What Happened to Reason and Values in This Country? Part 2

stand-up-for-americaAs I started with on Thursday night, I tonight continue my discussion on the failure of Americans to use reason and values in their decisions regarding the federal government, or for that matter the state governments, local governments, and every other “looked up to” person in the public eye. I do want to note up front that Just A Citizen was correct in his nit-picking of my statement the other day. I tend to say “no values” when what I mean that their values are not in line with freedom or liberty. So let me say up front that when I say no values, I mean that their values are inconsistent with liberty, that their values are inconsistent with mine, and, in my opinion, their values are inconsistent with morality. Defining morality is difficult, so perhaps some of our discussion today will be around that, but I think that those who are trying to really understand what I am saying know what I mean when I say it.

So in the first part of this two-part series, I was focusing on describing what we see in American politics and how I cannot understand why we allow it to happen the way that it does. Today, I will instead focus on the values side of things. I want to candidly discuss the reality of today’s America. Because the reality of today’s America is really disturbing. I will attempt to refrain from lumping this as one group or another. Should I fail to do so, feel free to call it out and I will clarify my position so that it remains clear to everyone.

Americans Against Reality TVThrough the conversations the last few days, I have heard from both sides of the political spectrum in today’s political landscape. I have also heard from varying views on the morality of America. From Greatergoodcs, who believe that people are not good by nature and therefore must have maximum government control in order to be forced to do good, to several others that believe America is filled with good people and the few bad apples are who make it seem worse than it is for the rest. I suggest that the argument is not over the percentage of Americans that are good versus the percentage that are bad. Good and bad are too subjective to make such a statement. Where I feel we fall apart is in the level of morality and ethics displayed by everyday people.

Let me explain what I mean in today’s society. Take a look at our cultural stars. They are the worst human beings on the planet, ranking right up there with today’s politicians. Reality TV is a hit in America. People tune in and worship those who are the most outrageous, most disrespectful, least moral. Some current examples would be the “Real Housewives” series, My Sweet Sixteen, and Everyone Loves New York. Our young idolize trash like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan. First rate whores no matter how you cut it. They sleep around constantly, go out showing off their genitals in public, and make a mess of their lives. And for this they are worshiped. These girls, while underage, get trashed at the swankiest clubs and bars in America. And no one bats an eye. Why are these establishments not immediately raided and closed down? They are caught red-handed over and over with underage stars leaving blitzed. The stars get worshiped and the moral and legal issues are never faced.

Hip Hop Connection GangstaKanye West really is a jackass. This is the second time he has pulled this stunt of upstaging a winner he didn’t agree with. He is an arrogant asshole and a pathetic excuse for a human being. The list of “rap stars” who sing about criminal behavior, female abuse, and glorified violence is ungodly. Yet not one of them is held accountable. They are glorified, and their albums sell millions. They are heroes. Everyone rushes to make excuses for them and then tell us that their behavior is to be overlooked because “they are just so talented”. They are morally bankrupt and their being placed on a pedestal as a role model for today’s youth is to be overlooked because they are really good at writing songs that preach hate and violence? Reverend Wright was really good at sermons too, so should we simply excuse the “God Damn America” message as well? We protect gangsta rap as first amendment rights while punishing Humana for sending out an honest statement to their clients.

And then there are our politicians. These take the cake, don’t they? Let’s take a look at the behavior of the United States Congress over the last decade. Here is a list from multiple sources that I looked up. All had charges brought against them, ethics committe violations against them, sex charges against them, or some other form of scandal that proved them to be corrupt:

  • You Lie PoliticiansTed Stevens (S, Rep, Alaska)
  • Charlie Rangel (HR, Dem, NY)
  • Barney Frank (HR, Dem, MA)
  • Maxine Waters (HR, Rep, CA)
  • Jane Harmon (HR, Dem, CA)
  • Diane Feinstein (HR, Dem, CA)
  • Rich Renzi (HR, Rep, AZ)
  • Tom Delay (HR, Rep, TX)
  • Robert Ney (HR, Rep, OH)
  • Ernest Cook (HR, Rep, OK)
  • Tim Hutchinson (HR, Rep, AK)
  • John Doolittle (HR, Rep, CA)
  • Duke Cunningham (HR, Rep, CA)
  • Cynthia McKinney (HR, Dem, GA)
  • William Jefferson (HR, Dem, LA)
  • Bill Janklow (HR, Rep, SD)
  • Robert Torrecelli (S, Dem, NJ)
  • Jim Traficant (HR, Dem, OH)
  • Edward Mezvinsky (HR, Dem, IA)
  • Roland Burris (S, Dem, IL)
  • Kent Conrad (S, Dem, ND)
  • Chris Dodd (S, Dem, CT)
  • Robert Menendez (S, Dem, NJ)
  • John Murtha (HR, Dem, PA)
  • Linda Sanchez (HR, Dem, CA)
  • Loretta Sanchez (HR, Dem, CA)
  • Heather Wilson (HR, Rep, NM)
  • Steve Pearce (HR, Rep, NM)
  • Franken ClownsVern Buchanan (HR, Rep, FL)
  • Ken Calvert (HR, Rep, CA)
  • John Ensign (S, Rep, NV)
  • Nathan Deal (HR, Rep, GA)
  • Jesse Jackson Jr. (HR, Dem, IL)
  • Jerry Lewis (HR, Rep, CA)
  • Mitch McConnell (S, Rep, KY)
  • Alan Mollohan (HR, Dem, WV)
  • Laura Richardson (HR, Dem, CA)
  • Pete Visclosky (HR, Dem, IN)
  • Don Young (HR, Rep, AK)
  • Daniel Inouye (S, Dem, HI)

Heck I am just going to stop right there. We all know that I can continue to research this all night long and continue to list Congressional members all night long. And I will guarantee that there are many that I missed. You get the point. The United States Congress is perhaps the biggest gathering of criminals, frauds, liars, cheats, sexual predators, rapists, and overall morally bankrupt people in the United States outside of perhaps a federal prison.

And that is just Congress. We had a President sleeping with an intern, as many cases of cabinet members doing bad as there are cases of congress doing so, and no shortage of staffers and lobbyists who joined the ranks of criminally convicted in Washington DC. We have a Secretary of the Treasury who didn’t pay his taxes, yet is head of the IRS. We have a Secretary of State that had the Whitewater scandal and the White House Travel Office Scandal. We had the “Lion of the Senate” who drove into a river drunk and left a woman to die. We have a member of Congress that was sleeping with teenage male interns.

And these are just the “legal” issues that we see from our federally elected representation. In reality we watch them parade out and twist the truth, omit facts, cover up, and outright lie to us on a daily basis. We KNOW they are liars and con-men. There is not a person on this site who trusts politicians to tell the truth, work for their constituents, and vote their true conscience.

Simply said we have the most corrupt people in America running our country.

And this is ACCEPTED! These idiots and liars are re-elected over and over. We watch the media and the pundits and the talk show hosts and even our friends and families, make excuse after excuse to dismiss this outright morally bankrupt behavior. James Garfield is a very forgettable President, but how do you like this quote from him:

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces. James Garfield, 1877

TAx Cheat CabinetHow is it even possible that our elected representatives could possibly be as horribly valued and principled as they are? I believe that the answer is that the American public has both lost its way in terms of values and principles, and that they are provided with the ability to do nothing, therefore allowing criminals to remain serving. When Timothy Geithner was shown to have not paid taxes before being confirmed to Secretary of the Treasury, half of America didn’t bat an eye. And they argued in his defense. They argued in his defense.

The problem dear readers is that we have failed to demand better from those who serve us. We have accepted the moral bankruptcy of our federal government officials as “par for the course”. A value and principle based country should have removed every single one of the people mentioned above from public “service” immediately. But they don’t, because their values and principles are not there to guide them. We have not demanded better from them and we have not demanded better from ourselves and each other. And the time has come that this must change, or we will watch our country fall into the depths of forgotten empires and we will watch morality and values become things that are written about as ancient history stories about mythical men of principle.

PC SheriffPeople today do not even know how to treat one another with respect and dignity. I work with the public every single day. Oh, the sheer number of people who deem it acceptable to treat me and my staff like we are trash is staggering. We have become so politically correct (one of the great downfalls of our society lies in this very tactic) that when someone acts outside of the lines of values and principles, we are not even free to point it out any longer. Allow me to stand up for my dignity with even one overly rude consumer and my corporate office will have my head on a pike.

Yet people are allowed to throw around a claim such as “she is racist” with absolutely no consequences what-so-ever. The Speaker of the House of Representatives stooped to the level of the idiots that had Hitler signs and no one even batted an eye for that. She is the Speaker of the House, and this type of behavior was accepted by half the population of the United States because she is on “their side”. Congress is allowed to limit success, or punish it, in order to “level the playing field”. People have accepted the idea that the appropriate price for having a cap on failure is to have a cap on success. And the American public agrees to a statement like that as though it has merit. They agree to it even though they know in their heart it is wrong.

Our society has become a walking contradiction. Let me first pick on those who feel that socialism or communism is the “better path forward.” You feel as though it is a “good” thing to provide for those unable to provide for themselves. That is a moral position to take. However, you think it is acceptable to take from someone else by force in order to give it to that person. I have to ask, do you not see the contradiction in taking that position? You are using your definitions to impose on those around you. Forget about the whole belief that I have that socialism or communism is physically unsustainable. Focus only on the two choices you make. It is good to help someone in need. It is good to take something that I earned from me. Don’t you see that as contradictory?

Let me next go to the far right in America. You feel as though it is good for Christians to be afforded the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit. That is a moral position to take. However, you see it as acceptable to deny those who don’t believe what you believe the same right to live their lives as they see fit. Forget that your own God forbids you to stand in judgement of other men. Focus just on the two choices you make. It is good to allow group A to live as they see fit according to their beliefs. It is good to deny group B the ability to live as they see fit according to their beliefs. Don’t you see that as contradictory?

Censored ConstitutionYou see, both sides of this issue have allowed others to use emotion and false logic to sway them away from logic and reason. A thousand years of history tells you that socialism and communism collapse on themselves. And you know in your heart that taking from one person to give to another is wrong, you know it in your heart regardless of the outward justifications you attempt to provide. Your own bible tells you that you cannot stand in judgement of others. And you know in your heart that denying others the right to live their life according to their beliefs just as you are afforded the opportunity to do is wrong. You know it in your heart (and read it in your book) no matter how much you try to tell us that you are following the word of God.

There is no shortage of opportunity in this country. There is a massive shortage of self discipline and personal drive. There is no shortage of ability or innovation in this country. There is a shortage of willpower and desire to be better. There is no shortage of money in this country. There is a massive shortage fiscal discipline and adherence to the laws of economics. There is no shortage of values and principles in this country. There is a massive shortage of the willpower to make those values the priority that trumps greed and apathy.  There is no shortage of “wrong” in this country. There is a massive and overwhelming shortage of people willing to admit it is wrong even when it makes the task harder and people willing to renounce it as wrong and demand better from those responsible. And in the world of political discourse, there is no shortage of blame in this country, but there is a massive shortage in personal responsibility and demanding a fix rather than a blame war.

We have allowed our politicians to lose their mind. We have watched those around us accept the lies. Washington has somehow determined that the laws of economics don’t apply to their actions. Washington has somehow determined that the laws of human behavior don’t apply to their plans. They have somehow determined that someone’s “need” is more important than another’s “effort”. They have determined that such a thing as a “greater good” exists at a national level (and now a global one) and that something that won’t work in your own household will work on such a grand scale. Some examples:

  • Debt TankerThe federal government has amassed $11 Trillion in debt, while telling us that having debt is “not such a bad thing” and even “necessary”. We are paying the interest only, which currently stands at roughly $28 Billion per month. That is $300 Billion a year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2019 as our debt interest rates increase, that figure will be $809 Billion a year. And that is just interest. Want universal health coverage? How about scrapping this farce of a plan we see and waiting ten years. Pay off the national debt, and for $800 billion a year you can buy them all Blue Cross policies.
  • The government has created such an entitlement society that in just four generations, we have gone from grandparents who had a 1400 square foot house for 6 children to children that have a 3000 square foot house for two cats. Our grandparents knew debt was bad and thus borrowed only for a mortgage and car. Now society deems it necessary to have no interest financing for purchases $299 and up. We live in debt and our version of “poor” means having to choose between XBox and Playstation instead having both. When your poorest 1/3 of America still owns gaming stations, DVD players, Flat TV’s, cell phones, a collection of $150 jerseys and $200 sneakers, and cars…. You have reached the point of madness when you claim that they are somehow in a position of poverty through no fault of their own, and it is up time to rectify that situation with my hard earned money.

Candidate of ChangeAmerica has come to accept that what a candidate says during a campaign is not at all what he will do once elected. This President promised openness and bipartisanship. He promised to fight to win Afghanistan. He promised a change in the way things were done in Washington. Instead we got an intensification of the politics as usual, as bitter a partisan divide as I have ever seen, and closed door meetings in Congress and bills passed as quickly as possible. We have gotten more misdirection than ever, getting America to focus over here while the politicians do something different over there. Patrick Henry once said, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” And this government is as concealing as any on earth. And the people for some reason accept this.

Ray posed an interesting thought the other night. He has obviously been disgusted with the protests and town halls. And he mentioned that these folks don’t understand the realities of the things they are protesting. He asked the question, “what is at the root of their dissatisfaction?” From his commentary I imagine that what he meant was that the root of the dissatisfaction is ignorance or mis-information. And while there is plenty of that out there, I don’t think that this is the root of the dissatisfaction that we see.

I believe that America has a gut feeling that they are getting screwed. I believe that somewhere inside they can feel that the representation in Washington DC is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, and most importantly, devoid of morals, values, and principles. And they aren’t comfortable with it. And the more of it they see (because each session of Congress over the last 20 years has exposed more of it) the more they realize that Washington DC it out of step with America, and further has no interest in actually serving the people of the United States. And that frustrates them because they don’t know what they can do about it. They see an America that has lost her way. An America that has values out of step with morality. And it hurts them, and angers them. They don’t have the solution, but they are quickly realizing that the things coming out of the Democrat and Republican parties are definitely NOT the solution. So they are beginning to stir.

Better yet, Make this commitment

Better yet, Make this commitment

I don’t have the answers, that is for sure. But I can tell you one thing that you can do right now that will begin down the path of setting things right. Stop the madness. Put VALUES back at the top of the priority list. We are not in a position where “something must be done”. With every action being proposed, stop and ask yourself whether IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Yes, it is horrible that some Americans don’t have health care options. But is taking over the health care industry the right thing to do? Is further increasing the tax burden on the wealthy who already pay 90% of the income taxes in America the right thing to do? If you want to find solutions to today’s problems, don’t start halfway down the road, start at the beginning. Let your values be the first litmus test for any proposal. Yes it will eliminate a lot of options. But every one of you, on the left and the right, know that options that don’t pass the value test are not only immoral, they are destined to fail.

Apply this test to your candidates as well. The first test of a candidate should not be their positions. It should be their values and the principles that they have shown in the past. There are no candidates for national office that have no past. Look at that past. If you find anything questionable, scratch their name off the list of acceptable choices. In a country of 300 Million people, you cannot tell me that there are not 545 people who can pass the test of having solid values and principles. The first step in changing Washington is to commit to the idea that you will never again condone the actions of dishonest men. We have allowed Washington to become a cesspool of absolute garbage. We must commit to no longer tolerating what Washington is. A zero tolerance policy is the only answer.

Money and back room deals cannot overcome 300 Million Americans who have finally decided that values matter far more than political affiliation or partisan position. I know it is hard to conceive on the concept of ignoring the “issues”, but trust this one thought: A person of true principle, with true values and a calibrated moral compass is not going to make immoral decisions on any issue. Because for that person, party position means absolutely nothing when put against their values. There is nothing to fear from a man who truly has moral character and who will stand by his principles.

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand….The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams

Those on the left today have made a serious error in judgement about the movement afoot in America. They are jumping to the conclusion that since the opposition is happening during a completely Democrat controlled period, that the protests and opposition is with a doubt a conservative movement. They are dead wrong. Oh, the Republicans and conservative right is attempting to seize the movement and claim that it is a new feeling in America that supports their cause. They are dead wrong too. What we are seeing as opposition to today’s government wrangling is not a conservative movement or a liberal movement. It is not a Democrat movement or a Republican movement. No folks, the movement afoot today is a movement against big government. It is a movement against the immorality and indecency in Washington. Change is coming to Washington DC. But it isn’t Obama that it is bringing it. He just gassed up their train.

It is an American movement.

And it is about damn time.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Posting to follow. Should be an interesting conversation today. I still think Obama is a pantystain, just for the record!

    Have a Great Day!

    G!

  2. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out whats wrong with America.You already stated the lack and change of values, morals, mores, and ethics that once defined this country.The next thing to do is determine the cause of the loss of said principles.

    My personal opinion is that too many have turned away from God and do not live their life within his Will.Living out of Gods Will has led to the sins the above mentioned congressmen in your article have been found guilty of.

    • Texas:

      It is a WHOLE lot more than living outside of God’s will. There is a MUCH more basic need and that is to have a personal relationship with the Creator of this universe. Until a person is in a vibrant and personal relationship with God Almighty, which is available because of the sacrifice of His Son for our sins, there is no chance to change the environment that the person is in. When a person has this relationship then he or she can work to be submissive and free to the will of the Father.

  3. I really like the last paragraph, that sums up the topic nicely. Getting the clowns in DC tossed out would be such a wonderful thing to see, and I feel the ONLY hope we have at all depends on that.

    I look forward to watching the anti-government movement grow, and I see no other possibility given the agenda push that is going on.

    Hope Mrs. USW is feeling better, my best wishes to her 🙂

  4. Richmond Spitfire says:
  5. I agree that we as a nation have become rude and out of control. We allow the worst of humanity rise to the top of our society. But it worse than that because it has bleed into everyday life. Example: I have been getting estimates for some electrical work to be done in my Mom’s house for her. I have had 5 people come out, everyone of them has been aleast 40minutes late. No phone call, no Im sorry. I understand sometimes one job can run over another. But what happen to calling someone to tell you are running behind. Nothing.

    We have people who refuse to accept any responability for their own lives. If something is wrong, it must be someone’s fault.

    I grew up in a house where respect and responability was a way of life. I can’t imagine not saying sir/maam or thank you to people. The sad part of all of this is the people in Washington love to take out their morality bat and beat everyone over the head with it. Until you have your life together, do not come after me!

  6. Good article. It sums up pretty well what I believe is going wrong with the country.

    I do have one issue.

    Your own bible tells you that you cannot stand in judgement of others. And you know in your heart that denying others the right to live their life according to their beliefs just as you are afforded the opportunity to do is wrong.

    While I understand what you mean here (and agree with what I think is your main point), I think it is a little dangerous to use this kind of language. Let me explain. Everyone seems to like the phrase, “don’t judge me,” but they don’t understand what “judge” means. I can’t believe the Bible is saying not to make a judgement such as, that person never paid me back the last time I lent him money, so I judge that he is an unsafe borrower. I think it is more along the lines of something like, that man is bad or that woman is good. We definitely should judge people, but not condemn them. I could be wrong here, but that is just my take.

    Also, it seems a bit preposterous to me to say we should let people live how they believe they should and in the same breath say that Christians cannot do so. Mormons believed for a long time (and some still do) in polygamy. Should we let them because it is their belief? Where does freedom of religion end? If I am free to be Christian, why am I not free to think homosexuality is wrong? Why can I not act on my belief in trying to end something I think is detrimental not only to society, but to the people doing the act? I do my best not to “impose my religion on others,” but how am I supposed to try to uphold values and ethics if I am told not to, if I am restrained by the very people I’m trying to help?

    This is a tough subject and one that is not likely to go away. These are just some things to think about.

    • Kristian Stout says:

      JB,

      While I understand where you are coming from with this, the Bible does state, Judge not lest ye be judged. It simply is not our place to judge what another does or believes. That is for God, in His infinite wisdom, to do. You are free to think and believe what you want but when you put action behind it you are then infringing on another person’s rights. This is why religion should never be legislated.

      • Lets keep scripture in context yes the bible says Judge not lest ye be judged but the whole text says
        Matt 7:1-5
        1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
        2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
        3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
        4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
        5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

        The bible is talking about correcting your own sin first before you look to help others. When I have sin in my life and believe me I do I have not foundation to teach others about sin in their life. First I musst remove the sin in my life then I am free to help others with a loving attitude.

        Matt 18:15-17
        15″If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

        How can you go show your brother of his fault without a making judgement?

        • esomhillgazette says:

          When the Bible says not to judge, it is saying indeed as JB says, not to condemn. “For all have sinned and fell short of the Glory of God”.

          No one is perfect. Everybody does wrong sometimes in their lives. Thus we get the verses Seed talks of.

          I have no problem letting folks live their lives as they see fit. Their life is not my problem. However, if they see fit to throw their lifestyle in my face, it is my right, at the very least, to tell them what I think of their lifestyle choice. And I will and have.

          This is not a rights issue to me. It is simply mutual respect.

        • For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

          Simply the Law of Mutuality.

          What you do to others gives them the right to do to you.

          I completely agree with JB – we judge others simply by association – who do we wish to be with and who do wish to not be with is a judgment.

          We simply need to be aware that others will do the same to us.

          • PS: This is also my argument against Capital Punishment

            – for those that argue death as punishment upon those that kill the innocent, then death should be your punishment when the innocent are condemned by Capital Punishment.

            • BF..isn’t that effectively what happens? I am sure some where along the lines a person has been hung who was innocent. But if a person goes to jail now and is later found to be innocent he usually collect lots of tax payer $$

              • Yes, if he was merely jailed.

                Hard to give back a man’s life, however, after we’ve killed him.

              • That’s what I am saying…I don’t know how many innocent people have been hung….somany times it makes you wonder.
                But in the same token I am not sure I want to house, feed and provide medical care for people who think it is ok take abuse and kill kids or even grown ups.

              • Amazed

                So break it down so more!

                You have created a false dichotomy.

                You have made (1)either will kill and risk killling innocent or (2) we pay for the killers.

                Obviously, (1) is evil – so we can’t kill them due to the risk of murdering innocent people.

                So, let’s work on (2) –
                why do you have to pay?

                Why can’t they earn their own way – and also pay for their crime?

                No money can replace a life – but paying nothing is even worse, no?

                So why not have them work off an unending debt?

                I’m sure some compensation would be worth something!

    • JB

      I understand you thoughts and respect them completely. I think this is some of the issues people are struggling with. My approach to the world is I live with respect and honesty. I believe in my country and what it is capable of. Now, I do understand that many people believe that my life is one of disgust and believe it is wrong. I am okay with that. My view is I will treat you with respect and honesty in the way you live your life. I am asking for the same space and respect to live mine.
      If that makes any sense.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ellen,

        Whether I believe in a religion that teaches that homosexuality is wrong should technically make no difference whatsoever.

        If someone is a homosexual, even if I personally believe it to be wrong based upon my religion, I must ask myself, “Does their sexuality impact me in any meaningful way?”

        Some religions will attempt to justify the persecution or even the prosecution of homosexuals by saying, “It impacts society in a negative way! By allowing it to exist, we are giving tacit approval to it, and we believe that it is wrong! Therefore the only right thing to do is to outlaw it!”

        This is why many “conservatives” (especially many of the religious bent) are just as guilty of being Statists as many “liberals” are.

        The “liberals” have one thing right, which is that people should be respected for who they are, not for who they “do” in their bedroom. However, most “liberals” have so many other things they believe in that are insanely Statist as well, that I find them highly silly.

        But anyway, I promise that I won’t attempt to legislate that you have to be heterosexual as long as you promise that you won’t attempt to legislate that I CAN’T be heterosexual, OK? 🙂

        See how easy it is to get along with a Libertarian?

      • I’m with you, Ellen. Personally I think homosexuality is wrong. I would never say that a person is “bad” for engaging in said action, but I’ll do my best to convince them of my opinion. In the same way, I expect them to attempt the same with me. I think too often people become offended that others would say what they do is wrong.

        Actually, I have several very close friends who are gay. One of whom is the mother of a good friend. She is like a second mother to me and I care for her a great deal.

        Please don’t take my opinions of what is right and wrong as disrespect as I do not intend it such. 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Let us say that you (generic “you” in this case- could apply to anyone) are a Christian, and you deeply believe that homosexuality is wrong.

      In a society based upon freedom and liberty, are you:

      1. Allowed to profess your view that homosexuality is wrong?

      2. Allowed to encourage homosexuals to change their lives?

      3. Allowed to choose not to associate with homosexuals if you wish to avoid them?

      4. Allowed to make laws forbidding homosexuality and punishing those that violate these laws?

      Answers: 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. Yes, 4. No.

      Note that I said “society based on freedom and liberty” and did not specify THIS society (because THIS society no longer meets the criteria and hasn’t for quite some time).

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Some Mormons believe in polygamy… should we LET THEM because it is their belief? (my caps for emphasis).

      Ask yourself… and be HONEST when you answer yourself…

      Does it DO ME ANY HARM if a Mormon believes in polygamy and marries more than one woman?

      It may offend your religious beliefs… but that is not equivalent to HARMING YOU.

      They are not imposing upon you in any way. They are not attempting to write any laws that say YOU MUST ALSO HAVE MULTIPLE WIVES.

      You, however, seem to wish to write a law saying that they CANNOT have multiple wives even if they wish to… so it is YOU who wish to impose on them!

      People often confuse “religion” and morality. There are many things in pretty much all religions that are good examples of morality. There are also many things in pretty much all religions that are great examples of the exact opposite of morality.

      I have no problem with you believing whatever religion you choose to believe. However, I have a BIG problem once you decide it is ok to try to force your beliefs on ME under the guise of them being “moral”.

      If a man marries one woman, and he wishes to marry yet another woman, and both women agree to that arrangement, how does that harm me in any way or impose upon me? If he chooses to marry a third, or even a fourth woman, and all of the women in that arrangement are ok with it, why should I even care?

      Now, if ANY of the women in that arrangement were coerced or forced into the arrangement even though they did not agree to it, then yes, I am against it.

      Provided the arrangement was reached by mutual agreement, it isn’t even an issue.

      • You are treading on some shaky ground.

        If two people take a pact to kill each other, it does not affect me in the least. It is most certainly not OK. I know this is hyperbolic, but it shows the point.

        I get your point on legislating from religious morality, but I have some thoughts.

        Why do we legislate? I would assume it is an attempt to outlaw actions that are “bad” and encourage those that are “good.” This is a very simplistic view, but run with it. How do we decide what is “bad?” Well, for me, it comes from my faith and the Bible. Does that make it less worthy than that of an atheist?

        How do we decide what to legislate? We say murder is wrong. The reason I believe this is from the Bible. Why should I not legislate against adultery, homosexuality? Should Jewish people not seek to legislate dietary restrictions because others are not Jewish? Should Vegetarians not legislate against meat products because others are not vegetarian? Just because someone opposes it does not mean it shouldn’t be wrong.

        If I believe murder isn’t wrong, are you imposing your beliefs on me by saying I can’t murder?

        What I think is that we all try to define what is right and wrong based on our own belief system (whether you think that comes from God or a giant marshmallow at the center of a black hole is irrelevant). When we get some general agreement that becomes law (that’s how democracy works).

        Note: I’m not saying we SHOULD legislate all this, personally I think that the less the government is involved, the happier people are. The marriage debate is a perfect example. Take marriage out of the government’s hands and there is no debate.

        I suppose my point in all this is that saying we should not make a law simply because it comes from religion is not a valid argument.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JB,

          Your example fails to prove your point even though it is hyperbolic.

          Let us say, for example, that I agree to kill you, and you agree to kill me, and, as per our agreement, we kill each other.

          If I have agreed to kill you, and you have agreed to kill me, and we do so without threatening to harm or directly harming anyone else, is that REALLY murder?

          I consented to you killing me, you consented to me killing you. This is, in fact NOT MURDER at all… it is a SUICIDE PACT.

          You might find such a pact abhorrent, you might find that it violates many principles of your religious beliefs, but, if you look closely, even though it is an extreme example, there was no intrinsic violation of the natural rights of either person in this case.

          You might make the argument that both people in such a case would have to be insane in order to agree to such an arrangement, and due to their lack of sanity should have been under the care of guardians who were capable of making sound decisions on their behalf, but that is really all you could argue in this case.

          You could also argue that any surviving friends and family members of either of these people were “harmed” by this event, which is where it does become somewhat tricky, because we have now left the realm of physical harm or potential physical harm, and entered the realm of “how do we measure harm when it is not of a direct physical nature?”

          I would like to see BF respond to this. My feeling is that a suicide pact, though not something I would personally participate in, is not a direct violation of natural law, although it would indicate that both parties that participated in such an agreement might not technically be sane.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Also,

          Whether you believe murder is wrong or not is completely irrelevant!!!!!

          COMPLETELY!

          Natural Law states that I have a right to life.

          You may not agree that I have a right to life.

          Natural law states that I have a right to defend myself, up to and including the use of deadly force, if you become a direct threat to my existence.

          Natural Law DOES NOT CARE whether you agree with it or not. Your agreement or disagreement with it is irrelevant.

          If you choose to disagree with enough fundamental, natural laws, nature tends to find ways to eliminate you from the system.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Also, and finally (lol)

          Let us say that YOU because of your religion, believe that homoexuality is wrong.

          You seek to legislate that homosexualty is illegal.

          However, homosexuality does not defy any Natural Laws.

          You have just turned other people who happen to be homosexual into criminals.

          Let us say that I think that eating meat is abhorrent, because I believe that it is wrong to kill animals for food.

          I seek to make eating meat illegal.

          However, eating meat does not violate any Natural Laws.

          I have just turned all meat-eating people into criminals.

          Let us say that my religion advocates dietary restrictions.

          I seek to legislate that only certain foods can be eaten.

          However, a varied diet violates no Natural Laws…

          I have just turned anyone who eats a “forbidden food” into a criminal.

          For the last example, let us say that I personally think murder is perfectly ok.

          Maybe I even try to legislate that murder is just fine and dandy.

          However, MURDER VIOLATES NATURAL LAW.

          Because murder violates natural law, any legislation favoring murder would be complete and utter nonsense.

          • You’ve done a fine job explaining that you think these things do not violate “Natural Laws,” but how do you know what they are? In my book, a “Natural Law” comes from the Creator of the universe, hence homosexuality violates a natural law…

            Anyway, who said we only make laws of this form? Why are your natural laws better than mine? I’m sure others have other natural laws? Whose do we use?

            Suicide may not violate your natural laws, but it certainly does mine and is illegal BTW.

            Also BTW. I actually said I didn’t want to legislate against homosexuality. All I did was respond to what I thought was an erroneous thought by USW.

        • JB

          If two people take a pact to kill each other, it does not affect me in the least. It is most certainly not OK. I know this is hyperbolic, but it shows the point.

          Peter did a fine job of explaining how this may be repugnant, but it is not my right to interfere.

          Why do we legislate? I would assume it is an attempt to outlaw actions that are “bad” and encourage those that are “good.” This is a very simplistic view, but run with it. How do we decide what is “bad?” Well, for me, it comes from my faith and the Bible. Does that make it less worthy than that of an atheist?

          I agree – we ‘legislate’ to promote ‘good’ actions and deter ‘bad’ actions.

          But we must be careful to understand that there exists TWO distinct levels of legislation.
          1) Law
          2) Rules

          Laws use coercive violence and force to enact an edict.

          We, in society, determine that the only legitimate use of violence is to defend from an attack of violence.

          Thus, LAW against murder, theft, assault, etc. are legitimate uses of legal force in response.

          Rules use non-violent societal choices to enact rules.

          We, in society, determine that there are many non-violent behaviors that are disagreeable to the body of society.

          However, they are non-violent actions.

          Therefore, the use of violence would be, in fact, a criminal act for that would be initiating the attack on these non-violent, but disagreeable, people.

          Thus, non-violent societal pressure is used to enforce rules, such as shunning, etc.

          The danger is when we use force and violence (law) to enforce Rules (non-violent prohibitions), we legitimize the very act which we prohibit – the attack or initiation of violence.

          How do we decide what to legislate? We say murder is wrong. The reason I believe this is from the Bible.

          If your claim was correct, then any society that did not have the Bible would not prohibit murder.

          However, nearly every society across all time across all cultures of the world have prohibited murder.

          Therefore, it is not a Biblical thing.

          The Bible simply codified what was already an established Common Law.

          We prohibit murder because if we do not, we legitimize it.

          If murder is legitimized, society will quickly descend into chaos, and collapse.

          Therefore, prohibitions on all murder (even those by accident) are maintained so to maintain a stable and prosperous society.

          The alternative is collapse.

          Thus, we chose what to legislate based on the ability for society to prosper.

          Why should I not legislate against adultery, homosexuality?

          You should, if that is what you believe.

          However, which tool you use is important

          Do you use the tool of Law or the tool of Societal Common Rules?

          Use the wrong tool, and you will degrade society toward collapse.

          Use the right tool, you will improve the success of society into sustainability.

          If I believe murder isn’t wrong, are you imposing your beliefs on me by saying I can’t murder?

          No, I am not imposing by not imposing.

          Read that carefully again.

          I am NOT imposing my belief on you, because I am NOT acting upon you.

          To murder, you must act.

          For me to not murder you, I simply do not act.

          For you to murder me, requires YOU to initiate the attack.

          I am not trying to murder you, so I have not initiated an attack.

          You can hold your belief but do nothing and nothing happens because I do not act, either. Therefore, I am not imposing because I am not acting upon you.

          As soon as you act against me, you trigger my right to act against you in defense.

          Thus, it is you – and only you – who is acting and therefore imposing.

          When we get some general agreement that becomes law (that’s how democracy works).

          It has nothing to do with democracy.

          It has everything to do with Common Law.

          And you are right – it is by general consensus what rules a particular society wishes to enact – however, which Law should be is very easy.

          Laws are those edicts that prevent, mitigate and repair acts of initiation of violence. Period.

          Rules can be anything else.

    • JB

      i prefer that people not judge. i have watched and read this blog for months and have often found myself sided with more conservative/anarchist approches to matters n things. that places me in hard views as i am a rarity – a “married” transexual who simply wants to enjoy love and life with my husband w/o interference and judgemental peoples.

      thank you

      Ling

  7. esomhillgazette says:

    Responsibility. Reason. Morals. Rationality. Honesty. Duty.

    These are just some of the words that we all need to live by an teach our children to live by. And there are a lot out there who do not do either one.

    Responsibility – YOU and you alone are responsible for your actions. Not anyone else. Not a Government. Not Society.

    Reason – You should be able to look at prblems and concerns in your life with reason and and rationality.

    Morals – I have heard on this site, that this dependsa on what your definition of morals are. Bulldookey. Morals are at the very least in some part common to all.

    Honesty – Do I really have to explain this one?

    Duty – This is to your Country. Obviously not required in this day and age (and more’s the pity), but a sense of duty to your family, your Country, and your responsibilities of life should be a cornerstone of your life.

    Yet how many people in this one Nation we call the USA have these?

    I can see BF, JAC, and Peter’s side. We SHOULD live together and do the right thing because it is the right thiong to do. We should. I even support this to an extent.

    But I can also see Matt, Ray, and GG’s point also. Some are NOT going to do the right thing because they don’t have any of the above stated principles. And when you’re talking about 3m+ people in the Country, please, No Govt whatsoever is not going to cut it.

    I do think that no Government whatsoever would be better than what we have right now. That does NOT mean I think we should not have one. Just not the one we have now. Or rather, not the Representatives we have now. I tend more towards the VLDG principles of Government. Just enough to do their job and not enough to interfere.

    I’m sorry to say though that, as good as it sounds, the No Damn Government idea will NEVER work. There are just too damn many people in this Country. You couldn’t get 100 of them to work together. Much less 300 million +.

    • Essom:

      There may be legitimate reasons that NO GOVT will not work. But that reason will lie in the nature of man and a solid philosophical base.

      It will not be just because society is to complex or that we have 300 million people. These are rationalizations by Statists to justify their system. There is no basis in reality to support he assertion. Not based on JUST complexity or population.

      That is the point that GG and others won’t accept, or can’t accept. In a country of 300 million everyone doesn’t have to work together or even get along. The number of people any of us deal with is not that large. Even in the metropolis our interactions come down to neighborhoods and communities within communities.

      While I don’t subscribe to the No Govt theory, I at least can see how it might work. Not now and not tomorrow on a National Scale. But it is possible someday. Will it happen? Doubt it will on a large scale. But then right now VDLG isn’t very likely either.

      Although here is the kicker. Last year everyone would have given VDLG a snowballs chance of ever becoming a reality. Today there are people all across this country discussing just such an option and how it might work. So in the long run, who knows what may be possible.

      Once again, the complexity of society and the population size are not justification for govt nor for dismissing Anarchism. Remember that govt is the monopoly to intitiate coersive force upon the innocent. That is what is eliminated with NO GOVT. It is not the organization and structure of society working to solve problems. It is the power to force everyone to jump when someone else thinks they should.

      At its basic level, society would function on the basis of Consent, not consensus nor majority rule. We would be ruled by the Consent of free people. Sound a little familiar?

      Happy Times to You My Southern Cousin
      JAC

      • They’re not rationalizations. That is where you are confused. They are plain and simple recognition of facts. Not all people are ethical. Without the bonds of government to control unacceptable* behavior, some people will get out of hand. The problem is that one or two people going on a rampage isn’t a huge issue. But when there are 10,000 people murdering and stealing and raping and pillaging, this is a huge issue. How many people does it take to construct a building, and how many to burn it down? How much time would it take you to plant the crops you would need to survive, and how much time would it take one of these people to steal them?

        Some here would argue that if every citizen is armed and free to take the “law” into their own hands that they will wipe out undesirable behavior through the process of elimination. But you cannot guard your crops all day, you have to rely on outside forces to keep the peace. You cannot guard your daughters all the time. You cannot watch your own back all the time. And the fear of ostracism only works if (a)the culprit can be identified and (b)the culprit cares if he’s identified.

        Show me a model for no government where you can be assured personal safety and security for yourself and your possessions and where businesses won’t pollute massively and where the crazies are handled safely and where “free” men do not become de facto slaves to the owners of the means of production in totally free market capitalism. Then answer this question from the other day: if, under communism, some productive people will get lazy and become non-productive thus encourages more people to become unproductive, why do you believe that without government to force people to act** ethically, that they will all continue to be ethical, and why the easy lifestyle of crime will not attract more followers. (And why does crime continue to proliferate where crime already proliferates? As criminals die off, why do new criminals take their place? Is there something inherently unethical about people that live in high crime areas or do they get drawn to crime by the risk/reward equation of lawlessness?).

        *Who determines what unacceptable means? Certainly, I would argue that in many places, government has stupidly decided the answer to this question (see drug policy, immigration, prostitution). Take this as intended.

        **I couldn’t care less if people are ethical or not, only that they are insofar as it concerns me and mine. Thus, while government can’t fix the cause, it can treat the symptoms.

        • Mathius,

          While I am not one of those that supports the idea of no government, I do say the following:

          Mathius said: Without the bonds of government to control unacceptable* behavior, some people will get out of hand.

          And with the bonds of one of the most expansive government on earth, people continue to get out of hand. A government cannot be created that will stop people from getting out of hand. So given the choice of people out of hand with a giant oppressive government or people out of hand with a very minimal government and increased liberty…. which do you choose?

          Mathius said: Show me a model for no government where you can be assured personal safety and security for yourself and your possessions and where businesses won’t pollute massively and where the crazies are handled safely and where “free” men do not become de facto slaves to the owners of the means of production in totally free market capitalism.

          Show me a model for any government on earth where you can be assured personal safety and security for yourself and your possessions and where businesses won’t pollute massively and where the crazies are handled safely and where “free” men do not become de facto slaves to the owners of the means of production in totally free market capitalism.

          Just some food for thought there.

          USW

          • All fair. So, to clarify. I view this as a question of extent. It is a cost benefit ratio. How much government do we have to have to ensure a degree of safety with which I* am comfortable?

            That said, a total absence of government allows the scales to shift massively in favor of criminality. Therefore, I would expect people to become (on balance) more criminal.**** This seems logical to me. Do you argue this point, or is it the other parts that you disagree with?

            And though our government is expansive (though there have been far, far more controlling governments), it does do a pretty good job of keeping crime down and everyone safe without being too restrictive**. Yes there is plenty of crime, but there are also plenty of people to commit crime and plenty to be gained from it.

            Finally, I would suggest that crime should by-and-large be treated as a mental disorder, and the criminals should receive counseling, job training, and rehabilitation rather than being locked up with other criminals to amplify the problems.***

            *This is a question to which everyone is going to have a different answer.
            **The fact that we can type here with impunity and criticize the government at all is testament to the freedoms we enjoy.
            ***Many crimes are viewed as justifiable or crimes of necessity by the perpetrators. The fact that you have and they don’t is sufficient justification in their eyes to take from you. Thus, correcting this issue and giving them the means to provide for themselves should help alleviate much of the problem. Or does this out me as too liberal?
            ****People here have argued that Americans have shorter life spans than citizens of other countries because of our life-styles rather than our health care. This may be true. Likewise, we may have such high crime rates because of our every-man-for-himself-rugged-individualist-me-first culture rather than because of our government. I cannot say. All I know is that if you take away the threat of government prosecution, you’re going to see the worst in people become far more prevalent. What would happen if you allowed 6 year olds free reign in the house? They would eat all the cookies and destroy everything else. People are no different.

            People need to be force fed their veggies.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              The premise which you will never accept is People.Are.Greedy.

              If you give people a massive centralized power structure from which certain people (elected, appointed, born into power by divine right, or whatever) are allowed to make the rules, GUESS WHO IS GOING TO DO THEIR LEVEL BEST TO OBTAIN SUCH POSITIONS OF POWER???

              The.People.Who.Are.The.MOST.GREEDY.

              So, by having a massive centralized government, you just gave the worst of the worst the keys to power.

              Also, you are one of the people that thinks that No Goverment MEANS No Rules.

              No matter how many times JAC, or BF, or Kent, or I explain that Government and Rules are not one in the same thing, you fall back on, “Yes they are! WTF are you talking about?”

              So you see, there are 2 impediments to having a useful discussion.

              Impediment #1 is that you fail to recognize that a large centralized government empowers THE PEOPLE YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MOST to be the ones that obtain the most power, yet you seem to think that by putting them in power, it will somehow solve the problem. This makes no sense.

              Impediment #2, you believe government and rules to by synonymous, or at the very least that you can’t have one without the other.

              I believe that giving the most evil and most greedy access to centralized power will logically mean that the evil and greedy will make laws which FAVOR THE EVIL AND GREEDY.

              I believe that “rules” come from Natural Law, and have only a passing resemblance (or in many cases no resemlance at all) to what some “government” tells me is a “law”.

              This makes conversations between us extremely difficult, because we cannot even agree on the basis for the conversation, so we just tend to go around in circles a lot.

              Fun if you are on a carnival ride… not so much fun otherwise 🙂

              • Perhaps the point isn’t that there are natural laws that most people will agree with and follow-nor is anyone demanding that you prove nothing evil will happen because we are smart enough to already know that -it’s how- and here comes the dreaded word-are these natural laws in a non government society going to be ENFORCED.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                V. Holland.

                Let us say that I own a restaurant. You come there for food. Instead, you get terrible service and the food is lousy. You see a few cockroaches around and even a rat.

                Logically, DOES IT REQUIRE A STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO SHUT ME DOWN, or are people simply going to stop coming there after a few people have terrible experiences and word gets around that the food is terrible, the service is terrible, and the restaurant is unsanitary?

                What law, what rule, or what agency is REALLY NECESSARY in order to shut this restaurant down?

                NONE!

                You are smart enough on your own to figure out not to go there!

              • Your also smart enough to know PeterB, that I am not referring to roaches in restaurants. 🙂

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I could be obtuse and say that you were indeed.

                Would you care for me to pull out any examples that you would find more “relevant”?

              • Lets see-a life threatening example would work.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If your life is threatened, you have the right to defend yourself…

              • I have that right now-don’t want to live in a world where that is my only option-so what so we do with dangerous criminals in your non government world-besides kill them.

              • I find myself in a lot of these discussions feeling like most of the points we are arguing about arising from the fact that we seem to be discussing two different topics at the same time. 1. government/no-government.
                2. Big government/small government

              • OK, so where do rules in your society stem from? Natural laws are great but will the masses follow without consequences when it’s so convenient and rewarding to do otherwise?

                It is true that greedy people seek out power and that they often times wind up in congress. I’m more worried about the greedy masses who will rise up to steal and maim en masses. Yes senators will take and take to consolidate power, but they understand that, ultimately, their power comes from you and if they displease you too severely, we will take their power away. Criminals have so such restrictions. Do it mean that the system is perfect? No. But it’s far better than nothing.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                Again you make a very common error.

                You make the assumption that a failure to follow a natural law comes with NO CONSEQUENCES.

                This is a further impediment to any meaningful conversation.

                It is SILLY on the face of it to make the claim that a failure to follow a natural law would come with no consequences.

              • Very well. Where do the consequences come from?

              • See #21

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Esom,

      No matter what set of rules a society chooses to live by, there are always going to be people who choose to not do the right thing.

      I do not care if the society is completely “free” or if the society is 100% State controlled.

      This is where GGcs’s argument that State control is 100% necessary falls apart completely.

      I can show, through countless examples, the more State control is allowed in the society, the more evil occurs in the society.

      Of course, I cannot possibly show that in a society with no State control that there would be no evil, because THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE EVIL.

      The trap that GG has fallen into (and others as well… I don’t JUST want to pick on GG here) is that they believe that the ONLY way to reduce the risk of evil is by having as much State control in society as possible, which thereby INSTITUTIONALIZES THE EVIL and forces it upon both those that would ordinarily be good, as well as those that would ordinarily be evil.

      So yes, I CANNOT SAY that if we all were free nothing bad would ever happen to you. That would be a foolish statement.

      Now, the problem arises because a large portion of the population has abdicated personal responsibility, abandoned reason, morals, and honesty, and have no sense of duty whatsoever.

      If you suddenly gave all of these people freedom, it is INDEED VERY LIKELY THAT THEY COULD NOT HANDLE IT. GG and others like him USE THIS AS THE EXCUSE AND JUSTIFICATION for the existence of as much State control as possible.

      In this process, they either ignore or deny THAT THE STATE IS THE PRIMARY REASON that the people have abdicated personal responsibility, abandoned reason, morals and honesty, and lost their sense of duty.

      This is WHY their argument is completely circular and makes no sense. They seek to use the State which has destroyed these things as the means for controlling the people that have lost these things, but the people would not have lost these things to begin with IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THE STATE.

      A perfectly illogical circle, no?

      So, what can we do?

      It seems likely (even though it seems absurd) that the country may well split in two at this point. The portion of the country that still has responsibility, reason, honesty, morality, and duty might well DEMAND THEIR FREEDOM and leave the irresponsible, immoral, unreasonable and derelict to their State controlled lives.

      If that does indeed happen, it will probably be a big mess, but it is going to be an EVEN BIGGER MESS if the Statists continue to try to force their system on absolutely everyone.

      My hope is that we ALL get our freedom, and those that need to still have the capability to re-learn (or learn for the first time) responsibility, honesty, morality, duty, etc.

      But, the main point is, it does not matter whether you have freedom or total State control… either way you ARE going to have evil in the world.

      The choice you must make is just how much “institutionalized evil” are you personally willing to accept? Do you think that more is better, or none is better?

      If you think that no institutionalized evil is acceptable, then you are willing to accept PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect yourself against evil.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        To BF, JAC, Peter, Matt, GG, et al. This is why, as I stated above, I favor VLDG. As JAC, Peter and USW said, it doesn’t matter how much control a State has, there will still be Aholes who think they are smarter or just plain above the Law.

        I also think, but did not say, that like Peter I think it will eventually come down to a split. It will not be North against South, or East and West. It will be Conservative VLDG against Liberal Democrat\Socialism. I also think that would be the best solution.

        The Liberal side would not last long IMO. But we would see.

  8. Ahhh…USW…now, tell me how you really feel. Nice post, sir.

    • To Those of Us Born 1930 – 1965

      TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, and the 60’s.

      First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

      They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can and didn’t get tested for diabetes.

      Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints..

      We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps and not helmets on our heads.

      And when we had our sleds, we tied them to the bumper of a car and had a really neat ride as long as you made sure you didn’t slide under the car when it stopped.

      As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.

      Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

      We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.

      We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this.

      We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter or lard and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And, we weren’t overweight.. WHY?

      Because we were always outside playing…that’s why!

      We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on..

      No one was able to reach us all day. And, we were OKAY.

      We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill,
      only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

      We did not have Play stations, Nintendo’s and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD’s, no surround-sound or CD’s, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms.

      WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

      We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

      We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping pong paddles, or just a bare hand and no one would call child services to report abuse….

      We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

      We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes..

      We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.

      Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment.

      Imagine that!!

      The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

      These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.

      The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

      We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all..

      If YOU are one of them, CONGRATULATIONS!

      You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.

      For our contributions over the years, the government wants to reward us with reformed Health Care and less freedoms.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Amen Brother D!!

        Life was SOOOO much simpler back then. You know, we (my family) were dirt poor up here in NW Georgia, but we didn’t know, and didn’t care, because everyone around us was the same way.

        Kids didn’t brag about how many video games they had, because they didn’t have any. They also didn’t have any more toys period than we did. As a matter of fact, in my ‘hood, rich kids were as rare as hens teeth.

        Of course I lived 20 miles back in the sticks. And most of my friends were also my family (cousins). But we had miles of woods to play in too. And we used them! If you told mama or daddy you were bored, they found you something to do, that didn’t happen more than once, if at all.

        Ahhhhh, the good old days!!! Thanks for bringing back the memories Colonel!

      • Kristian Stout says:

        This applies to the early 70’s too. That’s how I grew up and I miss it!

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Thank you Kristian…I was born in ’66 and I felt sooo left out!

          Best Regards,
          RS

          • Now, now, Richmond, I did include the 60’s….or were you left out in the 60’s….those were interesting times.

          • Kristian Stout says:

            I was born in 69, so that did let me escape that madness that was the decade of Love…lol

            • Ahhh, Kristian….Started college in 65…class of 69 University of Texas….wow…some college days. Too bad you missed the free love era.

              • Kristian Stout says:

                I think I’m probably better off for having missed it D. I’ve heard some pretty good stories from family members though.

          • I grew up in the 90’s*. Now that was tough. We only had dial-up. We had to keep up with our friends who had better video games. Sometimes (shudder) we even had to go to the mall without cell phones or credit cards. How could the 70’s possibly compare to that kind of hardship?

            *I was born in ’83, but don’t really remember the 80’s – I was too young.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            August ’63

          • August ’61 and hubby is August ’59.

            You forgot 1 thing D13…Grandma put gravy on everyfreaking thing and we loved it! 🙂

            • OMG, I feel so old compared to you people. Me, NOV,51

              Hubby Jan, 47. BTW, that’s not our ages, that’s the year we were born in.

        • Fair enough, Kristian, fair enough…..I agree

        • bottom line says:

          I second that Kristian Stout. I was born in the 70’s and I’ve done almost everything on that list…and then some.

      • While I did not grow up in one of those periods I still did many of those things. Just a reminder though the lawyers and government regulations that prohibit such behavior now came from those generations as well.

        • Seed, right you are….as a matter of fact, the social and sexual revolution of the 60’s has spawned many of our crappy ass laws and political correctness thinking of today for those are the ones in power now….however, I do see some hope of the 80’s generation.

      • When I was a kid, and I wanted to play Nintendo, sometimes it wouldn’t work. You take the cartridge out, blow in it and that would magically fix the problem. Every kid in the world did that, but how did we all know how to fix the problem? There was no internet or message boards or FAQ’s. We just figured it out. Today’s kids are soft.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, those regular NES cartridges were famous for getting a good static charge and accumulating tiny dust particles which made them totally inoperative… until you blew on them repeatedly to get the dust off 🙂

          Even though I am quite a bit older than you, I have always loved video games and computer games, and have many memories of blowing into Nintendo NES cartridges.

          • I still break mine out and play it a couple of times a year. SMB3 is probably the best game ever made when you consider the systems limitations at the time it was made.

            • Hardly.

              Two words: Duck Hunt.

              Also, lest we forget, Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I second SMB3 as one of the best games ever!

              Any game that let you morph into a giant flying squirrel and fly over your enemies or tail-whip them to death is simply the bomb 🙂

              • hard to argue with that.. still, what about sonic and tails? a giant flying fox? and he didn’t need a huge running start or a special hat

          • Yes, good times.. but how did we know to do that? Today’s punks would look it up on the internet – we had to be more resilient than that.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              My 14 year old HAS no internet but can literally destroy Halo 2, Gears of War 2, and any opponent of the Bulldogs about 1000 to nothing with ease.

        • Kristian Stout says:

          I remember when Atari first came out. Space Invaders, OMG that was ages ago!

          • oh man! Now that was a game!

          • My little brother loved my old Atari, he begged and begged me for it. When he went to college, I finally gave it to him figuring that it’d be cool in a dorm room. He immediately turned around and sold it on eBay for around $250. I was torn between beating him senseless and admiring his entrepreneurial spirit.

            • Hi Mathius

              Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it. But, he did pull a fast one on you it looks like.

          • One of my favorite games from ATARI was Frogger. I could never get that poor frog all the way across. SPLAT! Every single time.

      • not done mowing yet ….

      • I wanted to put my 2 cents worth in earlier, but couldn’t

        I was born in 1951, that’s really showing my age now isn’t it. D13, everything you said is so true, and I have vivid memories of growing up in the 50’s. You can go out for hours without anybody ever worrying about you. You would come in for lunch, maybe, but you had to be home by dinner.

        Both my parents worked while we 3 kids went to school, and they never worried about us, because they knew that we were either at a friends house, or our friends were at our house. When they came home, mom or dad made dinner, we all sat at the same table talking about our day, and how school was. During the summer, my parents didn’t have that off, left us 3 kids home alone, and knew there wouldn’t be any trouble. We were just too busy all day, everyday until the lights came on outside, that was the cue to come in.

        We never had to worry about being kidnapped for some reason back then. When we went to school, you knew darn well the teacher was boss until the bell rang, you didn’t get away with what they get away with now. Things were so much different then, than they are now. Back then, you could count on your neighbors to lend a hand if needed. Neighbors looking after each other, looking after each other’s kids if we chose that one particular house to play at.

        I had fun growing up back in those days. Early days of rock and roll, learning how to do the twist, mashed potatoes, and other dances that took place then. Watching dance party on or American Bandstand.

        Now, you have to watch every move your kid makes, and who they hang out with, and where they go, and what they do. I got married in 1969, and still married to the same guy. Miracle, isn’t it. I was 17, and he was 21. We are now, He is 62, and I’ll be 58 this November. Our son’s are 27 and 24.

        Hope all is having a good day.

        Judy

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Where I grew up you could go play all day away from the house without your Mama and Daddy having to worry all the way up until the late 70’s, maybe even early 80’s.

          Now where you live doesn’t matter. No place is safe for kids. The world has become kind of a pathetic place to live as far as crime goes. Especially violent crime. So with all the Laws we have now, why would anyone think that even more Laws will help?

          Criminals don’t care how many laws you pass. They don’t even care about the penalty. Only if they get caught.

          I have solutions to these things, but you don’t want to know what they are. Just remember that I SUPPORT the Death Penalty. And to be perfectly honest, that is not the worst punishment I would have. For SOME particular crimes the offender would welcome the sweet release of death.

          • Hi Esom

            They can make a million different laws, all the laws they can write. I have yet to see any criminal say, oh wait, that’s against the law, better not do it. In your dreams maybe.

      • Will it ever be this way again? Hop Scotch, kickball, jumprope, Jacks, marbles, stiltes, dodgeball, 4 square, skate boards, and bicycles. What was a video game? We had real fun. Neighbors you could trust? Friends that nearly lived at your house? Horse backing riding before day light….watching the town come alive from a hilltop.
        Today I am afraid to allow my grandkids out of my sight….

  9. All;

    I believe that most folks struggle with the first lie, especially if they are caught, less if they are not. As social pressures build and lying is left unchecked it becomes much easier to continue the lies, and just as easy to justify them for a warped sense of a greater good.

    As a result individuals start to live our their lies even to the point that those lies become as real as actual events or truths. If the individual allows them to progress that becomes a part of their persona, and own being.

    It is difficult enough, for most, to stay on the straight and narrow living a normal average life, let alone being involved in politics; where favors, IOU’s and markers are a norm. This is especially true if your peers are liars that have morphed even further.

    I suspect that there are some non-representing representatives that stepped into their first political position really true-blue, but the pressures imposed upon them by those they represent, and the stronger pressures imposed upon them by their peers pulled them to the dark-side. And as they accumulated successes and stature it became easier to lie, cheat, steal, and aid the contiued corruption. They became a part of the whole, just another cancer cell adding to the distruction of the body.

    I believe we are at a point that we cannot erradicate the cancer without killing the host; it has spread way to far. Even if we were to remove each and every member of congress, the nature of the cancer would still be present. The cancer is present throughout Washington and our government from the highest official to the local school board member.

    What I am saying is that a status quo, or methodology, has imbedded itself within politics as a whole, and it functions despite the individuals wrapped up within it. There are elements that rule how Washington operates, kind of like a gas engine. As long as there is fuel the engine will run. WE NEED TO REMOVE THE FUEL, STOP THE ENGINE, OTHERWISE WE CANNOT RE-ENGINEER IT.

    Glenn Bech made a statement a week or so ago on his TV show that realy sunk in. “SAY NO TO ANYTHING GOING INTO OR OUT OF WASHINGTON.” I believe he was and is on the right track. It’s kind of like a fisherman. How do you know a fisherman is not lying? When his mouth is closed.
    Since none of us beleive anything coming out of Washington is truthfull we need to shut them up. Nothing gets done, stop the presses, shut down the line, turn off the engine.

    I admit I am not sure how we do this, but if we are to salvage what is left of a free society and start the process of rebuilding/re-designing the engine we need to first cut off its fuel supply. Maybe BF has a point “no vote”, but I would suggest that we take it a step further and let each and every non-representing representative know that not only did they lose the vote, but that we are not letting them have anything; no additional taxes, support, air time feedback, invitations, etc. We are not going to provide them anything, but that we will do everything lawfully to ensure they do not return to congress; even if that means their seat is empty.

    A snake is a snake, a tiger is a tiger and you can bet they both will bite given the opportunity. Remove their teeth and claws.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Do not feed the beast that seeks to enslave you, or you give the beast the power to enslave you.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Do not accept food from the beast that wishes to enslave you, or you give the beast the power to enslave you.

    • Maybe BF has a point “no vote”,

      You bet!

      You got it Common Man! – withdrawing your vote will rattle them like nothing else.

      The withdrawal of legitimacy scares the hell out of government – because legitimacy is a necessary requirement to be government. Without it, all they are are vicious thugs, and they know it.

      but I would suggest that we take it a step further and let each and every non-representing representative know that not only did they lose the vote, but that we are not letting them have anything; no additional taxes, support, air time feedback, invitations, etc. We are not going to provide them anything, but that we will do everything lawfully to ensure they do not return to congress; even if that means their seat is empty.

      Homerun!~

      Exactly! Exactly! Exactly!

      At every step it is a NO! No more money, no more programs, no more action… every step a protest… saturate them with phone calls of NoNoNo!

      They’ll get the message….

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        In a sudden moment of complete lucidity, Common Man figures out the puzzle 🙂

        • All;

          Maybe we have another T-Shirt “NO! Now what part of that didn’t you understand?”

          CM

          • I am sure that the 41% of the country that relies on the Fed to take care of them will be very happy for the non-participation. Makes it sooo much more a sure thing.

            The only remedy was stated earlier, DON’T FEED THE BEAST!

      • All;

        To continue my train of thought here is some interesting information:

        Does anybody remember the reason given by the government for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY…during the Carter Administration?

        Well we (the tax paying citizens of America) allowed the government to spend several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency that most people cannot remember the reason for. Remember what was going on (in additon to rising inflation and a poor economy) during the Carter Administration…an oil/gas shortage!

        The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977 to “LESSON OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL”.

        It has been 32 years and now in 2009 the budget for this necessary department is 24.2 billion a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and about 100,000 contract employees

        Talk about efficency…NOT!!!!!

        But a large majority of American’s out there think it makes sense to let the government run the banks, auto industry, health care and mandate how we are going to trade with other countries.

        To coin a phrase from those in the military “NO, not on my watch!”

        CM

  10. Furthermore:

    After reading USW’s series I concluded that which I have believed to be true; the people are responsible for our current state of government. Those generations that preceeded us backed off for whatever reasons. They failed to listen, investigate, question, doubt, rebute, argue and prevent. They didn’t confront the liar, they just let it lay. And with each additional generation it progressed. They instiled this trait within their children and children’s offspring. Why? Was it easier, was it peer pressure, did they fall to the so-called norm of society around them? Who knows, but the reasons are crititcal to correcting the problem. I think we must first fully understand why we allow things to happen before we can alter that which took place.

    Maybe we all bought into the easy life, or keeping up with the jones’s. Maybe we were too insecure to step away from the crowd and stand independent. It falls back to morality and self rightousness. If it goes against your grain, then stand against it. Don’t just turn away and let it go, or you will further deteriate your stature.

    Anthony Robbins has a process he uses when talking about goal setting called the ‘Rocking Chair Evaluation’, and I think it is appropriate when we are pondering an action or response.
    He says that you should invision yourseld at 89 years old setting on the front porch reviewing your life. How would you feel about NOT having done or accomplished that which you dreamed of or strived for. Would you feel happy that you didn’t do those things, or would you have regrets? Maybe that methodology could and should be applied to our moral character and ethical decisions prior to execution. BTW: it is also a great tool/process to use when examining your current past in an effort to sketch out your future.

    Looking back on how we got here is critical to correcting our current direction, but we must first have a ‘true’ moral compass, otherwise we set off in the wrong direction.

    Question everything, especially the rhetoric comming from Washington, your state, city and local officials, because I guarentee 99.9% is bullshit. If it does not fit within your own newly-revised morals, then rebute and fight against it.

    Decide that you will be part of the solution, because otherwise you are part of the problem.

    CM

  11. Values, why does it seem the big cities struggle more with their lack than the rest of the nation? Why does a gun free city have such a high teen-age gun violence rate?

    4 Charged in Beating Death of Chicago Honor Student

    Tuesday, September 29, 2009

    Sept. 24: Image from video shows a person swinging a wooden two-by-four at student Derrion Albert during a fight on Chicago’s South Side.

    CHICAGO — Cell phone footage showing a group of teens viciously kicking and striking a 16-year-old honors student with splintered railroad ties has ramped up pressure on Chicago officials to address chronic violence that has led to dozens of deaths of city teens each year.

    The graphic video of the afternoon melee emerged on local news stations over the weekend, showing the fatal beating of Derrion Albert, a sophomore honor roll student at Christian Fenger Academy High School. His death was the latest addition to a rising toll: More than 30 students were killed last school year, and the city could exceed that number this year.

  12. Good article USW.

    I think a lot of things come into play, but a big piece is it is just easier to take the easy way out. We don’t like to feel guilt or to not reach our goals, so we eliminate those things in our life that might make us feel guilty or lower our goals and expectations to that we can meet them.

    Then we see public officials screw up and we use it to justify our own decisions and behaviors.

    USW, your comments on the outrage being shown today through the tea parties, rallies is right on. I’ve been to several of these events and it truly is anger at all of Washington for their behavior, spending, and general over reaching the bounds of government. They are educated about the issues, most are actively participating for the first time and they are from all walks of life and political leanings.

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    USW,

    One thing that you said which should strike a chord with everyone is “There is no shortage of money in this country…”

    That is most certainly true! The money supply is currently 1.7 trillion dollars, and the population is 304 million, so if the entire money supply (just the amount that COULD be in circulation) were split evenly between all the people, every man, woman, and childe would have an extra $5592.00 in pocket change right now.

    That does not include “wealth” in any way whatsoever, or take any assets into account.

    It is a ridiculous amount of money to be circulating around on a per-capita basis.

    Luckily most of it is sitting idle in the Federal Reserve Bank right now, because the Fed printed it and gave it to the banks, and the banks (making the prudent decision for ONCE) gave the vast majority of it right back to the Fed….

    When the Fed makes the banks take all this money back and do something else with it (or when the banks decide they cannot survive on the 0.15% interest they are getting from the Fed), this could potentially flood the economy, making it into wallpaper or (more appropriately) toilet paper.

    It might possibly become more profitable to wipe your a$$ with a $ than to go and buy the actual toilet tissue to do it with 🙂

  14. Good Morning Everybody

    I posted this the other day, and didn’t get many results on it, maybe today it fits in with today’s topic. I hope so anyway.

    Hope all is having a good day.

    Civility towards one another seems to have gone astray. I always try and be civil to another person, even if they aren’t. How can we get civility back? Always to be polite to others, whether they’re polite to you or not. Always have a smile on your face. Open a door for some one.Offer to help a person if you see that they might need help, even if they turn you down. Hug somebody, even if it’s a total stranger. The list goes on and on. You pick.

    10 Thoughts on Incivility in America

    How long will America tolerate hate and rudeness in our public dialogue?

    Incivility takes on many forms. It can be found in the gestures of a stranger amidst the morning commute, in a stolen moment at a music awards ceremony or on the lips of a Congressman on Capitol Hill. Is it possible to heal the character of America? The following are 10 thoughts on incivility in America:

    1. Where there is no demand there will be a reduced supply.

    2. One breaks the cycle of rudeness when one focuses on others rather than one’s self.

    3. It is possible to make clear one’s position without seeking to destroy or defame another.

    4. With public notoriety there should come responsibility and accountability.

    5. Reclaim the art of listening and you will foster understanding.

    6. We should seek to win over our opponent and at the very least gain his respect for the dignity with which we speak our convictions.

    7. We should do what is right not because we seek self benefit but because we stand on high moral ground.

    8. Respect for others begins with self respect.

    9. “I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate, myself.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    10. In denouncing the rude and vile we join our collective voices to reclaim civility in America.

    Civility goes beyond public apologies after the damage is done. It must emanate, not from polls and focus groups but rather from character and honor. Good people will sincerely disagree and the issues that divide us by their very nature impassion us.

    The question is: How long will America tolerate hate and rudeness in our public dialogue? Perhaps the scriptures identify the need of the hour in the simplest of terms: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12)
    Reply

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Judy,

      I often find that when I post something that in general makes a lot of sense and pretty much everone agrees with, I don’t get any comments.

      I would suggest that that is probably what is happening with your post as well 🙂

      The problem is, the post stands on its own and doesn’t really require much in the way of further comment.

      So take heart! We are not ingoring your post, merely reading it and agreeing with it to the point that additional comment really isn’t necessary 🙂

  15. Good morning Judy……Interesting take that you have. can America heal itself….it certainly can. Does it start with civility? Interesting point because I fear that all civility has been eliminated for political correctness….and political correctness is a pariah that, if continued to be left unchecked, will destroy any civility that we have. Nice post, my friend.

  16. Pretty disturbing video here. I’m going to find a yard or 2 or 5 to mow.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/shock-discovery-community-organizers-pray-to-president-elect-obama/

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      I think I have an attic to clean out and a couple of litter boxes.

      This is unbelievable. I have to assume that the woman leading the prayer was an ordained minister — If so, what was she thinking? Then the next question I have is she still and ordained minister with whatever Church she belongs to. If she is still ordained, then she must belong to the BHO Church of St. Deity of the Day.

      For those of you that are religious on this site, would you ever think of participating in a prayer by chanting “Hear our Cry, Obama”, “Deliver Us, Obama”? These people have replaced God with Obama. This truly is shocking to me.

      This is just proof that there are people who view Barack Obama as a deity.

      If these folks had said a prayer for God to guide Obama, to make Obama successful, etc. then I would not be shocked.

      Good find CSM…

      Best Regards,
      RS

      • Hi RS

        Hope you’re doing well. To answer your question about whether or not I would participate in something like that. My answer is a definite NO. Too many people think that Obama is God himself, and I’m inclined to think, he thinks he is.

        Judy

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        When I was growing up and my parents were trying to “churchify” me, it was often customary, especially in difficult political or economic times, for the Priest to offer up a prayer that the leader of our country be guided by the hand of God in his thoughts, words, and deeds.

        That is fine… no problem with that.

        Praying TO A PRESIDENT as if he WERE A GOD is repulsive and disgusting. As the saying goes, he puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like you and me.

        To Deify a human being is rupugnant.

      • http://www.breitbart.tv/shock-discovery-community-organizers-pray-to-president-elect-obama/

        This video has been re-posted-there is a debate on whether on not they are saying Obama or Oh God-I have listened several times and in the very beginning it sounds like Obama to me but the rest sounds like Oh God. Listen close and see what you think.

        • V. Holland,
          I didn’t have time to listen to this video until tonight, and you are absolutely correct. They are saying “Oh God”, not “Obama”. There are a few times where the group response is not in-sync and mumbled, and you might hear an “Obama”, but that is only because you want to hear it.

          This is just more mis-information. Many people will learn of this video’s existence and assume they are saying “Obama”, and the rumor will just spread – like it is here.

          How many of you listened to the video with a critical ear?

          • I wouldn’t say it’s because that’s what people want to hear-the second time the crowd spoke it sounds like Obama-I listened over and over and it still sounds like Obama to me-the rest of the video it sounds like Oh God.

    • Kristian Stout says:

      That’s just scary.

    • What the hell is missing in people’s lives that they would participate in something like this and think it OK?

      The good news is that these videos are popping up (another schoolchildren one out from NC – “Yes We Can”) and hopefully in time for the sane, thinking, logical members of society to wake up.

  17. USW:

    It is I, GreaterGoodcs (under my real name, Charlie Stella). If I have the right site, we actually met (in North Carolina—you and your lovely wife were attending a wedding and my wife and I were there for a blues festival). It will be a pleasure to debate this one on one: (even if each of us wind up equally frustrated). I’ve been laying low (greatergoodcs) trying to be anonymous for the sake of objectivity. We discussed a little bit in NC and I think you know I’m actually pretty hard line (or old fashioned) on several issues (what my Democratic friends often call “wingnut”) … My friends on the right call me a socialist/communist/anarchist … so maybe BF is right (I’m confused/a walking contradiction). So be it … I do have fun jabbing at both philosophies (there are liberal sites I drive crazy regarding their savior).

    I’m hoping your Sox can upend the Skankies (I’m a national league fan-Mets) … but my beloved new york state buffalo bills are suffering the no huddle-no win syndrome. After 4 straight super bowl losses, you’d think somebody would figure out it’s a bad idea.

    As for BF not participating … much appreciated, brother.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The Colts use the no-huddle quite effectively 🙂

      It is not only a matter of the system in place, but how well the system was designed, who is implementing the system, and who is operating the system.

      Wait… were we talking football or government?? 🙂

      • The colts have our old GM (Polian, right)? When we lost him, we lost any chance at becoming respectful. We are the dumbest organization in all sport.

        Assuming you have the talent, you can go in and out of the no-huddle, but nobody can live in it for long. It’s what cost us SB 25 (I was there–one of the toughest days of my life).

        Next week we play the dolphins in Miami … watch, coach Imbecile (Jauron) will figure out a way to keep our defense on the field for 40+ minutes again and we’ll collapse in the 4th Qtr again (if not sooner).

        The greater good in Buffalo would be best served by Ralph Wilson (the Alan Alda of management) selling the team to somebody who wants more than AFC titles.

        Oy-vey … don’t get me started.

        • As I think we discussed, much of my wife’s family is from Buffalo, and they feel the same way about the current leadership of the organization.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, when Bill Polian came to the Colts, the Colts went from a usually terible team to a perennial 12-game winner with one Super Bowl title. Some people here in Indy STILL do not like the guy for whatever reasons, but I personally cannot argue with success.

          Other than the bizzare incident with Marvin Harrison, you would have a hard time finding many “bad guys” that have been on the team for more than one season at the very most in his entire tenure.

          He took an ENORMOUS amount of flack from some people for picking Peyton Manning instead of Ryan Leaf.

          We all know how THAT pick worked out (for both the Colts AND the Chargers… :))

    • Charlie,

      Well my friend, you are at the correct site. I do remember sitting outside and chatting with you and your wife in NC. I look forward to the conversation tomorrow.

      I know how frustrating it can be to have to debate with BF. To say that I have had my rounds with him would be an understatement. Often it is his method that is infuriating. I went down the rabbit hole with him once or twice and learned that there is a method to his madness. I do not believe all that he believes, as most who frequent the site have seen, but I do respect his opinion.

      USW

      • Gals and Pals, I have my own blog where I pick on both parties at my site, give mini reviews just have some fun (but don’t allow comments – or I doubt I’d ever get anything done. I don’t know how you do it USW).

        You’d have to scroll down to find some of them, but here’s one from North Carolina (with questions for President Obama):

        http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

        Scroll below that for NC blues festival clips and a short video.

        I have a dear friend (who serves as my weapons man for my books—DOC. He’s as conservative as any of you and spends most of his time breaking my shoes and ripping my politics to shreds. He’s at the end of almost every posting.

        http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com

        I look forward to tomorrow and will double check tonight when I get home (and during the day today as time permits … you know these capitalists … geesh).

    • No prob, buddy – I know how hard it is to fight a multi-front battle.

      I’ll be watching (if it is on the blog, of course) and taking notes for later.

    • Charlie

      Went to your site. You’re now on the ‘daily read’ list.

      PS: You do not look like what I thought you’d look like.

      😆

      How we picture others –

      before I knew Kent, I pictured him to look like you.

      Before I saw you, I picture you to look like Kent!

      😆

      • BF: starting Sunday I’m going to start to condense me (powermeet on Saturday and then it’s back on the Afghani diet). I can lose the weight but can do nothing about the mug …

        DOC (my dear friend) is the guy you’ll love on my site (he’s very conservative, a weapons specialist (record holder, etc.) and would give the shirt off his back to most. Great guy, really. And a terrific writer and funny as they come. He gets me good at least once a week.

        On my web page (blurb section) is a picture that will look more like me in 7-10 months (well … hopefully)… the build anyway (that’s me winning a spaghetti eating contest at 27 when I was a union window cleaner in NY). It was a charity event.

  18. Mike M. Houston Texas says:

    For me this all started with a simple statement that became the rage in court houses. “He should be excused….wait for it….he was a product of his environment”. This changed the perception of America from what the person did to what “we” did to make him that way. Fault changed right then and right there. Everyone in this country started to blame everything on everyone else. I did what I did because “you” put me into an (pick your adjective) environment. Personal responsibility was out the window. Minorities went on the attack. We are this way because the white man made America like it is. Please understand I am not a racial person I believe regardless of nationality if you work hard then good for you. I am a racist when you want something from me or blame me due to the color of your skin.

    I tell me daughter “I discipline you because one day you will be older and find yourself in a situation where you have a choice”. “If only for a second the thought of what would my dad do if he found out goes through your head then I have done my job”. This is the balance of conscious that will drive your decision. While you might not always make the right one you at least know what the right thing to do is. This is now lacking in society because the new answer thought is “I can do it and blame someone else”.

    A note on this that I found absolutely hilarious and part of the problem on my local news last night. Children’s IQ’s are up 5 points due to reduced corporal punisment. How in the sam hell did they tie me spanking my child to how smart they are???? I guess they are all smarter and have no character. I guess my child will have to do without the extra 5 points as when she needs discpline she will get it. Note to the readers I have spanked my 10 year old daughter only once. I have administered other punishments as I do not believe in beating the child but discipline will always be part of good upbringing.

    So the victim of environment mentality is running rampant. We are made to feel bad he or she did what they did because “we failed to help by giving them everything we have”.

    Satirical response. So if I gave you my new car, house, big screen, and all my money you would not have robbed me. Clearly this was my fault you broke into my house. NOT.

  19. In a nutshell America’s problem is its acceptance of EXCUSES. From the idiots on the View making excuses for Roman Polanski drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl to the entire left wing media making excuses for ACORN workers in offices spread out across America all taking the same line and shaving facts with regard to sexual exploitation of tweens, I’m sickened by what I see in America. Justice is not blind, she’s merely been paid to look away.

    Forget about laws for a second. What’s being broken here is common sense and decency. On the one hand you are asked to rail against the horror of a murderer or wannabe being water boarded for information in seeking the prevention of murder and by that very same voice asked to forgive the raping and sodomizing of a child by a Hollywood elite. Think about that for a while. You have at least two classes of people in America. Race has nothing to do with it and in fact once class appears to have elevated the other above itself intentionally.

    Maybe that’s the problem. Too many are looking at others as idols when they need to become a fan of themselves.

  20. Ray Hawkins says:

    Some random thoughts:

    Just as much as you detest certain music types and actions by celebs – so too others may detest the music you like or the celebs you follow. You’re a Boston sports fan which means you have contributed economically to sustain the careers of admitted/busted/caught drug users like Big Papi and Manny. You’ve also contributed to sustain the careers of people who physically beat up each other for a living (hockey fights). I’m sure I could take a swing at musicians you may like – you mentioned an affinity before for some of Michael Jackson’s music – which means you support/supported a musician that advocates public masturbation (crotch grabbing), ‘an adult sharing his bed with children not related to him’ and extensive drug use. Wrap this up and one can make the argument, similar to yours, that you support drug use, violence, public sex acts, and deviate sexual conduct (or at least situations) between adults and children. Sound ridiculous? Maybe so – but perhaps the person who grew up listening to Kool Moe Dee or Britney or watching the Amazing Race would look at you as well and say you’re being ridiculous.

    Do I think overall that you’re ‘off point’? No – not entirely. But in reference to above here is the wrinkle or the rub. Who gets to define what is right or wrong? Who gets to draw that line between what is good or what is bad? When you start talking about morality and what is right or wrong you enter into subtle and not-so-subtle differences in opinion. I used your own examples against to point out how dangerous that becomes. I sense that many here see morality as a black and white business. I suggest that while knowing where you stand is not difficult, how it becomes applied sometime is. Taking the stance that one will die on every hill they encounter sounds good on paper, but I doubt, if everyone takes a nice hard look, that they will acknowledge they do it every time.

    • “Who gets to define what is right or wrong?”

      God.

      He left an instruction manual, read it. Like most instruction manuals, people attempt to put something together (their life) without it and find things do not go well. Society is trying to live without it, society is not doing well and is getting worse.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ray,

      The answer to your “who gets to determine right and wrong?” question does not deserve an answer, for it is THE WRONG QUESTION.

      You already KNOW what is right and what is wrong. NO ONE ELSE HAS TO DETERMINE THIS FOR YOU.

      It is possible by your education and your upbringing that perhaps the waters have been muddied for you and your clarity on what is right and what is wrong has been impaired.

      If this is the case, then I guess it is natural that you would seek someone “In Authority” to tell you what is right and what is wrong.

      However, I strongly suspect that at least 90-95% of the time, when faced with a decision, you are perfectly capable of determining for yourself if that decision is right, wrong, or morally neutral.

      And YES, I recognize that you (and everyone else) have the ability to CONCOCT situations in which any decision you make could be seen as not being particularly “good”.

      However, I would submit to you that people only face that type of situation IN REALITY less than 5% of the time that they are faced with a decision.

      So, the CORRECT question is:

      “Since I am perfectly capable of recongizing right and wrong at least 95% of the time on my own without any assistance, what right does anyone else have to tell me what is right and what is wrong?”

      You see, I don’t think you really want government to tell you what is right and what is wrong… what you really want is for government to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO BEHAVE IN THE WAY YOU WISH THAT THEY WOULD BEHAVE. Of course, any reasonable person can easily demonstrate that government generally fails miserably at this function.

      You don’t want government to “determine” right and wrong. You want government to say “This is right, and if you do not do it you will be punished.”

      Those are two totally different concepts, but you are trying to equate them.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Peter – as I alluded to – there are many ways we can all look at the same situation and see something different.

        I am not asking government to define for me and you and everyone else the entire book of what is right and wrong. To assume a society can function with a consistent measure of harmony or peace of civility we must have some direction from government that established rule and order. I cannot start driving on the opposite side of the road because I think it may get me to my destination quicker.

        What I did intend to do, and think I did do, was address that the so-called 5% can provide stark differences in how we view things. As I pointed out to Alan below – it is what leads one such as me to suggest that Nevada voters should be dumping not just Harry Reid but John Ensign as well.

        Inherent in this problem is that as much as we seek to place people in office that truly represent us – do we not also scoff when they show they are human or ‘like us’? Are we okay to expect more of our politicians which by default means they may not be as imperfect as the rest of us?

    • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

      While I do get the subtle differences argument there are certainly some clear rights and wrongs that we could start with. ACORN. Gotta go. There seems to be a “PATTERN” here of wrongs. Convicted of a crime. Gotta go.

      Again I appreciate the subtleties but dont bog us down with that. We all know what is right and what is wrong. There are a small few who have an issue with it but assuming there are 300 million of us and 299 million feel the same way then the other 1 million will simply have to go along. The good of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Wow Mike – that is one of the more interesting responses I have seen in a while:

        “The good of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few” – shocked no one else saw this and screamed ‘bloody socialist’!

        Subtle differences matter not? I strongly disagree – subtle differences are subtle to one but immense to another – it is the perspective that matters.

        ACORN – I ask of you – why must they go? Are you basing your position on only what you have read from USW here (which is inherently biased) or what you may have otherwise seen on the Internet or TV? Have you stopped to ask yourself if what occur in the supposed ‘sting’ is SUBTLE in the overall scheme of the good things that Acorn has done over the years? See how this works?

        • Ray;

          ACORN is an abomination and corrupt organization, although they do pride themselves of being a kind of Robin Hood society; take from the rich, give to the poor, they unfortunately keep the greater amount to line their pockets. The founders are corrupt and advocate corrupt ways. They lie and the organization as a whole is filled with a cancer. They use the poor to advance their cause and intimidate those who oppose them.

          They are a lot like the mafia, but no where near as intelligent.

          Much like the government, Acorn is a lie and a cancer that needs to be cut out, just like the SEIU. Nothing good can come or either.

          CM

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            CM – I am merely asking to make sure you get this right. To what do you base your opinion? Facts? Or the overwhelming focus by the conservative media (http://mediamatters.org/reports/200909230032)?

            • Ray;

              Looked at your link, don’t think much of it simply because it is swayed to make Beck/Hannity look bad. Don’t care how either is portrayed.

              ACORN is corrupt by association with SEIU and it’s founding prinicipals (the brothers albino). That is further validated by the actions of the government (to stop funding) and by the Bank of America (stop finacial support). If a corrupt society (government and Bank of America) disassociate themselves from an equally corrupt entiity it is because that entitiy got caught.

              Those that are as equally corrupt are the first to withdrawl from association if for no other reason than to step away from the flack.

              I believed ACORN and the SEIU to be corrupt from the time I first learned of their exsistance, and that belief was based upon a gut feel. Actions and results over the past several months have validated my gut; although I did not need that validation.

              I have believed our government to be corrupt for many years based upon the actions it took and my gut reaction. I have not needed any validation demonstrated by any source to validate that for me.

              The actions that have taken place over those many years have only served to provide examples.

              ACORN does not serve a public interest or common good, they only serve the greed of those that established it, associate with it and manage it.

              CM

            • You can say “the conservative media” and then draw reference to Media Matters?

    • If forcing sex on a child is a “gray area” for you, don’t allow yourself to be caught anywhere near myself or my “gray area” will become all too obvious.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Alan – clearly, in any society, there will be a litany of things that 99.999% of the population will agree are right or wrong.

        Holding a door open for the person behind you at the grocery store = good

        Forcing sex on a child = bad

        It is because we are a melting pot of many different peoples, cultures and languages that we have gray areas. One person sees a kid with baggy pants hanging off his rear and thinks hoodlum, criminal, disrespectful and so on…..

        Someone else see the same kid and he seems normal.

        I do see a distinction as we raise this to our government leaders. It is because we do not demand better of them that they have de-generated into a pack of liars who show know no bounds when it comes to boorish behavior.

        Not to pick on Judy – but when she conveys that the voters of Nevada shrug off the behavior of John Ensign and focus only on Harry Reid – I say they are maybe missing half the boat. But again – this would be me saying that I think Ensign’s behavior is bad enough to merit action on him – hence more gray area.

        • Hey Ray

          You’re not picking on me, but Ensign isn’t the only one who had a marital affair. Some people here said he should have resigned, others have said, what’s done is done, get on with the problem at hand. He apologized several times to the people here in Nevada, but said he is determined to stay in the senate.

          Like I said, they are more focused on what Reid is doing and isn’t doing. I don’t know about missing half the boat as you say, of if there will be any action against Ensign, nothing has been said about it. But, Ensign wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last.

  21. Mathius

    OK, so where do rules in your society stem from?

    From society itself.

    “Common Law” is exactly that – Laws which are Common among the People within that society.

    A little praxeology for you.

    A society based on immoral action cannot sustain itself. For example, a society that legitimizes theft will find that everyone will be engaging in theft for their needs and no one would be engaging in production.

    Quickly, such a society would starve to death, and thus, would disappear.

    Therefore, sustainable societies are developed on a basis of moral action – which stabilizes the production and prosperity of society.

    These morals probably were discovered by trial and error and then described philosophically or embedded into ‘religious’ teaching.

    Natural laws are great but will the masses follow without consequences when it’s so convenient and rewarding to do otherwise?

    That is the problem, Matt.

    There are conflicting forces in society.

    There are those that seek their needs by production (earning) and there are those that seek their needs by theft (politics). A society that legitimizes the latter will eventually degrade and collapse.

    The Natural Law (praxeology) that comes into play is that people will –eventually- abandon immoral action when the threat of societal collapse becomes apparent.

    This happens over and over in history – and each time, reinforces the moral codes that created the success and condemns the immoral action that threatened society.

    We are, now, in a place in time where we as a People know that:

    1) Killing is evil
    2) Stealing is evil
    3) Private property maximizes Human freedom.
    4) Free men in action creates the greatest prosperity for society.

    We can certainly throw those away and start again – but I’d suggest that would be wasteful in time, resources and human life.

    I’m more worried about the greedy masses who will rise up to steal and maim en masses.

    I do not.

    Such a thing is unsustainable.

    Very quickly society begins to dissolve and breakdown – threatening the masses own survival. Then they stop those that are criminals, simply on their own best interests.

    Yes senators will take and take to consolidate power, but they understand that, ultimately, their power comes from you and if they displease you too severely, we will take their power away.

    Oh, that will scare them! You no longer get to sit in the “Big Chair!” Bad boy! 🙄

    Government power does not come from ‘you’.

    It comes from the point of a gun.

    This power, however, is legitimized by you.

    Criminals have so such restrictions. Do it mean that the system is perfect? No. But it’s far better than nothing.

    A system built on an immoral basis is doomed to collapse. Government, at its essence, is immoral for it legitimizes theft and killing.

    We have a choice – an equal choice.

    We can build a system on a moral base as easily as an immoral one. One can be sustained – the other cannot.

    It’s your choice.

    • It’s clearly not my choice if the government forces itself on me.

      I understand your points even though I disagree with most of them.

      I simply thing that, with the chains off, people will do what’s in their own best interest. This does not coincide with the best interests of society. This needs bad results. We’ve had this discussion before, but unfortunately I’m a little busy today and cannot do battle with you. Your technique (I’m sure it is exactly that) of writing out such length replies is exhausting and very time consuming.

      I know it’s unfair for me to shunt all the work onto you, but please address the question I asked earlier. If, under communism, productive people will become less productive until the system collapses, why do you feel that under anarchy moral people will not become less moral? It seems to me that you must accept both or neither. By setting up a system that rewards laziness, communism encourages laziness. By setting up a system that rewards criminality, anarchy encourages criminality. That you feel society will rise up once it feels threatened is great, but how would it do this? In what way would the uprising of citizens to impose by force their will on the criminal element be different from current government imposing it’s will on you?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        If your own best interests do not coincide with the best interests of society, then either society will collapse or (more likely) you will be eliminated.

        I simply do not understand the completely pretentious notion that if I act in my own best interests, and you act in your own best interests, that is in some way HARMFUL to society. That premise makes absolutely no sense.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        For example, it is in my best interest to survive.

        In order to survive, I COULD choose to break into your house and steal your stuff.

        HOWEVER,

        It is in your best interest to survive. If I break into your house and try to steal your stuff, you might well possibly shoot me in the head and kill me.

        SO,

        If I really want to survive, I had probably not break into your house and steal your stuff, because I run a very high risk of not surviving if I choose to do that!

      • Mathius</b.

        It’s clearly not my choice if the government forces itself on me.

        That’s not the choice I am talking about.

        If you agree one can chose a moral basis of action as easily as immoral one, then which one do you believe would be sustainable in society?

        I simply thing that, with the chains off, people will do what’s in their own best interest.

        That is the center point of praxeology, sir.

        This does not coincide with the best interests of society.

        But it does and must and, eventually, it will be so.

        Society is made up of people. Thus, the action of people in their best interests MUST also be in the best interest of society.

        I have already laid out the reason

        – if one’s best interest does not increase your own interest (measured in some manner, such as prosperity) then it cannot be in your best interest, right?? It is an obvious contradiction.

        If by your action you cause a decrease in your prosperity – then it is not in your best interest.

        Unless you are completely able to obtain all your needs by violence, then you have no need for morals. However, if this is multiplied over society you will not win (and neither would anyone else). Everyone would be killing everyone else. Society would collapse, and you would die.

        I submit that you dying is not in your best interest.

        This needs bad results. We’ve had this discussion before, but unfortunately I’m a little busy today and cannot do battle with you. Your technique (I’m sure it is exactly that) of writing out such length replies is exhausting and very time consuming.

        Emotional pleas can be done in three words.

        Reasoned argument takes quite a bit longer, because you will not accept the simple conclusion that “Black Flags are always right” as a legitimate argument. 🙂

        If, under communism, productive people will become less productive until the system collapses, why do you feel that under anarchy moral people will not become less moral?

        It seems to me that you must accept both or neither. By setting up a system that rewards laziness, communism encourages laziness. By setting up a system that rewards criminality, anarchy encourages criminality.

        I have answered this already – so if this is a repeat to those that read it, my apologies.

        First, let’s address an incorrect premise you hold about Communism.

        Your premise is that the system has been setup to reward laziness. This is not true.

        You are saying that Marxist/Leninists said “We love being lazy, therefore, let’s make a system that makes us hero’s of lazy!”

        We need to be clear that the consequences of communism (the praxeology of communism) leads to massive inefficiencies in the allocation of goods and services.

        Because communism destroys economic calculation it leads to certain economically disagreeable consequences.

        One of the consequences is the misallocations of the fruits of labor.

        Communism takes the productive fruits of labor from one person and gives it to another whose production is lower.

        When capital flows away from those that use capital effectively and it is given to those that uses capital ineffectively, the consequence is the eventual consumption and loss of capital.

        Capital losses, over time, drain the ability of the productive forces to continue to produce, and they stagnate.

        Without their excess capital, the unproductive forces grind to a halt as well.

        Thus, communism eventually grid-locks into wholesale stagnation and collapse.

        The people living in Communism worked very hard. You cannot claim them to be lazy. They put men in space and built nuclear weapons. They were smart.

        The system of Communism eventually destroyed their ability to produce excess capital – and their economy stagnated.

        Anarchy does not reward criminals.

        Anarchy, simply, does not legitimize criminals by calling them “rulers”.

        If you require the reason why capitalism and free market economies produce prosperity through the praxeology, I can do this for you too. Just let me know.

        However, I’ll offer a hint: it does not mean people in capitalism work harder – it has to do with economic calculation and voluntary trade.

        That you feel society will rise up once it feels threatened is great, but how would it do this? In what way would the uprising of citizens to impose by force their will on the criminal element be different from current government imposing it’s will on you

        The difference is that government is predicated on an immoral basis – the self-claimed monopoly on initiating violence on non-violent people. Such as system will eventually collapse.

        When the people resist the initiation of violence, peace and prosperity grows.

        But government contradicts this.

        Governments insist on the monopoly to do exactly what the rest of society has determined to be immoral

        • I have an example that I think demonstrates BF’s statement –
          “Governments insist on the monopoly to do exactly what the rest of society has determined to be immoral”

          A counterfeiter is in the business of printing money to get something for nothing. People almost universally consider this to be a theft and a crime.

          Governments aggressively pursue counterfeiters to protect their monopoly on printing money.

          The government has been printing billions and billions of dollars during the financial crisis to get something for nothing just like the counterfeiter.

          This a theft and a crime against the people on an unbelievably huge scale… “cloaked” in the claim the government is doing something good. Good for who?

  22. Middleville woman threatened with fines for watching neighbors’ kids

    Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.

    The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors’ kids, or face the consequences.

    “It’s ridiculous.” says Snyder. “We are friends helping friends!” She added that she accepts no money for babysitting.

    Mindy Rose, who leaves her 5-year-old with Snyder, agrees. “She’s a friend… I trust her.”

    State Representative Brian Calley is drafting legislation that would exempt people who agree to care for non-dependent children from daycare rules as long as they’re not engaged in a business.

    “We have babysitting police running around this state violating people, threatening to put them in jail or fine them $1,000 for helping their neighbor (that) is truly outrageous” says Rep. Calley.

    A DHS spokesperson would not comment on the specifics of the case but says they have no choice but to comply with state law, which is designed to protect Michigan children.

    • I have come to the conclusion- that maybe-these incidences of total stupidity, such as this one, can be good if they force these laws to be fixed. Common Sense where oh where have you gone!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        V. Holland,

        This is merely an obvious example of a ridiculous government regulation. How many equally ridiculous government regulations exist that you have never been made aware of?

        Are they any less ridiculous simply because you have not been made aware of them?

        Since almost nobody knows of the existence of well over 90% of all government regulations, what do you think the chances are that any of the ridiculous ones (which is probably most of them) have any chance whatsoever of “getting fixed”?

        • I think I’ll guess millions, and I may still be too low in my estimation-You seem to have the impression that I am for big government. I’m not.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            No, I do not have the impression that you are “for” big government.

            I just have the impression that most people have no idea just how “big” big government really is.

            The main point of my post was to show that most of the laws and regulations made by “big government” are completely ridiculous, and the bigger the government gets, the more numerous the ridiculous regulations get, and the more ridiculous the numerous regulations get.

            I think that you basically agree with that, but I was attempting to point it out for those that might not necessarily agree with that.

            • I agree with you, I’d go so far as to say that if we all really knew what the government is doing -we would have already overthrown the government- but we would create another one.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Most people would probably think it was “logical” to create another one, yes.

                Please keep in mind that I am not advocating that there be no organizational system in society whatsoever.

                I am advocating that society be organized using a system which employs actual reason and logic, as opposed to the system which we currently have, which is based upon contradiction, conflict, and coercion.

              • Part of my problem with a Non Government is that when you create that organization system you are in danger of creating a system that is a government in everything but name but one that possibly has less checks and balances than we have now. That is why I keep wanting some kind of outline-I can except that people who support anarchy don’t know exactly how everything will work and perhaps people could have a discussion on how it might work just as we discuss how to try and fix our present government, that conversation might help us solve some of our present problems a lot more than just arguing over which is better.

              • Because- unless we just decide to have a revolution -any changes that would lead to no government would take time and any non government entities that we can have will mean less government which most of us agree is a good idea.

              • It can be exactly like government, but as long as it is voluntary and consensual, it is fine. That is the difference.

      • Hi

        I guess so much for helping thy neighbor now. People need to quit sticking their noses where it doesn’t belong, good God. One person complains, and all hell breaks loose, give me a break.

      • Kristian Stout says:

        Common Sense died a long time ago. About the same time that Political Correctness was born.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      See what sort of nonsense you get when you WANT the government to control EVERYTHING?

      We all, clearly, recognize this as complete and utter nonsense, right?

      If you do not recognize this as complete and utter nonsense, please let me know so that I know that we are not even speaking the same language.

      Also, if you recognize that it is utterly ridiculous, yet you accept such ridiculous nonsense because “it is the government”, then why… PLEASE TELL ME WHY you are willing to accept it?

      The gut reaction of EVERYONE should be “this is a TYPICAL government regulation”. Once you recognize that this is, precisely, a TYPICAL government regulation, you will at least begin to see that TYPICAL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS ARE PATENTLY RIDICULOUS.

      Any of you following this yet?

    • Its alright to force your help with some notion of “greater good” but when its volunteered between neighbors, its “Book ’em, Danno!” time? Amazing.

      • Government can’t make any money if you do stuff for free

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BINGO!

          You win a prize!

          Although, it would have been stated more accurately that the government cannot take any money FROM you if they aren’t regulating what you are doing 🙂

          Government can’t earn any money, period. The only two ways they can get money is to either take it from you or run the printing presses.

          If we KNOW that government has the ability to run the printing presses and create enough money to pay for whatever the hell they want to do, WHY DO THEY STILL INSIST ON TAKING MONEY FROM YOU?

          Think about that for a minute…

        • Nice catch V!

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I have seen several people here (most recently Mathius, but Ray and Charlie and Todd and a few others as well), that seem to be trying to make the argument that Natural Law does not work because failure to follow Natural Law has no enforcement mechanism and no consequences (??!!??!!??)

    Umm.. ok… let me try to address this as simply as possible.

    Who enforces adherence to natural law? I do. You do. USW does. Charlie does. BF does. JAC does. Esom does. Ellen does. JB does. Mathius does. Seed does. Judy does. Bones does. Kent does. D13 does. G.A. Rowe does. I know I forgot the names of MANY people who post here and I apologize for that… the list was meant to be all-inclusive whether you post on this site or not, so you all get the point 🙂

    We are, each and every one of us, responsible for enforcing natural laws. We do this because we recongize that to go against natural law is to go against… well… NATURE! (DUH)

    Now, I COULD go into lenghthy examples of some of the consequences that occur when someone violates natural law, but it might be far more instructive to have some of you come up with some examples of your own. Enjoy!

    Also, some of you make the argument that in a society with only natural laws, life would be inherently FAR MORE DANGEROUS than what it currently is. My personal belief is that AT WORST it would be equally as dangerous on an individual basis as what we go through on a daily basis right now.

    I don’t know if this tack I am taking is even going to be useful to anyone, but hopefully it at least clears up a bit of confusion for at least one person at this site. If it even accomplishes that, then it was worth writing 🙂

    • Not sure that I’m saying that exactly…

      I’m just unclear on the mechanism. If someone stabs me and runs away, whose job is it to chase that guy down and make sure he doesn’t do it again?

      If he steals from me and denies it, how do I prove that it was him and by what authority to I take back what is mine? Is my sincere belief sufficient or do I need proof, how much much proof, who judges when it’s enough?

      If a company pollutes upstream from you and causes major illness in your village, who stops them? You? A posse? You might say that you won’t buy their goods so they will have no incentive, but what if you aren’t their market? They’re making something for another town and the people in that town need the items being sold to them.. how do you protect yourself?

      If a man is causing a possible threat to your village (excessive speeding), how do you stop him? At what point to do you ordain, and by what authority, that force is acceptable to stop him?

      If someone is giving drugs to children, how do you stop this?

      If a man sits outside your house every night and plays loud rap music while you’re trying to sleep, how do you stop him?

      In a society of laws, we have clearly defined mechanisms for this. What are yous?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        I wish to give this a full response, but I lack time right now. I will carry this over into open-mic night, which means I probably will not respond until tomorrow morning.

        Hopefully it will be worth the wait….

      • Hi Matt!

        Glad to here from you today. Let me first say, that because of the laws that you believe we need, these events take place everyday. Without the laws, this is how things would go.

        1. The attacker would have been shot and killed, no chasing needed.

        2. The thief would have been shot, I would get my stuff back, no proof required, and he would likely not steal anymore.

        3. I would first try reasoning with the polluter, if that don’t work, a really big fire would, no more pollution, and those that would like to, would think twice.

        4. Ask the man to slow down, if he chooses not to shoot his tires out. Lesson learned.

        5. Drug dealers would be shot on sight, the drug trade would cease to exist over time.

        6. Ask nice to turn the music down, if it persists shoot the radio!

        Lastly, I have solved all the problems with noones help, and sent a message to those who would like to act in such a manner in the future.
        I would have provided a service to protect and defend my community from those who would choose to destroy it.

        However, because of all the laws, these a$$holes keep doing these things over and over, and it will continue as such, and likely get worse, because we have all these precious laws, go figure!

        Peace!

        G!

        • So because someone else annoys you, you are allowed to destroy their property? (radio)

          You may shoot at a man who is not doing violence to you over a perceived threat? This is different from invading a foreign country over perceived WMD’s how? (speeder)

          A man selling wares that you find objectionable may be shot on sight? (drug dealer)

          This is freedom?

          • Matt, Let me first apologize, as I was envisioning what the beginnings of a truly free society and how it might play out (somewhat chaotic). This would be short lived, thanks to word of mouth.

            To answer your questions as best I can, using the above mentioned scenario.

            1. Yes, he is not annoying me, he is negatively affecting my overall health (a good nights sleep) that I require to meet my survival needs. He is free to play his music on his property, as loud as he chooses. Your scenario did not display that, but rather a person being completely rude and not on his property.

            Speeder is threatening the lives of the community, especially the children. Let me replace shoot with spike strips, same outcome.

            Drug dealers are threatening the well being of our children, and would have no chance for survival in any free society. Drugs kill my friend, and have no place in our society, unfortunately they exist because we are not a free society.

            In my answers, I have hopefully shown that I will protect the people of my community from the evil whackballs that many seem to think would take over without government. I also believe it is my responsability to protect those who may not be able to so for themselves. In your society, it seems that you believe the law will do this, but, the law has failed you at every turn. And so we have drug dealers, we have rudeness to excessive degrees, we have thieves, violent people with no justification for their actions and far too many who refuse to respect the safety of their fellow man. My system would destroy this, yours nurtures it.

            G!

            • G-Man said “1. Yes, he is not annoying me, he is negatively affecting my overall health (a good nights sleep) that I require to meet my survival needs. He is free to play his music on his property, as loud as he chooses. Your scenario did not display that, but rather a person being completely rude and not on his property.”
              I look at noise as a pollutant….if he wants to destroy his hearing no problem…..he does not have the right to force me to listen to his music at any hour. They should have to shut the doors, close the windows and if the noise is heard out side a vehicle or house then the radio should be shot. 🙂

            • But G, where do you draw the line?

              If you someone looks at you the wrong way, are they not annoying you and thus causing you stress and thus affecting your health? Ridiculous, sure, but how do you draw the line?

              So, again, the speeder is a perceived threat which has done no actual harm as yet. You feel it acceptable to destroy his property? If another country may have WMD’s, can you invade them?

              And in a free world, I may not do to my body as I will? If I wish to smoke marijuana, I would not be able to? That is not free. And again, who decides what threatens our children’s well-being? Does the seller of violent video games meet this criteria?

              By making yourself judge and jury you are enslaving others. You restrict what others can do based on your wishes.

            • G-Man,
              Most of your responses are to use violence to resolve differences.

              By what right are you appointed Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

              Do you think this attitude might result in innocent people being killed?

              Do you really think the problems will be solved when you:

              1. Kill the attacker
              2. Kill the thief
              3. Burn down the polluter’s factory
              4. Shoot out the speeder’s tires
              5. Kill drug dealer
              6. Shoot the radio

              I think the survivors, or the dead’s family and friends, will join forces and retaliate against you and your family, and you’ll have a good’old Hatfield’s and McCoy’s Feud that will last for generations.

              Is this your definition of Freedom?

              Another view of two of Mathius’ scenarios:

              You witness someone stabbing Mathius and running away. You shoot him – case closed. Except Mathius informs you that it was his cousin, and Mathius wasn’t stabbed, but just poked in the ribs for fun.

              You witness someone giving drugs to children. You shoot him on sight – case closed. But it turns out the long haired hippy you just shot was “Brother John”, a 1960’s leftover hippy who hands out small scrolls of Bible Verses to children to teach them to follow the word of God.

              Now Mathius’ cousin and “Brother John” are dead. Since you initiated this violence, it would proper for Mathius and Brother John’s family to kill you.

              Your quick jump to violence, even in simple scenarios, is exactly the problem.

              Might Makes Right just leads to more violence and is the reason we need Government.

    • Hi Peter!

      I’ve been following along as much as possible today. Reading Mathius and VH today, I was waiting for the one statement that was not written (unless I missed it).

      The fact the anyone believs that government provides anyone with protection is one huge mirage. No governemnt entity is responsible for anyone’s protection, that is a “personnal responsibility”, nothing more. If anyone would like proof, call a lawyer and ask if you can hold your local police department liable for not protecting you when someone broke in your house, beat you up and stole your dog. The answer is an emphatic “NO”. It is not their job to protect you from crime.

      The next thing, “without laws, chaos would prevail” (or somethimg like that). This is also a mirage. There would be far less crime, if we could police ourselves, without all the outragous laws that keep people from doing so. An example, I can shoot and kill an intruder in my house, but I can’t kill the intruder that broke into my elderly neighbors house because the law says so. Well, I’m off to jail, because I was protecting my elderly neighbor, who was being beaten when I got there.

      So the mirage that the government wants us to believe is just a very big lie, that they are needed for our protection.

      Nothing has changed, I still think Obama is a pantystain!

      G!

      • In an anarchist society, there is an inherent power vacuum. The strong, not to be confused with the virtuous, will see that power. Like moths to a flame, they will claim the mantle of authority. You will fight them and they will crush you. Or you will hold them at bay and another will take their place. Eventually, a king will emerge. He may claim divine right. He may may claim anything he wishes. But he will rule you. In the end, you will find yourself dead or truly enslaved. You may not be entirely free now, but anarchy is an inherently unstable situation. Natural law says survival of the fittest, nature is red of tooth and claw, nature also says that the strong should dominate the weak. See the history of men as the strong oppressed the weak time and time again and tell me that your society would now fall victim.

        • This is Natural Law and this is exactly how it will work out.

          Those of you that advocate “No Government” please explain why this wouldn’t happen?

          • No externally imposed government (which is necessarily always, without exception, based upon theft and murder. Not “no government”.

            • My dearest Kent,

              Please do tell me. Do we not impose our government upon ourselves? Throw off your shackles and cease paying taxes. Take to the streets with cries of “No More!” All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, is it not so?

              Does not your failure to oppose with every fiber of your being give your tacit approval?

              Warmest Regards,
              RA

              • I control my own actions by adhering to my principles.

                As far as externally imposed government, you impose as much on yourself as you cooperate with. But I don’t fault a person for going along when a gun is in their face.

                I do not wish to become a martyr, so I choose my battles and a lot of things are done in secret. Suicide is not in my plans this week.

                I am not “doing nothing”, and I do oppose coercive government with every fiber of my being, BUT I refuse to allow that opposition to use up all my life thus “letting them win”. You fight in your way; I will fight in mine. As long as we are heading in the same direction I will support your actions for the moment.

              • mister kent

                i believe the simple of tests is that if those i ask to present me i cannot see (they are far far away) then they will not believe they are accounted to me. from the moment my voice is drowned in sea that my electored officials need not to listen to then government will always be corupt.

                thank you

                Ling

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Todd,

            I think you seriously need to read the ACTUAL definition of natural law, instead of presenting one that is completely fictitious and then bolding it so that you think you might fool people into believing it.

            That is a foolish statement you just made, and in part of your brain, you know it.

            A free society has MANY mechanisms to prevent precisely what Rara Avis is saying would happen.

            More on this over in the open mic thread.

            • Peter,
              You get so hung up on definitions, and then use that as an excuse not to answer a question.

              Change Natural Law to Social Darwinism, and then answer the question:

              With “No Government”, someone will rise to power and the strong will dominate the weak.

              Please explain why this wouldn’t happen?

              • The answer, Todd – this is exactly what happened – and you support it.

                It is called government – the conclusion of the Might is Right Doctrine.

              • Black Flag,
                No, that’s just your vision because you believe all government is evil.

                Your version of society requires that it be established on a moral basis. But that will never happen – it’s just a fallacy on your part.

                With no government, there will be many people like G-Man, just waiting to enforce their version of a moral basis with a gun – and there are many here on this blog that agree with that brand of justice.

                That will lead to retaliation and more retaliation, and then we’ll have true anarchy, where people band together for protection and strangers are shot on sight. Anyone trying to live a peaceful life on their own will either be forced to join these groups for protection or be pillaged by them.

                Is this your definition of Liberty and Freedom?

              • Moved to Tues., Todd

              • Todd, #38 on Tues blog

        • Nope. In a free society (which is based upon anarchy) the power resides where it really always has: with each individual. I need no nanny or master, and neither do you. No king can emerge unless individuals allow it, and when that happens the free society is no longer free.

          Or, is your argument that a republic should never be attempted since it always leads to governmental chaos (and “Deciders” like America is burdened with now) once the republic is over? In that case I would agree.

        • Rara Avis

          In an anarchist society, there is an inherent power vacuum.

          I disagree.

          There is an inherent violence vacuum.

          The strong, not to be confused with the virtuous, will see that power.

          This may be true.

          Violence, after all, is extremely profitable.

          Some one can work all year and lose it in a minute to theft.

          Like moths to a flame, they will claim the mantle of authority.

          How?

          Just because some one may see violence as profitable does not automatically make them authority.

          It simply makes them criminals.

          You will fight them and they will crush you.

          How does this follow?

          I believe you embed a believe that moral society is somehow weak and unable to fight.

          Look at Kent – do you dispute his ability to put up a fight against an assault?

          Or you will hold them at bay and another will take their place.

          Evil does not rest.

          But it is vastly outnumbered (unless legitimized).

          Eventually, a king will emerge. He may claim divine right.

          Only if by some measure he is given legitimacy.

          Rara, you miss the vital conditions of government.

          1) Violence
          2) Legitimacy

          Being only (1) is merely being a thug, and society thumps thugs very, very well.

          It is much more difficult to achieve (2).

          You may not be entirely free now, but anarchy is an inherently unstable situation.

          It is, by reason, the most stable situation.

          Moral basis for any system will be more stable then an immoral system.

          This does not mean that immoral systems do not exist – it merely means they will eventually be unsustainable and collapse.

          Natural law says survival of the fittest, nature is red of tooth and claw, nature also says that the strong should dominate the weak. See the history of men as the strong oppressed the weak time and time again and tell me that your society would now fall victim.

          Because immoral systems are doomed to collapse.

          One merely needs to review human history – as freedom increases so does the prosperity and size of humanity.

          The explosion of prosperity we enjoy today derives from the economic free market – not due to a command and control economy.

          Free men are inherently stable.

          They cannot remain free for long by denying freedom to other people.

          The only Universal Good of humanity is freedom from victim-hood.

          No one wishes to be a victim.

          Thus, all men struggle to be free from victimization.

          Any man who imposes upon another will cause him to be a victim. The victim will struggle to be free from imposition – and by his action, threaten the life of his victimizer.

          As the individual becomes more able to resist imposition – human freedom expands.

          When the threat to imposers becomes the highest – freedom is the most widest.

          Thus, the greater the freedom – the greater the risk to those that would be ‘criminals’.

          • A thugs they may be. But rule you they still will. Sooner or later someone stronger than will emerge. Your musket and sword will fail you today, tomorrow or the next day, or some day after that, for you cannot hope to win all battles.

            Legitimate or otherwise, an anarchist society is ripe for a dictatorial takeover. Defend yourself, oh Dread Pirate Black Flag, but sooner or later, your cave will fall. You cannot hold the darkness at bay eternally. Remember Thermopylae.

            And what then?

            And ask yourself this: If you had your society as you dream it and the China envied your resources, would you be able to fight them off? How long before they imposed their will upon you? What of your freedom then? Is the fleeting breath of free air worth the all but assured chains which will bind you for generations afterward?

    • When have I said that Natural Law does not work?

  24. Values … this is a tough one, USW. As much as I loathe much what passes for celebrity and/or “talent” (and as little as I watch television unless it is cable or football), and I can’t imagine how people like Paris Hilton, etc, live with themselves, I’m not sure I’d call her , Britney, et al whores. I don’t necessarily approve of these imbeciles or their lifestyle (it couldn’t be more shallow) but I’m also against most forms of enforced censorship (television, airwaves, etc.) and would prefer to leave those decisions (shutting off the television etc. to individuals). That too many of us do not censor our own kids is more problematic to me than having the Britney/Paris people get so much of the spolight.

    Not to mention a pedaphile like MJ getting around the clock coverage … but I think the war over values is a very tough one to wage; too much of a split, I think. I think there is too great a divide on “values”. I don’t have as much a problem with the affairs congressman, etc. have as I do with their using public money to pay for them (i.e., Edwards, Sanford) or what Slick Willy cost this country in his denials.

    This is a tough one.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie,

      This is one place where you and I may actually have a good bit of agreement.

      I believe that there are still many people in this country that understand freedom and liberty, and have a desire to have a society which is organized around these principles.

      I also believe that there are many people in this country that really don’t have any clear idea of what freedom and liberty are, and frankly, I don’t believe that they want to work hard enough to have a society based on these priciples.

      This is why I think the country splitting up in some way, shape, or form, is a distinct possibility.

      • Peter, wait a minute … if we’re in agreement, I must reconsider (smile) (i don’t know how to use those smiley things).

        The problem becomes further strained when people with divergent views are asked to define liberty, values, etc. I’m not sure the country will divide or that one will ever win out over the other (not in our lifetime). I suspect the natural flow of things will gradutally veer toward what we (or you) might view as liberal today, but this country is stuck in the mud because of economics. We’re going nowhere fast, it seems to me.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie,

          I told you there were SOME things we agree upon 🙂

          The simple smile is a : followed by a ) by the way…

          I will admit, if there are indeed people that do not desire a system based on freedom and liberty; then being a man who supports the ideals of freedom and liberty, I certainly cannot FORCE such a system upon such people.

          I can advocate for such a system, I can explain why I think such a system is the best, fairest, and most just way to organize a society, and I can attempt to educate people as to what freedom and liberty really are and what natural laws and common laws are.

          That is the best I can do 🙂

          You may even be right that the direction our society takes continues to be “modern liberal” (which differs almost completely from “classical liberal”).

          If that does indeed happen, I will continue to try to explain why I think that isn’t the optimal way to go for as long as I am allowed to do so.

          • 🙂

            I hear you. For me it is an issue of justice; what’s fair, etc. But then who defines fair?

            Why I escape to fiction (reading and writing) …

            • Charlie,

              Who defines fair?

              You do.

              But one also must be aware that others may not accept your definition nor you might not accept theirs.

              And there is no objective proof to demonstrate your concept of fair is better than theirs by using your concept of fairness. That is, you can’t prove them wrong with your belief.

              However, there is a way I can prove your belief by using your action.

              If you hold up a measure of fairness, but act in contradiction to your own measure – I know something is wrong.

              Either what you claim to be fair is not or your belief system is faulty.

              • Greatergoodcs says:

                BF, i think my issues the rational you use (and it may be perfectly sound) is that it is too black and white and I can’t subscribe to anything black and white. There are times when an action can be just or fair and other times when the same action is unjust or unfair (the way I see it). I suspect you don’t see it that way.

                I know what I feel is fair, say, jobs lost to affirmative action (in some cases I find it repulsive and in others I find it just).

              • GG

                There exists, inside your mind, a ‘yardstick’ that you use to determine this ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’.

                As you said, you look at this situation – and call ‘fair ball’.

                You look at other situation – which may be very close to the previous one – but call ‘foul ball’.

                In both cases, however, you are using your internal yardstick to know the difference…..or how are you making these judgments? I doubt you are flipping a coin…

                So, that is my self-appointed task – to discover your yardstick

              • Okee-doke. I’ll do my best (as patient). More domani.

  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    WOW! Seems like Obama’s policies are working JUST GREAT!

    Even with Mr. Hope and Change in the office, seems like the rich are STILL getting richer and the poor and the middle class are still getting poorer!

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-income-gap-widens-as-poor-apf-388403228.html?x=0

    Of course, Obama will point to this as evidence that all of HIS policies are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in order to correct this grevious injustice and imbalance.

    Yeah right… all his policies are going to do is continue to exacerbate this situation…

    • Peter,

      WOW! Seems like Obama’s policies are working JUST GREAT!

      This report is comparing 2008 to previous years. How do you equate that to Obama’s policies?

      If anything, I’d say it’s another indictment of the failed Bush administration policies…

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Todd,

        Yes, this is true.

        However, name ONE SIGNIFICANT WAY in which Obama has changed Bush’s economic policies OTHER THAN TO EXPAND THEM.

        If you thinked Bush’s economic policies were bad, you either thing Obama’s suck far worse, or you are a hypocrite.

        Or, the third possibility is that he has somehow convinced you that his economic policies are significantly different from Bush’s in some way, in which case you have been duped.

        • Peter,

          You started this topic – why don’t you find some facts to back up your positions?

          If you think Obama’s economic policies are the same as Bush’s, then you’re really lost.

          How about this – the stimulus which is creating jobs and gave tax breaks to the middle and lower class. Usually all you right-wingers love tax breaks – so what’s the problem?

          You don’t believe me?

          * Why is the DOW up since Bush left office?
          * Why has the GDP decline slowed, and will probably be positive for the 3rd quarter?

          • Todd

            maybe you should look in to the tax cut lie before you post. Yes, the amount of taxes taken from ones paycheck is less, but, the tax that one is required to pay on their income has not changed. The only thing that has changed, is that most will get less of a refund.

            You are right, it is a tax break, but it is not a tax cut. big difference there my friend.

            G!

            • G-man,
              I do look into things before I post – how about you?

              You’re parsing words – tax break or tax cut – people are paying less or no income taxes.

              http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

              The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero — or less — is on the rise. The center’s original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

              • You are correct, but what exactly has changed this year, nothing! Obama’s tax “break” is a mirage, nothing more, nothing less.. I posted at the end of todays open mike about another misunderstanding that you may have.

                By the way, I’m not your enemy, we are all still Americans!

                G!

  26. bottom line says:

    USW, I think you pretty much nailed it again. I’d like to offer what I believe is at least part of the reasons/relevant contributing factors of the why in all of this. I think alot of it boils down to the home, early childhood development, and human nature relative to trends in social norms.

    We lost alot of what I’ll call “home grown values” in the 60’s and 70’s with the women’s liberation movement, counterculture free love, trans-generational disconnect, and sexual revolution. The women’s liberation movent creates working career oriented mom’s and a need for day-care. Counter culture free love creates fatherless children. And the sexual revolution promotes, in some respects, promiscuity. If dad isn’t around and mom is working all of the time, then who is raising the children? Who’s teaching them morals and values? Who’s providing guidence? Who is setting the standard in their young and impressionable minds? Who is serving as their role models? Who’s giving them the proper balance of TLC vs. structure and dicipline? Where is their frame of reference? When they reach adulthood, what kind of lives will they lead if they are blind. How and what will they teach the next generation?

    I’ll give an example…Children are naturally selfish and self serving from birth. They are naturally “ID”-ish. Until they’re taught otherwise, they’ll likely continue to follow this pattern of thought and behavior well into adulthood. Appealing to the “Super Ego” and teaching them self awareness and consideration/respect for others, opens them up to a new level of reasoning. They can, with the proper guidence, begin to internalize they’re actions. This starts at about age three and requires guidence until they start to become more capable of independent reasoning…which happens at around age 7. Being aware of how one’s actions affect others(being self aware) allows a child to understand things like personal responsibility. IMHO, personal responsibility is KEY to personal growth and maturity. And THEY DON’T TEACH THIS STUFF IN DAYCARE. Hence the “ME” generation. A “ME” mindset leads to all sorts of problems. I.E. – If it feels good, do it…so what if it hurts someone else, I WANT it. I want it RIGHT NOW, and I am ENTITLED, because the world owes ME anyway. I DONT WANT to earn it. I don’t HAVE TO earn it. So why should I? I don’t care what happens or what I have to do to get it, just as long as I get MINE. What can MY country do for ME? It’s NOT MY FAULT. It’s not MY problem. I don’t care.
    How many social problems can you associate with tens of millions of people growing up thinking this way? A good homework assignment for everyone is to try and eliminate the words ME, I , and MY from your vocabulary.

    When parents aren’t around to teach their children morals and values by setting a good example, they get it somewhere else like a family member or friend/mentor, or not at all. They’re learning might have to rely on distortions, such as civil responsibility and work ethics by “cappin’ homies” in “the hood” over drug sales territory, or respecting women by “pimpin’ them hoes”, or or how to act like a lady from little miss dysfunctional codependance “electra conflict” herself, Lindsay Lohan. (it’s not ALL her fault she’s a dysfunctional alchoholic whore, USW, she’s just trying to sort out her daddy issues. She took it personal and developed a complex when her daddy went to prison when she was very young. She hasn’t learned to love and/or accept herself yet. She probably feels unworthy of her wealth and fame, which is why she tries to prevent herself from further success by getting DUI’s and acting crazy. You’ll know if/when she’s over her daddy issues because she’ll dump her girlfriend, straighten up, and make babies). I think Tom Arnold’s charactor “Gib” said it best in the movie “True Lies” when pointing out that busy working parents are competing with MTV…”Look, Axl Rose is her father and Madonna is her Mother!” What should we, as a society, expect when Britney Crotch-Shot Spears is the frame of reference for little girls everywhere? What should we expect when we expose them to a constant bombardment of vanity and SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. Turn off the TV. Take the kids to the park instead.

    America isn’t raising it’s kids right. When they grow up and take the reins, they can’t figure it out because they’re blind. They end up in places like public/political offices, doing things like taking bribes because they are there for their own benefit rather than public service. They end up paying their rent by having sex with a pole in front of a hundred men waiting their turn to cop a feel & stuff a ten in their garter every night,…instead of working at the local department store or Applebee’s. They end up going to prison because they choose to sell crack instead of learning a craft or getting a degree. They end up in the corporate world stealing money from childrens charities and elderly people. They go through life not realizing just how morally bankrupt they are. They know they’re doing wrong, but not WHY. There is no moral foundation to guide them to do the RIGHT thing. They can’t justify how it benifits them not to do the wrong thing because they’re unable to think past their own wants. They are in denial of the reprecussions of their actions and are unable to accept responsibility. All because someone didn’t take the time to teach them the difference.

    So, America, when your kid does some typical boundry testing kid shit like stealing from the local convenience store, or lying to you. Ground them to their room forever and a week with extra chores, bust their ass, take something away from them…or whatever you think as a parent is gonna get their attention. Make it count. Make it sink in. Explain the best you can WHY it’s wrong. If you see your kids in front of the TV idolizing the latest “bad girl” celebrity, point their attention to the fact that their mother keeps her legs crossed when wearing a skirt/dress.

    L=O∞ (all forms of life equals offspring to the infinate power). It’s ALL about the babies. Parenthood is the closest a human or any other species will come to being god-like. It’s IMHO the most amazing thing a person can do. Youth is king. One day you’re gonna die. What kind of world do you want to leave behind? Who will inherit the Earth when we’re gone? What do we teach them to get ’em ready?

    Just a few thoughts. Thanks folks, for taking the time to indulge in my ramblings. Have a nice day.

    Bottom Line.

    • Kristian Stout says:

      I agree with everything that you said. That being said, let me tell you about the best person that I know. She is a mother of 2, she holds a full time job and she has a husband. She takes care of her home her children and her husband. Her daughter is 5 almost 6, and she is the most polite and considerate child that you will ever meet in your life. Her son, until he went to live with his dad, was the same way. How is this possible you ask? It’s possible because this woman takes her job as a mom more seriously than she takes any job that she does. And she takes all of her jobs very seriously. It can be done. She helped me become a better mom by showing me how it’s done. She is the most amazing woman that I have ever had the privelege to know and I’m lucky that I get to call her friend.

  27. This is something I have been thinking about. Are we talking about “immoral” or “unethical” or just “evil”? I think that “morals” [sexual prohibitions come to mind] come from society, and some societies could [and DO] decide that all manner of harmful acts are “moral”. The dictionary doesn’t really distinguish between “moral” and “ethical”. Maybe “right” is a better word? Coercion always harms “the innocent”; which is my definition of “evil”. I just think many people have difficulty thinking about “right and wrong” rationally.

    Now, as much as I depise the politicians you listed, I have also come to realize that having “charges” brought up against you is a completely meaningless thing anymore. Anyone can make accusations. It isn’t even very significant to be convicted of something. If a prosecutor wants you convicted, you will be convicted. Evidence will be faked, witnesses will be coerced, exculpatory evidence will be forbidden. Being on that list means less-than nothing. Of course, since they all act every single day to diminish OUR freedom, I know they are all guilty, just not necessarily of the things the courts would like us to notice.

    USWeapon, I don’t know if you saw this, but your John Galt pic made me think of it: The John Galt Pledge Initiative

  28. BULLETIN
    TSUNAMI MESSAGE NUMBER 2
    NWS PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER EWA BEACH HI
    857 AM HST TUE SEP 29 2009

    TO – CIVIL DEFENSE IN THE STATE OF HAWAII

    SUBJECT – TSUNAMI WATCH SUPPLEMENT

    A TSUNAMI WATCH CONTINUES IN EFFECT FOR THE STATE OF HAWAII.

    AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS
    NOTE MOMENT MAGNITUDE INCREASE TO 8.3

    ORIGIN TIME – 0748 AM HST 29 SEP 2009
    COORDINATES – 15.3 SOUTH 171.0 WEST
    LOCATION – SAMOA ISLANDS REGION
    MAGNITUDE – 8.3 MOMENT
    MAGNITUDE – 8.0 RICHTER (MS)

    MEASUREMENTS OR REPORTS OF TSUNAMI WAVE ACTIVITY

    GAUGE LOCATION LAT LON TIME AMPL PER
    ——————- —– —— —– ————— —–
    APIA UPOLU WS 13.8S 171.8W 1832Z 0.70M / 2.3FT 08MIN
    PAGO PAGO AS 14.3S 170.7W 1812Z 1.57M / 5.1FT 04MIN

    LAT – LATITUDE (N-NORTH, S-SOUTH)
    LON – LONGITUDE (E-EAST, W-WEST)
    TIME – TIME OF THE MEASUREMENT (Z IS UTC IS GREENWICH TIME)
    AMPL – TSUNAMI AMPLITUDE MEASURED RELATIVE TO NORMAL SEA LEVEL.
    IT IS …NOT… CREST-TO-TROUGH WAVE HEIGHT.
    VALUES ARE GIVEN IN BOTH METERS(M) AND FEET(FT).
    PER – PERIOD OF TIME IN MINUTES(MIN) FROM ONE WAVE TO THE NEXT.

    EVALUATION

    BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE DATA A TSUNAMI MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY
    THIS EARTHQUAKE THAT COULD BE DESTRUCTIVE ON COASTAL AREAS EVEN
    FAR FROM THE EPICENTER. AN INVESTIGATION IS UNDERWAY TO DETERMINE
    IF THERE IS A TSUNAMI THREAT TO HAWAII.

    IF TSUNAMI WAVES IMPACT HAWAII THE ESTIMATED EARLIEST ARRIVAL OF
    THE FIRST TSUNAMI WAVE IS

    0111 PM HST TUE 29 SEP 2009

  29. Met Office: catastrophic climate change could happen with 50 years
    Catastrophic climate change could happen with 50 years, five decades earlier than previously predicted, according to a Met Office report.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6236690/Met-Office-catastrophic-climate-change-could-happen-with-50-years.html

    An average global temperature rise of 7.2F (4C), considered a dangerous tipping point, could happen by 2060, causing droughts around the world, sea level rises and the collapse of important ecosystems, it warns.

    —-

    These people must think that all the other people have the IQ of a pumpkin to buy such manifest nonsense.

    If they overstate the measured warming trend by a factor of seven, do they think that no one will notice?

    Why should Nature suddenly change a quantity – the decadal warming trend – by one order of magnitude relatively to all existing measurements and all sensible theories?

    Do they really believe that anyone but corrupt people trying to steal billions from the taxpayers, and/or mentally retarded individuals are ready to buy this crap?

    Their projections are exactly as ludicrous as the “judgement day” warnings by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The only difference is that the Met Office religion lacks the tradition, even the short tradition of the other sects.

    • This is a trend graph of what they claim.

      Now, they did not make this graph – someone else did – to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous these morons are making the claim of a 4C increase in 50 years.

    • Just file that with the Met’s stellar performance over the last five years for predicting the weather for each of those years. Circular file!

  30. Rara Avis

    A thugs they may be. But rule you they still will. Sooner or later someone stronger than will emerge. Your musket and sword will fail you today, tomorrow or the next day, or some day after that, for you cannot hope to win all battles.

    Your argument, condensed is this:

    “Eventually, you will lose”

    But why do you not apply this to evil, too?

    “Eventually, they will lose”.

    You have not provided the reasoning to why “evil” will out-battle “good”?

    Good must, by observation, outnumber evil – or society could not exist.

    Yes, a few good guys may fall to evil – but in the end, good overwhelms evil, or society could not exist. Since society does exist, evil does not win.

    Legitimate or otherwise, an anarchist society is ripe for a dictatorial takeover. Defend yourself, oh Dread Pirate Black Flag, but sooner or later, your cave will fall. You cannot hold the darkness at bay eternally. Remember Thermopylae.

    You are 10,000 years too late for that argument.

    I have offered this:
    “Violence is profitable”.

    Because violence is profitable, men take to violence to seize resources. This is self-evident to both of us.

    The risks of violence are great.

    Men resist violence – thus, it is a grave risk to one’s life to attempt to seize another’s resources by violence. Often, the attacker loses and dies – most would consider this a disagreeable event to themselves 🙂

    To be successful at violence, one would attempt to convince their victims that the victims should submit without resorting to violence.

    Thus, the best way would be to convince the victim that the attacker has a right to attack.

    The way you convince the victim to submit is to demonstrate an obscene amount of violence – a large threat – that attempts to convince the victim his resistance is futile.

    If the victim submits, and agrees that violence of the criminal is legitimate, the criminals become government.

    It is a delicate balance.

    If the criminal uses too much violence, he kills his victim and next year dies of starvation –or- becomes so disagreeable that the victims revolt and destroy the criminal.

    So the government/criminal must maintain a certain level of violence – too little, the victims realize they can overthrow him – too much, the victims have nothing to lose to overthrow him.

    But, further, if the criminal/government convinces enough of the victims that attacking the government is illegimate – called rebellion or sedition or traitor – then the criminals gets the victims to police themselves and protect the criminals!

    So much the better then for the government/criminals if the people see that violence against the criminals is a crime!!

    However, all of this is predicated on two, vital components

    1) on the ability of the individual to defend himself (or not)
    2) the appearance of legitimacy (or not)

    Now, if either of these two conditions are dispelled OR both conditions are dispelled, men become free.

    1) As above, when the victims ability to resist violence increases, the ability of the criminals to inflict the necessary violence to compel obedience decreases – to a point the victims fight themselves free from the criminals.

    OR/AND

    2) The legitimacy is removed. Men see that violence upon non-violent men is illegitimate – the legitimacy of government is destroyed – and government becomes once again, merely violent criminals.

    In our era, we are seeing both conditions becoming dispelled.

    Today, we have seen a man with a small group of followers take on the Greatest Military Power in History – and battle it to a draw.

    The ability to resist the projections of centralized violence –even if that resistance is done by a smaller group of criminals- portends well for the future of freedom.

    Further, the philosophical basis of freedom is being rejuvenated.

    The moral basis of society is being discussed again – driven by the obvious failure of government action in solving even the simplest problems.

    Government is losing its legitimacy of action every time it acts.

    This is what is happening here on USWep’s (and others) blog – attacks on the legitimacy of government action.

    Yes, the attacks appears to be limited – the discussion typically debate one part of government action and through discussion demonstrate how bad it is.

    The step I push for is to recognize that discussion for all government action.

    When legitimacy-mask is removed from the face of government, the People will recognize the criminals that were always there.

    When the people no longer defend the criminals, the criminals will be in a huge heap of trouble.

    The convergence of the ability to resist with the moral basis of resistance spells the end of government. The speed of its collapse will be determined by:

    1) the ability to resist – we are seeing the exhaustion of military power which will equate to the exhaustion of centralized violence.
    2) the loss of legitimacy – we are seeing that every action of government causes worse consequences. The more government acts, the faster its loss of legitimacy. But government must act to be legitimate. This is its death spiral.

    • Oh Dread Pirate Black Flag, you are quite one with the words. I must admit that I nearly ceded the battle at the mere sight of the length of your post. Because I have other things to which I must attend, I will simply say this.

      I do not dispute the legitimacy or lack thereof of government. But I do recognize the precarious nature of the world you would seek. Do you, sir, or are you blinded by your beautiful mirage?

      How does your society protect itself should China desire your resources? How does it protect itself from the organized criminals? I submit that it cannot. You imply that evil can be entirely defeated and I say, sir that it cannot. Good is eternal as is it’s other half.

      And consider that the single celled organism is no match for the multi-celled organism. Thus the inevitable and inexorable march of evolution toward us. You would fight a human’s immune system as a single bacteria? To survive, to outlast, you must be stronger than your foes or they will kill and eat you. They will enslave you. Your society cannot hold against the organized nations of the world. This is simple fact. To deny it would be unworthy of you.

      And so we conclude. I do not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of any government, nor the need for one as large and invasive as our own. But I do see the need for a unifying body in some form. And that form may need to be imposed on some unless you can propose an alternative which I will not deem willful fantasy. Alas, one must ultimately pay homage to the harsh realities of the world in which we live, not the world in which we wish to live.

      Adeux, and may fair wind forever fill your ship’s sails.

      • Greatergoodcs says:

        … “O’Shaughnessy, I leave you this Rara Avis as a token …”

        Brother, you’re in for it. BF is relentless on this issue. I just briefly took a look-see at your response and saw much of what I preach (there can be no such thing as no gov’t without resulting chaos).

        I think I understand his point (regarding my argument) but I don’t think he can conceive of my point (that several men, even if I believe they can’t be trusted alone to do the right thing, can in fact, come to compromise for the greate good, which results in self interest). I think we do it every day, it’s how we survive as a society. BF does not agree.

        I’ll let you two battle this one out. I gotta finish reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover …

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Several men, even if they cannot be trusted alone to do the right thing, could possibly come to an agreement between themselves to do the right thing.

          This is, indeed, part of how we function in everyday society. I do not think that BF would necessarily even disagree with this.

          The only part he would probably disagree with is that most men (notice MOST, not ALL) CAN be trusted on their own to do the right thing.

          The part that you are leaving out of your customary and traditional argument is that in your world-view, you seem to believe that in order to FORCE this group of men to come to a compromise to do the right thing, government is necessary. You seem to beleive that without government forcing the issue, these men would not reach such a compromise on their own.

          In that I (and probably BF too) would strongly disagree with you.

      • Rara Avis

        Oh Dread Pirate Black Flag, you are quite one with the words. I must admit that I nearly ceded the battle at the mere sight of the length of your post.

        I hope not.

        Battles of Reason and Logic are – by necessity – long.

        Neither of us would agree to mere protestations of the other without logic or reason to back them up.

        Because I have other things to which I must attend, I will simply say this.

        I do not dispute the legitimacy or lack thereof of government.

        I take you saying “you do not dispute the lack of legitimacy of the actions of government”.

        Of course, I can stand to be corrected if I am mistaken.

        But I do recognize the precarious nature of the world you would seek. Do you, sir, or are you blinded by your beautiful mirage?

        But I do not hear your argument against me – I simply here your voice.

        Why would the world I seek be precarious?
        Are you claiming evil is more powerful than good?
        How will you demonstrate such a claim?

        How does your society protect itself should China desire your resources?

        By defending itself.

        It appears you cannot believe that free man can organize themselves – it appears you believe only by force will men organize themselves to resist force.

        Correct me if I am wrong on this assumption I make of you.

        How does it protect itself from the organized criminals? I submit that it cannot.

        Why not?

        What is preventing free men from organizing themselves to resist evil?

        The fact is, I can go out and buy security – offered by free men in exchange for my money.

        Since I can protect myself from organized criminals by making such a purchase right now – I cannot see how you can possible make your claim!

        You imply that evil can be entirely defeated and I say, sir that it cannot. Good is eternal as is it’s other half.

        I need more than merely your claim.

        I offered the existence of society as proof that evil does not prevail.

        What is your offering (more than merely a claim)?

        And consider that the single celled organism is no match for the multi-celled organism. Thus the inevitable and inexorable march of evolution toward us.

        Again, you preclude that free men cannot organize themselves.

        Yet, by observation outside your door, such exists.

        Thus, how can you make such an obvious faulty claim?

        Since this claim of yours is central to your dialogue, further words from me would merely waste white space.

        I wait your demonstrations and argument.

      • “And consider that the single celled organism is no match for the multi-celled organism. Thus the inevitable and inexorable march of evolution toward us.”

        Someone doesn’t understand evolutionary science too well.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Freedom and Liberty do not preclude the existence of a “Unifying Body in some form”.

        Freedom and Liberty simply preclude that unifying body from being the monopoly of the use of coercive force against the people.

        BF NEVER HAS SAID that he is against “organization”. He is merely against organization that monopolizes and seeks to legitimize the initiation and use of force or coercion against people.

        He never said that he is against defending yourself, your community, your city, your geographic location, against violent acts by others. He would strongly encourage such defense.

        You are merely confused because the only form of “organization” which you currently recognize in your own mind is “government” and your mind is not envisioning how society would be organized using moral principles as opposed to “legitimized” immorality.

  31. all you young ones, i grew up in 1930s, no cell phones, no tv, no computers, we listened to radio or read. Rather boring but our morals were much better, no porn. to watch, maybe ideas but not fulfilled. One thing I have learned by growing old, Obey GOD, leave all consequences to HIM> In my humble opinion the reason so much lack of morality, kindness, too much cruelty, God was taken out of the schools, if you don’t believe in Him, that is your choice, but let the kids grow up with somewhat of an idea there is something better. Obey the Ten Commandmants, nobody can, but if we put our best effort and try, help people, take care of the disabled, old, veterans, seniors, the people who realy need help, that might just be a bit of an answer. I really enjoy all the posts, just diverse ideas and really some good judgment. I feel sometimes I am judging Obama harshly, but when I see the unemployment so much, the businesses in the town I live locked and out of business, so many looking for work, and all the strange ideas coming out of Congress, I wonder just what has gotten into the human race. Animals are much more forgiving, humans hurt them, they only hurt humans to protect themselves, that is one reason I live with dogs, not critical of me, they nag me yes, but obey (sometimes) protect me at night, bark,bark,bark, nobody bothers me. Giving people home loans, with out any way to pay for them, that is bad judgment, threatening the banks as the Acorn people do, not good either. I will stop with this: THE TRUTH WILL OUT IN TIME, I say soon!!!!!!!!!

  32. If people loved each other, there would be no violence, did you see the video on Glenn Beck, where the honor student was helping a friend and others turned on him, hit him with railroad ties, in the end killed the young man. why, the students watching were kicking the boy who died, that to me is lack of discipline and their parents should go to parenting classes. To kill anybody is bad, I am a veteran of WW2, was in U.S. Marine Corps. people have called me a tough marine, I only try to help, it is really terrible to kill somebody, by government or anyway. We go to war, that is killing and should not happen, but others are terrorizing the citizens and America steps in to help, if it wasn’t for the Civil War where America lost over 600,000 citizens, black, white, there would still be slaves, I have also read where America the only Nation in the wide world who fought against slavery, there is still slavery in many countries now and Muslim countries, where women are not as valuable as a dog or horse, let some of the American feminist go for that, maybe if they lived in Saudi Arabia, Iran and were treated so vile, maybe they would not be quite so critical of America today. Enough, God Bless All.

    • bottom line says:

      Goldie, I always enjoy your perspective. Thank you.

    • Goldie, you keep writing. I think a lot can learn from you. My parents grew up in the depression, and they know/knew what it was like to live without. My mother is 87 years old, has some Dementia, but can remember her youth like it was yesterday. She lives with me and my husband, wouldn’t even consider putting her in a home. My dad passed away in 1998 from brain cancer, but he told us stories that nobody would believe unless you lived then. He told us kids things what they had to do in order to survive. My grandmother, his mother, took in laundry, cleaned houses, made their own clothes,and even my dad said he and his brothers would do odd jobs to help out, or maybe to get movies money.

      So Goldie, you keep saying what you have, because you lived through a lot, and you know what you’re talking about. I have the utmost respect for you, and would love to meet you in person and listen to what you have to say.

      God Bless you always.

      Judy

  33. USW, I’ll check in the early morning for the start of the debate.

  34. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    Has anyone heard or seen from Cyndi P today? I know that she is somewhere in the Pacific and I just worry over the Tsunami possibilities…

    RS

  35. An old country preacher had a teenage son, and it was getting time the boy
    should give some thought to choosing a profession.

    Like many young men his age, the boy didn’t really know what he wanted to
    do, and he didn’t seem too concerned about it.

    One day, while the boy was away at school, his Father decided to try an
    experiment. He went into the boy’s room and put these objects on his study
    table.

    1. A bible.
    2. A silver dollar.
    3. A bottle of whiskey.
    4. A Playboy magazine.

    ‘I’ll just hide behind the door,’ the old preacher said to himself. ‘When
    he gets home from school today, I’ll see which object he picks up.

    If it’s the bible, he’s going to be a preacher like me, and what a
    blessing that would be!

    If he picks up the silver dollar, he’s going to be a business man, and
    that would be fine, too.

    But if he picks up the bottle, he’s going to be a no-good drunken bum, and
    Lord, what a shame that would be.

    But worst of all, if he picks up the magazine he’s going to be a
    skirt-chasing womanizer.’

    The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son’s foot-steps as he
    entered the house whistling and headed for his room.

    The boy tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he
    spotted the objects on the table.

    With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them.

    Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm.

    He picked up the silver dollar and dropped into his pocket.

    He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink, while he admired this month’s
    centerfold.

    “Lord have mercy,” the old preacher disgustedly whispered. “He’s gonna
    run for Congress!”

%d bloggers like this: