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!!!

Do Feelings Make Any Significance to Moral Judgments?

I have been thinking about "moral values" and what determines how we judge moral values. How are our feelings directive of morality, or are they?

The reason I bring this up is that I have a repulsion over "do-gooders". I know that my repulsion is not reasonable, but it is rational. Why? I think that my repulsion over "do-gooders" has a lot to do with my needs as a child. These needs were not met, and yet, I saw those around me "doing good", baking the cake to take to the sick, visiting the nursing home, etc. What message did it send to me as a child? I wasn't important or valued enough to commend anyone's attention. My value was diminished, and my needs were secondary to what was gauged as important. Others needs came first. (Many Christians think that family responsibility isn't of value because of the command that one should "love God first". Family can stand in the way of loyalty to one's first priority. One's family is only "natural love", therefore, what one does outside of family, in fact, for one's enemy, is deemed of more value in the Christian community. It is a sign of "Christian discipleship!)

I wonder if my reaction today to such "do-good" projects and my evaluation of them as being self-interested is judged in a universal way. What I mean is:  given my situation and circumstances would others judge "do gooders" in a similar fashion? Or would there be another response to the same conditions? Does personality have anything to do with how we "cope" with unmet needs?

This is the problem with "social justice" claims, I believe. Because whenever we set out to "do good", there is someone left inevitably behind. It is much better to leave the individual to be the "cause" of his own choices, and goals, otherwise, we might set up "projects", though well-meaning that have unintentional, but devastating consequences.

Reality based therapy means that the individual takes responsibility and owns his own life, as to choices of value. There is no "ideal" to be pursued, but goals that are desired outcomes of personal values. This is the only rational way to live, otherwise, rationality and reasonablness is left "outside" to die in the night of another's oppressive shadow, whether it be Man or God's!

Why Individual Conscience Is Important to Democratic Ideals

Whether one is a Republican or Democrat, leadership is necessary for maintaining order, forming policy solutions to the problems a nation faces. Why is American individualism important for the democratic ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?And what is the importance of society and the value of societal conscience?

Life is the most important aspect to any policy decision-making. What does life mean and what quality of life is necessary for "good governing"? Some believe that quality is necessary for life to really exist and this quality is met in a free and democratic society.

Life has to have its physical needs met. And these physical needs are what many liberals deem important for good governing, as it is compassionate leadership and demands social justice. But, can we gurantee such rights, without limiting liberty? And is liberty of secondary importance to social security? Is life as defined with limited liberty by government officials really what life is about? And how do the government officials decide where to draw their lines for the individuals within their society? Can the government garuntee anything, really? Isn't our government about self-governance and limite governemnt?

Liberty is another important democratic value, in fact, it defines democracy. Democracy allows the individual his right to "own his own life", and requires responsible behavior toward that end. But, those that deem that liberty makes life unfair because of advantages beyond an individual's control, think that liberty must be defined by social justice. Otherwise, society, itself, falters and is frustrated in flourishing. Leadership thinks it should determine what is just and equitable. Government grows and expands in furthering "social security".

The pursuit of happiness is identified by the indvidual's right to pursue his own ends. And the pursuit of happiness is variable in a democracy because of the variability of individual and his chosen values. Laws are created to define boundaries to protect against injustice to another. But, if govenment officials define "happiness" too stringently and choose the values too definitively for their society, the society ceases to be "free". Some believe that it is the right, in fact, the duty of leaders to limit another's right to choice, because society must be protected from those that would undermine society's "collective" benefit.

Collectivism is the bane and demise of the individual because it limits choice, defines values, and takes away the motivation to "better oneself". While collectivism is necessary for the child in forming his/her development, the "collective" ceases to be necessary for self-motivated individuals, who puruse their own purpsose and purpose their own plans. Self determination is an important value in free societies.

Today's news brings concern to many about how "collective groups" propose to bring about "social justice". The Black Panthers were being investigated in court for intimidating voters at the voting booth in the last Presidental election. One Black Panther went so far as to voice his hatred for "crackers", and call for the killing of "crackers" . This attitude is "social justice" gone wild. The Justice Department has withdrawn its investigation, because of so called discrimination. Stipulation of "just desserts" because of past sins, will never result in furthering democratic ideals.

This morning a caller called in to ask whether she was justified is asking for recompense for her lost income due to the BP oil accident. She is a realtor and has made $16,000 in the past for the months of May and June, but she has suffered loss because people are waiting to see if they want to buy in this real estate market, when property values probably will decrease.

Will BP honor every single litigant, and what will be their judgment on whether someone is "justified for retribution"? How will they determine monetary value? And will monetary value settle all of the "losses" those in the Gulf have suffered?

So, why is collectivism being "pushed" in today's political climate? Won't the ones who have the most power be the ones to "call the shots" for all of us? And what will be the foundation of their power? Their money? Their position? or What? And what will life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like when "collective" policies "take over" and we are all paying for it?

The Question of Social Justice and Democracy

We in America "fight" over social justice, as social justice guaruntees what some deem to be "bigger government" and an undermining of self responsibility. Is Democracy to undermine distributive justice? Or does distributive justice undermine democracy? These are questions that have puzzled many and continue to be at the forefront of our "culture wars".

Christians that believe in a literalizing of the Judeo-Christian Scripture believe in upholding distributive justice, as do Democrats. Distributive justice guaruntees education, healthcare, and minimun income. Social justice should be underwritten by "good government".

While these believe in government guarunteeing these rights, others think that civil and political rights should be enough to guaruntee human flourishing. Government should not intervene in the affairs of men, but should only protect civil and political liberties. The individual should govern himself and create a place for himself without government support.But, what is the responsibility of the government toward the young or those who cannot create the "good life" for themselves?

Public education is upheld as a right by most Americans, but lately the homeschool movement has gained ground in education. Parents believe it is their right and duty to educate their young. These homeschooling families believe that government would provide for a secularized education that they find appalling. Do these parents have a right to educate their children? Or does the State have a duty to see that the child recieves a full education, either through mandating what qualifies a parent to educate their child, or through limiting homeschooling altogether. These are issues that breed "culture wars".

Our nation is a religious nation, although we believe in religious freedom, therefore, mandating anything at the federal level is a "red flag" to an American. States in America have the right to legislate how homeschoolers will function, and what requirements will be demanded, if any.

On the heels of homeschooling is the issue of Scripture and the belief of "Creation" and the evolution debate. Evolution has been approved by the eduational community as a value that must be taught in our public schools. But, what of the homeschoolers? Are they to be under this legislation? Does government have a right to protect the education of its young? Or does government have a duty to protect the right of the parent and their duties toward their child?

The conflict over our Greek democratic ideals, and the Jewish/Christian understanding of justice is at issue. Do we limit individual rights or do we limit individual freedoms? Do we believe in freedom of religion, and at what costs, especially in the climate of radicals? Or do we discriminate against religious convictions and on what basis do we determine when to discriminate? Surely, we wouldn't want to discriminate altogether, would we?

The issue of Church and State has been a long and difficult one, but it is the basis of our democratic process and what forms our society's value of diversity. We just don't know where the unity lies...

Is There Such a Thing as "Social Justice"?

Social Justice is a universiality of some "moral" determinant. It doesn't define life in various ways of forms of value. It limits life in definition. Thus, it undermines justice, itself!

The moral concerns of poverty, global warming, "the greater good", or other social concerns are various and dependent on personal goals, values, convictions, understandings, vision, gifts, etc. No one should, or can determine these for another individual. Otherwise, there will be oppression, limitation to choice and a hinderance of academic freedom and values clarification.

So, there really is no such thing as "social justice" as a universal. Social justice has to be defined by someone or something, which limits diversity of "voice".

Fabian Socialism and the Fight for American Ideals

I was just looking up Fabian Socialism tonight. You should look it up, it is alarming! Fabian socialists believe in a "soft" revolution of our economic and political systems, which is happening right before our eyes. The FS mantra is "selflessness", in the name of social justice and for the 'common good". I agree that most of us in the West need to learn to defer, at times, but not lay over and die! Individuality, choice, freedom and justice are not just terms that have no meaning for the "common", but was used to protect the "common". That is the basis of our democracy. That concept of protection of the common is changing. Paternalism is alive and well. Welcome to the world of the Fabian socialist!

There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.

Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.

I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.

Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.

Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.

This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.

Justice Is Not Just Social

Justice is defined by our courts as adhering to lawful standards of behavior. Justice is blind because justice is not partial. The law doesn't care about the specific details, it only defines boundaries and borders around the individual's property or person. It is only when the social has respected the individual boundaries that the social is of any moral or ethical value. Otherwise, it is an unjust community, organization or nation.

Justice is to be sought by all of us, as it limits evil, and protects society from further abuses of power. Individuals have to hold the social to account, and these are the ones who bring about social change.

Wouldn't it be the height of hyposcrisy and arrogance, if one teaches and believes in social justice and, yet, perverts justice by scapegoating an individual? This is why the evangelical message has no meaning, insofar as real justice. Real justice is about the individual and human rights, and good government, and lawful behavior.

Social conformity should only be done if there is an adherence to honesty, and integrity, and lawful behavior, which is demonstrated by a commitment to the value and worth of the individual. We must seek justice, especially in the face of evil.