What is THE issue to unify the world? What should be of utmost importance? These questions have made the world complicated and complex. There seems to be no resolution or forthcoming "unity" for the "Globe".
The globalists insist that "one world" should be based on economics, as the material is the most important value to uphold. Whereas, the conservative Christian says that Christ is to "hold the world together" in unity. Some have attempted to combine these into a "social gospel" that sees the social problem of poverty as THE issue to be addressed.
Environmentalists insist that we must agree on pollution, as without the earth, none of us will have life, anyway. But the U.N. cannot come to agreement on the environmental requirements, so that the focus can be unified.
Those that believe that human rights are of most importance must agree on what basis is a human right a right. Is this individually determined? Or is it democratically determined? Does government matter when it comes to human rights? I believe it does.
So, government must be of utmost importance in addressing the complexities of today. Without good government, then we are doomed to live in abject slavery to the whims of authoritarianisms whatever they be based upon.
I think our form of government is best, as long as that form is being respected.
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Pay-Offs and Government Power
Many have been outraged with the government bail-outs of AIG, as government has tried to "use" thier bail-out as a means of increasing government's power to tax (at 90%). This seems to be the case with the recent suggestion about government lending private investors money to hold toxic assests.
Whether these investors win or loose, the government gains power over the individual. If the investor overpays the government in "buying" these toxic assests, then the government can gain over the public's preception in clearing the toxic debt off its "books", while touting the "increase" of private sector "profits". But, even if the "plan" looses, the private investor looses nothing, as the government holds the "loan", and then, the government has the "opportunity" to tax the "common man" for the "public good", thus increasing government's power by increasing its coffers of private monies. So, it seems that this 'plan" is a "cover" for governmnt enlargement and power, while using the private sector as a scapegoat. These private sector "scapegoats" have a vested interest, in my opinion, in profiting from their "role". Their function is to be useful for the adminstration's goals of an "insider" political elite, that lives off of the public.
This was the very way in which, as I understand it, that A.C.O.R.N. funnelled money into the pockets of a few. The "common good" of altruistic concern over the poor and thier housing, led to a whoesale use of our government's public institutions as a means to money laundrying...
Our nation was founded on the principle of limited government. This is not the vision or goal of this adminstration. The Secretary of the Treasury is the "sole" arbitrator of trillons of dollars of tax dollars, while 17 political appointed positions under him lie vacant. What kind of power can be weilded without a "cabinet" to fight or be accountable to?
Whether these investors win or loose, the government gains power over the individual. If the investor overpays the government in "buying" these toxic assests, then the government can gain over the public's preception in clearing the toxic debt off its "books", while touting the "increase" of private sector "profits". But, even if the "plan" looses, the private investor looses nothing, as the government holds the "loan", and then, the government has the "opportunity" to tax the "common man" for the "public good", thus increasing government's power by increasing its coffers of private monies. So, it seems that this 'plan" is a "cover" for governmnt enlargement and power, while using the private sector as a scapegoat. These private sector "scapegoats" have a vested interest, in my opinion, in profiting from their "role". Their function is to be useful for the adminstration's goals of an "insider" political elite, that lives off of the public.
This was the very way in which, as I understand it, that A.C.O.R.N. funnelled money into the pockets of a few. The "common good" of altruistic concern over the poor and thier housing, led to a whoesale use of our government's public institutions as a means to money laundrying...
Our nation was founded on the principle of limited government. This is not the vision or goal of this adminstration. The Secretary of the Treasury is the "sole" arbitrator of trillons of dollars of tax dollars, while 17 political appointed positions under him lie vacant. What kind of power can be weilded without a "cabinet" to fight or be accountable to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
