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!!!
Showing posts with label globalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label globalism. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Groups Are Powerful Forces That Undermine Our Liberty
I am concerned over our liberties, because groups have framed and formed their arguments which have political persuasion and power. This is the basis of our culture wars, and will be the demise of our rationality as a nation!
It was known that the Germans used experiments on the Jews, as they dismissed the Jew as worthy of "life". This is the case now for the Jew concerning Islam!
Gay rights activists seek to put their "tolerance messages" in our classrooms and religious groups seek to claim their rights, as well.
We are a diverse nation that was based on the principle of individual liberties. No one person had more power before the law, than any other. Now, groups demand tolerance, where our nation becomes a quadmire of differences of opinion and values of commitment. Groups have more power than individual voices. This should not be, unless tolerance gives us no right to judge or make determinations of any kind...about one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
We need to dissolve powerful lobbyists and make a way back to the local, where voices are known, heard and understood, rather than enlarging to global interests and concerns that devalue our nation and demean our values of liberty!
It was known that the Germans used experiments on the Jews, as they dismissed the Jew as worthy of "life". This is the case now for the Jew concerning Islam!
Gay rights activists seek to put their "tolerance messages" in our classrooms and religious groups seek to claim their rights, as well.
We are a diverse nation that was based on the principle of individual liberties. No one person had more power before the law, than any other. Now, groups demand tolerance, where our nation becomes a quadmire of differences of opinion and values of commitment. Groups have more power than individual voices. This should not be, unless tolerance gives us no right to judge or make determinations of any kind...about one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
We need to dissolve powerful lobbyists and make a way back to the local, where voices are known, heard and understood, rather than enlarging to global interests and concerns that devalue our nation and demean our values of liberty!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Let's Don't Give Up the Ship!
America is unique among nations, as we have no aristocracy, at least in principle. The Founding Fathers were aristocratic as to education, but they defined a nation by her laws, and principle, not by unaccountable power. So, we must not give up the ship today, in our pursuit of a "better tomorrow".
Today, on conservative networks, there was talk and critcism of the mainline press, because they have not held to the same standards in judgeing the President's trip to Ireland during a natural disater in our nation. In lieu of Katrina, many criticized Bush for acting in a compassionate matter. There was also a lack of response to a environmental disaster a year of so ago, in the Gulf that brought horrendous loss of income to many, but the Feds weren't too quick to jump aboard to decide what to do. We had international offers of help from what I remember, but none was taken...as I remember. Yet, the media didn't criticize until it became hard to ignore.
The free press is necessary to a free society, to hold govenrment accountable to the people by informing them. The media also holds the power to manipulate the facts according to those in power, so they can continue their power game and neglect their duties to govern. Let's not give up the ship for accountability for government, or leadership. No one is above embibing on the headiness of power and the Founders knew it!
The Justice Department is acting in some cases like a Global investigator, instead of the protector of the Constitution and defender of the American people and their freedoms. Global economic policy drives everything today, so we cannot deny the power that that holds over our corporations, but when government doesn't know who they are supposed to defend, it becomes confusing quite quickly. One wants to be able to trust that their govenrment is acting with our national interest in mind, but all beauracracies become too big to control and mistakes are made without knowledge because of a lack of interaction between powers. Separation and divided power does not mean that there is no accountability between the branches of government or that States don't have interests that must be considered!
Today, the conservative and liberals are at war, and that is in our own nation. Perhaps, it is just as the Civil War, when there was a disagreement about how to "go forward" concerning the slave issue. The South had to have workers to defend their economic survival. But, the north took the "moral high road" and desired to free slaves.
Some people see the slave issue as a "front" to manipulate around State rights and get a more centralized govenrment. Is this what is happening today? We see that "social justice" promotes similar values about the "poor", for the "moral high rollers", but this time they use Scripture, instead of expanding upon the principle of Scripture. The real issue is globalization, not "social justice". That is a distraction to appeal to man's "higher nature", while those with the real power increase their power base, and maintain control of more and more of the power structures. Isn't this one reason why our govenrment wanted to "own" portions of our major companies...?
Let's don't give up the ship, when America is in trouble. Let's pitch in and help where we can!!!
Today, on conservative networks, there was talk and critcism of the mainline press, because they have not held to the same standards in judgeing the President's trip to Ireland during a natural disater in our nation. In lieu of Katrina, many criticized Bush for acting in a compassionate matter. There was also a lack of response to a environmental disaster a year of so ago, in the Gulf that brought horrendous loss of income to many, but the Feds weren't too quick to jump aboard to decide what to do. We had international offers of help from what I remember, but none was taken...as I remember. Yet, the media didn't criticize until it became hard to ignore.
The free press is necessary to a free society, to hold govenrment accountable to the people by informing them. The media also holds the power to manipulate the facts according to those in power, so they can continue their power game and neglect their duties to govern. Let's not give up the ship for accountability for government, or leadership. No one is above embibing on the headiness of power and the Founders knew it!
The Justice Department is acting in some cases like a Global investigator, instead of the protector of the Constitution and defender of the American people and their freedoms. Global economic policy drives everything today, so we cannot deny the power that that holds over our corporations, but when government doesn't know who they are supposed to defend, it becomes confusing quite quickly. One wants to be able to trust that their govenrment is acting with our national interest in mind, but all beauracracies become too big to control and mistakes are made without knowledge because of a lack of interaction between powers. Separation and divided power does not mean that there is no accountability between the branches of government or that States don't have interests that must be considered!
Today, the conservative and liberals are at war, and that is in our own nation. Perhaps, it is just as the Civil War, when there was a disagreement about how to "go forward" concerning the slave issue. The South had to have workers to defend their economic survival. But, the north took the "moral high road" and desired to free slaves.
Some people see the slave issue as a "front" to manipulate around State rights and get a more centralized govenrment. Is this what is happening today? We see that "social justice" promotes similar values about the "poor", for the "moral high rollers", but this time they use Scripture, instead of expanding upon the principle of Scripture. The real issue is globalization, not "social justice". That is a distraction to appeal to man's "higher nature", while those with the real power increase their power base, and maintain control of more and more of the power structures. Isn't this one reason why our govenrment wanted to "own" portions of our major companies...?
Let's don't give up the ship, when America is in trouble. Let's pitch in and help where we can!!!
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Global Move Via Healthcand Teacher's Unions
The recent judgement that Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional is in appeal. But, that doesn't seem to matter to those that seem to be committed to a "higher law" or "greater purpose", and that is underming State authority.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
Friday, February 4, 2011
What If
What if science proves that there is probably no god? Would it make a difference in how man understands "Man" and/or society? How would man organize society? Would man structure society so that those that are "Not the Fittest" would have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, such as in our Constitutional Republic? Or would society be better off with allowing those that are not fit to die, abort, or euthanize? Would it matter if society would be "better off"?
Wouldn't any ethical decision have to take limited resources into account? If natural resources are scarce, would we beocme like China and allow only one child per family? Or would we have inspections to insure that people did not "hoard resources" or use resources unwisely? Since resources would become more expensive would government be more likely to increase taxes on these resources, and would they want to penalize those that did not abide by the "book"? Would competition ensue over new discorveries that might help eliminate our dependence on these natural resources? Would we want to take advantage of our own natural resources? Would there be a fight for environmental concerns if we did drill for oil?
Would limited resources in healthcare also mean that all of us, and not just some of us have to make the hard choices about "end of life" decisions? Would we value the elderly, still? Or has our culture already become so driven by youthfulness that we don't apprectiate the wisdom of the elderly, even now?
And what about those countries that now have a waiting list for operations that determine, not just quality of life, but life and death? Would this be the scenario in America if healthcare is not repealed?
What if brain science becomes a means to control those in society, so society functions as those in power want it to?
Are such things impossible, improbable or variable? And what will determine whether or not our society, our nation, and our globe becomes acclaimated to such thinking and being in the world?
We have a lot to challenge us if the future is to be open-ended and not determined by these limitations. Such limitations will cause fear, instability and anxiety as to what should be done next. Rest assured that just as chaos ensued in Greece, and is now happening in Egypt, it will not be pretty.
Wouldn't any ethical decision have to take limited resources into account? If natural resources are scarce, would we beocme like China and allow only one child per family? Or would we have inspections to insure that people did not "hoard resources" or use resources unwisely? Since resources would become more expensive would government be more likely to increase taxes on these resources, and would they want to penalize those that did not abide by the "book"? Would competition ensue over new discorveries that might help eliminate our dependence on these natural resources? Would we want to take advantage of our own natural resources? Would there be a fight for environmental concerns if we did drill for oil?
Would limited resources in healthcare also mean that all of us, and not just some of us have to make the hard choices about "end of life" decisions? Would we value the elderly, still? Or has our culture already become so driven by youthfulness that we don't apprectiate the wisdom of the elderly, even now?
And what about those countries that now have a waiting list for operations that determine, not just quality of life, but life and death? Would this be the scenario in America if healthcare is not repealed?
What if brain science becomes a means to control those in society, so society functions as those in power want it to?
Are such things impossible, improbable or variable? And what will determine whether or not our society, our nation, and our globe becomes acclaimated to such thinking and being in the world?
We have a lot to challenge us if the future is to be open-ended and not determined by these limitations. Such limitations will cause fear, instability and anxiety as to what should be done next. Rest assured that just as chaos ensued in Greece, and is now happening in Egypt, it will not be pretty.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Conference on Education
The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)? And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Political Correctness and Free Speech
"Political correctness" is not just a recent phenomenon. And not just one political or social structure has been guilty of it. The problem is not with social structures themselves, but when the social structures obtain the political power to abuse the individual with "political correctness". The individual, not the social structure OR the group, however that is defined, that is most important.
In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.
In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.
Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience" or "God", when it comes to religion.
On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.
Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.
Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?
The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!
In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.
In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.
Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience" or "God", when it comes to religion.
On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.
Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.
Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?
The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The New Racists and The Not So New Agenda
Power is how people gain position, and control over others. But, power was not absolute in American government, as power was to be balanced. There are checks and balances that were to prevent grabs for power. But, people have devious ways to influence others through use of emotion, and sway their opinion, move their action and grab the power from them deviously. Such are the "New Racists".
This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.
Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.
I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".
But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".
Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".
This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.
Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.
I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".
But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".
Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".
Globalists Agenda and the Demise of Western Civilization
History is impacted by the latest philosophy, that impacts its academic climate. The Academy has power that has shaped the "color" and thinking of the young. And this is an important aspect to understand critically.
Today's academic is geared toward global concerns, as this is what is important if one is to remain relevant. The world has become globalized through our interconnections of communication and commerce. How have the global concerns impacted the Academy?
I think that the globalist has sought to undermine the nation-state status and the identification factors that define the citizen.
America's citizen is defined by the Constitution. And the Constitution has been understood in the liberal Academy as a 'living document" that must speak to the present condition, that being the global. The Constitution becomes irrelavant in such a context, because it limits and defines people that distinguish themselves. Distinction has become defined as discrimination, because if anyone dares to make a statement about citizen rights, then one is making claims above another 'human'. The argument becomes absurd.
But, the Academy cannot stop at the 'human' but with any living entity, because the Academy has come to understand our "interdependence" on all kinds of life. There becomes little distinction or way to define value about life, because all life is necessary. Ethical values are undermined because we dissolve again one distinction from another.
I think that America is experiencing its crisis because of such thinking. The "social" has trumped the individual. Society itself it the ultimate value, instead of individual liberty. The indivdual is only defined by his social context, and not by his own values, choices, and innatedness.
I agree with those that are angry about what is being done in the name of "right", the "moral imperative", or "moral concern". Whose "right", "moral imperative" or 'moral concern"?
Americans believe we are defined by our Constitution that has granted the citizen certain rights of liberty. The social agenda of the globalists, socialists, or the naturalists is NOT what has defined American values. And this is the problem, I think. We have been a people that have been identified by our ideals, that have created an environment that has prospered the individual's choice of value, resulting in the prosperity and liberty in our society.
Today, the very liberty that has brought about our prosperity is in danger. The few have been corrupted and America as a whole must pay. We haven't understood ourselves in this way. It is a hard awakening. But, awake we must be!
Today's academic is geared toward global concerns, as this is what is important if one is to remain relevant. The world has become globalized through our interconnections of communication and commerce. How have the global concerns impacted the Academy?
I think that the globalist has sought to undermine the nation-state status and the identification factors that define the citizen.
America's citizen is defined by the Constitution. And the Constitution has been understood in the liberal Academy as a 'living document" that must speak to the present condition, that being the global. The Constitution becomes irrelavant in such a context, because it limits and defines people that distinguish themselves. Distinction has become defined as discrimination, because if anyone dares to make a statement about citizen rights, then one is making claims above another 'human'. The argument becomes absurd.
But, the Academy cannot stop at the 'human' but with any living entity, because the Academy has come to understand our "interdependence" on all kinds of life. There becomes little distinction or way to define value about life, because all life is necessary. Ethical values are undermined because we dissolve again one distinction from another.
I think that America is experiencing its crisis because of such thinking. The "social" has trumped the individual. Society itself it the ultimate value, instead of individual liberty. The indivdual is only defined by his social context, and not by his own values, choices, and innatedness.
I agree with those that are angry about what is being done in the name of "right", the "moral imperative", or "moral concern". Whose "right", "moral imperative" or 'moral concern"?
Americans believe we are defined by our Constitution that has granted the citizen certain rights of liberty. The social agenda of the globalists, socialists, or the naturalists is NOT what has defined American values. And this is the problem, I think. We have been a people that have been identified by our ideals, that have created an environment that has prospered the individual's choice of value, resulting in the prosperity and liberty in our society.
Today, the very liberty that has brought about our prosperity is in danger. The few have been corrupted and America as a whole must pay. We haven't understood ourselves in this way. It is a hard awakening. But, awake we must be!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Motivations Are ALL Oriented In the "Self"
Motivations Are ALL Oriented In the "Self" I have been thinking about motivations, or the basis of any action. I believe that all people do what they do for "self" reasons, even seemingly, "alturistic" ones.
Children, who have not developed a sense of "self", but gain their identity from their families will "fight" over whose father is bigger, or whose tricyle is faster. These childish arguments are humorous to adults, but adults have similar fights. Fights don't end up in name-calling and yelling, but can end up in "shunning", de-valuing another's difference and right to voice or outright political black-ball.
People are motivated by what kind of "image" they want to portray or what outcomes they desire. Even when these "outcomes" are ones that are "universal", or "global" in scope, they are motivated by the value of that particular person and how that particular individual understands their value system and on what basis their values are "valued". But, the "outcome" of their motivation is for "image" and "influence" to be enlarged, upheld or protected from imagined or real threat.
Some "universalists" are motivated out of concern for others, because they think this is what they "should" be or do. These are culturally influenced to benefit society by serving society's needs "unselfishly". These individuals have been "trained" by their family of origin to protect the "family name", or culturally influenced to "protect cultural values".
Other "universalists" are motivated because of concern for limited resources. These are fearful that the world's resources will limit future life. But, while these are driven by "containing" wastefulness, they end up determineing another's life choices, this is a "selfish alturism", because scientism has no way of gauging difference of value, between the human who chooses and has reason for that choice, and any other living entity. Everything is dependent on everything else. So, which is to be the most important "natural" value? The environment, or the free market?
Some are driven only by material gains, which disregard any other "end" or "outcome" and these are what drive beauracries, or corporations. The larger the "collective" then, the more "lost" are the individuals in the "collective". And the more limited their choices will be, because of 'regulation and/or control over distributions, or "profits".
The enviornmentalists must determine or decide which form of life is of highest value. The highest value in nature is what is of necessity for the earth to survive. Without this resource, the other dependent life forms are doomed. But, which form of life? Or which natural element is most important? Even though science knows enough to predict what we can or can't do without, what of future innovation? Should what we know now determine what the environmentalists limit today? If so, the environmentalists might limit the very resource necessary for the free market and a free people to discover another resource that would help alleviate such dependence.
Even the humanists value the "moral image" of being humane. Don't the humanists take pride in their fight for "right" of all mankind? This is "self's" value. And the fight is for image, one that underwrites the humanist's "cause". Even Mother Teresa was invested in "moral image" through her association with the Sisters of Mercy, setting an example for others. Some might call it "self sacrifice" for the service of Christ. But, in essence, it is seeking Christ's affirmation, example, or reward for the "self".
What "should" drive our greatest value? If there is an acknowledgment that we have different values, but all of them support our image of ourself, then we would be a better nation. Then, we could be honest with ourselves, and not demand that another have the same value as we do, calling it "right", unselfish, 'moral', etc....
If liberty is valued for oneself as well as for the other, then a liberal democracy is what will uphold the rule of law, maintains equality in the courts, and allows freedom of expression. Then, all of "us", the "collective" will be able to be individuals, who determine and better their lives as we see fit. Liberty within the bounds of civil society, is of most importance to uphold as an ultimate value.
Children, who have not developed a sense of "self", but gain their identity from their families will "fight" over whose father is bigger, or whose tricyle is faster. These childish arguments are humorous to adults, but adults have similar fights. Fights don't end up in name-calling and yelling, but can end up in "shunning", de-valuing another's difference and right to voice or outright political black-ball.
People are motivated by what kind of "image" they want to portray or what outcomes they desire. Even when these "outcomes" are ones that are "universal", or "global" in scope, they are motivated by the value of that particular person and how that particular individual understands their value system and on what basis their values are "valued". But, the "outcome" of their motivation is for "image" and "influence" to be enlarged, upheld or protected from imagined or real threat.
Some "universalists" are motivated out of concern for others, because they think this is what they "should" be or do. These are culturally influenced to benefit society by serving society's needs "unselfishly". These individuals have been "trained" by their family of origin to protect the "family name", or culturally influenced to "protect cultural values".
Other "universalists" are motivated because of concern for limited resources. These are fearful that the world's resources will limit future life. But, while these are driven by "containing" wastefulness, they end up determineing another's life choices, this is a "selfish alturism", because scientism has no way of gauging difference of value, between the human who chooses and has reason for that choice, and any other living entity. Everything is dependent on everything else. So, which is to be the most important "natural" value? The environment, or the free market?
Some are driven only by material gains, which disregard any other "end" or "outcome" and these are what drive beauracries, or corporations. The larger the "collective" then, the more "lost" are the individuals in the "collective". And the more limited their choices will be, because of 'regulation and/or control over distributions, or "profits".
The enviornmentalists must determine or decide which form of life is of highest value. The highest value in nature is what is of necessity for the earth to survive. Without this resource, the other dependent life forms are doomed. But, which form of life? Or which natural element is most important? Even though science knows enough to predict what we can or can't do without, what of future innovation? Should what we know now determine what the environmentalists limit today? If so, the environmentalists might limit the very resource necessary for the free market and a free people to discover another resource that would help alleviate such dependence.
Even the humanists value the "moral image" of being humane. Don't the humanists take pride in their fight for "right" of all mankind? This is "self's" value. And the fight is for image, one that underwrites the humanist's "cause". Even Mother Teresa was invested in "moral image" through her association with the Sisters of Mercy, setting an example for others. Some might call it "self sacrifice" for the service of Christ. But, in essence, it is seeking Christ's affirmation, example, or reward for the "self".
What "should" drive our greatest value? If there is an acknowledgment that we have different values, but all of them support our image of ourself, then we would be a better nation. Then, we could be honest with ourselves, and not demand that another have the same value as we do, calling it "right", unselfish, 'moral', etc....
If liberty is valued for oneself as well as for the other, then a liberal democracy is what will uphold the rule of law, maintains equality in the courts, and allows freedom of expression. Then, all of "us", the "collective" will be able to be individuals, who determine and better their lives as we see fit. Liberty within the bounds of civil society, is of most importance to uphold as an ultimate value.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Israel and the Nuclear Summit
It is reported that Israel will not be represented at the nuclear summit here in Washington. What would be the possible reasons?
My speculation is that Israel understands the danger of total nuclear disarmament. These people have experienced what it was like to not have a way to protect their own. They were the ones who suffered under the "Nationalism" of Nazi Germany. They do not want to propitiate that scenario again, by trusting in the "better natures" of mankind, especially of authoritarian regimes that are accountable to no one.
History has proven that man's better nature is not forthcoming when there are no checks and balances. And nation states are a good way for power to be negotiated. Diverse interests should be confirmed as ways of negotiating around differences concerning self interests and security. And nation states can protect by regulating their 'enemies' through sanctions. This is the way that nation states have protected themselves for the last 50 some odd years, with nuclear weapons.
Science has produced other alternatives for the Pentagon in our own country, but those countries that insist on building their nuclear arsenals cannot be dismissed or ignored without national security being compromised, even though the 'ideal world" would hold "peace and goodwill" toward all. This is not the real world, but the "idealized ideology" of Marx, where all nations are equal and all people are living at peace. The problem with Marxism is that there is no limit on government control. Do we want to be at the mercy of those whose arrogance through government control holds no limit? Liberty will suffer. This is what globalism will do.
My speculation is that Israel understands the danger of total nuclear disarmament. These people have experienced what it was like to not have a way to protect their own. They were the ones who suffered under the "Nationalism" of Nazi Germany. They do not want to propitiate that scenario again, by trusting in the "better natures" of mankind, especially of authoritarian regimes that are accountable to no one.
History has proven that man's better nature is not forthcoming when there are no checks and balances. And nation states are a good way for power to be negotiated. Diverse interests should be confirmed as ways of negotiating around differences concerning self interests and security. And nation states can protect by regulating their 'enemies' through sanctions. This is the way that nation states have protected themselves for the last 50 some odd years, with nuclear weapons.
Science has produced other alternatives for the Pentagon in our own country, but those countries that insist on building their nuclear arsenals cannot be dismissed or ignored without national security being compromised, even though the 'ideal world" would hold "peace and goodwill" toward all. This is not the real world, but the "idealized ideology" of Marx, where all nations are equal and all people are living at peace. The problem with Marxism is that there is no limit on government control. Do we want to be at the mercy of those whose arrogance through government control holds no limit? Liberty will suffer. This is what globalism will do.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
"Do Unto Others"
"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you", is a universally acclaimed rule. But, do all people want the same things in life? That depends on one's needs desires, and values.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Anarchism
Anarchists do not believe in government's power or right, because they believe that the people have the right to liberty, irregardless of government's needs. Government is not an established authority, but a "consented authority".
I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....
I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.
The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....
Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?
Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?
A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...
I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.
I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....
I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.
The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....
Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?
Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?
A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...
I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Cultural Wars and "Winning the Game"
Yesterday, I heard an interview with Jim Leach on NPR. He is heading up a "humanities" project that wants to educate Amerians on philosophy, history of the U.S., politics, and there may be some other issues that I don't remember. His intent is to bring about a more "peaceful" solution to the present culture wars.
War occurs when there are two opposing views that "collide". Both think they need to "win the game". Both think they are justified and "right". And to win the game, it is believed that it is important to "stay the course" at all costs! But, is this cause worth it? I'm afraid American culture lends itself to the "ideal" of winning at all costs, without considering the ultimate costs to our civil discourse in the public square. We all need to learn to express our views with passion, but without personal attack, understanding that the very expression of political views were won by our Founders garuanteeing that America "wins" when "both sides", win. It is a balancing of power, when we have a "tug of war".
America's culture wars are about political goals, who will win at policy-making, and who will have to live their lives accordingly. These are issues that cannot co-exist peacefully because of their immense diversity and the impact that the "other side" thinks will transpire because of it.
It is unfortunately the case that for the most part, we are a two party system. The nuances of political philosphy are not important to "discover", as muh as maintaining the course of whichever agenda has been appealing. This is why I think that Congressman Leach has a noble purpose.
The conservative side, which believes in free markets and pro-life, have gone so far as to re-create scripture to further and sanction their political views. The political left, on the other hand, believes that the social concern and moral duty of Americans goes beyond their "own doorstep", so to speak. These two views have a vastly different politial philosophy, which certainly cannot co-exist, if one believes that "God" is on "your side". "Winning the game" because all important then, because of the feared consequences of the cultural impact at "home" and the world at large.
These views could be discussed more civilly, if one did not mix "god" into the "pot". But, holiness causes are prone to justify any means in the attempt to defend "God's honor", or "God's purposes", while the left would be more prone to defend the "greater good" for the "world". But, do we really know what the 'greater good" is for the world, really? Both sides sound presumptuous and arrogant, in their own way, whether about understanding "god", or about man having an omniscient and ominpresent view.
Jim Leach was a Republican Congressman from Iowa, so, I would imagine he has some "insight" into the conservative viewpoint. And beause he has been in politics, he understands the left. I wish him well on his journey, as the nation needs this type of "calming" influence.
And Americans need to understand their neighbor, as well as understanding their right to speak.
War occurs when there are two opposing views that "collide". Both think they need to "win the game". Both think they are justified and "right". And to win the game, it is believed that it is important to "stay the course" at all costs! But, is this cause worth it? I'm afraid American culture lends itself to the "ideal" of winning at all costs, without considering the ultimate costs to our civil discourse in the public square. We all need to learn to express our views with passion, but without personal attack, understanding that the very expression of political views were won by our Founders garuanteeing that America "wins" when "both sides", win. It is a balancing of power, when we have a "tug of war".
America's culture wars are about political goals, who will win at policy-making, and who will have to live their lives accordingly. These are issues that cannot co-exist peacefully because of their immense diversity and the impact that the "other side" thinks will transpire because of it.
It is unfortunately the case that for the most part, we are a two party system. The nuances of political philosphy are not important to "discover", as muh as maintaining the course of whichever agenda has been appealing. This is why I think that Congressman Leach has a noble purpose.
The conservative side, which believes in free markets and pro-life, have gone so far as to re-create scripture to further and sanction their political views. The political left, on the other hand, believes that the social concern and moral duty of Americans goes beyond their "own doorstep", so to speak. These two views have a vastly different politial philosophy, which certainly cannot co-exist, if one believes that "God" is on "your side". "Winning the game" because all important then, because of the feared consequences of the cultural impact at "home" and the world at large.
These views could be discussed more civilly, if one did not mix "god" into the "pot". But, holiness causes are prone to justify any means in the attempt to defend "God's honor", or "God's purposes", while the left would be more prone to defend the "greater good" for the "world". But, do we really know what the 'greater good" is for the world, really? Both sides sound presumptuous and arrogant, in their own way, whether about understanding "god", or about man having an omniscient and ominpresent view.
Jim Leach was a Republican Congressman from Iowa, so, I would imagine he has some "insight" into the conservative viewpoint. And beause he has been in politics, he understands the left. I wish him well on his journey, as the nation needs this type of "calming" influence.
And Americans need to understand their neighbor, as well as understanding their right to speak.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The U.N. Talk and Obama's Vision
I listened to Obama talk at the U.N. on radio and T.V. And I was impressed with his commitment to serve and represent American interests. But, he called for all nations to step forward in helping America fulfill the responsibility toward many social issues. I was glad that we were not going to be footing the whole bill.
Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".
I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".
China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".
On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".
I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.
I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.
Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".
I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".
China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".
On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".
I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.
I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Justified By Science to Dis-Criminate
I have been following the debate over the energy proposal that passed the House by a short margin and now is to be heard in the Senate. This energy bill would be a financial burden on American families, increasing taxes and limiting resources. It is supposed that there would be another federal agency that would investigate the energy effieciency of a home before it can be sold. Windows, doors, furnaces, appliances, etc. would all be checked to meet federal regulations. Why? Because science says it is best that we limit ourselves for the whole of mankind.
While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.
It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.
The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.
She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.
Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.
While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".
There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.
Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.
Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.
America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.
While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.
It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.
The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.
She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.
Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.
While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".
There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.
Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.
Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.
America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.
Monday, June 29, 2009
A Call to Uniformity?
I had the radio on, while I was doing some "chores" today and heard an "annonymous" call to consider the social /communal, instead of the individual. This irked me, because it "calls others to the table, when the table is already set". Predetermination is not a value of American ideals in individual liberties of conscience. Paternalistic and patronizing ways of understanding one's social obligation and concern "rub me the wrong way", because it is presumptive of what "should be" of ultimate concern to the individual!
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thinking About the Implications of Nationalism and Globalism
I have been thinking about how we have come to the point we are...
If one is politically progressive, then, our revolution was "right" because of "taxation without representation", but wrong according to conservatives, such as van Prinster, as it was "modeled after the French Revolution. And, after all, Romans tells us to submit to the governing authorities..
The Puritans came because of purification of the Church of England and felt that they could set up "god's kingdom" in a brave new land.
But, as people moved away from their settlements, and "set up house", their "interests" became defined around those settlements. For the South, the interests was the land, and those who worked the land, the slaves. Scriptures affirmed that slavery was "right".
But, the political progressives did not view slaves as property, as slaves were human beings. The great debate and eventual "Civil War" was fought over the issue of slavery. The Civil War ended with the South's defeat and the furtherance of a centralization of government, because States ceased to have the right to slave ownership. Southern States were hindered from pursuing their "own interests" for the interest of "human rights".
The issue of globalization is similar in intent. Nations have not been "centralized". There has been talk of centralization under the U.N. and for "human rights". In 2005 there was a discussion about the issues at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The discussion was about "peace", nation development, etc. (Human rights, in general).
The question that disturbs me is; "even though the North and South had different interests in the slave issue during our nation's Civil War, both sides had an interest in the nation, as a whole. With globalization, culture becomes a big obstacle. Culture holds the values of a society and is not easily "given up", as it brings identity.
How are we to seek a unified "globe" when diversity is so profound? And how do we go about meeting such different interests? How do we agree with those who do not believe or adhere to the "rule of law"? And what about cultures that define deference to the "rule of law" differently? And how can we come to agreement about what is in the best interest of everyone in international law?
Case in point: Do all humans deserve equality under law, irregardless of their "intent" to undermine another governement? Then, human rights are universal and irrespective of person or value. But, are there distinctions, like we have in our laws, of intent, etc.? If so, then how are we to define intent, when intent to one culture would be "right or lawful" and to another it would be counted as "wrong or unlawful"?
There is much to be considered and it has nothing to do with "obedience to god", but what is best for "world affairs"?
If one is politically progressive, then, our revolution was "right" because of "taxation without representation", but wrong according to conservatives, such as van Prinster, as it was "modeled after the French Revolution. And, after all, Romans tells us to submit to the governing authorities..
The Puritans came because of purification of the Church of England and felt that they could set up "god's kingdom" in a brave new land.
But, as people moved away from their settlements, and "set up house", their "interests" became defined around those settlements. For the South, the interests was the land, and those who worked the land, the slaves. Scriptures affirmed that slavery was "right".
But, the political progressives did not view slaves as property, as slaves were human beings. The great debate and eventual "Civil War" was fought over the issue of slavery. The Civil War ended with the South's defeat and the furtherance of a centralization of government, because States ceased to have the right to slave ownership. Southern States were hindered from pursuing their "own interests" for the interest of "human rights".
The issue of globalization is similar in intent. Nations have not been "centralized". There has been talk of centralization under the U.N. and for "human rights". In 2005 there was a discussion about the issues at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The discussion was about "peace", nation development, etc. (Human rights, in general).
The question that disturbs me is; "even though the North and South had different interests in the slave issue during our nation's Civil War, both sides had an interest in the nation, as a whole. With globalization, culture becomes a big obstacle. Culture holds the values of a society and is not easily "given up", as it brings identity.
How are we to seek a unified "globe" when diversity is so profound? And how do we go about meeting such different interests? How do we agree with those who do not believe or adhere to the "rule of law"? And what about cultures that define deference to the "rule of law" differently? And how can we come to agreement about what is in the best interest of everyone in international law?
Case in point: Do all humans deserve equality under law, irregardless of their "intent" to undermine another governement? Then, human rights are universal and irrespective of person or value. But, are there distinctions, like we have in our laws, of intent, etc.? If so, then how are we to define intent, when intent to one culture would be "right or lawful" and to another it would be counted as "wrong or unlawful"?
There is much to be considered and it has nothing to do with "obedience to god", but what is best for "world affairs"?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics
Government is the first and most important aspect to address in our world today, not poverty. Government is about individuality and responsible behavior. Governments which inhibit the individual's life is limiting life and one of the primary values of our country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some think that poverty should be alleviated by population control. So, whichever way one views "world problems" there are no easy solutions, nor is one problem easily solvable.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
