In Novemeber, there was an article in Time that intrigued me. The article suggested that there had been and now is a wide gap between what Time called "the military class" and "the Political Elite". And this is what got me thinking today, as I was thinking about class warfare and its usefulness for political manipulation.
The Times article suggested that the military class was becoming ingrown, as more and more children of military families volunteer for military service. These understand military culture, which values duty, honor and country. And such an ingrown culture is not unlike that of elite academia, which until recently didn't allow ROTC into their university environments. Such a condition can't help but alienate "the Academy" from "the military class" and it widens the gap of understanding between the military and those that work in other areas of government. When such alienation happens, it is no wonder that each talks "past each other", because they have different goals and foci.
While the military has been gathering a more ingrown culture, the political class has forgotten the military's major reason for existing and their duty to protect the citizenry against foreign powers under the protections of a Constitutional government. The "academic elite" are those that usually get into political office these days. Those that serve as "Commander in Chief" aren't required to serve in the military, and as a result, humanitarian emphasis has become as important as our nation's political interests. Humanitarian interests sometimes conflicts with the public interests and the public trust of the elected official and national security issues. Should the elected official do his duty of serving his country as elected or seek to implement a change that is not limited or accountable to the people or other branches of government?
Yesterday the Washington Post had an article about the rising costs of campaigning and how limited the average person is in running for office and having an ability to win. Today, the wealth accumulated by our elected officials has furthered the gap between the citizen and the political class.
Such gaps of wealth accumulation further propitiate a "ruling class" where their personal business interests become a consideration when overseeing public affairs/policy deicisions. Where is the ethics of a Congress that can grant exceptions and exemptions to their political allies? Croynism becomes the culture of corruption and leaves the little guy wondering what is happening to his own material security.
Our society if fraught today with many Wars. The culture war between faith and the political; the class warfare between the rich and the poor; the political class and the military; and the ruling class and the peasant. Is it any wonder why the French revolted when their country used public trust and public funds to help other countries, while their own society disintergrated into desolation? Is it any wonder that those that play on political chaos for ther own political gain have the makings of dictators that have no sense of boundary regarding their office? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupiers have expressed various concerns, and why the political class isn't interested because they don't really have to be? They are unaccountable and well equipped to take care of themselves without considering what their own self interest costs the nation. Whenever government and its officials become a "law unto themselves", then the rest of us had better be prepared for some rough waters ahead.
Showing posts with label business interests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business interests. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Sovereignty and the Global
Today's world leave one with a quandary about what to do and how to thnk in "global ways". Doesn't globalism dissolve identficaton and personal boundaries? These are questions about Sovereignty.
Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.
I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.
It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!
One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.
I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!
Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.
I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.
It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!
One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.
I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Economically Savy and Religiously Biased Breed a Culture of Mis-Guided "Interests"
Yesterday, I listened to a presentation on economics, and heard about a religious incident. Both concerned me, in where our country is "going".
The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.
Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.
The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.
Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.
The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?
The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.
What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.
A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.
Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.
The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.
Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.
The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.
Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.
The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?
The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.
What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.
A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.
Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Human Rights, Individual Freedom and Social Order
Globalism is not an option in today's world. The question facing the world is where are the boundaries to lie? Do nation states have a right to exist as separate entities? Does every human deserve respect and be given dignity, irregardless of behavior or culture? These are the questions of internationalism, internationalizing Nation States, and the "rule of law". I know I do not have the answers, and probably don't understand all the questions, but it is one that interests me and that I think is of utmost importance for all concerned to address. I am learning.
People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?
People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?
These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".
People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?
People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?
These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Misunderstandings and Such
I have been told that I "take the ball and run" when I respond on another blog site. I have been told more than once, so there must be some truth to this. As I reflected on this, I have some 'theories about why this may be so...
1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.
2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.
3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..
4.) I have a learning disorder.
Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?
1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.
2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.
3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..
4.) I have a learning disorder.
Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Various Thoughts on Identity
I have had numerous thoughts today on identity from different sources of "inspiration". The Theme of them all is unity and diversity.
Our American identity is formed around our freedoms to be different. The government for the most part, is to protect those freedoms so that we live in peace. While this is what is provided under the Constitution through our leaders pledge to uphold the values of the individual, lately, those individual values have been challenged. Just this morning I read an editorial about our government stepping in to settle disputes between conflicting parties. So, in effect, the management and leadership of a privately owned business cannot settle its disputes with employees through union leadership without government interference. This is a cumbersome way to protect the interests of "WHO"? The Common Good, as in socialism? The government's interest in a paternalistic determination of free persons salaries?
The other news story was about the African American that killed 4 police officiers and how the "black community" is suggesting that the crime happened because of the oppression of the "black population". It is the issue of minority rights. My son said to me that the terms "nigger", "chicano", or "wussie" was used not to label a certain ethnic group, but to describe certain attitudinal and lifestyle behaviors. Those who have attitudes that "life owes them something".
These labels, and the government's determination to intervene have to do with a "rights attitude". One has the rights attitude of market economics, while the other has the rights attitude from "bitter experiences".
Today's sermon was another thought sifter. Since it is Palm Sunday, it was on the Cross. The pastor preached on solidarity of identity with Jesus in our experience. Usually those in America, and the West in general, have not identified in this way as there life is not challenged in the ways in which Jesus' life was, as we are, for the most part, not persecuted, to the point of death. Nor is our government set up to disregard the "rule of law".
While sitting there, I was struggling with the image that this made about "god". God demands, takes, and undermines identity. We are to identified with Christ to the point of death and this is called discipleship. The pastor called it identity Theft.
Identity Theft means that someone has cheated, stollen, and killed someone of their identity. And this is what Christian faith is about? God is not the "giver", "gifter", and "blesser" of life and the "Giver of personal identity", but a demanding, jealous and deterministic God. And all of that is validated by Scripture and theology.
The pastor said that this was to be every Christian's identity, as we should all "be like Christ". That is the "ideal", but this is utter nonsense, when it comes to the real world. Otherwise, we would be telling those who suffer under various "evils" to accept our "lot in life" as "god's will" and "design". When others do wrong, then we are to serve them and allow evil to prevail (believeing in an afterlife, where God will meet out just desserts. But, this also meanswe must believe in a personal God and the afterlife, which not all believe.). This view is absurd and not workable unless all Christians are to be followers of whatever "leadership" is around.
The pastor called for submission. While submission is a positive trait for trustworthy leadership, it is co-dependent for untrustworthy leadership. This is the "call" for discernment, as "otherwise", this is where abused wives are told to submit to their husbands, as Scriptures demand. There is no simple choice, when it comes to living life in this world.
I find that personal identity must be strong enough to resist such tactics of subversion, while allowing another difference. The aforementioned killing of the police officiers was an identification of "victimhood". The government's determination of another's lifestyle is undermining to personal value and choice, which undermines diversity for unity. We can never seek unity first, without affirming diversity without discrimnating against someone. Affirming diversity first will lead to understanding difference, while also affirming commonality of human identification factors. This is an important way to approach life in this world today, where diversity has been used as a means of demand, without leading to understanding of difference....
Our American identity is formed around our freedoms to be different. The government for the most part, is to protect those freedoms so that we live in peace. While this is what is provided under the Constitution through our leaders pledge to uphold the values of the individual, lately, those individual values have been challenged. Just this morning I read an editorial about our government stepping in to settle disputes between conflicting parties. So, in effect, the management and leadership of a privately owned business cannot settle its disputes with employees through union leadership without government interference. This is a cumbersome way to protect the interests of "WHO"? The Common Good, as in socialism? The government's interest in a paternalistic determination of free persons salaries?
The other news story was about the African American that killed 4 police officiers and how the "black community" is suggesting that the crime happened because of the oppression of the "black population". It is the issue of minority rights. My son said to me that the terms "nigger", "chicano", or "wussie" was used not to label a certain ethnic group, but to describe certain attitudinal and lifestyle behaviors. Those who have attitudes that "life owes them something".
These labels, and the government's determination to intervene have to do with a "rights attitude". One has the rights attitude of market economics, while the other has the rights attitude from "bitter experiences".
Today's sermon was another thought sifter. Since it is Palm Sunday, it was on the Cross. The pastor preached on solidarity of identity with Jesus in our experience. Usually those in America, and the West in general, have not identified in this way as there life is not challenged in the ways in which Jesus' life was, as we are, for the most part, not persecuted, to the point of death. Nor is our government set up to disregard the "rule of law".
While sitting there, I was struggling with the image that this made about "god". God demands, takes, and undermines identity. We are to identified with Christ to the point of death and this is called discipleship. The pastor called it identity Theft.
Identity Theft means that someone has cheated, stollen, and killed someone of their identity. And this is what Christian faith is about? God is not the "giver", "gifter", and "blesser" of life and the "Giver of personal identity", but a demanding, jealous and deterministic God. And all of that is validated by Scripture and theology.
The pastor said that this was to be every Christian's identity, as we should all "be like Christ". That is the "ideal", but this is utter nonsense, when it comes to the real world. Otherwise, we would be telling those who suffer under various "evils" to accept our "lot in life" as "god's will" and "design". When others do wrong, then we are to serve them and allow evil to prevail (believeing in an afterlife, where God will meet out just desserts. But, this also meanswe must believe in a personal God and the afterlife, which not all believe.). This view is absurd and not workable unless all Christians are to be followers of whatever "leadership" is around.
The pastor called for submission. While submission is a positive trait for trustworthy leadership, it is co-dependent for untrustworthy leadership. This is the "call" for discernment, as "otherwise", this is where abused wives are told to submit to their husbands, as Scriptures demand. There is no simple choice, when it comes to living life in this world.
I find that personal identity must be strong enough to resist such tactics of subversion, while allowing another difference. The aforementioned killing of the police officiers was an identification of "victimhood". The government's determination of another's lifestyle is undermining to personal value and choice, which undermines diversity for unity. We can never seek unity first, without affirming diversity without discrimnating against someone. Affirming diversity first will lead to understanding difference, while also affirming commonality of human identification factors. This is an important way to approach life in this world today, where diversity has been used as a means of demand, without leading to understanding of difference....
Monday, March 9, 2009
Discrimination,Morality, Banking, and Business
The news reported this morning that a Muslim owned bank in Michigan would
do business according to "shairhia law'. The concern was over the "trojan horses" attached to this banking business in their lending practices. The question is one of discrimination, morality and law and it concerns our Constitution, and form of government, as well as our experience of life.
Does a business have a "religious right" to "freedom"? We have legislated that religious institutions are free from taxation, as we believe in the separation of Church and State. But, do the politically-motivated religious have a right to "do business" with "strings attached"? Can a Muslim business use "shairh'ia" law to discriminate about the use of the money loaned? In other words, can these religious/political banks limit the use of the money and determine so, by "shairh'ia" arbitrators?
My husband doesn't think that our country would allow the discrimination under shairh'ia, but many have been concerned about the religious freedom of Christians. Now, it seems, that if religious freedom is allowed for the Christian, then there should be no discrimination toward Islam, either. But, at what costs? Islam is a politicized religion. Their religion does no allow for freedom of conscience. This is troubling, as our whole understanding and system of government was formed around "a freedom of conscience". How can we, as a nation, tolerate the intolerant?
I'm sure lawyers, civil libertarians, and political philosophers have been hard at work in thinking through these complex issues. At what point does business intrude into another's political "conscience". Today's need is not one of religious freedom so much as political freedom. Without political freedom, there is no religious freedom, no matter what a theologian says!
do business according to "shairhia law'. The concern was over the "trojan horses" attached to this banking business in their lending practices. The question is one of discrimination, morality and law and it concerns our Constitution, and form of government, as well as our experience of life.
Does a business have a "religious right" to "freedom"? We have legislated that religious institutions are free from taxation, as we believe in the separation of Church and State. But, do the politically-motivated religious have a right to "do business" with "strings attached"? Can a Muslim business use "shairh'ia" law to discriminate about the use of the money loaned? In other words, can these religious/political banks limit the use of the money and determine so, by "shairh'ia" arbitrators?
My husband doesn't think that our country would allow the discrimination under shairh'ia, but many have been concerned about the religious freedom of Christians. Now, it seems, that if religious freedom is allowed for the Christian, then there should be no discrimination toward Islam, either. But, at what costs? Islam is a politicized religion. Their religion does no allow for freedom of conscience. This is troubling, as our whole understanding and system of government was formed around "a freedom of conscience". How can we, as a nation, tolerate the intolerant?
I'm sure lawyers, civil libertarians, and political philosophers have been hard at work in thinking through these complex issues. At what point does business intrude into another's political "conscience". Today's need is not one of religious freedom so much as political freedom. Without political freedom, there is no religious freedom, no matter what a theologian says!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Fabian Socialism and the Fight for American Ideals
I was just looking up Fabian Socialism tonight. You should look it up, it is alarming! Fabian socialists believe in a "soft" revolution of our economic and political systems, which is happening right before our eyes. The FS mantra is "selflessness", in the name of social justice and for the 'common good". I agree that most of us in the West need to learn to defer, at times, but not lay over and die! Individuality, choice, freedom and justice are not just terms that have no meaning for the "common", but was used to protect the "common". That is the basis of our democracy. That concept of protection of the common is changing. Paternalism is alive and well. Welcome to the world of the Fabian socialist!
There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.
Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.
I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.
Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.
Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.
This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.
There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.
Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.
I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.
Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.
Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.
This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A Woman's Cause and Seeking Justice
I just heard about a woman who sought to bring lawsuit against a large corporation's attempt to destroy her neighborhood. She sought the counsel of the Institute for Justice.
The Institute for Justice seeks to protect individual rights where it concerns 'big business' interests. It is a libertarian organization.
I find that this woman's case was a case to be won, otherwise, big corporations have free reign to do as they please, leaving the individual at the mercy of their whims. This happened during the preparation for the Olympic Games in China, where many were put out of their homes because the government wanted to use their land to promote the game's image.
I respect the vision and cause of the Institute of Justice, as without the individual's representations, we are doomed to be pawns of larger interests that prey upon our rights as human beings. America holds up the indiviudual's right to liberty, because without liberty, we are slaves and we did away with slavery long ago!
The Institute for Justice seeks to protect individual rights where it concerns 'big business' interests. It is a libertarian organization.
I find that this woman's case was a case to be won, otherwise, big corporations have free reign to do as they please, leaving the individual at the mercy of their whims. This happened during the preparation for the Olympic Games in China, where many were put out of their homes because the government wanted to use their land to promote the game's image.
I respect the vision and cause of the Institute of Justice, as without the individual's representations, we are doomed to be pawns of larger interests that prey upon our rights as human beings. America holds up the indiviudual's right to liberty, because without liberty, we are slaves and we did away with slavery long ago!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Limitations
Yesterday, while interacting with someone on another blog, it was pointed out that we have limitations. While I have never doubted that all of us do have limitations, what do these limitations mean?
The psychologist would say that we have limitations of gifting, while the anthropologist would say that our limitation is context. The lawyer would understand the limitation of law, while the politician doesn't grasp any limitation whatsoever!
Individuals are born with certain gifts in understanding, intellectual capacity, and interests. These giftings are only limited by a lack of development.
The anthropologist would understand that our cultural values and understanding of life vis a vis religion will be different. The individual is limited within his scope of context, but this limitation can be overcome. A enlarged world can happen through education, exposure to other cultures, etc.
The rule of law is an important value in the West. It has made our country great because it is the basis of our governing and government. The Law defines what is 'right and wrong" behavior in relationships, whether it be in business transactions, divorce settlements, or settlement of estates. Most of our laws are based on economic boundaries that define what is considered justice.
But, what happens in countries that do not value law? Terrorists or those whose cultures do not allow equality under law, as their cultural values differ from ours, whether through religious prejuidice, or a "saving face" norm, these people cannot be trusted in the same way as Western cultures. How are we to do business withe these cultures? If one believes that only the "in group" is privy for special rights or priviledge because others are infidels, or whether the culture does not allow the acknowledgment of wrong, because of the "loss of face"....These are challenging in our global climate of economic exchange...
The politician, though, is only interested in getting the job, getting elected, appealing to the masses, and being ambiguous. Ambuguity is an important attribute for a politician for then, people can project what they value the most in a form of rhetoric that is broad enough for their view to "fit". The astute politician is a "man for all people", as he represents many and various views. He knows how to manipulate the press and the people for his own advantage, so that he can maintain his public office. Honesty would be a refreshing change in the public square.
Limitations are what we place upon our own life in a free society, either through our own "smallness", or allowing another his overindulgent appetite for what we have. Limitations then, become a matter of "right relationship", where another needs to recognize what has happened and make amends. Justice is about right relationship and right relationship is about law. And law is what makes for peace.
The psychologist would say that we have limitations of gifting, while the anthropologist would say that our limitation is context. The lawyer would understand the limitation of law, while the politician doesn't grasp any limitation whatsoever!
Individuals are born with certain gifts in understanding, intellectual capacity, and interests. These giftings are only limited by a lack of development.
The anthropologist would understand that our cultural values and understanding of life vis a vis religion will be different. The individual is limited within his scope of context, but this limitation can be overcome. A enlarged world can happen through education, exposure to other cultures, etc.
The rule of law is an important value in the West. It has made our country great because it is the basis of our governing and government. The Law defines what is 'right and wrong" behavior in relationships, whether it be in business transactions, divorce settlements, or settlement of estates. Most of our laws are based on economic boundaries that define what is considered justice.
But, what happens in countries that do not value law? Terrorists or those whose cultures do not allow equality under law, as their cultural values differ from ours, whether through religious prejuidice, or a "saving face" norm, these people cannot be trusted in the same way as Western cultures. How are we to do business withe these cultures? If one believes that only the "in group" is privy for special rights or priviledge because others are infidels, or whether the culture does not allow the acknowledgment of wrong, because of the "loss of face"....These are challenging in our global climate of economic exchange...
The politician, though, is only interested in getting the job, getting elected, appealing to the masses, and being ambiguous. Ambuguity is an important attribute for a politician for then, people can project what they value the most in a form of rhetoric that is broad enough for their view to "fit". The astute politician is a "man for all people", as he represents many and various views. He knows how to manipulate the press and the people for his own advantage, so that he can maintain his public office. Honesty would be a refreshing change in the public square.
Limitations are what we place upon our own life in a free society, either through our own "smallness", or allowing another his overindulgent appetite for what we have. Limitations then, become a matter of "right relationship", where another needs to recognize what has happened and make amends. Justice is about right relationship and right relationship is about law. And law is what makes for peace.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Honor Our Values; Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
In today's editorial, the writer commends Obama to "pursue truth, and soon", concerning Guantanamo prison.
I value Obama's declaration to hold to the U.S. Army Field Manuel's methods of interrogation. There should never be an abuse of power like we have heard about at Guantanamo prison. Obama wants to make public what can rightly be revealed. This is good news, for it is only when due process, the rule of law, humane interrogation, privacy and governmental openness that we are all protected, otherwise, we are doome to suffer under those whose arrogance undermines our liberties.
The CATO institute held a panel discussion about these abuses a year ago this past December. Not only was there abusive treatment of prisoners, but there was an arrogant disregard to our government's balance of power, which the justice department was outraged over...
We have an orderly process that requires us to consider the other as important as ourselves. Not only is this a religious ideal, and an important ideal to guide our nation, but it is also important in business practices.
Business in the U.S. has driven all of our interests, hindering building trust, and friendship, which has driven foreign policy. While the free market has benefitted our nation, have we lost much more than we have gained?
I am hoping that the change we have seen in our nation's history with the election of an African American will stand for the future of our American values being upheld. Obama has committed to honor our values "not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."
I value Obama's declaration to hold to the U.S. Army Field Manuel's methods of interrogation. There should never be an abuse of power like we have heard about at Guantanamo prison. Obama wants to make public what can rightly be revealed. This is good news, for it is only when due process, the rule of law, humane interrogation, privacy and governmental openness that we are all protected, otherwise, we are doome to suffer under those whose arrogance undermines our liberties.
The CATO institute held a panel discussion about these abuses a year ago this past December. Not only was there abusive treatment of prisoners, but there was an arrogant disregard to our government's balance of power, which the justice department was outraged over...
We have an orderly process that requires us to consider the other as important as ourselves. Not only is this a religious ideal, and an important ideal to guide our nation, but it is also important in business practices.
Business in the U.S. has driven all of our interests, hindering building trust, and friendship, which has driven foreign policy. While the free market has benefitted our nation, have we lost much more than we have gained?
I am hoping that the change we have seen in our nation's history with the election of an African American will stand for the future of our American values being upheld. Obama has committed to honor our values "not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Are Americans Naive and Too Trusting of Foreign Powers?
In today's paper, it was reported that our mayor was going to China to pursue business interests along with a State representative. Many states in the U.S. are trying to motivate businesses to "come on down" and establish themselves within their borders, so that, state's can build up resources. There is nothing like building a tax base for the State's welfare.
Not only is our mayor seeking China's business, but also he recently toured Russia.
I find this disturbing. Why? Because small town politics and State "goals" could be disastorous when it comes to foreign affairs.
Russia's recent aggression against Georgia, and funnelling weapons to Islamic terrorists through Syria and Iran, is dangerous territory when it comes to "padding our pockets back home". Now, Russia is reported to be in the Carribbean alongside Venezula...! And small town politics is seeking business prospects?
I am terribly troubled as most of us in our small towns are unaware of what is going on. And yet, we will be in the middle of it, I'm afaid, without any "wisdom" from us,"common folk" (the followers)...
Perhaps, American Christians will view this as a great proposal of prosperity and opportunity, while the "common folk" are just naysayers against the "common good". I hope I'm wrong.
Not only is our mayor seeking China's business, but also he recently toured Russia.
I find this disturbing. Why? Because small town politics and State "goals" could be disastorous when it comes to foreign affairs.
Russia's recent aggression against Georgia, and funnelling weapons to Islamic terrorists through Syria and Iran, is dangerous territory when it comes to "padding our pockets back home". Now, Russia is reported to be in the Carribbean alongside Venezula...! And small town politics is seeking business prospects?
I am terribly troubled as most of us in our small towns are unaware of what is going on. And yet, we will be in the middle of it, I'm afaid, without any "wisdom" from us,"common folk" (the followers)...
Perhaps, American Christians will view this as a great proposal of prosperity and opportunity, while the "common folk" are just naysayers against the "common good". I hope I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
