Who are you going to vote for?
Decisions on such things should be determined purely by how well the candidate meets the criteria you hold to be critical to success on the job. The nice thing about the USA is that we can each have our own set of criteria that we feel this person should meet. Not only that, but the right to vote guarantees that we can apply our choices in a fair contest to choose our leaders. The body of opinion of the nation ultimately selects it’s leaders.
Note that in most of the world, this is not the case. We must be constantly vigilant against the temptation to vote without due consideration; failure to do so will eventually result in the loss of this basic right, and then it will take another revolution to regain it. Witness the current situation in Venezuela. Don’t think it can’t happen here. All it takes is enough voters guessing wrong.
If you examine the belief system of the candidate (insofar as you can determine what it is), and find distasteful, or dangerous, or misguided, or destructive, or poor morality, or foolish things; if you see evidence of lying, or concealing elements of the personal history; well, it is probably an intelligent exercise of your franchise to vote against that person.
If your examination of the belief system of that candidate finds instead that there is honesty, strength of character, wisdom, knowledge, and evidence of good decision making, perhaps that person is the one that deserves your vote.
It is your decision. Be careful, be wise. You can give away things very dear to you (and me) by an incorrect evaluation of the candidates. You should make sure that you are going to be willing to live with anything the candidate you select may decide to do. This is not a decision to be made lightly. And it may be that no candidate meets your criteria completely. So choose the best you can. If there’s nobody you want to vote for, there are surely those you want to vote against!
-Pop
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Are You Prejudiced?
Definition:
prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
My thoughts on the matter:
If you decide not to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is black, you are prejudiced.
If you decide instead to vote for a candidate, specifically because that candidate is black, you are just as prejudiced as the previous case.
If you decide not to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is a woman, you are prejudiced.
If you decide instead to vote for a candidate, specifically because that candidate is a woman, you are just as prejudiced as the previous case.
If you decide not to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is a <insert religion here>, you are prejudiced.
If you decide instead to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is a <insert religion here>, you are just as prejudiced as the previous case.
Are you prejudiced?
-Pop
prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
My thoughts on the matter:
If you decide not to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is black, you are prejudiced.
If you decide instead to vote for a candidate, specifically because that candidate is black, you are just as prejudiced as the previous case.
If you decide not to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is a woman, you are prejudiced.
If you decide instead to vote for a candidate, specifically because that candidate is a woman, you are just as prejudiced as the previous case.
If you decide not to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is a <insert religion here>, you are prejudiced.
If you decide instead to vote for a candidate, just because that candidate is a <insert religion here>, you are just as prejudiced as the previous case.
Are you prejudiced?
-Pop
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Most Artistic Way to Lie
From Time Enough For Love by Robert A. Heinlein - the two most artistic ways to tell a lie.
“It’s not enough to be able to lie with a straight face; anybody with enough gall to raise on a busted flush can do that. The first way to lie artistically is to tell the truth - but not all of it. The second way involves telling the truth, too, but is harder: Tell the exact truth and maybe all of it .. but tell it so unconvincingly that your listener is sure you are lying.”
Politicians, take note...
-Pop
“It’s not enough to be able to lie with a straight face; anybody with enough gall to raise on a busted flush can do that. The first way to lie artistically is to tell the truth - but not all of it. The second way involves telling the truth, too, but is harder: Tell the exact truth and maybe all of it .. but tell it so unconvincingly that your listener is sure you are lying.”
Politicians, take note...
-Pop
Israel vs Palestine
In the news stories you see Palestinians being quoted as complaining about ‘Israel’s crimes’ and other similar statements. It amazes me that 1) they can say it with a straight face and 2) apparently, a large part of the world believes it.
From what I have read, Palestinians fired the first rocket of this exchange. Israel has just as much right to defend itself against an attack on its territory as any other country - or individual for that matter.
The Palestinians want to lob rockets at random over into Israel, at non-military areas, and then have the gall to act surprised and indignant at what happens next. If you are stupid enough to lob rocks at a hornet nest, you deserve what happens to you.
The terrible, awful thing about it is that innocents are killed. But the reason they are in the line of fire is that those civilians permit the terrorists to set up rocket-launching sites in their midst. If those cowardly terrorists cared about those civilians they would not use them as human shields and then act indignant when civilians get caught in the cross-fire.
The UN chief has urged Israel to show restraint. I wonder if he urged Palestine to show restraint?
If, for instance, Mexican militant organizations started lobbing missiles over into Texas, how long do you think it would take the US to remove the threat? Shucks, if the US government failed to correct the situation, Texas would on its own.
Every individual and every country has the right to self defense.
-Pop
From what I have read, Palestinians fired the first rocket of this exchange. Israel has just as much right to defend itself against an attack on its territory as any other country - or individual for that matter.
The Palestinians want to lob rockets at random over into Israel, at non-military areas, and then have the gall to act surprised and indignant at what happens next. If you are stupid enough to lob rocks at a hornet nest, you deserve what happens to you.
The terrible, awful thing about it is that innocents are killed. But the reason they are in the line of fire is that those civilians permit the terrorists to set up rocket-launching sites in their midst. If those cowardly terrorists cared about those civilians they would not use them as human shields and then act indignant when civilians get caught in the cross-fire.
The UN chief has urged Israel to show restraint. I wonder if he urged Palestine to show restraint?
If, for instance, Mexican militant organizations started lobbing missiles over into Texas, how long do you think it would take the US to remove the threat? Shucks, if the US government failed to correct the situation, Texas would on its own.
Every individual and every country has the right to self defense.
-Pop
Friday, February 1, 2008
Democrats vs Republicans
Frankly, I’m getting tired of thinking about it. But I do have some opinions, and I’m entitled to mine just as you are yours. Here’s what I think:
Democrats and the far left are anti-second amendment. It bothers me that they apparently do not believe that I can be trusted not to go on a shooting spree. At root, the Democrats do not believe that the common, law abiding person has the self discipline to handle owning and carrying guns. Well, frankly, I do have that self discipline, and I resent the implication that I can’t be trusted. Or maybe they’re afraid of us.
Republicans, on the other hand, are pro second amendment. Republicans trust me with a gun. They encourage me to defend my family, myself, and those needing protection around me. I like that.
I hear that the Democrats want ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I know that our medical system is broken. Part of this is that it just isn’t as simple as it needs to be. A hundred years ago, you go to your doctor; you get treated; you pay the doc; minimum money spent. Today, though - you, or somebody, pays insurance premiums continuously. You get sick, you go to your doctor; you get treated; someone gets paid to fill out forms and insurance gets filed; you still pay the doctor a copay, usually; the insurance company pays some or most of your bill. But think about this - the insurance company is making money doing this. All the employees required to do all that paperwork, and all those lawyers, and lawsuits, and all those insurance executives, are living off of your insurance premiums, ultimately. In the end, the cost of medical care is inflated by the cost of the entire insurance industry. What the heck are we paying all those people for?
Back to HillaryCare and it’s variations from the Democrats. They want to require everyone to have insurance. A lot of people find that attractive, Shucks, I find it attractive, too. But, who is going to pay for it? If we pay for it in taxes or any scheme that evenly distributes the costs of the insurance, isn’t that unfairly penalizing healthy people? I guess maybe the justification is that we all benefit from a healthy society. Pretty hard to quantify the benefit of a healthy society to me, though. And, do you spend a million dollars to keep somebody alive another month? Who decides? Pretty soon these people will begin thinking that benefits should only be applied to the non-hopeless cases, to cut costs. Shortly after that, somebody will introduce the idea of euthanasia of old people. And so on. I think socialized medicine may be a very slippery slope, and the individual will no longer have any control over it. Mother Hillary will take care of You!
From the debates a couple of nights ago, most of the current plans involve requiring mandatory insurance. There seem to be different ways of paying for it, but no matter how you slice it, in the long run we the people will foot the bill. If we’re going to foot the bill anyway, why don’t we just axe the entire insurance industry and save all that overhead cost? But I can’t see this happening - the insurance industry spends a LOT of money in Washington. YOUR money. And both the leading Democratic candidates have already said they will raise taxes. Bend over, here it comes!
What do the Republicans say? Well, I don’t think anything much will change on that score. Listening to the debate, I think they want to improve the system, but they say that it won’t be mandatory; so at least we’ll have some choice, something the Democrats won’t give us. I think Republicans probably make better neighbors than Democrats; they don’t seem to get in your business quite as much.
I kind of like Robert A. Heinlein’s idea, mentioned in his novel “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, that if you need insurance, you find a bookie and place a bet - on the progression of your health, for instance. It’d be a heck of a lot simpler than what we do now.
in general, Democrats want more government control of individuals and individual rights. This is the same thing any dictator wants, and that comparison makes me nervous. Once you give them that control, it will take revolution to get it back.
In general, the Republicans want to promote capitalism, a system that has it’s good side and it’s dark side, but it does seem to work pretty well. People that are willing to get out and work, and think about what they’re doing, will do well with the Republicans, People who want the government to spoon-feed them will lean towards the Democrats.
Personally, I don’t want or need the government in my business any more than necessary for the defense of the country as a whole. This causes me to lean towards the Republicans.
-Pop
Democrats and the far left are anti-second amendment. It bothers me that they apparently do not believe that I can be trusted not to go on a shooting spree. At root, the Democrats do not believe that the common, law abiding person has the self discipline to handle owning and carrying guns. Well, frankly, I do have that self discipline, and I resent the implication that I can’t be trusted. Or maybe they’re afraid of us.
Republicans, on the other hand, are pro second amendment. Republicans trust me with a gun. They encourage me to defend my family, myself, and those needing protection around me. I like that.
I hear that the Democrats want ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I know that our medical system is broken. Part of this is that it just isn’t as simple as it needs to be. A hundred years ago, you go to your doctor; you get treated; you pay the doc; minimum money spent. Today, though - you, or somebody, pays insurance premiums continuously. You get sick, you go to your doctor; you get treated; someone gets paid to fill out forms and insurance gets filed; you still pay the doctor a copay, usually; the insurance company pays some or most of your bill. But think about this - the insurance company is making money doing this. All the employees required to do all that paperwork, and all those lawyers, and lawsuits, and all those insurance executives, are living off of your insurance premiums, ultimately. In the end, the cost of medical care is inflated by the cost of the entire insurance industry. What the heck are we paying all those people for?
Back to HillaryCare and it’s variations from the Democrats. They want to require everyone to have insurance. A lot of people find that attractive, Shucks, I find it attractive, too. But, who is going to pay for it? If we pay for it in taxes or any scheme that evenly distributes the costs of the insurance, isn’t that unfairly penalizing healthy people? I guess maybe the justification is that we all benefit from a healthy society. Pretty hard to quantify the benefit of a healthy society to me, though. And, do you spend a million dollars to keep somebody alive another month? Who decides? Pretty soon these people will begin thinking that benefits should only be applied to the non-hopeless cases, to cut costs. Shortly after that, somebody will introduce the idea of euthanasia of old people. And so on. I think socialized medicine may be a very slippery slope, and the individual will no longer have any control over it. Mother Hillary will take care of You!
From the debates a couple of nights ago, most of the current plans involve requiring mandatory insurance. There seem to be different ways of paying for it, but no matter how you slice it, in the long run we the people will foot the bill. If we’re going to foot the bill anyway, why don’t we just axe the entire insurance industry and save all that overhead cost? But I can’t see this happening - the insurance industry spends a LOT of money in Washington. YOUR money. And both the leading Democratic candidates have already said they will raise taxes. Bend over, here it comes!
What do the Republicans say? Well, I don’t think anything much will change on that score. Listening to the debate, I think they want to improve the system, but they say that it won’t be mandatory; so at least we’ll have some choice, something the Democrats won’t give us. I think Republicans probably make better neighbors than Democrats; they don’t seem to get in your business quite as much.
I kind of like Robert A. Heinlein’s idea, mentioned in his novel “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, that if you need insurance, you find a bookie and place a bet - on the progression of your health, for instance. It’d be a heck of a lot simpler than what we do now.
in general, Democrats want more government control of individuals and individual rights. This is the same thing any dictator wants, and that comparison makes me nervous. Once you give them that control, it will take revolution to get it back.
In general, the Republicans want to promote capitalism, a system that has it’s good side and it’s dark side, but it does seem to work pretty well. People that are willing to get out and work, and think about what they’re doing, will do well with the Republicans, People who want the government to spoon-feed them will lean towards the Democrats.
Personally, I don’t want or need the government in my business any more than necessary for the defense of the country as a whole. This causes me to lean towards the Republicans.
-Pop
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Nature of a Lie
Howdy, friends;
The Center for Public Integrity has published a supposedly unbiased report that George Bush and the Bush administration lied to the public hundreds of times about WMD's and related subjects in Iraq prior to the war.
The Center for Public Integrity is funded by George Soros and others. You can read about their funding at Captain's Quarters. They are hardly unbiased, as you will see in that article. If you haven't heard about George Soros, you need to look into it - he is anti-everything American, pretty much.
Who's lying, here? An organization that is deceptive from the word go (by not admitting their funding, and pretending to be unbiased) is trying to push it's own political agenda, and they are so far left that they're up to their neck in the Pacific.
I've always believed that to lie implies conscious intent to tell an untruth. In fact, looking it up in the dictionary, lie is defined as "an intentionally false statement" (emphasis mine). If you, in good faith, relay information you believe to be good, and it later turns out to be wrong, you didn't lie, although you did tell an untruth that you believed was truth at the time. There's no sin in that, because there was no intent.
The fact is, we know that President Bush relied on information provided by the U.S. intelligence services. Frankly, we don't know if he lied, because we don't know what he knew at the time. Accusing him of lying is a bit over the line; at most, we can say that we don't know whether he lied or not.
As far as we now know, President Bush is guilty at most of trusting the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. government; and that apparatus was in place long before Bush became president. We also don't know whether the intelligence group lied to Bush, or were simply wrong in their assessment of information. Bear in mind that these statements may need to be revised as new information becomes available.
Let's put a little thought into things, and try to separate fact from (politically motivated) opinion, before deciding what we believe - and what we repeat to those around us.
How about you? Would YOU want to be held to the standard that you are responsible for the absolute truth of every statement you made?
Think about it.
-Pop
The Center for Public Integrity has published a supposedly unbiased report that George Bush and the Bush administration lied to the public hundreds of times about WMD's and related subjects in Iraq prior to the war.
The Center for Public Integrity is funded by George Soros and others. You can read about their funding at Captain's Quarters. They are hardly unbiased, as you will see in that article. If you haven't heard about George Soros, you need to look into it - he is anti-everything American, pretty much.
Who's lying, here? An organization that is deceptive from the word go (by not admitting their funding, and pretending to be unbiased) is trying to push it's own political agenda, and they are so far left that they're up to their neck in the Pacific.
I've always believed that to lie implies conscious intent to tell an untruth. In fact, looking it up in the dictionary, lie is defined as "an intentionally false statement" (emphasis mine). If you, in good faith, relay information you believe to be good, and it later turns out to be wrong, you didn't lie, although you did tell an untruth that you believed was truth at the time. There's no sin in that, because there was no intent.
The fact is, we know that President Bush relied on information provided by the U.S. intelligence services. Frankly, we don't know if he lied, because we don't know what he knew at the time. Accusing him of lying is a bit over the line; at most, we can say that we don't know whether he lied or not.
As far as we now know, President Bush is guilty at most of trusting the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. government; and that apparatus was in place long before Bush became president. We also don't know whether the intelligence group lied to Bush, or were simply wrong in their assessment of information. Bear in mind that these statements may need to be revised as new information becomes available.
Let's put a little thought into things, and try to separate fact from (politically motivated) opinion, before deciding what we believe - and what we repeat to those around us.
How about you? Would YOU want to be held to the standard that you are responsible for the absolute truth of every statement you made?
Think about it.
-Pop
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Death
Howdy, everybody;
There comes a time in every person's life when you know for sure that you will die. I don't think young people can really conceive of this. It comes as a realization one day that you really aren't getting out of this life, alive.
I am a Christian; and it is appointed to every man (person) to die once. This is an intellectual understanding. I have an idea about what comes after, and yes, I believe I will be going to Heaven to be with Jesus. So I'm not really afraid of death. But I'm not in any particular hurry to get there, either. That's for later. My time is not yet. It's just that I now realize that someday it really will happen, to me.
There is a curious freedom in the realization that there will be an ending of this earthly life. Even a sense of relief. Some day, each of us will be called back into the Presence. And those of us who love Jesus will get to stay there. No more pain; much joy. Completion, in the full meaning of the word.
It seems to me that a healthy person will do what they can to prolong life, without being a fanatic about it. There's no point in worrying too much about it - you know for sure that you're going anyway, at some point. Relax, and think about good things in your life. Cherish them, for they have a limit.
I have thought sometimes, over the years, that funerals demonstrate something confused in the belief systems held by most Christians. You go to a funeral and those with an emotional attachment to the deceased will all be crying and feeling bad. And yet, for a Christian, dying is like winning the lottery! We should be congratulating the deceased for graduating, rather than selfishly bemoaning their loss. Curious.
I hope that when I pass on, the survivors have a family get-together and enjoy a good time together, knowing that we will meet again in the fullness of time, Lord willing.
In any case, life has its good moments, and they should be enjoyed to the fullest. It is never a waste of time to sit on the front porch and enjoy the occasional nice day. Make the most of it.
There are two kinds of people - who, being thrown out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute: one kind will scream all the way down; the other will enjoy the view. I think I am one of the latter group.
I'm 54 years old, and enjoying the view!
-Pop
There comes a time in every person's life when you know for sure that you will die. I don't think young people can really conceive of this. It comes as a realization one day that you really aren't getting out of this life, alive.
I am a Christian; and it is appointed to every man (person) to die once. This is an intellectual understanding. I have an idea about what comes after, and yes, I believe I will be going to Heaven to be with Jesus. So I'm not really afraid of death. But I'm not in any particular hurry to get there, either. That's for later. My time is not yet. It's just that I now realize that someday it really will happen, to me.
There is a curious freedom in the realization that there will be an ending of this earthly life. Even a sense of relief. Some day, each of us will be called back into the Presence. And those of us who love Jesus will get to stay there. No more pain; much joy. Completion, in the full meaning of the word.
It seems to me that a healthy person will do what they can to prolong life, without being a fanatic about it. There's no point in worrying too much about it - you know for sure that you're going anyway, at some point. Relax, and think about good things in your life. Cherish them, for they have a limit.
I have thought sometimes, over the years, that funerals demonstrate something confused in the belief systems held by most Christians. You go to a funeral and those with an emotional attachment to the deceased will all be crying and feeling bad. And yet, for a Christian, dying is like winning the lottery! We should be congratulating the deceased for graduating, rather than selfishly bemoaning their loss. Curious.
I hope that when I pass on, the survivors have a family get-together and enjoy a good time together, knowing that we will meet again in the fullness of time, Lord willing.
In any case, life has its good moments, and they should be enjoyed to the fullest. It is never a waste of time to sit on the front porch and enjoy the occasional nice day. Make the most of it.
There are two kinds of people - who, being thrown out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute: one kind will scream all the way down; the other will enjoy the view. I think I am one of the latter group.
I'm 54 years old, and enjoying the view!
-Pop
Friday, November 16, 2007
My Discworld Character!
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Which Discworld Character are you like (with pics) created with QuizFarm.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as Cohen The Barbarian You are Cohen the Barbarian! The greatest hero that ever lived! That is, you were! But you are still alive and kicking! And slashing, and biting, and hitting. You have a lot of experience at not dieing, and are extremely difficult to kill (you've survived this long). So you're old, but still loot and pillage. And you have very nice diamond dentures!
|
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Tolerance - Today's Buzz Word
Howdy, everybody;
There's this idea going around the US nowadays that it is wrong to be 'against' most anything. They call it lack of tolerance. The 'politically correct' idea is that being 'intolerant' is a bad thing.
Let's examine that idea.
Tolerance is the idea that if somebody believes or acts differently than you do, you put up with it rather than outright rejecting it. For instance, someone I know smokes. In public, I tolerate it, but I stand upwind.
However, I draw the line if that person were to come to my home and want to smoke indoors. I do not want my house to smell like cigarette smoke; I won't 'tolerate' it. So I ask that person to please not smoke indoors. If they persist, I ask them to leave. If they don't want to leave, I will kick them out.
If your tolerance was unlimited, you would have no say whatever in anything that happens, even in your home. Your dog pees in the floor - what, where's your tolerance?
So, obviously, 'tolerance' has limits. And everybody has a line somewhere in their head that has 'tolerance' on one side of it and 'intolerance' on the other side - and that is true of every conceivable point of contention. This is a life-style choice, and we all make them.
So we're all intolerant about some things. All of us. Get over it.
Is such lack of 'tolerance' wrong? I don't think so.
I think 'intolerance' is evil only if it turns into hate. At that point, it has become prejudice or bigotry.
This idea (that intolerance of any sort is bad) is promoted mainly by liberals. The intent is to paint conservatives in a bad light, because conservatives have standards of acceptable conduct that make it easy to call them intolerant. They ignore the fact that each of us should be allowed to decide what we will and won't tolerate. If we can't do that, then this is no longer a free country. If we can't think what we want, then we are not free.
Next time a liberal complains to me about my lack of tolerance, I'm going to ask him where his tolerance is of me and my belief system. It seems to me the liberals want 'tolerance' only as long as it's everybody else being tolerant of them and their agenda. They have no 'tolerance' at all in the other direction. The really funny thing is that they apparently don't see the built-in contradiction in their thinking.
As for me, I'll be tolerant or intolerant as I see fit. If you don't like it - you are an intolerant hypocrite!
- Pop
There's this idea going around the US nowadays that it is wrong to be 'against' most anything. They call it lack of tolerance. The 'politically correct' idea is that being 'intolerant' is a bad thing.
Let's examine that idea.
Tolerance is the idea that if somebody believes or acts differently than you do, you put up with it rather than outright rejecting it. For instance, someone I know smokes. In public, I tolerate it, but I stand upwind.
However, I draw the line if that person were to come to my home and want to smoke indoors. I do not want my house to smell like cigarette smoke; I won't 'tolerate' it. So I ask that person to please not smoke indoors. If they persist, I ask them to leave. If they don't want to leave, I will kick them out.
If your tolerance was unlimited, you would have no say whatever in anything that happens, even in your home. Your dog pees in the floor - what, where's your tolerance?
So, obviously, 'tolerance' has limits. And everybody has a line somewhere in their head that has 'tolerance' on one side of it and 'intolerance' on the other side - and that is true of every conceivable point of contention. This is a life-style choice, and we all make them.
So we're all intolerant about some things. All of us. Get over it.
Is such lack of 'tolerance' wrong? I don't think so.
I think 'intolerance' is evil only if it turns into hate. At that point, it has become prejudice or bigotry.
This idea (that intolerance of any sort is bad) is promoted mainly by liberals. The intent is to paint conservatives in a bad light, because conservatives have standards of acceptable conduct that make it easy to call them intolerant. They ignore the fact that each of us should be allowed to decide what we will and won't tolerate. If we can't do that, then this is no longer a free country. If we can't think what we want, then we are not free.
Next time a liberal complains to me about my lack of tolerance, I'm going to ask him where his tolerance is of me and my belief system. It seems to me the liberals want 'tolerance' only as long as it's everybody else being tolerant of them and their agenda. They have no 'tolerance' at all in the other direction. The really funny thing is that they apparently don't see the built-in contradiction in their thinking.
As for me, I'll be tolerant or intolerant as I see fit. If you don't like it - you are an intolerant hypocrite!
- Pop
Friday, September 28, 2007
Far Left Inconsistency
How come the people on the far left spend so much effort promoting "Constitutional Separation of Church and State" which does not, in fact, exist in the Constitution of the United States; and yet they also spend great effort to deny "the Right to Bear Arms" of an individual, which IS in the Constitution?
There's an agenda, there. They negate the Constitution on at least two counts.
I'll tell you what. This isn't original with me, but - "I'll use my Second Amendment rights to defend your First Amendment Rights - if you'll use your First Amendment rights to defend my Second Amendment rights."
The Constitution is of a piece - you either accept the whole thing, or you don't. If you don't, feel free to leave.
-Pop
There's an agenda, there. They negate the Constitution on at least two counts.
I'll tell you what. This isn't original with me, but - "I'll use my Second Amendment rights to defend your First Amendment Rights - if you'll use your First Amendment rights to defend my Second Amendment rights."
The Constitution is of a piece - you either accept the whole thing, or you don't. If you don't, feel free to leave.
-Pop
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Pacifism - Wrong!
Violence is something that exists in life, and sooner or later all of us will be confronted with it on some level. Many people are taught to submit when confronted with violence. These people tend to believe that in order to be 'peaceful' they must never be aggressive themselves. After all, Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. These people are taught, falsely, that if they submit, the bad guys will not hurt them. But that puts the decision about your welfare in someone else's hands - and at best, that someone has already demonstrated zero respect of you and your rights.
In some cases, this may work as a survival strategy, but by definition it puts you at the mercy of the aggressor. Pacifism is not a survival strategy in the real world - it only works when EVERYBODY is a pacifist. One aggressive individual in a room full of pacifists is THE BOSS, and the pacifists have no rights.
It is appropriate and moral to be aggressive in response to an attack. The basis of this morality is in not being the initiator of the conflict.
A careful reading of the Bible shows that 'turning the other cheek' means to not respond to insults or other similar provocation with force. But when the provocation escalates to bodily harm to you or other innocents, or even hurting you in a financial way by stealing what is yours, then you have the moral right and obligation to defend yourself. A truly excellent treatment of this subject can be found at The Cornered Cat. Highly, highly recommended.
It is possible and right to be a non-pacifist, deal from a position of strength, and still be a moral person who loves God.
-Pop
In some cases, this may work as a survival strategy, but by definition it puts you at the mercy of the aggressor. Pacifism is not a survival strategy in the real world - it only works when EVERYBODY is a pacifist. One aggressive individual in a room full of pacifists is THE BOSS, and the pacifists have no rights.
It is appropriate and moral to be aggressive in response to an attack. The basis of this morality is in not being the initiator of the conflict.
A careful reading of the Bible shows that 'turning the other cheek' means to not respond to insults or other similar provocation with force. But when the provocation escalates to bodily harm to you or other innocents, or even hurting you in a financial way by stealing what is yours, then you have the moral right and obligation to defend yourself. A truly excellent treatment of this subject can be found at The Cornered Cat. Highly, highly recommended.
It is possible and right to be a non-pacifist, deal from a position of strength, and still be a moral person who loves God.
-Pop
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Violence!
I just read an article describing how many Utah schools are either not commemorating 9/11 or are downplaying it. The text of the article stated, regarding the children, "we don't want them to dwell on violence".
It occurs to me that, though we all want to protect our children from violence, hiding it from them may be a mistake of major proportions. After all, it is a violent world!
Now, I'm not saying we should support violence, or put a positive spin on it. But I am saying that our children will have to learn how to deal with it at some point in their lives. The ability to deal with violence, both emotionally and physically, needs to be part of the training and education of every person, so that when confronted with it, a reasoned response can be generated.
This might be anything from calming down someone who is about to go ballistic, all the way to taking the initiative to defend yourself when physically attacked instead of just giving up. Right now, so many people are being taught that, when attacked, give the aggressor what he wants and he will go away. Sometimes it does happen like that. But many times, it does not. As witness the Virginia Tech massacre. Some of the students and teachers were mentally prepared to defend themselves - and some were not. Particularly in an execution scenario, doing nothing is not a survival strategy that works.
I believe that educating people about violence would improve the ratio of those able to defend themselves, if done correctly. And I think we would become a healthier society because of this. Denying that violence exists will not make it go away - therefore it is absolutely necessary to learn how to deal with it.
God help us if we ever get a U.S. President that believes in going belly-up at the first sign of aggression.
-Pop
It occurs to me that, though we all want to protect our children from violence, hiding it from them may be a mistake of major proportions. After all, it is a violent world!
Now, I'm not saying we should support violence, or put a positive spin on it. But I am saying that our children will have to learn how to deal with it at some point in their lives. The ability to deal with violence, both emotionally and physically, needs to be part of the training and education of every person, so that when confronted with it, a reasoned response can be generated.
This might be anything from calming down someone who is about to go ballistic, all the way to taking the initiative to defend yourself when physically attacked instead of just giving up. Right now, so many people are being taught that, when attacked, give the aggressor what he wants and he will go away. Sometimes it does happen like that. But many times, it does not. As witness the Virginia Tech massacre. Some of the students and teachers were mentally prepared to defend themselves - and some were not. Particularly in an execution scenario, doing nothing is not a survival strategy that works.
I believe that educating people about violence would improve the ratio of those able to defend themselves, if done correctly. And I think we would become a healthier society because of this. Denying that violence exists will not make it go away - therefore it is absolutely necessary to learn how to deal with it.
God help us if we ever get a U.S. President that believes in going belly-up at the first sign of aggression.
-Pop
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Belief Systems, Science, Evolution, Critical Thinking, and the Bible
Howdy, everybody;
I think everyone can agree that any rational belief system must be based insofar as possible on verifiable fact, although possibly not limited to it. If you have a belief system that actually contradicts the truth, you are in serious trouble. In fact, this is the primary yardstick used to measure insanity.
Of course, having a belief system that is based on truth does not guarantee your safety (or popularity) if the majority of people around you do not share your beliefs. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, by the church, for his belief that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. His viewpoint was dismissed out of hand by the religious leaders of his time, because they did not bother to examine the facts on which his belief was based. Had they done so, and worked out a solution as the modern day church has done, our science would probably be several hundred years advanced at this point. Of course we know now by direct observation that Bruno (as well as earlier astronomers) was correct.
My point here is that the truth, or verifiable fact, is the best tool available for exploring the universe around you and trying to understand it. Science is a system for discovering the truth (fact) with high confidence. The standard procedure in science is: a hypothesis is made; experiments are made to test the hypothesis; if verified, it becomes a theory; if disproved, it is discarded.
A lot of people throw around the word "Theory" without knowing the precise definition. In this article I use the word "theory" in it's precise definition as related to science. Sadly, most of the public, much of the media, and even some "scientists" do not use it correctly. In common (inprecise) use, the word theory is used as a synonym for hypothesis. Not in this article. The reason I am stressing this is that most people do not realize how much testing goes in to a hypothesis before it becomes a theory.
Any scientific theory has passed every test, and every attempt to disprove it has failed. A theory has a lot going for it: it has been subject to sustained efforts to prove it is wrong - and those efforts have failed. That doesn't guarantee it is absolute truth, because it may be disproved later by new information or tests; but at the moment, it is the truth as understood by science. A theory is NOT just an opinion expressed by a scientist. A theory has stood in the face of every test anyone has conceived to apply to it, without fail. In common use, people say theory when they mean hypothesis - but in the world of science, theory means a concept that has been tested and found to be true for all known cases.
Those tests mentioned above are why you sometimes hear about a theory being changed. Sometimes, new information makes some part of a theory invalid, but a change or two is made and it becomes valid again. At this point, the theory goes back through the testing phase just as when it was a hypothesis. So science is a dynamic process which is self correcting and always changing based on new knowledge.
As it happens, I am a Christian. I am also strongly science oriented. And I do not believe that it is possible that there is any conflict between observed reality and the Bible. If there is, either my facts are wrong, or I have misinterpreted the Bible. I have yet to find any observable, provable fact which actually contradicts the Bible. It's true that there are many things in the Bible which cannot be proved (or disproved) by science. That's OK. That's where the faith part comes in. But nothing I have seen in my studies has invalidated the Bible. If you think about it, that is a very strong statement for the truth of the Bible. But by the same token, bear in mind that the Bible is very much subject to interpretation - as is science.
It is necessary to reconcile observed reality and religious beliefs. Let's face it - something's got to give. If you know something is true for a fact, and you believe something that conflicts with the fact, the belief has to be adjusted or discarded. Any other solution is not rational.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (evolution) has been subject to attempts to disprove it for many, many years, and so far it has not been disproved. This theory says that species evolve over time by natural selection; that is, say, a mutation occurs in an individual. If it is a useful mutation, and benefits the individual, that individual may pass it on to any children; but if it is not a useful mutation, it causes the individual to tend not to survive long enough to reproduce. This process, over long periods of time, produces change within a species, and in fact can produce new species. Note that evolution is observable in everyday life - it is the process by which dogs and horses (and many other critters) are bred.
There is another way to look at evolution that is not so widely known. It is called Theistic Evolution. This is the idea that the theory of evolution is correct in it's observable effects, but rather than random processes causing mutations and change, these things are directly controlled by God. Or alternatively, God set in motion the process of evolution because He knew it would produce the desired results. One of the interesting things about this is that the observable process is exactly the same as conventional evolution. To a dispassionate observer, the observed events of the process are identical.
This idea allows a person to reconcile this theory with a belief in God and the Bible. But since God wants our belief in Him to be based on faith, He set it up in such a way that the observable facts can be explained with Him or without Him - so each of us has to decide whether to believe in Him. This is the free choice aspect of Salvation in the Bible. Not only do you get to choose whether you want to be saved and have a personal relation with Jesus, but God set up the whole universe in such a way that you can't have that decision taken away from you by obvious facts to turn you one way or the other.
The individual is free to choose either viewpoint. The Bible says that God made us. It certainly appears that this is the way He did it. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure He will sort me out later.
There are many other areas similar to this in science and the Bible where there is apparent conflict until you look deeper. For instance, I am struck by the apparent similarities between cosmology (the Big Bang Theory) and the book of Genesis. Even the multi-verse brane hypothesis is pretty interesting in this context. But that would be the subject of another discussion.
So it appears I have gone to some trouble to reconcile my beliefs in Jesus and the Bible and the universe as understood by science. I don't want to abandon either. Science is a valuable tool for understanding, which is very reliable; and my belief in Jesus is central to my happiness in this life (and the next one).
John 14:6 (NIV) says, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This shows that Jesus placed a very high premium on truth, so much so that He actually identifies Himself with it. Science is useful for discovering the universe around us, which was created by God and Jesus - this is a very valid, rational way to explore the universe.
We must be unflinching in our search for truth. It takes us where it takes us. But Jesus will be there, waiting for us, when we find Him. After all, He's the Truth.
-Pop
I think everyone can agree that any rational belief system must be based insofar as possible on verifiable fact, although possibly not limited to it. If you have a belief system that actually contradicts the truth, you are in serious trouble. In fact, this is the primary yardstick used to measure insanity.
Of course, having a belief system that is based on truth does not guarantee your safety (or popularity) if the majority of people around you do not share your beliefs. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, by the church, for his belief that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. His viewpoint was dismissed out of hand by the religious leaders of his time, because they did not bother to examine the facts on which his belief was based. Had they done so, and worked out a solution as the modern day church has done, our science would probably be several hundred years advanced at this point. Of course we know now by direct observation that Bruno (as well as earlier astronomers) was correct.
My point here is that the truth, or verifiable fact, is the best tool available for exploring the universe around you and trying to understand it. Science is a system for discovering the truth (fact) with high confidence. The standard procedure in science is: a hypothesis is made; experiments are made to test the hypothesis; if verified, it becomes a theory; if disproved, it is discarded.
A lot of people throw around the word "Theory" without knowing the precise definition. In this article I use the word "theory" in it's precise definition as related to science. Sadly, most of the public, much of the media, and even some "scientists" do not use it correctly. In common (inprecise) use, the word theory is used as a synonym for hypothesis. Not in this article. The reason I am stressing this is that most people do not realize how much testing goes in to a hypothesis before it becomes a theory.
Any scientific theory has passed every test, and every attempt to disprove it has failed. A theory has a lot going for it: it has been subject to sustained efforts to prove it is wrong - and those efforts have failed. That doesn't guarantee it is absolute truth, because it may be disproved later by new information or tests; but at the moment, it is the truth as understood by science. A theory is NOT just an opinion expressed by a scientist. A theory has stood in the face of every test anyone has conceived to apply to it, without fail. In common use, people say theory when they mean hypothesis - but in the world of science, theory means a concept that has been tested and found to be true for all known cases.
Those tests mentioned above are why you sometimes hear about a theory being changed. Sometimes, new information makes some part of a theory invalid, but a change or two is made and it becomes valid again. At this point, the theory goes back through the testing phase just as when it was a hypothesis. So science is a dynamic process which is self correcting and always changing based on new knowledge.
As it happens, I am a Christian. I am also strongly science oriented. And I do not believe that it is possible that there is any conflict between observed reality and the Bible. If there is, either my facts are wrong, or I have misinterpreted the Bible. I have yet to find any observable, provable fact which actually contradicts the Bible. It's true that there are many things in the Bible which cannot be proved (or disproved) by science. That's OK. That's where the faith part comes in. But nothing I have seen in my studies has invalidated the Bible. If you think about it, that is a very strong statement for the truth of the Bible. But by the same token, bear in mind that the Bible is very much subject to interpretation - as is science.
It is necessary to reconcile observed reality and religious beliefs. Let's face it - something's got to give. If you know something is true for a fact, and you believe something that conflicts with the fact, the belief has to be adjusted or discarded. Any other solution is not rational.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (evolution) has been subject to attempts to disprove it for many, many years, and so far it has not been disproved. This theory says that species evolve over time by natural selection; that is, say, a mutation occurs in an individual. If it is a useful mutation, and benefits the individual, that individual may pass it on to any children; but if it is not a useful mutation, it causes the individual to tend not to survive long enough to reproduce. This process, over long periods of time, produces change within a species, and in fact can produce new species. Note that evolution is observable in everyday life - it is the process by which dogs and horses (and many other critters) are bred.
There is another way to look at evolution that is not so widely known. It is called Theistic Evolution. This is the idea that the theory of evolution is correct in it's observable effects, but rather than random processes causing mutations and change, these things are directly controlled by God. Or alternatively, God set in motion the process of evolution because He knew it would produce the desired results. One of the interesting things about this is that the observable process is exactly the same as conventional evolution. To a dispassionate observer, the observed events of the process are identical.
This idea allows a person to reconcile this theory with a belief in God and the Bible. But since God wants our belief in Him to be based on faith, He set it up in such a way that the observable facts can be explained with Him or without Him - so each of us has to decide whether to believe in Him. This is the free choice aspect of Salvation in the Bible. Not only do you get to choose whether you want to be saved and have a personal relation with Jesus, but God set up the whole universe in such a way that you can't have that decision taken away from you by obvious facts to turn you one way or the other.
The individual is free to choose either viewpoint. The Bible says that God made us. It certainly appears that this is the way He did it. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure He will sort me out later.
There are many other areas similar to this in science and the Bible where there is apparent conflict until you look deeper. For instance, I am struck by the apparent similarities between cosmology (the Big Bang Theory) and the book of Genesis. Even the multi-verse brane hypothesis is pretty interesting in this context. But that would be the subject of another discussion.
So it appears I have gone to some trouble to reconcile my beliefs in Jesus and the Bible and the universe as understood by science. I don't want to abandon either. Science is a valuable tool for understanding, which is very reliable; and my belief in Jesus is central to my happiness in this life (and the next one).
John 14:6 (NIV) says, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This shows that Jesus placed a very high premium on truth, so much so that He actually identifies Himself with it. Science is useful for discovering the universe around us, which was created by God and Jesus - this is a very valid, rational way to explore the universe.
We must be unflinching in our search for truth. It takes us where it takes us. But Jesus will be there, waiting for us, when we find Him. After all, He's the Truth.
-Pop
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Right to Defend Yourself
Hello, All;
My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen at Virginia Tech. Perhaps this event has affected the timing of this entry, but I had already planned to write about self defense, so there is only a coincidental relation.
I legally carry a concealed handgun. I carry everywhere the law allows me to carry. (Those of you who know who I am, please maintain my anonymity. Thanks.)
If I had been in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, I probably would have died, too, because I would not have been carrying my gun in a gun free zone. Apparently, all but one of those students were also law-abiding citizens.
The law prevented that percentage of people who might have had the wherewithal to defend themselves with equal force from doing so.
The only effective weapons in the gun-free zone were held by - you guessed it - somebody who did not give a rip about whether he was breaking the law.
This is why gun control laws do not work to protect people. Again, and again - only law-abiding citizens would be de-clawed by an act of law. Even removing legal means of purchasing guns would not help - it just means that the crooks would buy guns via black market and us law-abiding citizens would not have guns. This is the achilles heel of the entire concept of gun control law - it only affects the good guys. (Here's an excellent diatribe on the practicality of gun control: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/meditations-on-gun-control.html ).
Instead, there should be NO gun free zones. If the law trusts me (after suitable qualification) to carry in public, why are there areas where they don't trust me? In Texas, a person with a CHL permit is statistically 14 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and 5 1/2 times less likely to commit a violent crime. (http://www.gunfacts.info/ , page 9-10). If there were no gun-free zones, most people bent on murder would at least have to consider that someone might stop them. And indeed, if some nut case were executing everyone around you and you had a gun (or other weapon), wouldn't you try to take him down? Therefore, if you and I are together somewhere, you are safer with me than you would be without me.
How about the police? Why can't they defend you? Well, for one thing, chances are, they're not where you are at any given moment. The police are a deterrent, and they sometimes catch the baddies after it's all over, but they are not usually on hand to actually protect you. This is not putting them down, this is just the way the universe works. You must ultimately take responsibility for your own self defense.
Everyone should understand - there are predators among us; and to them, you are food. They will take what they want from you without remorse or pity, and they won't loose sleep over whether they hurt or killed you to get it. And sometimes, as in the case at Virginia Tech, they're just nuts. They do not feel your pain. They are, however, cowards. They don't like the idea that somebody might shoot back.
I believe firmly that I have the moral and legal right, as well as the strongest obligation, to try to defend myself and my family and friends, although most of them are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
The best discussion I have seen of the morality of concealed carry, as well as many practical aspects of it, can be found at http://www.corneredcat.com/ - a website I very much recommend to anyone with an interest in concealed carry and self defense by use of handguns. It is authored by a fine lady named Kathy Jackson and is intended for women, but is very well-written and applicable for anyone. Particularly, read the parts about how all this ties in with being a Christian.
Some who read this will probably think I go around being scared and that's why I carry a gun. Not at all. But in my time, I've seen the changes in society and the world, I've seen the advent of major amounts of drug abuse, the failure of the family become widespread, and I've seen terrorists strike inside the United States. I've seen an amazing lack of manners and respect for other people become widespread. I've seen several homes broken into within a mile or so of my home, and I've seen the map showing registered sex offenders in my area (and that's the ones they know about!). If you see it is likely to rain, you get an umbrella. If you think chances are pretty good that sooner or later you're going to want to stop some baddie from doing bad things to you, you get prepared.
And I did. You should, too.
Good evening!
-Pop
My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen at Virginia Tech. Perhaps this event has affected the timing of this entry, but I had already planned to write about self defense, so there is only a coincidental relation.
I legally carry a concealed handgun. I carry everywhere the law allows me to carry. (Those of you who know who I am, please maintain my anonymity. Thanks.)
If I had been in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, I probably would have died, too, because I would not have been carrying my gun in a gun free zone. Apparently, all but one of those students were also law-abiding citizens.
The law prevented that percentage of people who might have had the wherewithal to defend themselves with equal force from doing so.
The only effective weapons in the gun-free zone were held by - you guessed it - somebody who did not give a rip about whether he was breaking the law.
This is why gun control laws do not work to protect people. Again, and again - only law-abiding citizens would be de-clawed by an act of law. Even removing legal means of purchasing guns would not help - it just means that the crooks would buy guns via black market and us law-abiding citizens would not have guns. This is the achilles heel of the entire concept of gun control law - it only affects the good guys. (Here's an excellent diatribe on the practicality of gun control: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/meditations-on-gun-control.html ).
Instead, there should be NO gun free zones. If the law trusts me (after suitable qualification) to carry in public, why are there areas where they don't trust me? In Texas, a person with a CHL permit is statistically 14 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and 5 1/2 times less likely to commit a violent crime. (http://www.gunfacts.info/ , page 9-10). If there were no gun-free zones, most people bent on murder would at least have to consider that someone might stop them. And indeed, if some nut case were executing everyone around you and you had a gun (or other weapon), wouldn't you try to take him down? Therefore, if you and I are together somewhere, you are safer with me than you would be without me.
How about the police? Why can't they defend you? Well, for one thing, chances are, they're not where you are at any given moment. The police are a deterrent, and they sometimes catch the baddies after it's all over, but they are not usually on hand to actually protect you. This is not putting them down, this is just the way the universe works. You must ultimately take responsibility for your own self defense.
Everyone should understand - there are predators among us; and to them, you are food. They will take what they want from you without remorse or pity, and they won't loose sleep over whether they hurt or killed you to get it. And sometimes, as in the case at Virginia Tech, they're just nuts. They do not feel your pain. They are, however, cowards. They don't like the idea that somebody might shoot back.
I believe firmly that I have the moral and legal right, as well as the strongest obligation, to try to defend myself and my family and friends, although most of them are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
The best discussion I have seen of the morality of concealed carry, as well as many practical aspects of it, can be found at http://www.corneredcat.com/ - a website I very much recommend to anyone with an interest in concealed carry and self defense by use of handguns. It is authored by a fine lady named Kathy Jackson and is intended for women, but is very well-written and applicable for anyone. Particularly, read the parts about how all this ties in with being a Christian.
Some who read this will probably think I go around being scared and that's why I carry a gun. Not at all. But in my time, I've seen the changes in society and the world, I've seen the advent of major amounts of drug abuse, the failure of the family become widespread, and I've seen terrorists strike inside the United States. I've seen an amazing lack of manners and respect for other people become widespread. I've seen several homes broken into within a mile or so of my home, and I've seen the map showing registered sex offenders in my area (and that's the ones they know about!). If you see it is likely to rain, you get an umbrella. If you think chances are pretty good that sooner or later you're going to want to stop some baddie from doing bad things to you, you get prepared.
And I did. You should, too.
Good evening!
-Pop
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Rule of Law
Howdy. How many people in our country actually believe in the rule of law?
When I get in my Jeep to go to work, I set the cruise control at the speed limit for wherever I am. I have noticed for years that, unless I am in an area where there are frequent speed traps, I get passed a lot, sometimes by people going 20 or 30 mph over the limit.
It occurs to me that all of these people (including me, sometimes) have fallen into the thinking that breaking the law is OK as long as you don't get caught.
This is operating at the maturity level of a child. Threat of punishment is the only deterent, and it only works if the threat is immediate and current.
What we should be doing instead is to live within the law whenever morally possible. We should do this because we live in a country where rule of law is the framework by which we are protected from each other and the government, and we should support this as something we need and want. It's our laws, and we should obey them. It follows that we should also be actively involved in controlling our government, as well, just out of self defense.
-Pop
When I get in my Jeep to go to work, I set the cruise control at the speed limit for wherever I am. I have noticed for years that, unless I am in an area where there are frequent speed traps, I get passed a lot, sometimes by people going 20 or 30 mph over the limit.
It occurs to me that all of these people (including me, sometimes) have fallen into the thinking that breaking the law is OK as long as you don't get caught.
This is operating at the maturity level of a child. Threat of punishment is the only deterent, and it only works if the threat is immediate and current.
What we should be doing instead is to live within the law whenever morally possible. We should do this because we live in a country where rule of law is the framework by which we are protected from each other and the government, and we should support this as something we need and want. It's our laws, and we should obey them. It follows that we should also be actively involved in controlling our government, as well, just out of self defense.
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
