their very
existence. In considering the
existence of television and radio in our society. I have attempted to list some
pros and cons and would be interested in reading any that others might think of.
What has
Television and Radio “The Media” done for us?
It has homogenized American by creating a national idiom by
which individuals from different social strata and cultures may find common
ground with which to communicate with one another.
It has focused intense scrutiny on various political and
social issues, including war, poverty, racism, political corruption, space
exploration, treatment of the elderly, and civil rights.
It has presented an immediate and wide-ranging view of
events in other nations and their cultures, fostering a multiculturalism and
eclecticism that should lead to a greater tolerance and understanding of others.
It has diminished the credibility of the local authority,
whether parents, clergy, or locally elected officials, who now always have the
media to present another presumably “national” viewpoint.
It fosters the illusion that we can know everything; after
all if it were important the media would have told us.
It has become a substitute for socialization for the
purpose of intellectual conversation, dialog, and debate. We listen to others
debate rather than exercise our own intellects and create our own arguments and
rebuttals.
It has reduced substantially the need for social
interaction with our neighbors, relatives, and intimate family. We stay at home,
on the couch, in the dark, watching the screen.
We turn it on in the morning, when we come home at work.
It puts us to sleep. Its
voice keeps our elderly from being lonely.
It has replaced active entertainment, such as singing,
dancing, games, crafts, with passive entertainment.
It has therefore reduced the need for critical and creative
thinking and contemplation as well as the opportunity for it.
I say this because we are now able to be spoon-fed our culture at
whatever level of sophistication we choose from a source that is very difficult
to turn off because of its close proximity and hypnotic seductiveness.
It has provided almost instant access to current events and
vast amounts of information, but fewer individuals than ever before control the
channels through which this information passes.
The publishers
of this information are filtering the facts for us whether overtly, subtly, or
perhaps even unconsciously. We may
remember what was said by the German philosopher Leibnitz "Freedom of the
press is for he who owns a press.” and by the columnist H. L. Mencken who
said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public”. I have observed a
misconception on the part of many people who assume that newspapers, radio and
television have an obligation to be fair and present both sides of an issue.
This could not be farther from the truth.
A publisher or producer is intent on promoting their point of view, and
often this is the sole reason they are in the communications business.
In earlier times, communities could boast of a variety of newspapers
owned by many individuals. This ensured that citizens would hear many sides of
an issue. Today it is the rare
community that has more than one major newspaper.
We passed laws in this country to ensure that the radio and television
networks could not be purchased by foreign interests, or be monopolized by a few
companies, but today these laws are beginning to be ignored or circumvented.
Nevertheless, even if the owner of a media company has a specific agenda
to push, that goal is always overshadowed by the necessity to give the public
what it wants at that particular moment. Unfortunately this often means that the
content must be able to be understood by someone who has little more than an
elementary education. The great
danger for the viewer is to assume either consciously or subconsciously, “This
is what everyone thinks!”
Ray Bradbury’s
“Fahrenheit 451” warns of a future populated by non-readers and
non-thinkers; a lost people with no sense of their history epitomized by the
character Mildred who becomes engrossed in the broadcasts beamed onto the
larger- than-life TV walls in her living room. In the book by Lichter and
Rothman, Prime Time, the authors say that “television creates a kind of
hyper-reality, a shared fantasy world that merges with and sometimes overshadows
the more mundane world of real life for millions of Americans.”
That sounds strikingly similar when compared with Bradbury.
Government involvement in the marriage between two people is so established that
there is no likelihood that it will ever cease. Once gay marriage is accepted,
the concept of civil marriage will be so diluted that it will eventually be
treated by the court system as nothing more than a civil contract. After gay
marriage, what will prevent the marriage of multiple partners? Would it be
possible to argue that a person could marry a legal entity like a corporation or
that corporations should be allowed to marry? But this may turn out to be a
good thing.
I believe in a separation between church and
state. I believe marriage to be a function of the church and contractual law a
function of the state. Ship's captains, city mayors, and judges have conducted
civil marriage ceremonies. If they ever invoked the name of the deity, surely
it must have been done as a personal preference and not in their official
capacity. What exactly is it that they are doing? It would seem that they are
officially recognizing that two people have decided to cohabitate and share
assets, perpetually for an indeterminable length of time, and ordering that all
within their authority recognize it as well.
But this is not marriage.
Marriage is a ceremony involving one’s immediate family, friends and peers. Holy
marriage is ritual involving group prayer to the Deity requesting that the man
and woman become one, spiritually and emotionally joined as well as physically.
This is no mean trick considering the divorce rate, and it is something that
government cannot purport to do.
I think it would be better for
everyone if the government recognized the contractual obligations between any
two people who affirmed that they were married, just as they recognize the
obligations between partners in any other form of partnership, and concern
itself as little with the qualifications of those who wish to marry, as it does
with the qualifications of those who wish to enter into other types of
contracts. Consequently I do not believe that homosexual partners should be
prevented from enjoying any of the benefits of contract, joint home ownership,
survivor benefits, etc and all these are in fact already available by various
means.
As for my intimate friends and the members of my
church, we do not recognize homosexual marriage, nor do we recognize
homosexuality as morally correct any more than we would recognize adultery,
fornication, theft, etc. Therefore we would not be likely to welcome openly
homosexual couples into our church or into our private social gatherings. This
is, after all, our privilege under the First Amendment just as it is the right
of homosexual couples to decide to form or join other churches where
homosexuality is accepted and welcome or exclude others from their private
social gatherings.
I believe that fourth amendment guarantees your right to privacy.
Privacy is a necessity if there is to be a loyal opposition in a
democracy. Extending that right of
privacy to a woman's reproductive process may be a stretch, but a short stretch
considering that the right to privacy already seems to cover sexual activity.
For our friends
on the right, anyone who truly considers abortion murder, must do everything in
their power to stop it, including using deadly force or sacrificing their own
life. For example, suppose I know
beforehand that a political assassination is about to be committed and that the
police will do nothing to stop it, because they have been corrupted. I must
immediately take up arms to prevent it, even if I am the only one, and stand to
lose my own life in the process, or else realize that I am a coward, or condone
the assassination. It is not enough
to say, "There is a murder being committed here!" If I am in the
supermarket or on a plane and an armed madman begins to shoot innocent
bystanders, I must run towards him
and attempt to stop him by any means, whether armed, or barehanded.
If I truly value life as much as I say I do, I must act.
Now some have done this in our society to stop abortions but not enough
people have done it to create a presumption of civil righteousness.
This leaves us with two conclusions. One is that abortion is really not
equivalent to murder, but is something else entirely and must therefore be
considered in a different light, or; Two, that this society has become blasé
about the cold blooded murder of thousands of innocent souls, and therefore must
be overthrown at any cost, and a new righteous government be instituted from
it's ashes. Which is it?
If abortion is murder, shouldn't a reasonable person go to any lengths to
prevent it? I am not convinced that it is, you see, or I would be actively
engaged elsewhere. But if it is, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are
unmoved by it, does this not mean that the republic is morally bankrupt and
should be overthrown?
I am not a woman, and therefore, can never fully
comprehend the process of bearing a child.
But I do know as a man, that if all men were compelled by force of law or
fear of disgrace and alienation by their fellow men, to act honorably and
uprightly in their dealings with women, that there would be little or no need
for abortion. Also, those who would
do anything within their power to prevent abortion, could go a long way towards
doing so by supporting long term care and support for the women who find
themselves economically and
emotionally unable to care for children they have inadvertently conceived, no
matter who may be a fault.
The
family, the church, the state, the corporation, the partnership, the sole
proprietorship, the individual, these are the entities most often spoken about
when discussing politics and economics. To
this we may add others; deliberative bodies such as legislatures, parliaments;
permanent societies like private associations, clubs, bands, labor unions,
political parties and finally impermanent convocations; conventions, mass
meetings, and mobs.
Have I missed any?
There has been
considerable discussion the past few years as to exactly what the definition of
a family is. In his article, The
Definition of "Family" in a Free Society
Dr. Gordon Neal Diem defines family as follows:
“In
a post-authoritarian, post-institutional world, family is defined according to
the needs of those who voluntarily consider themselves to be family. Bloodlines
and marital ties give way to psychological attachment and reciprocal need
satisfaction as the primary basis for the formation of a family and for insuring
the long-term survival of the family. The needs and interests of the greater
society — the state, Church, economy — give way to the needs and interests
of the individuals who voluntarily create, or dissolve, families.
Family
in a Libertarian free society is a voluntary union for the mutual personal
gratification, mutual personal and group need fulfillment, and personal
self-actualization. This voluntary union may be limited to two adults, or
extended to include several adults; it may or may not include children,
biological or otherwise. This voluntary union may have rigid boundaries, if that
is what the members of the union desire, or may have relatively open permeable
boundaries, with members entering or exiting the union at their will.”
(http://freenation.org/a/f43d1.html)
I believe that a
family, indeed any of the groups aforementioned mast have a common trait, that
of a hierarchy of some kind. Whether obviously vertical or flat and
concentric, whether decisions are made by edict or by consensus, there must be
at the end of the process some executive function delegated or assumed by an
individual or “head of household”. Families without a clearly
delineated hierarchy are at best ineffective and at worst dysfunctional.
They are perhaps not even recognizable as families.
Hierarchies
in families are maintained in various ways; by strength of personality, economic
empowerment or lack of it, shared emotional and psychological ties, and legal
constraints of minor children. The
hierarchy is always undergoing change, as children become of age and break away
from parents, as parents become older and unable to care for themselves, as
spouses undergo changes in their maturity, worldview, or careers.
It is this state of constant change that gives the media producer grist
for the mill.
The
family has always been a laboratory for social interaction, where younger more
inexperienced members could experiment and learn without risking fatal
consequences. Aristotle taught that
the family was a to be a safe haven where weaker members, ostensibly children
(although he included women as part of this group as well) would be protected
from the outside forces of society. In
his view, an individual became a citizen when they moved outside of the
protective sphere of the family and began to speak publicly and politically.
As
state and local governments become increasingly dependent on federal, (and
ultimately global) agencies to provide funding and standards for administrative
policy and procedures effecting the family,
I believe that there will be less and less tolerance for interference by
a “head of household” in mitigating or challenging societal norms imposed by
the state, promulgated by its educational system, and ratified by the depiction
of these “best practices” in the public media.
Simply put, when the bureaucracy that is government comes knocking on your door,
the last thing that they want is a head of household, male or female, opening
the door saying, “And what do you want?”
Instead the state prefers to have two adult citizens, who happen to be
married, and perhaps two minor citizens, temporarily in the custody of the
adults, line up and prepare to be audited by and comply with the regulations of
whatever state agency happens to be in the neighborhood today.
This has not
always been the case. In England in
the 1600’s laws relating to the poor stipulated that family members would be
legally responsible for the care and feeding of each other.
In the 1800’s additional reform laws were enacted to reverse the trend
of poor city dweller to live and produce children without a family structure,
marriage, or even a physical dwelling place.
This was done in part to fend off what was feared to be a coming
socialist revolution. We, as a
society continue to make decisions from time to time as to where the ultimate
authority for the conduct of society with reside.
Shall it be with a regent, a dictator, with the impersonal machinations
of bureaucracy, or within a consensus of families, headed by sovereign
individuals? And if by consensus, how shall that concensus be reached?
May we assume
that every adult has the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own
home, with whomever they wish, provided that all involved parties have attained
their majority, are agreeable, are acting of their own free will, and are not
likely to cause any serious damage or injury physical or psychological to
themselves or another? I do not presume to pass judgment upon individuals such as
these, because I do not feel I have the moral authority to do so.
I do not believe that government has the right to pass judgment upon
anyone acting within these boundaries, because I do not believe that government
is competent to do so. Finally, it is my desire to ensure that I protect and
preserve the above stated right for my own use, and for that of future
generations.
While I
have said that I do not have the moral authority to constrain other consenting
adults from engaging in activities such as may fall within the parameters listed
above, I do claim the authority (but not always the ability) to constrain myself
from engaging in such practices as may seem morally deficient to me, or in other
ways harmful to the mind, character, or body.
I also claim the authority to constrain such minors as may have been
placed in my care from the practice of such activities.
Finally, I claim the right to publicly speak on any issue or activity,
and to give my opinion on what I think may be beneficial or harmful, ethical or
unethical, right or wrong, and to exhort and convince others of the veracity of
my argument, and of the legitimacy of the standard of truth to which I adhere.
I also
believe, sentimentally perhaps, that
children have a right to childhood, and to a state of childish innocence, and to
be, for a time, free from worry, or care, or other adult stressors.
I think that in a society where television has become the center of the
home, we could agree that what is presented on that medium give some
consideration to the more immature minds that must inevitably be watching it,
not to mention those among us having more delicate sensibilities.
But that would of course require censorship, self imposed or otherwise.
Phat chance!
It is my feeling
that the coming digital television evolution will enable each household to more
exactly tailor the content that they are to be exposed to, while at the same
time provide much wider avenues of expression to artists and producers of
different intellectual and moral viewpoints.
This will allow the jaded to sate their every desire,
the pious to feast on Bishop Sheen, inquiring minds their fill of CNN,
enable young lovers to slack their thirst for passion,
and still give parents room to allow their children time to remain
children, each blissfully unaware of programming choices of the other.
Acceptance
of sexual behaviors varies with the political climate.
It is by no means an ever-upward movement towards enlightened tolerance. It is, I think, merely a swing of the pendulum currently
towards liberalism, which will eventually, and with considerable momentum, swing
back. While I have every right to
judge and express my opinion about behavior in the abstract, I have no grounds,
especially as a conservative Christian, to condemn my fellow man.
A good example of a hypocrite would be a person who, after having
committed adultery in private, makes a big show of being offended when hearing
that another man has committed adultery. On
the other hand a person who having committed adultery privately, and then
publicly says that adultery is wrong is not a hypocrite.
He is merely an adulterer who knows the difference between right and
wrong. Having said that, I would
like to add that I think we would all be more comfortable not having the
slightest clue about the sex life of our friends and neighbors. To be sure, I am
certainly more comfortable knowing that you are not aware of the details of
mine.
I believe that our society should be a place where individuals are given the
respect due all humans. All individuals should be secure in their persons and
property, free from fear, and be able to live in an atmosphere of tolerance that
creates opportunities for individuals to develop, and to live their lives in
whatever way seems fitting and proper to them. I believe that the government
should confine itself to the regulation of civil matters, and not attempt to
regulate the intimate relations between consenting adults, certainly not in the
privacy of their own homes, nor in the public venue except when the overwhelming
majority of its citizens demand it.
But I think it is expecting far too much for everyone to condone every choice of
lifestyle or opinion. Certainly the idea of sexual identity is far more
emotionally charged than political identity. Consider the range of debate that
politics generates. So I believe that you must allow me to disagree with some of
the statements that I have heard made about sexuality.
Gender orientation is ultimately one’s choice and not one’s fate. To be sure
most of us are born with either male or female sexual organs. Our culture and
our nature conspire to propel us in certain directions. Our emotions may
sometimes irresistibly compel us to engage in various behaviors. But my
experience has been that I always have had some kind of a choice in the matter
although I have made many sexual choices that I have ultimately come to regret.
Any consideration of
alternative sexual lifestyles must be overshadowed by a contemplation of the
value of relationship and love. How earnestly humans yearn for both! It is
understandable that we would occasionally be willing to disregard gender in the
pursuit of it. The depth of love and commitment that often spring from these
relationships must stay us from condemning them out of hand. It is unacceptable
that civil society should not recognize their validity, and the right of people
to enter into them and maintain them as best they can. Nevertheless, I could
never recommend such a course as being the ideal, and I think it is disingenuous
for anyone to do so.
For my fellows who would exhort me to proclaim boldly that alternative sexual
behavior is contrary to the Word of God, well, yes I think that it is. But so
much of what we all do, religious and non religious alike, seems to me to be in
rebellion against God that I hesitate to be the one to cast the first stone for
that fleshy sin. Surely, the hatred and self-righteousness directed at the gay
and lesbian community is a hundred thousand times worse. Issues of sexuality can
be addressed long after the issue of the resurrection has been dealt with, which
in my opinion is a matter far more pertinent to the eternal destination of the
soul. But in spite of my own moral inadequacies, I cannot be silent when these
things are spoken of in public.
Capitalism is
the natural state of man; it exists even in a state of anarchy.
If I have the freedom to use the physical resources that I find at hand,
and apply my own labor and industry, I better my lot.
For example, I take sticks and palm leaves and build myself a hut to keep
the rain off.
If I have a
surplus, (say I have been making wooden bowls and have a few left over) I can
barter them with another human and trade for some manufactured commodity, for
example shiny red beads to give my honey.
Money comes
next, what is money?
Money is a matter of a functioning four:
- A medium
- A measure
- A standard
- A store
A medium of
exchange (Lets use the beads)
A measure of
value (10 beads for one wooden bowl)
A standard (10
beads today buys the same as 10 beads tomorrow meaning that the beads should be
difficult to counterfeit)
A store of
value, meaning if I put 100 beads in the drawer I can take them out a year later
and they will still be shiny and red. That
is why salt has been used for money but not flour. Flour spoils.
Rather than
exchange bowls for cows and cows for horses, I can exchange all of them for
beads, and beads for all of them. Money
is the grease that helps Capitalism to take off.
It is here that
things start to get nasty. For
there is a simple five-step formula succinctly stated by J.P. Morgan, to allow a
person to become rich beyond their wildest dreams of avarice.
1. Identify a need for a product.
2. Produce a quality product.
3. Offer it at a fair price
4. Offer a guarantee
5. Have other people do the work for you.
It is in
the last step where Capitalism begins to get a black eye.
For the fact of the matter is that:
1. Most people are not nice and do not play well with
others.
2. Most people are somewhat lazy and, to put it nicely,
un-informed.
So
business owners tend to treat their employees poorly, and try to get as much
money from the customer while giving them as little as possible.
They find it nearly impossible to find good employees.On the other hand
employees tend to do as little work as possible, even stealing from their
employers when given the chance. They
find it nearly impossible to find fair, generous, and compassionate employers.
In spite
of this Capitalism, is hands down the most beneficial of all economic systems.
Under Capitalism, the greatest number of people get access to the largest
amount of goods and services. They
have the opportunity to use these goods and services to create a Utopia for
themselves. Some do.
Most
however fill their lives with mindless television and radio programs.
They eat at McDonalds, they wear polyester, they believe what they hear
on the news, they listen only to one type of music, they root for teams that
could care less about them, they drink non-dairy creamer, they violate their
bodies with un necessary cosmetic surgical procedures, they go to theme parks
rather than state parks, in every other way preferring the artificial to the
realistic, and exchanging the truth for a lie.
But that's
not the fault of Capitalism, is it?
It would seem that democracy and capitalism are
inseparable. Given their liberty,
the ambitions and inventiveness of men lead them to develop new products and
processes by which both they and society are enriched.
Benjamin Franklin, Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and
more recently Jack St Clair Kilby* and Bill Gates have been venerated for their
practical contributions to society, each contribution giving rise to great
industries, countless jobs, and great profit, supporting and enlarging our
democratic republic. Conversely,
from this same pool of inventors and entrepreneurs, come those whose desire for
profit eclipses all other concerns, including basic fairness, the health and
safety of their employees, and the environment.
While I do not pass judgment on such industrial juggernauts as Henry Ford
and John D. Rockefeller it is clear that either pressure by trade unions, or
government oversight is necessary to ensure that they conduct themselves in an
equitable manner. Theodore Roosevelt, one of our greatest Republican presidents,
hated business monopolies and spent much time in office trying to eliminate
them. Today Charles A. James heads
the United States Justice Department's antitrust division while European Union
has its Competition Commissioner Mario Monti.
It is perhaps unfortunate that only the ne’er-do-wells such as myself
can produce a long list of small business owners for whom the meat grinder would
have been considered a merciful end. Nevertheless,
statistics tell me that over 50% of the population makes less money than I do,
and that’s a lot of ne’er-do-wells.
In the Spring of '04, I was struck by the idea that I had to
have a piece of chocolate pudding pie. I decided to make it myself. The crust
was made by hand, with flour, ice-water and butter. The filling was made with
cocoa, sugar, cornstarch, vanilla, butter, and whole milk mixed together in a
bowl and then microwaved it until it came to a slow boil. After baking my pie
shell in the oven and filling it with the warm pudding, I left it to set up in
the refrigerator for several hours. For the topping, I used heavy whipping
cream, vanilla, and sugar, with just a touch of rum to help flavor it. Let me
tell you that it was everything you could ever want a chocolate pudding pie to
be! I cut a generous slice and ate it with the whipped cream along with a hot
cup of coffee. Not something that you would want to eat every day, at least if
you valued your health, but offered as a punctuation of one’s life, a brief
interlude of pleasure, it was truly perfect.
This pie cost me about six dollars and fifty cents to
make. Most restaurants assume a thirty percent food cost so you would expect to
pay two dollars and seventy cents for a slice of this pie if it was cut into
eight pieces. The problem is you that cannot find it at that price anywhere.
What you are offered instead is a poor imitation of the reality that is
chocolate pudding pie. A chiffon filling with artificial flavor that is more air
than anything else, and topping made of whipped oil instead of cream. All this
for about three dollars and fifty cents and that doesn’t include the coffee.
The sad thing about it is that most people don’t realize that they are being
served a cheap imitation. They like the way it tastes.
A silly thing to be writing about, chocolate pudding pie.
But I submit to you that so much of what we are being served up today by our
suppliers, our corporations, our media and our government is so pervasively
artificial that we should be seriously considering what it might take to replace
them with the genuine article. To begin with we would have to stop swallowing
the stuff they are feeding us. Even if we often like the way it tastes.
....More to come
Comments? 
to: louisrose at yahoo .com
Back to "Pococurantism
Today"
|
