They keep saying that the earth is getting hotter,
The temps are rising each and every day,
Their data are bogus and funky,
But they still want to take my Escalade away.
Chorus:
Oh, don't take my Escalade away,
I like it more than I can ever say,
With power and size for which I'm happy to pay,
Oh, please don't take my Escalade away.
AlGore is the villan who warns about the heat
His bank account keeps growing, that's what they say
He flies around wasting piles of energy
And the butthead wants to take my wheels way.
Chorus:
Thirty years ago they said the earth was cooling,
Then turned around and claimed a heating range,
They're so messed up and real confused
Now we should all be scared of Climate Change.
Chorus:
Whether cold or hot, I don't know.
The climate has always been unsettled
So its hard for me to take them seriously,
And dump my Caddy for a car that must be pedaled
Chorus.
Friday, December 11, 2009
What if?
What if….
Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, Tea Partiers, Sons of Liberty, Liberty First, Smart Girls, Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and other advocates for a smaller, accountable federal government assembled in a room around a circular table? Perhaps they could agree to band together for just one national election in order to promote thoroughly vetted, totally reliable coalition candidates for president and vice president of the United States of America. They could unite under one principled banner—to reduce the size of the federal monstrosity and implement stringent measures to assure accountability (e.g. recall measures, term limits, whatever). Each party or organization would retain its autonomy for local, state and congressional campaigns, but would support the top-of-the-ticket candidates. The name of the merged group could be RPO coalition—meaning the radically P. O’d assembly of citizens. So, can we get it done in time for 2012? Maybe. I must stop now because the Tooth Fairy is leaving, and Santa Claus is coming.
What if…frogs had wings?
What if…
The men in leadership of the Republican Party grew onions as big as some of the ladies of the GOP seem to have? Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn are not afraid to challenge the socialist monkeys with blunt talk, meanwhile Boehner and McConnell use D.C.-speak to protest the Dem’s roughshod behavior. Even the lady pundits are more straightforward. Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Cupp and others tell it like it is. As a reformed politician, I’ve known the type for years: Perfectly coiffed hair, steel-strong starched collar, top-grade suit and vague, non-committal language…and no guts. If I went into battle with most of those guys, I certainly wouldn’t want them behind me.
What if…
In lieu of raising the debt ceiling to 14 Trillion dollars, Congress had simply distributed the amount among the populace? A tidy sum of 46, 666 dollars would have been available for every woman, man and rug rat in the country. The spending surge would have generated a tsunami of economic activity that might have overcome some of the dislocations in the federal balance sheet. Just imagine, The Duggars with their 19 little Duggars would collect $979, 986. Wow, one more kiddling and they could have more than a million. The wife and I could have taken our 93 grand and donated some to Harry Reid’s campaign fund…maybe not. I know this is a pipe dream (even pipes have more realistic dreams than this). Plus, I don’t want Washington to take my money, skim it and shrink it, and send some loose change back. I want to hang on to it and decide how to spend it myself. I believe that I would do so more effectively…and more compassionately than Big Brother. I might not be so hostile to government spending if it were done with accountability and sensibility…and if they weren’t consistently spending more than they collect. So, once again our government is in the hole. Whaddya say…let’s fill in the hole and close it? Let’s bury those suckers once and for all…just like they have burying us under an avalanche of debt for all these years.
What if…President Obama got a clue? I know, won’t happen.
Comments are welcome. cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, Tea Partiers, Sons of Liberty, Liberty First, Smart Girls, Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and other advocates for a smaller, accountable federal government assembled in a room around a circular table? Perhaps they could agree to band together for just one national election in order to promote thoroughly vetted, totally reliable coalition candidates for president and vice president of the United States of America. They could unite under one principled banner—to reduce the size of the federal monstrosity and implement stringent measures to assure accountability (e.g. recall measures, term limits, whatever). Each party or organization would retain its autonomy for local, state and congressional campaigns, but would support the top-of-the-ticket candidates. The name of the merged group could be RPO coalition—meaning the radically P. O’d assembly of citizens. So, can we get it done in time for 2012? Maybe. I must stop now because the Tooth Fairy is leaving, and Santa Claus is coming.
What if…frogs had wings?
What if…
The men in leadership of the Republican Party grew onions as big as some of the ladies of the GOP seem to have? Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn are not afraid to challenge the socialist monkeys with blunt talk, meanwhile Boehner and McConnell use D.C.-speak to protest the Dem’s roughshod behavior. Even the lady pundits are more straightforward. Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Cupp and others tell it like it is. As a reformed politician, I’ve known the type for years: Perfectly coiffed hair, steel-strong starched collar, top-grade suit and vague, non-committal language…and no guts. If I went into battle with most of those guys, I certainly wouldn’t want them behind me.
What if…
In lieu of raising the debt ceiling to 14 Trillion dollars, Congress had simply distributed the amount among the populace? A tidy sum of 46, 666 dollars would have been available for every woman, man and rug rat in the country. The spending surge would have generated a tsunami of economic activity that might have overcome some of the dislocations in the federal balance sheet. Just imagine, The Duggars with their 19 little Duggars would collect $979, 986. Wow, one more kiddling and they could have more than a million. The wife and I could have taken our 93 grand and donated some to Harry Reid’s campaign fund…maybe not. I know this is a pipe dream (even pipes have more realistic dreams than this). Plus, I don’t want Washington to take my money, skim it and shrink it, and send some loose change back. I want to hang on to it and decide how to spend it myself. I believe that I would do so more effectively…and more compassionately than Big Brother. I might not be so hostile to government spending if it were done with accountability and sensibility…and if they weren’t consistently spending more than they collect. So, once again our government is in the hole. Whaddya say…let’s fill in the hole and close it? Let’s bury those suckers once and for all…just like they have burying us under an avalanche of debt for all these years.
What if…President Obama got a clue? I know, won’t happen.
Comments are welcome. cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Camel's New Quarters
The camel has moved so far into the tent that he is poisoning the air with his flatulent methane. Government encroachment on every aspect of our lives has progressed from a disturbing possibility to an alarming probability. Aside from the pending healthcare debacle, the latest assault on our freedom comes from the E.P.A., the Environmental Protection Agency…or is that the Egregious Policy Adopters? So, their mission is to protect the environment, but they stink it up instead…big time. They’ve threatened the Congress (something that I would like to do from time to time) that if our dearly beloved elected representatives do not implement the hyper-noxious Cap and Trade (i.e. cap and tax), then the unelected bureaucrats at the agency will initiate “command and control” policies and procedures regarding carbon emissions. In other words: “If you legislators don’t do what we want, we will usurp your unique authority for law and policy and do what we want. Stick that up your ***, Congress.” Who’s in charge of this popsicle cart?
It is not unusual for bureaucrats to run amok, but this attempted blackmail is unbelievably brazen.
The next area of government overreach that I want to share with you involves our bodies of water here in the United States. I apologize that I have misplaced my research on this issue (yes, I do research), so I’ll have to wing it with more generalities that I would like. An agency of the federal government that has responsibility for navigable waterways is under consideration for a much broader scope of oversight. I do not recall if it’s the EPA, the Coast Guard, Interior or some other unelected branch of government, and I don’t remember if it’s a legislative proposal or agency rule making, but the end game is a massive increase in government power to regulate and restrict every body of water in the country. If this ominous prospect comes to fruition, then perhaps we could create a new federal agency—PPP&PS, puddles, pools, ponds and pond scum, too. I’m fortunate to have a three-quarter acre pond here on my little patch of paradise. I neither need nor want some robotic, bean-counting, pencil-pushing, civil servant geek telling me I have too many bluegills (they’re like rabbits) or catfish in my personal puddle…or that my single speckled trout is lonely. Stay away, and if you do come here, go away…NOW!
Last night (Wednesday) I had the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin for a while. He was speaking in his usual high-speed, hyperbolic mode about a sacred USDA program. Levin stated that a study had determined that up to forty per cent of the meat and chicken provided to the school lunch program by the federal government was substandard. The meat failed to qualify for Taco Bell, Arby’s or McDonalds. It was determined that a large portion of the chicken came from spent layers…old egg producers whose value had diminished. Campbell’s claimed that they stopped using spent layers more than a decade ago for their soup products. So, the same government that wants to assume control of your healthcare is knowingly providing substandard meat and chicken for daily lunches for up to 60% of U.S. school students. Isn’t that special?
This column was begun with a discussion of the camel’s moving into the tent. Don’t fret. The government (USDA) will probably incorporate the camel into the school lunch program.
As always, your comments or emails are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
It is not unusual for bureaucrats to run amok, but this attempted blackmail is unbelievably brazen.
The next area of government overreach that I want to share with you involves our bodies of water here in the United States. I apologize that I have misplaced my research on this issue (yes, I do research), so I’ll have to wing it with more generalities that I would like. An agency of the federal government that has responsibility for navigable waterways is under consideration for a much broader scope of oversight. I do not recall if it’s the EPA, the Coast Guard, Interior or some other unelected branch of government, and I don’t remember if it’s a legislative proposal or agency rule making, but the end game is a massive increase in government power to regulate and restrict every body of water in the country. If this ominous prospect comes to fruition, then perhaps we could create a new federal agency—PPP&PS, puddles, pools, ponds and pond scum, too. I’m fortunate to have a three-quarter acre pond here on my little patch of paradise. I neither need nor want some robotic, bean-counting, pencil-pushing, civil servant geek telling me I have too many bluegills (they’re like rabbits) or catfish in my personal puddle…or that my single speckled trout is lonely. Stay away, and if you do come here, go away…NOW!
Last night (Wednesday) I had the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin for a while. He was speaking in his usual high-speed, hyperbolic mode about a sacred USDA program. Levin stated that a study had determined that up to forty per cent of the meat and chicken provided to the school lunch program by the federal government was substandard. The meat failed to qualify for Taco Bell, Arby’s or McDonalds. It was determined that a large portion of the chicken came from spent layers…old egg producers whose value had diminished. Campbell’s claimed that they stopped using spent layers more than a decade ago for their soup products. So, the same government that wants to assume control of your healthcare is knowingly providing substandard meat and chicken for daily lunches for up to 60% of U.S. school students. Isn’t that special?
This column was begun with a discussion of the camel’s moving into the tent. Don’t fret. The government (USDA) will probably incorporate the camel into the school lunch program.
As always, your comments or emails are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Amateur Hour
Is it idiocy, naivete, ignorance or lunacy that drives the administration’s economic policies? I’ll reluctantly give them a pass for the original TARP package because that was driven by the Bush White House but with eager participation by many in the current leadership. Each attempt to address a sector of the economy seems larger and less effective than those that preceded it. We’ve migrated from discussing hundreds of billions of dollars to nonchalantly speaking of trillions. The national bank account is overdrawn, the promises made by the government to our citizens are largely unfunded, and those who have been lending us the funds for this spending binge are becoming antsy. So, how do I really feel about the administration and its congressional co-conspirators? Please play. Sally Ann Howe captures my sentiments with uncanny precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
So, the President has proposed a “new” stimulus package partially funded by TARP funds that have been returned by affected financial institutions (it’s probably illegal-funds allocated for one purpose cannot be diverted for another). If you were to examine the first stimulus package ($868 B—chicken feed), you might note that an extraordinary portion of the funds were targeted for governmental agencies and NGO’s who provide “services” under the auspices of government watchdogs. Because the government’s reporting data are unclear, it is difficult to ascertain just how many jobs were “created or saved” by the initial stimulus of 2009. In addition, the dearth of specificity in the data makes it impossible to identify if those “created and saved jobs” were in the private sector or the public realm. I have no facts (they won’t produce them), but I suspect that if we could acquire hard data, we would discover that the overwhelming beneficiaries of Stimulus I are public sector entities.
To date, only about forty per cent (40%) of Stimulus I has been distributed, and yet the administration is aggressively promoting a second round. To me, an humble old country boy, it seems as if the inmates were running the asylum. Their modus operandi appears to follow this pattern: declare a crisis, hastily construct a massive unintelligible bill, pass it quickly in the dark of night, and blame the Bush administration. After the new legislation proves to be inadequate or ineffective, then declare another crisis and repeat the pattern.
Meanwhile the deficit grows geometrically as the funds for each “crisis-solving” piece of legislation is passed. There are only three areas of true growth under this Obama/Reid/Pelosi formula. They are: the debt, the deficit, and government. The private sector, meanwhile, is either stagnant or shrinking. The only segments that have consistently demonstrated growth in the last three quarters are healthcare and the sale of firearms and ammo (maybe commodities especially gold). So, the Administration’s driving purpose appears to be that it wants to throw money at every perceived problem—something like ‘whack-a-mole.’ And government continues to grow. I titled this piece “Amateur Hour” because the approach in Washington is nonsensical and counterintuitive, but I wish it were the “Gong Show” so that I could bang the magic twanger and get them off the stage.
Your comments are appreciated. Use the comment link or write cnpearl@woh.rr.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
So, the President has proposed a “new” stimulus package partially funded by TARP funds that have been returned by affected financial institutions (it’s probably illegal-funds allocated for one purpose cannot be diverted for another). If you were to examine the first stimulus package ($868 B—chicken feed), you might note that an extraordinary portion of the funds were targeted for governmental agencies and NGO’s who provide “services” under the auspices of government watchdogs. Because the government’s reporting data are unclear, it is difficult to ascertain just how many jobs were “created or saved” by the initial stimulus of 2009. In addition, the dearth of specificity in the data makes it impossible to identify if those “created and saved jobs” were in the private sector or the public realm. I have no facts (they won’t produce them), but I suspect that if we could acquire hard data, we would discover that the overwhelming beneficiaries of Stimulus I are public sector entities.
To date, only about forty per cent (40%) of Stimulus I has been distributed, and yet the administration is aggressively promoting a second round. To me, an humble old country boy, it seems as if the inmates were running the asylum. Their modus operandi appears to follow this pattern: declare a crisis, hastily construct a massive unintelligible bill, pass it quickly in the dark of night, and blame the Bush administration. After the new legislation proves to be inadequate or ineffective, then declare another crisis and repeat the pattern.
Meanwhile the deficit grows geometrically as the funds for each “crisis-solving” piece of legislation is passed. There are only three areas of true growth under this Obama/Reid/Pelosi formula. They are: the debt, the deficit, and government. The private sector, meanwhile, is either stagnant or shrinking. The only segments that have consistently demonstrated growth in the last three quarters are healthcare and the sale of firearms and ammo (maybe commodities especially gold). So, the Administration’s driving purpose appears to be that it wants to throw money at every perceived problem—something like ‘whack-a-mole.’ And government continues to grow. I titled this piece “Amateur Hour” because the approach in Washington is nonsensical and counterintuitive, but I wish it were the “Gong Show” so that I could bang the magic twanger and get them off the stage.
Your comments are appreciated. Use the comment link or write cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
One for All
For a community or a government to protect individual freedom it must be based on moral behavior. There are some schools of thought that morality is strictly an individual consideration (e.g. relativism), but in order for a community of individuals to flourish, there should be a consensus regarding what constitutes moral behavior. Any other paradigm leads to anarchy and chaos. It seems apparent to me that in the United States today the moral foundations have crumbled, and we are balancing on the edge of mayhem. Although I believe the culture has become depraved, it is the moral structure of the body politic that I address today.
It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.
The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.
Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.
Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.
The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.
True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.
So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.
None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restores. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.
Comments are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd PartII: All for One Part III: One for All
It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.
The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.
Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.
Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.
The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.
True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.
So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.
None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restores. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.
Comments are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd PartII: All for One Part III: One for All
Monday, December 7, 2009
All for One
According to those eminent philosophers, Three Dog Night, “One is the loneliest number.” Though lonely, it is the most basic number, and thus, the individual is the basic component of a group, a community, a state or a planet. There may be other people who resemble us physically, culturally and intellectually, but because each of us is unique, they do not match us exactly. There is evidence, in fact, that cloned creatures exhibit some behavioral differences from their sources. Each of us possesses a composite of attitudes, physical attributes, preferences, dreams and goals that segregate us from others who may be similar. While there may be compelling biological explanations for the variations among us, those unique elements are the underlying justification for engaged monotheism. Each individual has a personal relationship with the Creator who, in turn, acknowledges the individual as unique.
One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.
In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”
If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.
The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.
One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.
The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.
Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd
Part II: All for One
One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.
In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”
If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.
The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.
One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.
The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.
Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd
Part II: All for One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
