Lock-Step, Knee-Jerk? No Thanks!

Start off with two links to two great columns by one great writer, Jonah Goldberg:

Unashamed Confession: I think, in many ways, the “Military Model” is the most efficient way to get things done that absolutely need to get done. You got yourself a natural disaster, a manufacturing deadline, a weekend work crew, and – need I say this? – some dirtbag country needing brought into line with civilized behavior, you go to the “Military Model” to get ‘er done! You (self-)select a leader and sub-leaders, divvy the work into chunks, assign teams, and monitor progress until completion. The commander and leaders make sure the tools are at hand to do the job, and train the troops to do it well and correctly, hopefully the first time. The Military Model maximizes efficiency, resources and time – usually!

Some types of people naturally thrive in the Military Model. Leaders quickly distinguish themselves. Middle commanders take directions and translate them into action. Workers – and this next part is key! – who recognize the expediency of the task at hand and the situation, and who willingly align themselves with the goal of executing the task, become the most vital cog in the execution of the plan. In the Military Model, people who don’t “measure up” to the standards of behavior are chewed up and spit out, either in the Darwinian experiences of the literal battlefield, or by joining the ranks of the unemployed, or the ranks of the “helpers in the rear areas.”

In our American society, we utilize the Military Model only on very narrowly defined occasions (see above), and this probably constitutes the genius of the Founding Fathers and the implementation of their vision in our 200+ years! Other than the very few, narrowly defined occasions (see above), we generally eschew the model in favor of the chaos of freedom, which in the end, is much more fulfilling to the individual and society’s ultimate goals.

Other societies throughout history have experimented with the Military Model as the BASIS of the society, and I think history would be a pretty harsh judge of the results when using the “Freedom Yardstick” we know and love through our own American culture. Sparta, as referenced by Jonah Goldberg in his essays above, was one such, and the most recent and, to me, most relevant example of a martially-oriented society is Soviet Russia. Neither is particularly laudable when viewed from the unique American perspective.

Briefly, Sparta was organized along a Military Model that killed deformed babies outright, required brutal, narrowly defined indoctrination and training as the ideal, and required unstinting obedience.

Soviet Russia, similarly, was organized along military lines for a life-long struggle against Capitalism. Cadres of children were organized, trained and indoctrinated into the structure of the all-powerful state. Workers were organized into “brigades” of “shock” workers who “fulfilled collective norms” according to “state planning commissions” whose dictates must be unquestioningly obeyed lest you are ejected from the society to suffer the equivalent of “Killed In Action.” This meant at the very least ostracism and expulsion, and all too often meant execution, suddenly with a bullet to the head, or drawn out in months or years of torture, labor camps, and exile.

We have before us, in a little less than 10 months, a momentous decision to make: Whether we as a free people will accept the vision of a man who wants us to fall into collective lock-step, knee jerk march to a glorious future that he and other elites believe is best for us, planned out to the most excruciating detail by him and other elites, and administered by a stern, all-seeing state lest anyone fall out of compliance. Or, we can choose to be free, and accept the chaos, and the responsibilities and consequences of that freedom.

My heritage is one of freedom. I grew up in freedom, and willingly, for a 10-year span of my life, subordinated myself to the Military Model. There, I not only studied the American Military Model, but that of Soviet Russia. I was taught by actual survivors of the GULAG, and though I willingly marched and saluted and obeyed, I never forgot the inheritance of freedom that I would someday return to. Today, I live and work according to the dictates of my own conscience. I choose each day to get up and work at a job I love, with the full knowledge that I can go anywhere, do anything I set my mind to. No one tells me I must work as a gang laborer in a “shock” brigade, no one has me chant slogans to a Dear Leader during my breaks. I get home and watch wwhat I want, and read what I want, and think what I want, and write what I want. THAT is the freedom I have worked for. I will not be a slave laboring under the direction of elites, for a morally questionable future, to an end merely as a disposable cog in some giant machine, a provider of goods that parasites demand of me, and robbed from me at what is ultimately the point of Gub’mint’s gun.

A little less than 10 months until the most momentous decision in American history will be made. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve…

Posted in History, Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

The Marathon at the 3-mile Mark

This is the BIG Takeaway from the last week:

A ringing Sarah Palin endorsement for Rick Perry would’ve done WONDERS for his campaign! All we heard, though, was silence until too late, then an aside endorsement of Newt, if only to prolong the “vetting.”

I love the fire Sarah Palin brought to the campaign in 2008, and I’ve watched her wend her way through the murky waters between campaigns, but in the past few weeks, when she could’ve had a very profound effect on the course of the GOP primaries and – by extension! – the course of the nation as a whole, she was silent. The immediate effect was Rick Perry dropping out of the race, and the ascendancy of Newt to the chagrin of Romney, with Santorum looking on. In the early days of a Romney or Newt presidency, or heaven forbid into Obama’s second term, this will, I think and hope, be seen as a wasted opportunity to show leadership and take command.

Sarah, if you’re not going to run, at least get behind someone who shares your core values! Would you honestly say Mitt or Newt share your values? Why were you silent when Rick Perry, who does, needed support?

The thought occurs that the same could be said of Jim DeMint. Just swap out Sarah’s name for Demint’s.

I think REAL Conservatives, in the end, will be disappointed with Mitt or Newt. That, too, may prove beneficial in 2016, but as one Twitter Wag put it, that might be like sending a surgeon in to try to revive a cadaver at that point. I hope and pray it doesn’t come to that.

The question was asked, in effect,”Will we have the guy on board who’ll be able to go in and perform the major surgeries and -ectomies that will be required to trim the bloat off Big Gub’mint?” We are going to need someone who will go in and excise – literally CUT OFF – every piece of bloated bureaucracy he can find, to restore the Republic to health. No “tweaking,” no “retooling,” no “streamlining.” CHOPPING! Anything less than that and we’re just headed for the same end, albeit more slowly.

I think the NEXT couple of primaries are going to highlight organizational strengths, versus debate strengths. Mitt Romney is already doing a lot of advanced footwork in Florida, with Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri following hard on the heels. Who will be the best at pivoting and moving from venue to venue, and seamlessly working to gather support? That, too, will be telling, and will speak as much about each candidate as any debate performances to date.

Having said that, there is something to be said, as Byron York writes here – Why Gingrich Won, Why Romney Lost – about the kind of campaigning that puts a real-life candidate in your face, to answer questions, outline positions, address your desires. Newt and Santorum have done that very admirably so far, versus Romney’s largely script-driven, media buy, canned speech whistle stops. I have longed to see a campaign where the candidate does the hard leg-work to go door-to-door, town-to-town, county-to-county to meet as many people as he or she can before the day of reckoning arrives. I read with glee that Sarah Palin had done just that in her quest to become ultimately Governor of Alaska, and a very large part of me cheered when she began he bus tour in the middle of last year, thinking she might be doing that precise thing in preparation for a run in 2012. Alas, it wasn’t (or hasn’t been to date) an option for her to run, but the template is there, and judging from Rick and Newt’s successes, is not far off the mark for something to emulate, methinks. It will be interesting to see if a modified version can be implemented with so many primaries coming so close together. The problem will be logistics, getting the candidate “out n’ about” to as many people as possible, but there is also an element of getting cheerful, articulate, passionate representatives “out n’ about” to help spread the word, too. In this, the Tea Party can be especially instrumental, but a big questions is, who will they largely rally around? I probably don’t need to remind anyone that the Tea Party isn’t really a centrally organized mass, and does very little coordination in its activities. Still, the term “stalking tiger” comes to mind. The candidate that can inspire some of the many “stalking tiger cubs” to action may be a force to be reckoned with, despite lacking a larger budget or more centralized campaign apparatus.

To date, each of the major candidates has won one state apiece. At the 3-mile mark, it’s still really anybody’s race, regardless of the swell of propaganda emanating from the various campaigns to the contrary. Will be interesting to see what unfolds in a week from now.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Liberal SimpleThink™

From the inimitable Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP, Great Britain:

@DanHannanMEP: In defence of capitalism. Greed isn’t good but, properly harnessed, it can cause good. (Link to article here.)

In Liberal SimpleThink™, ambition, gumption, perseverence, overcoming adversity – these noble traits become “greed” because of Libs’ disdain for profit, the natural result or product of these traits.

In Liberal SimpleThink™, concepts that make the Liberal uncomfortable – such as frank discussions of morality, homosexuality, race relations, governing philosophy and the like – are best relegated to the all-encompassing moniker of “Hate.”

Liberal SimpleThink™ allows you to cubbyhole all the nuances and distinctions of culture built up over thousands of years into a few, simplistic words that allow you to avoid dealing with life and living. The GateKeepers of Liberal SimpleThink™ – Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. ad infinitum – will tell you what is acceptable SimpleThink™. Trust them.

Or not. In the words of Jimmy Buffett, “I don’t want to swim in a roped-off sea…”

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

Swindlers and Thieves

I think there’s just a massive fatigue about all the rigged games we’re either forced to play or forced to watch, all of which affect us – but we, the people watching and playing, have no say-so in the rigging of the game. THAT is the crux of the problem.

And we really don’t want to rig the game ourselves. We’d just be happy to play on a “level” playing field. At the very least, we’d like to see – from the depths of our own internal justice scales honed from the playgrounds of our youth – the ones who cheat get busted, and they have to pay the price for cheating.

We’re searching for a leader who recognizes this, and will try his or her best to “un-rig” the game. The dissatisfaction we apparently feel toward the current crop of candidates is this: We have little or no confidence they will put much effort into trying to “un-rig” the games we’re either forced to watch or forced to play. I believe they’re betting that we’re betting on heir skills at playing the rigged games.

“Pick me because I know how to play the game.”

NO! We don’t want you representing us in a rigged game, because it’s always us who pays the price. We want you to CHANGE the game by throwing out the rigged rules and shady plays, and punishing the ones who’re trying to game the system. We don’t want you to hone your skills in the rigged game, we want you to re-write the rules so it’s not rigged any more. THEN we’ll be glad to play!

Some nameless, faceless bureaucrat thought it’d be a good idea to sell a bunch of high-performance guns to shady individuals, then try to track them as they wended their way to Mexico. The goal was to discredit gun sales, and thereby take away our rights. The plan backfires, and more than 200 individuals are killed with these guns, including U.S. Citizens, at least one of them a Border Patrol Agent. But the nameless, faceless bureaucrat escapes justice scot-free, and the leader of the scofflaws, He Who Is Entrusted to Uphold the Law Himself, Eric Holder, thumbs his nose at all of us kids demanding justice, and says, “Go pound sand, Racists.”

Cheaters rig the game, get caught, and laugh at us as we demand justice.

Shady organizations work overtime to produce long lists of iffy signatures and force governments to spend millions of dollars to defend recall elections, and demonstrably outrageously faked signatures – like 47 Mickey Mouses, and 13 Crocodile Dundees, and 23 Betty Boops – are allowed to stand as legitimate, and the original shady characters smirk and dare you to try to challenge them, because they are ready with charges of “racism” and squeals of manufactured injustice.

Cheaters rig the game, get caught, and laugh at us as we demand justice.

Dishonest “journalists” put in triple-overtime investigating every aspect of candidates’ lives, except He Who Is Most Liberal, whom they touch not at all. A candidate’s 30-year old love affair is fair game, but not The Hallowed One’s college records, transcripts, or the like. Childhood friends are fair game for dredging up dirt on conservatives, but we have no idea who The Emperor’s Work Colleagues even were.

Cheaters rig the game, get caught, and laugh at us as we demand justice.

I would be just as happy to seal off the Eastern Half of the U.S., exiling all liberals east of the Mississippi. I would sentence anyone breaking the laws, cheating, rigging the system or jimmying the game to do time in the East, among his or her “own kind.” You go ahead and build a Utopia based on gaming the system. Just try.

As for me, I want no part of it. I want first and foremost leaders who will un-rig the games and level the playing field. I want to feel that my participation in the system is just as relevant as the next man’s, and my ideas are given a fair shot at hearing and success. THAT, I can live with.

But I am DAMN tired of watching my honest efforts being counted for nought, nullified by cheaters, negated by crooks, thieves and swindlers.

THAT is the kind of change I’m looking for!

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

The Marathon at the 1.5-mile Mark

OK, we’ve had exactly two primaries, and a mere handful of delegates have been allocated. Mitt Romney, the delegate leader, has just 14 of 1144 needed for nomination. (For delegate info, try here.) As I see it, we’re at the 1.5-mile marker of a 26.2-mile race.

So where are we?

Three candidates – Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman – have dropped out. As one Twitter Wag said in last night’s GOP debate, “Seems like the introductions of the candidates took 5/8 as long as previous debates…”

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are still in it. Romney may or may not have won Iowa (official votes are now being counted, and some reports I saw had Santorum up by 80 votes in the official recount, so that primary (or “caucus” as you might say) is possibly still up in the air. Romney won New Hampshire. South Carolina is this coming Saturday. By all accounts, last night’s debate had Mitt Romney taking some hits, and Newt and Rick Perry doing exceptionally well. There are the better parts of four days’ worth of campaigning to go, and really anything can happen. There is still plenty of time for someone to stick his foot in his mouth.

I’ve seen some, to me, disturbing trends, which bear examination:

  • Class Warfare – There have been some “class warfare” attacks by some candidates on others. I *HATE* class warfare, because it uses one of the basest of human emotions – envy – to attack. Envy’s cousin – covetousness – also rears its ugly visage, and THAT one has a specific Commandment addressing it! It is NOT becoming of any GOP candidate to attack another’s apparent wealth or success. The GOP’s goal should be to enable the opportunity for *ANYONE* to achieve similar success, not to tear down success.

    Closely related to Class Warfare is the cry for one candidate (Mitt Romney) to produce his tax records to prove or disprove his success or failure as the CEO of Bain Capital. Couple of points need to be made here:

    • Used to be what a person made was between him and his employer, and NO ONE ELSE. It was once considered crass to inquire of another what his salary was. “None of your business,” should be the standard reply. In a similar vein, a candidate’s tax returns should not be a matter of public debate, in a civil, mannered society. It is a black mark on our society that the class warfare attack of demanding tax returns is “acceptable.”
    • On Bain Capital specifically, is the CEO’s tax return the BEST yardstick of business success or performance? I would argue that there are much better yardsticks – such as financial statements, stock performance, balance sheets, etc. – that are more readily available and more morally available with which to judge a company’s performance. If Bain is a publicly traded company, either the financial statements or stock performance would be the better indicator of success. If privately held, then one may have to look at public records, historical facts, news accounts, etc. to judge.
    • A question I asked on Twitter last night: Would *YOU* be comfortable if *I* demanded to see *YOUR* tax returns? I asked specifically of those “civilians” (non-candidates themselves, like staffers, or even just enthusiasts or advocates for a candidate) who were demanding to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns. My guess is: They would not. That, to me, is pretty telling.
  • Anti-Capitalism – Closely related to the Class Warfare attacks have been attacks based on the candidates supposed exploitation of the capitalist system. In this, as many people have said, the attacker allies himself with the Occupy Wall Street mob. Capitalism, far from being the boogeyman, should be instead the yardstick by which we go about our legal, moral, ethical business. Not only is capitalism the best engine of success and prosperity, but we should be highlighting the ideal way capitalism should be practised with the distorted, corrupt system of “crony capitalism” we seem to accept as “normal” in America today. Capitalism works best with as little Gub’mint interference as possible in the markets, with as little D.C. distortions introduced through laws and regulations and petty bureaucracies. And most assuredly, capitalism is best practised when Gub’mint is not allowed to “partner” and pick winners and losers.
  • Petulant Partisanship – I have seen, at this early stage, several people on Twitter state categorically that if such and such was the GOP nominee, they would sit out the general election. I find that extremely troubling! At the early part of the campaign, most people agreed that any one of the candidates would be acceptable and a definite improvement over the Marxist Emperor we have infesting the Oval Office at present. That would seem to lead to the assumption that, once the nomination process had shaken itself out, that all would enthusiastically rally around whomever gained the top spot. That it might not happen – at least in a few minds, but who knows how far Twitter and other communications modes allow influence to spread! – is troubling. I ask: Would you honestly give four more years to the Meddling Marxist over any of the GOP candidates? Would you sentence America to the horrors of pure Socialism – or Marxism, or Communism, depending on how far Chairman Zero wants to push it – over the chance to turn it all around, to steer clear of the cliff we’re hurtling toward? Would you really do that just because your guy didn’t get in? I find even having to ask that question fills me with sadness, and a sort of rage. Those who say they will stay away on Election Day are, to me, the “fairest” of “Fair Weather Friends and Sunshine Patriots.” It is raining out, and if you guys won’t show up to fight, I’m questioning your commitment to the cause.

OK. That’s about it for now. In the race, I still see the five remaining candidates pretty much bunched up, and we’re only about 1.5 miles into it. Any one of them can make a break, and no one is out as of this point. There is a LOT of race to be run yet. Take heart!

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Propaganda by Percentages

I am really jiving on Twitter lately, but one thing I see with distressing frequency is a barrage of poll-driven Tweets from all across the GOP spectrum, from the far left looniness of Ron Paul to the hyperty-hype-hype right of Mitt Romney. This morning, addressing the onslaught, I coined a phrase: “Propaganda by Percentages.”

See, I basically see two uses for polls, neither one of which really does anyone any good.

First is to provide a snapshot in time of information that may or may not be germane to the reader of said information. If the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that things change, and I find people who send poll-driven information – and who are honestly trying to relay a snapshot in time – are really just wasting their time. Maybe not always, but for sure in the volatile GOP primaries, especially when so much polling is done by such diverse systems and/or groups and/or organizations. Yeah, you have captured a slice o’ time but by the time you’ve formatted it into Twitter-ese (140 characters) the utility is all but gone. Almost guarantee ya!

The second type of poll-driven Twitterer is far more sinister in nature: He (or she) who is trying to sway someone to zig (or zag) based on the perceived influence of the polling data. Mostly, I see it from two camps: Mitt Romney’s bunch – and I suddenly like the term “Mitt-wits!” – and Ron Paul’s denizens – whom I less than affectionately call “Ronulans.” When I see something like, “Romeny up 117%, Perry 3%, Santorum 2.7%…” – then I know something’s afoot. Like I said, it’s pretty volatile out there, and I absolutely doubt anyone has any idea how it’s gonna unfold on Primary Day, (this coming Saturday.) Polls are notoriously fickle anyway, and you throw in partisanship, and all bets are out the door.

See, these folks are trying – via “poll data” to convince you it’s all over, and you should just vote for their guy. Fully two – count ‘em! TWO! – primaries have been held, and less than 40 delegates – out of 1,100-odd needed for nomination! – have been awarded. It is still VERY MUCH a wide open race. The poll-driven crowd, though, wants you to abandon your own stances and principles, and jump, however reluctantly, onto their bandwagon(s).

No, thanks. I want to hold onto my vote as long as I can, and I will try to convince others to see it my way, in a decidedly poll-free approach I like to call “reason and logic.” I have no idea even when Kentucky’s primary is, but still, I’m saving my vote until then. When ever it is. (Rick Perry – you listenin’?!?!?)

So, I have a recommendation: Just close your ears and shout “LALALALALALALALALALALALA” until the poll goes away, at least for the next few days. Listen to the candidates, listen to their words, listen to their advocates’ speeches and Tweets and Facebook meanderings. But for Heaven’s sake – and I almost mean that literally! – don’t just listen to the poll-bots and decide based on a perceived zig or zag trend in the polls cited. Lemming-like voters are why we’re in the current mess with Chairman Zero, and counter-lemmingness (I should trade mark that!) isn’t going to help us.

IGNORE THE POLLS!!!!!

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Dissatisfying, Distressing, Dishonest…

Last week, I stumbled across other Rick Perry supporters on Twitter, and began following. However, after a very short while, one lady began to rail against Mitt Romney’s religion, publishing many things that were just simply not true about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. “Mormons.”)

UPDATE: She’s been on Twitter, and like I said further down in this post, she’s claiming I WOULDN’T answer her questions. Absolutely untrue, as you’ll see. Screenshot (I use Twimbow.com for Twittering) for your edification:

Bothered me on two levels, at least. First, the info being spouted was right out of the Anti-Mormon playbook, (and believe me, there *IS* one!), and I couldn’t let it go unchallenged. Second, as a member of the LDS Church, I was concerned that such ignorance might be tempered by a (hopefully) “voice of reason.”

Here’s the link to the article I posted: Link to Mormon article.

Last evening, the person who was publishing the false info got the chance to read it, and a Twitter conversation ensued (Format, spelling, punctuation and chronology preserved; also, her Tweets are in yellow to distinguish from mine in white):

Her: hey Dan I tried to read your blog on Mormon/twitter said not available?canyou post it again? would like to read it

Me: http://www.sassafrassin.com/2012/01/05/addressing-the-mormon-question/

Her: thankUDan4info/forst let me just say I dont have a religion I have a relationship with JESUS CHRIST MY SAVIOUR/Dan answer these questionspls

Her: Is your jesus the brother of Lucifer? is ur Jesus GODin the flesh IS HE GOD? did God have sex witha Goddess&hve 2 children Jesus&Lucifer

Her: can you recieve Salvation thru Joe Smith? pls answer these truthfully as u know it to be tru

Me: do you have an email address. 140 chars cannot do the subject justice. Glad to answer, just not in this format, OK?

Her: danI am so sorry but I just have been on here 4 weeks really dont want to give email out until iget to know person I am talking to/hope u understand an will answer the questions if not I understand

Me: Caution: Don’t build from the roof down. All who’ve ever lived are children of Our Heavenly Father.

Her: I know God created each an every one of us/then he gave us a free will to choose/& many believe in false Gods/u dont want to answer the ?

Me: Jesus Christ was the First Born of Heavenly Father. Lucifer, too, is a child of God, but after war in heaven, 1/3 of heavenly host fell, too.

Her: I understand why/I dont mean to disrespect you but your God is not the same as the God of the Bible tht 80% of americans know/just isnt nBible

Me: If there is a Heavenly Father, doesn’t it make sense there’s a Heavenly Mother, too?

Her: its all U know u were raised with it iam sure an when you build that house you start with a strong foundation U hve your layout URplanBIBLE

Me: Joseph Smith was just a man, a prophet like any other prophet. Not a “god”, not an instrument of salvation.

Her: no there is no heavenly mother there is only GOD he sent himself in the flesh JESUS CHRIST the Son to DIE 4 us so WE have a choice to choose

Her:: butin the book of Mormon in order for Salvation u must believe In Joe smith just yes or no very simple?

Me: Mormons use the Bible, too. King James Version. But we believe that in the 1800 years between Christ’s time on eart and Joseph Smith, many parts of the original scriptures were lost or changed. “Mormonism” is a restoration of the church as it was originally established by Jesus Christ.

Her: see Dan Mormons dontwant to answer the questions they want to skirt around it because it is not the same GOD JESUS CHRIST of the BIBLE

Me: See, this format is totally inadequate. I wish I could communicate in a longer format. My email is

Me: hi – If you set up a temp yahoo our hotmail account, I could do a better job of presenting info.

Her: if you were in court an asked a ? u would have 2 answer yes that true not its not/thats what Iam asking you to do yet I cannot get tht fromU

Her: not really bad format simple questions yes or no answers dont want explain just yes or no please

Her: an Dan know this I have many friends who R Mormon best ppl in the world great family ppl workers so please dont think I am against Mormons

Her: just dont want one as my POTUS they can do anything else but not president

Me: I’m glad to answer them, but these are not questions framed for a simple yes or no. And you seem to not be interested in gaining knowledge of LDS theology, but wish to limit my ability to answer your improperly framed questions.

Her: do not want a JEW which I am by the way but I am a JEW who knows who the TRUE MESSIAH IS JESUS CHRIST/dont want a Muslim either

Me: hi – My answers, I suspect, would not satisfy you, unless they confirmed your preconceived notions.

Me: Tell you what. I have to sleep for work tonight, and work until 3 pm, but if you’d like to call me and see/hear answers, my cell is . Call me on Sunday afternoon if you’d like.

Me: hi – I actually wasn’t raised in the Church, and only ready started studying/praying at age 30 our so. I’m 51 now. Just Fyi.

Me: hi – Just a frame of reference.

Me: hi -Also have some Biblical references for you, to illustrate or support my argument, if you’d be interested.

Her: Dan the factyou refuse to answer thos simple questions tells me all I need 2 know/I already know the answer I have read I have discussed

Her: all I want you to know is that is NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE JESUS was not the brother of LUCIFER/Jesus Christ is GOD in the flesh

Me: I don’t refuse to answer you, in fact have made two avenues available for better communication. But, yes or no is wholly inadequate. 140 characters is wholly inadequate.

Her: and the ONLY unforgivable SIN is2 deny who HE IS/the only way2 ETERNITY is thru the SON/u wont be a GOD u wont have ur own planet&goddesses

Me: Choice is yours, but TRUTHFULLY, if you had to swear before a judge, could you honestly say you allowed me to answer? THAT is a yes or no question…

Me: You come to the “discussion” with preconceived notions, and any answer I give only serves to reinforce those. If we were to have a true discussion, you might be interested in hearing exactly what the point of view is.

Me: This, I’m afraid, is not a great result for intellectual understanding, but that poossibly wasn’t the goal. If you’d like to truly discuss it, email or call. I won’t bite, I promise!

Me: And if nothing else, if you truly seek to understand, by all means ask your Mormon friends. They won’t bite either. James 5 is also a resource, as I said in my post.

Constraints, and Proffered Remedies

I knew Twitter wasn’t going to work, but tried it anyway, thinking, “Any discussion better than no discussion!” One hundred forty characters isn’t a good format.

Second, the lady wanted only “yes” or “no” answers, and that wasn’t good. It was a pure dilemma: The ill-formed questions meant I was damned if I did, damned if I didn’t. There was simply no good way to answer. If I said, “Yes,” then I’d be technically correct, but also confirmed her erroneous, preconceived notions. If I said, “No,” then I would not have been correct, but that’s not what was expected according to her preconceived notions, so my answer was rejected as not legitimate. Theological or philosophical answer just cannot be boiled down into one-word answers. I was stupid for trying! ;)

Also gives her the opportunity to say, “Well he wouldn’t answer me!” Not true. (See the UPDATE at the top of the page!)

And I did offer two avenues for expanded conversation, (email and phone.) These were rejected, as you can see. Can’t hold a decent discussion on things when one side insists on simplistic answers and refuses to engage in expanded dialogue.

Lessons learned? As above, won’t be using Twitter for deep discussions. The medium is simply not up to the task.

I will also “call” her on her wild errors from here on out, and offer a path to further, expanded discussion, if she’ll take it. (Doubtful.) I’ll also make it perfectly clear that others can engage me in conversation as well, if any have questions. I will provide in-depth answers to any/all who are sincerely interested in expanding their knowledge. (And I, too, look forward to learning things in any conversations! Good ol’ Give n’ Take!)

I will also probably feel a little sad that someone continues in ignorance when truth is laid out as a banquet to be had for free. As I’ve heard it said, “Ignorance isn’t stupidity, but choosing to remain ignorant is.”

Finally, because this stuff is cool to think about, I’ll just ask an Armchair Philosopher-type question:

When you have a held truth, and new information comes along that may supplant it, what is your obligation to the truth that you hold, and the truth that may supplant it?

Posted in Religion | Leave a comment

Left vs. Right: An Illustration

Much has been made about two Liberal/Leftist “personalities” mocking GOP candidate Rick Santorum’s handling of the death of their infant boy, Gabriel, who was born prematurely and died just two hours after entering the world. The “personalities” referred to are the execrable Alan Colmes and the odious Eugene Robinson.

Jeffrey Goldberg, writing on Atlantic web site, included an update that, to me, perfectly illustrates the moral chasm separating the Left from the right:

UPDATE: People write in with the strangest observations and questions. The following e-mail is representative of a few that I have just received:

Answer this question honestly, Mr. Goldberg, are you freakish enough to bring a dead body home to house to sit with it and show it to your children? That’s what Santorum did. I just don’t believe you would do this. I think you’re just too sympathetic to the anti-abortionists.

See, to the Left the baby is just an “IT” or a “DEAD BODY.” Nothing more. In their culture of death, they have to dehumanize it, or they run the risk of shedding light on the true nature of their abortion practices.

But on the Right, the baby was “Gabriel,” a loved and cherished member of the family, a son and a brother who never had the chance to know his family here on Earth.

Stark difference, and one worth noting.

HT: Jim Treacher, via Twitter (@jtLOL)

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

“Fairness” at the Trough

I generally part ways with Ayn Rand over her insistence that religion and religious thinking have no place in lives and livelihoods. The 60+-page diatribe of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged lashes out at religious thinking pretty heavily, and my eyes usually glaze over about that time. (Read Atlas seven times, and it’s the same every time, except the first, when I didn’t know any better.)

But I do like the A = A concept, which, to be sure, Ayn Rand didn’t come up with, but Aristotle. That Objective standard should be the basis for government decision-making.

But it’s not. We get “Fairness,” which is why we have “Gub’mint.” (Please pronounce “Gub’mint” as you’d imagine Foghorn Leghorn would, with all the conniving connotation of a carpetbagger.)

What is objective about “fairness?” NOTHING! One man’s “enough” is a second man’s “too little,” and a third’s “too much.”

Ever notice how Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never will explain just how much is “fair” when asked to objectify/quantify their demands for it?

This leads us to the situation where we’re ripe for class warfare, and demagoguery by any silver-tongued devil. (Ring a bell with anyone?) It also leads to, as Ms. Rand described it, a situation where a man “hates anyone with a dollar more than him, and fears anyone with a dollar less.”

Call upon our leaders in the White House and Congress to ditch “fairness” at the earliest possible time, and start using objective measurements!

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

Before You Get Too Giddy…

The December Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Unemployment Numbers were released today. Everybody – especially Obamunists and the MSM (but I repeat myself!) – are giddy that it shows unemployment at 8.5 percent, which is apparently down from the level of 8.9 percent in November.

So, for the next month or so – until “adjustments” are made, as they always are! – we get to hear what a great job Obama is doing.

Not so fast, kiddies!

Keep in mind that the 8.5 percent is based on the size of the labor force, which has been shrinking as more and more people “give up” looking for work.” Yep, Boys n’ Girls, some people who have not been able to find a job after 99 weeks of unemployment sometimes simply give up looking, and “drop out” of the labor force. At that point, they are no longer counted.

Another factor which I’ve been pointing out all morning is we have this little occurrence every year, a little thing we like to call “The Holidays.” That – unlike the current gobbledygook of Federal Gub’mint uncertainty, is something we can actually count on, so businesses like retailers and shippers and warehousers feel somewhat secure in hiring extra help during that time. Probably won’t be keeping them on past January 1st or so, because who knows what kind of new dumbassery and nincompoopery will emanate from Washington in the next few months. (Payroll Tax Cut Adjustments ring a bell, anyone? How ’bout ObamaCare mandates that may or may not be repealed?)

Businesses are unsure of what Washington will do, so they’re hunkering down and protecting what they have, and not venturing out much entrepreneurially. (Spell Check says that’s not a word, but you know what I mean!)

But they CAN count on Christmas and New Year, so we see a down-trend in unemployment.

Prediction: Look for the unemployment numbers to rise again for January, as seasonal types take a hike from gainful employment, unless Obama makes some decisions to ease regulations (fat chance!) or Republicans in Congress take extraordinary measures (even fatter chance, with the Senate in Democrat Dingy Harry’s hands.)

Sad. That’s why we need to elect a conservative President and back him up with a Conservative House and Senate, so we can restore confidence in our economy. Lower taxes, deregulate, and get the economy running again! Give businesses something beside the Holidays to count on!

Posted in Business, Politics | Leave a comment