Littlestuff Weekender-1-22-2011

How many are enough? During the past year I have visited many liberty, patriot or tea party type groups. The attendance varied from roughly a half-dozen to nearly 200 people. John Adams wrote:

“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.”

How many patriots learning about limited constitutional government will it take to restore our Republic to its foundation? How many patriots after acquiring the knowledge will have the courage to battle in the political fields to rebuild the nation? How many patriots when thwarted at every turn by aggressive progressives and chicken-hearted politicians will have the will to carry on? How many patriots will go to the streets to demand that government leave them alone? How many patriots will continue to fight when the effort appears to be lost? How many? How about you?

Only 16 months until May 21^st, 2012. Does anyone here speak Mayan? My 66^th birthday is on 6/6/2012. Hmmm.

I read somewhere that this is the coldest winter in 86 years. Fine, but articles or statements like that make me wonder…colder in Tahiti? In Atlanta? In Antarctica?

..\..\Videos\RealPlayer Downloads\Across The Field - Ohio State University - From College ....mp4

The 19-0 Buckeye Men’s Basketball team has a BIG game with Illinois today at noon on CBS.

I certainly don’t want to seem like an alarmist, but I would encourage every one of you to plant a vegetable garden. When I look at what’s happening in the financial sector and with government spending plus a new downslide in real estate, it is hard for me to foresee a soft landing. There must be some turmoil and disruption, and food, water and energy appear to be our most vulnerable areas.

 Three words for why politicians should save their money: Cash for bail.

The Compact Fluorescent Lights have become the fiasco many of us predicted. They’re toxic when broken, their lighting life is much shorter than the proponents claimed, and they are dim. Repeal, repeal, repeal. At least allow us the choice of choosing between somewhat higher energy costs for Mr. Edison’s bulb and the toxic waste inefficiency of the CFL. Maybe those Obamacare Death Panels implemented the CFL mandate.

At least Frosty, my beloved canine, is housebroken because whenever a career politician walks in the room, I smell crap.

I’ve asked this before. Would you give your child over to a complete stranger? Of course, you wouldn’t. So why do we allow career self-serving politicians and indifferent bureaucrats to control our lives and our children’s futures? Some of the decisions we make in the world of government do not make any sense.

As you read these 6 xs per week Littlestuff-minoosha ramblings, I pray that you find them useful and occasionally entertaining. I truly enjoy writing them. They represent a measure of therapy for me, and I avoid the desire to scream incoherently…at the moon.

Liberty…getting it and keeping it… is a lot like swimming. You must keep stroking, or you’ll sink. I sense that we have sunk, but we haven’t drowned. We must begin swimming again as we gasp for air and fight fatigue, but swim we must.

It’s so cold that tears become icicles. My dog is nervous about doing his “business.” I love Frosty, but if his stream freezes while relieving himself, he’s on his own.

Have a wonderful and blessed weekend. Back on Monday.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Hating Hate Crimes

Hate is a terrible emotion…but not always. Don’t we all agree (most of us anyway) that it’s acceptable to hate evil? Mercy, there are some people in the political class who apparently hate “hate.” It is a sad chapter in human affairs that people have historically hated and made scapegoats of certain classes and populations. Certainly there are cases when individuals for reasons either real or imagined have nourished a burning hate about another person. My personal view is that hate toward another person or group is a wasted nonproductive emotion. It often distracts one from a true purpose, and frequently leads to enormous errors of judgment.

Overt manifestations of hateful behavior should be proscribed by the state and social convention. People should not be allowed to damage the persons and property of others unless they have been directly threatened and provoked. On the other hand the state and the community at large should not be able to define which speech is hateful. Perhaps it’s denigrating or insulting, but the state cannot discern the motivation for the offensive language. The concept of “hate speech” is an artificial construct that is determined solely by the person, group or entity who designs the definition. While there may be some social penalty (banishment, spurning, ostracizing) for speech that may be considered hateful, the state has no legitimate stake in the restriction of expression. That will not stop them however. Certainly many of you have heard those who wish to limit speech cite the “can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” example. The Justice Potter Stewart opinion stated that it would be improper to “FALSELY” shout fire. In other words when one falsely creates an alarm that can result in damage to persons and property, then the shouter has overstepped the bounds of acceptable expression.

Using uncivil language such as “idiot” or “bonehead” cannot and must not be circumscribed. Neither of the terms, or others similar to them, generates an aura of impending harm, nor do they threaten the targeted person or his property. So-called violent, incendiary or inflammatory language exists in a similar realm. If uttered in a vacuum, no one knows, and no one reacts. If shouted in a crowd, then those who take violent action that harms another are responsible…not the speaker. If I were to read “Hamlet” aloud, and some unstable clown who was listening later attempted an assassination, would I be guilty of inciting a murder attempt? Would William Shakespeare and I share a cell? Should Quentin Tarantino be banned from producing material that could incite violence? The utterance and the film are not guilty of damaging property or persons. The perpetrator is. Many of us from time to time have had wicked thoughts cross our minds, but we refrain from acting on them. That is responsible and civilized behavior. Speakers should not be held accountable when unstable listeners leap into action.

Mind reading by government agents is even more insidious that their regulation of speech. If someone commits a heinous crime, and the all-knowing, all-seeing bureaucracy determines that the criminal was motivated by hate, then the penalty becomes more severe. Huh? If you’ve ever spent a lot of time with someone you hold dear, you might have been asked the following questions: “Do you love me?” “Are you certain that you really love me?” The questions come from someone with whom you’ve spent innumerable hours and shared a plethora of intimate secrets, and yet, they entertain doubt about your affection. So, pray tell, how can some lower- or middle-grade bureaucrat detect what was in your mind or your heart when you commit the unlawful act? The Amazing Kreskin couldn’t do it. The lie-detecting dude on television couldn’t do it. Maybe your spouse couldn’t do it, but just in case they can know what’s on your mind and in your heart, they do not have to testify against you.

For me the concept of hate crimes is hateful. I hate the speech police, and I loathe, despise and abhor the thought police. The bozo’s who promote this type of control must not be aware of an action called “venting.” They wish to tamp our free expression to the point where it might explode. They will hate the outcome.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Epistemology of Liberty

How do we know WHAT we know, and how do we KNOW that we know it? Obviously many nuggets of knowledge are formally learned, and others are experienced. Many of the things we know come from informal learning encounters such as overhearing our parents discuss something. There is another form of knowing or source of knowledge that is difficult to identify and define. Some call it innate knowledge while others describe it as instinctive. Others may describe it as God-given. I’m not discussing the will to survive because I would characterize that as more of a biological impulse that a knowledge-based action. The longing for liberty or the fight for freedom is something that I sense is greater than mere biological necessity, is manifested before formal or experiential learning begins, and yet, at some level, is present in everyone.

In last Saturday’s “Littlestuff Weekender” I linked to a song by the Gaither Vocal Band called “Freedom.” The lyrics in the opening stanza refer to a baby’s struggle to escape the womb as the early evidence of our desire for freedom. Fast forward a year or so and observe how toddlers resist any attempt to restrain their activities. The fact that their formal and experiential knowledge curve hasn’t grown enough for them to identify danger does not inhibit their desires to toddle through life unfettered. To my untrained eye they seem to be asserting that freedom is the ideal…and damn the consequences.

Other examples could include those who move “off the grid,” people who spend their entire lives challenging authority, and that legion of folks who defy convention and silly lawmaking through subtle non-compliance. True, many people do none of the above, but we have no concrete method for determining what ideas float across their minds or roam within their hearts. Again, my amateurish point of view leads me to speculate that much of what we describe as “resentment or envy” reflects an internal desire to be free…or as free as the object of the envy. In our society freedom and significant financial resources are often synonymous. Do prisoners have a greater envy for the rich or for those on the “outside?” Even though a convict may be serving time for attempting to steal money, when facing daily life in the 8x10 cage, the focus of envy shifts toward those who enjoy more freedom.

Other species yearn for freedom. Tigers prowl and pace around the cage seeking to discover an opening. Even chickens, stupid as they are, prefer the open range for digging and scratching versus the tiny space provided in a laying cage. Casual observation should convince the most hardened skeptic that the lust for liberty is not a learned behavior but resides within the mind, heart and soul of all. Yes, some choose to withdraw and never challenge their shackles, but we cannot know the limits of their fantasies and dreams. The thirst for freedom is more than an impulse among people. It is a rational but nearly unquenchable desire to cast off artificial restraints and flourish. We know that liberty is a preferred condition because we KNOW it. We didn’t learn it. We didn’t touch a hot stove and experience it. We’ve always known it. It’s in our DNA…designed by God.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Lesser and Lessor

The purpose of an election is for us, the citizens, to select someone to represent our interests within the parameters established by the charter, state constitution and Constitution of the United States. We often state that we hire those officials to be our surrogates in the halls of power, but I submit that we “lease” them. To hire someone is to assume that we have absolute control over their activities while they are employed by us. Leasing, on the other hand, acknowledges that although we may enjoy an element of control, the actual ownership interest is held by another party. Under present conditions those other parties include but are not limited to special interests, major corporations and party leaders.

The old cliché about the two- party system limiting our choices to the “lesser of two evils,” has never seemed so true. Whoever proves to be victorious in a contest for votes ends up becoming the leading leased lesser for the citizens. As long as we citizens remember that our elected officials are merely leased, then we can treat them like rented mules. J In other words, treat them like the short-term employees they are supposed to be. Even when electing a new fresh face who claims to be fiscally responsible and constitutionally savvy, the electorate should go forward under the assumption that the elected official will be a short termer. No longer should we elect “good” people then focus our attention elsewhere. We must always be vigilant, ever watchful and perpetually wary. If an officeholder begins to show any sign of drifting from the constitutional path, voters should challenge him/her immediately and forcefully.

Just as in any lease, the item under contract is returned following a predetermined period. In the political realm, they’re called term limits, but they truly are unnecessary if the voters or a designated watchdog group monitors every action and vote of the politician. When the officeholder begins to slide, waffle, weasel or dissemble, the alarm is sounded, and the activist groups IMMEDIATELY go into action. No slack should be allowed. If the errant political type is permitted to wiggle off the hook, then the problem will be exacerbated as time goes on. In addition, the longer that the public official remains in office, the more difficult it becomes to dislodge the incumbent. No politician should be allowed to violate her/his constitutional obligations just because of pork barrel spending, or because he or she is a “good person.” There are a lot of good people among us, but they do not have the political power to undermine our constitutional government.

No person is flawless, and even the most constitutionally pure among us will sometimes be tempted to do something for the greater good.  If we understand that aspect of human nature, then we can be vigilant when we follow the careers of politicians whom we have elected. If they err, if they stumble, if they ignore the constitution and the voters who elected them, then their lease must be cancelled at the first opportunity. It will be time for a new lesser of two evils, and perhaps, future holders of the office will have learned a lesson….a lesser leasing lesson.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com  or  www.littlestuff-monoosha.blogspot.com

Center of it All.

At a time in our historical past, it was assumed that the Earth was the centerpiece of our corner of the universe. Although some wiser observers suspected otherwise, it wasn’t until Galileo used telescopic evidence to prove that the planets orbited the Sun that our Earth-centric point of view was discredited. Unfortunately, there some who sit in the seats of power that haven’t discovered that the world doesn’t revolve around their ego-centric universes. We often complain because politicians seem oblivious to our concerns, or dismissive of our preferences. The problem as it appears to me is that so many of the political class are so egocentric that they assume that their remedies are the best and only viable solutions for their perceived problems. It’s not that they ignore citizen input, but rather that they overvalue their own contributions.

For those of you who are familiar with teams of horses, the harness configuration often includes a “blinder” that is mounted near the horse’s eye and limits peripheral vision. Many people in public life are so taken with their electoral successes that they operate is if they are equipped with blinders. Another visual for this phenomenon could be “tunnel vision.”  The politico sees only straight ahead with little awareness of competing options, intervening variables and other legitimate points of view. It often puzzles us why someone who is intentionally vague and indecisive during a campaign suddenly develops the single purposed approach when confronted with an issue. That solution is often the one that involves additional government action and increasing taxpayer funding. The ego driven politician wants the problem to be “resolved” by the state because he/she desires to be in a position of guidance.

Rather than expecting our egocentric politicians to think “outside the box” where innovative and practical solutions may exist, we should first work to shrink the box by forcefully and resolutely limiting the government’s input. Narrow minded egomaniacs should be restricted to small places lest their overblown sense of self-importance prod them into proposing massive government action to solve problems that exist only in their narrow self-indulgent minds. We should gracefully and forcefully inform them that the ability to beg and wheedle for thousands or millions of campaign dollars does not infuse them with omniscience. We must educate our political careerists that starched shirts and shiny shoes does not automatically make one an expert in everything. We have a duty to inform the political class that their duty is not to discover problems and create government solutions for them, but rather to anticipate instances where government may impede our opportunities for problem solving. They must be taught or required to remove the blinders, surgically if necessary, so that they may observe that citizens have the means and the desire to arrive at solutions.

Yes, I know, a series of “they should” is not a prescription for responsible government, but what I’m attempting to illustrate here is that when we elect people and send them to the cocoons in Washington and Columbus, they go there with their blinders firmly attached. In most cases they assume that the people elected them to solve problems and propose legislation. Obviously, the only tools available in the capitols are political ones, and they feel compelled to use them. We must disabuse them of that notion as we actively engage them in the accountability process. We must make them aware during the campaign and thereafter that we expect their efforts to be more focused on dismantling the state apparatus rather than on legislative tweaks. Our politicians are not our Sun…they’re not that bright.

Comment:  earl4sos@gmail.com      or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com