I Have Nothing to Say, But I Must Say It

America is known to be the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". We love liberty and we value industry. Therefore, we prosper because individuals can find their place in our society and choose how they will be productive citizens. Some who love power and use that power to "lord it over" were limited in their power by our "Bill of Rights". The fight for "freedom of speech", even when it is not "politically correct" is a fight for the brave, who value our liberty too much to see it lost. "Political correctness" is about power and the "right" value according to politics.

Some people love to control other's lives, these like to propagandize what is the "politically correct" position. While granted it is necessary to create boundaries for children, is control really what is best for personal growth and development. as well as affirming 'liberty"? Some think there is no other way to "make sure" things work out the "right way". What is the "right way"? Outcomes? or Moral or Ethical values? Who is to determine what is "right"?

Utility is "making sure" that the right people are in the right place. This is organizational structuring. But, utility controls, as to means. The "right people" must be in the "right place" for outcomes to be guarunteed. But, is this the moral value of American ideals and the ethical value of liberty and choice for individuals? I don't think so.

Control is anathema to American ideals of life and liberty. Control is about power and the use of the law. And such power is not about "equality before the law", but, is about slavery and servitude. These are not American values, as we do not believe it is moral or ethical to undermine liberty of choice and rights before the law.

So, I have nothing to say to those that want to be "politically correct" and use power over granting liberty. I have nothing to say, but I must say it, to those that will listen. Unfortunately, my life is not "politically correct", so I have no right to "free speech". Is this the moral value, we want to promote? I think those that are on "both sides of the aisle" are promoting visions of America that do not lead to liberty, but enslavement of different kinds.

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!!!

What Is the Basis of a One World?

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.

Cinderella, "Happily Ever Afters" and Prejuidice

"Blood runs deeper than water", or so the saying goes.

My grand-daughter is watching "Cinderella". It is a "moral story" that has a significant message about prejuidice, justice, and "hope".

The story, as most Americans know, is about a girl's hopes of "becoming" and the wicked step-mother's determination that Cinderella's future will be undermined by limitations of her determination.

I walked into our family room, just at the moment in the movie when the invitation is opened to attend the "Ball". When the step-mother reads it out loud to her two daughters in Cinderella's presence, Cinderella exclaims that she also should be included. (The invitation is addressed to "All")

The step-mother says that Cinderella can go IF she gets all her chores done. (Cinderella is a "slave") She hurries to get everything done and get dressed, only to get attacked by her step-sisters and her step-mother. She is left destitute and runs away crying because she has "no hope". Prejuidice never allows another any "hope" of accomplishing their own ends. Prejuidice determines beforehand where one "fits" and doesn't make for any allowances.

There is something that resonates within the human heart about "hope", possibilities and potential. Cinderella has potential but she is disadvantaged.

The story ends in a happily ever after of a "fairy god-mother" who uses "magic" that makes everything "all right". Cinderella gets to attend the Ball and gets the Prince's attention. Cinderella and the Prince end up living happily ever after. Such are the dreams of every little girl. But, it is also the hope of the human heart.

Our American society allows such "creations" of human happiness, potentialities and justice. We believe in the ability of obstacles to be overcome and the underdog's ability to not be "kept under". And our society values the rule of law and civil liberties.

Our sense of justice is valued by our understanding of "blind justice". We do not believe that prejuidice or priviledge is in any way allowed within our courts of law! We believe that irregardless of "blood ties", or other ways of defining ourselves within our contexts, the/a human being is more important. And the/a human being must be allowed the freedom to attend the Ball, if she chooses and not be designated to "housefhold chores" (cleaning up another's mess).

The Founders believed, "all people are created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These are the rights of life, liberty and the 'pursuit of happiness".

Men Were and Men Are

Men were created to be free. This was man's natural state. But, man was not satisfied to be free. He must organize and structure his environment to best suit himself, to dominate others, nature and his social environment.

Men are now doomed to government's demands, and limitations upon choice. Men are doomed to serve instead of dominate. This and is the state of slaves under tyrants, dictators, Kings, "gods", systems, governments, laws, and nature, herself. Men are limited by such things.

So, man's need to dominate was his very enslavement. He organizes only to serve himself. He structures to form his understanding, so he can control others. And, so, all men are now enslaved.

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"?

Abraham Lincoln's Impact on My Thoughts

Today was my friend's birthday, and so, we decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery, where they have special exhibit honoring Abraham Lincoln.

As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".

His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.

I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?

These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?

There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.

I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.

Honor and Shame as a Modern Cultural Value?

In ancient cultures, as in some "uncultured" societies, honor and shame rule the cultural landscape. These cultures, believe that social control is held by the social mores, which are bound within tradition's values.

In today's modern West, culture has become dissolved from societie's traditions, which have inhibited some social behavior that would bring shame on the individual or family. These values were what held society "together", as they underwrote man's responsibility for and in his environment.

Cultural values are maintained or upheld by the culture's religion. Religion gives the frame of reference for what culture should be about. The conditioning of children in the home, as well as within the Church was internalized as an identification factor for the child. These were maintained in ancient culture by shame or honor. Duty was the watch-word for the child trained under tradition's influence.

But, in the modern world, the child's education exposes him to a larger frame, where these values are "challenged". The young adult, then has to assess whether he will continue to be committed to his tradition's values, or where these traditions have lost their moral vision and need revision individually or socially.

Tradition has all but died in the Western world because of many societal factors. These factors range from technological advances that discourage face to face interaction, to the break-down of the family. Yesterday's social and moral challenge was the issue of slavery in our country, while today's challenge is redefining marriage.

Every time culture is challenged to change or revise its values, there are many social tensions within the tradition-bearing messengers, whether tradition's scholars, or tradition's insitutions.

Social change is not viewed by the majority as "good" or beneficial, as it revises cherished understandings of "truth", which brings a crisis in identity. While social change is challenging to all, it is necessary and needed, so that mankind can be more understanding of neighbor and enlarge his scope to 'self".

An Applause for America

John McCain lost last night and he, in characteristic fashion, graciously applauded Obama's presidency. In like matter, I would like to applaud our form of government and the ideals that our government represents.

Many across the world have watched to see if how America's ideals would play out in our presidental decision. The American ideal of equality has won the day with the election of the first African American. And I am proud that this ideal has won. It seemed to me that many African Americans were emotionally touched by this outcome. One does not have to question why this may be. Slavery is not representative of the American conviction of individual freedom or equality and choice. African Americans have lived with the stigma of slavery and discrimination, whether self-imposed or not, and it has affected their self-perception.

Now, the world knows that we mean business when it comes to our ideals of freedom and justice for all, at least within our own borders. Let's see how Obama and his cabinet envision these ideals on a global scale.