Between Ron and me, Macauley is very difficult to exerpt, but this strengthens both our points I think:
Just at this conjuncture James died. Charles the First succeeded
to the throne. He had received from nature a far better
understanding, a far stronger will, and a far keener and firmer
temper than his father's. He had inherited his father's political
theories, and was much more disposed than his father to carry
them into practice. He was, like his father, a zealous
Episcopalian. He was, moreover, what his father had never been, a
zealous Arminian, and, though no Papist, liked a Papist much
better than a Puritan. It would be unjust to deny that Charles
had some of the qualities of a good, and even of a great prince.
He wrote and spoke, not, like his father, with the exactness of a
professor, but after the fashion of intelligent and well educated
gentlemen. His taste in literature and art was excellent, his
manner dignified, though not gracious, his domestic life without
blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his disasters, and
is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in truth, impelled by
an incurable propensity to dark and crooked ways. It may seem
strange that his conscience, which, on occasions of little
moment, was sufficiently sensitive, should never have reproached
him with this great vice. But there is reason to believe that he
was perfidious, not only from constitution and from habit, but
also on principle. He seems to have learned from the theologians
whom he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there
could be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could
not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic authority;
and that, in every promise which he made, there was an implied
reservation that such promise might be broken in case of
necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole judge.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Sunday, March 07, 2004
I blogged more'n I shoulda yesterday.
Pushin' my luck now.
Catholic Packer Fan referred to "his" Yankees today. I wonder who he likes in basketball and hockey. Of course I just default to the Minnesota teams for the three sports under discussion. The Bucks and the Brewers never did much for me, except for the great Beer Town Rivalry when the Cards and the Brew Crew met in the World Series.
[T. J. Lubinsky's raising money for PBS behind me. Somebody needs to make a song called T. J. Lubinsky's The Man! for making all these shows about '50's and '60's music. My musical tastes were formed in the Seventies. Sorry.]
Although I was a UM-Duluth student, I tended to hang around with my Superior buddies and raise hell for the YellowJackets in football and hockey, and I tried basketball but I couldn't understand a word those guys were saying. My buddy Jon could handle that, but then he actually likes basketball.
Catholic Packer Fan referred to "his" Yankees today. I wonder who he likes in basketball and hockey. Of course I just default to the Minnesota teams for the three sports under discussion. The Bucks and the Brewers never did much for me, except for the great Beer Town Rivalry when the Cards and the Brew Crew met in the World Series.
[T. J. Lubinsky's raising money for PBS behind me. Somebody needs to make a song called T. J. Lubinsky's The Man! for making all these shows about '50's and '60's music. My musical tastes were formed in the Seventies. Sorry.]
Although I was a UM-Duluth student, I tended to hang around with my Superior buddies and raise hell for the YellowJackets in football and hockey, and I tried basketball but I couldn't understand a word those guys were saying. My buddy Jon could handle that, but then he actually likes basketball.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
More from Lin Yutang's Wisdom of India and China, pub. 1942
The Frogs That Rode Snakeback
There was once an elderly black snake in a certain spot, and his name was Slow-Poison. He considered the situation from this point of view: "How in the world can I get along without overtaxing my energies?" Then he went to a pond containing many frogs, and behaved as if very dejected.
As he waited thus, a frog came to the edge of the water and asked: "Uncle, why don't you bustle about today for food as usual?"
"My dear friend," said Slow-Poison, "I am afflicted. Why should I wish for food? For this evening, as I was bustling about for food, I saw a frog and made ready to catch him. But he saw me and, fearing death, he escaped among some Brahmans intent upon holy recitation, nor did I perceive which way he went. But in the water at the edge of the pond was the great toe of a Brahman boy, and stupidly deceived by its resemblance to a frog, I bit it, and the boy died immediately. Then the sorrowing father cursed me in these terms: 'Monster! Since you bit my harmless son, you shall for this sin become a vehicle for frogs, and shall subsist on whatever they choose to allow you.' Consequently, I have come here to serve as your vehicle."
Now the frog reported this to all the others. And every last one of them, in extreme delight, went and reported to the frog-king, whose name was Water-Foot. He in turn, accompanied by his counselors, rose hurriedly from the pond--for he thought it an extraordinary occurrence--and climbed upon Slow-Poison's hood. The others also, in order of age, climbed on his back. Yet others, finding no vacant spot, hopped along behind the snake. Now Slow-Poison, with an eye to making his living, showed them fancy turns in great variety. And Water-Foot, enjoying contact with his body, said to him:
I'd rather ride Slow-Poison than
The finest horse I've seen,
Or elephant, or chariot,
Or man-borne palanquin.
The next day, Slow-Poison was wily enough to move very slowly, So Water-Foot said: "My dear Slow-Poison, why don't you carry us nicely, as you did before?"
And Slow-Poison said: "O King, I have no carrying power today because of lack of food." My dear fellow," said the king, "eat the plebeian frogs."
When Slow-Poison heard this, he quivered with joy in every member and made haste to say: "Why, that is a part of the curse laid on me by the Brahman. For that reason I am greatly pleased at your command." So he ate frogs uninterruptedly, and in a very few days he grew strong. And with delight and inner laughter he said:
The trick was good. All sorts of frogs
Within my power have passed.
The only question that remains,
Is: How long with they last?
Water-Foot, for his part, was befooled by Slow-Poison's plausibilities, and did not notice a thing.
**********
In Lin Yutang's introduction to this section - called The Panchatantra (this story isn't in that collection yet) - he says, "But I do wish that the wise, learned and calculating appeasers of America and Europe had read The Frogs that Rode Snakeback in the childhood and taken that simple wisdom to heart, for I believe Water-foot who gave away the plebeian frogs to the snake was the first of the race of appeasers."
There was once an elderly black snake in a certain spot, and his name was Slow-Poison. He considered the situation from this point of view: "How in the world can I get along without overtaxing my energies?" Then he went to a pond containing many frogs, and behaved as if very dejected.
As he waited thus, a frog came to the edge of the water and asked: "Uncle, why don't you bustle about today for food as usual?"
"My dear friend," said Slow-Poison, "I am afflicted. Why should I wish for food? For this evening, as I was bustling about for food, I saw a frog and made ready to catch him. But he saw me and, fearing death, he escaped among some Brahmans intent upon holy recitation, nor did I perceive which way he went. But in the water at the edge of the pond was the great toe of a Brahman boy, and stupidly deceived by its resemblance to a frog, I bit it, and the boy died immediately. Then the sorrowing father cursed me in these terms: 'Monster! Since you bit my harmless son, you shall for this sin become a vehicle for frogs, and shall subsist on whatever they choose to allow you.' Consequently, I have come here to serve as your vehicle."
Now the frog reported this to all the others. And every last one of them, in extreme delight, went and reported to the frog-king, whose name was Water-Foot. He in turn, accompanied by his counselors, rose hurriedly from the pond--for he thought it an extraordinary occurrence--and climbed upon Slow-Poison's hood. The others also, in order of age, climbed on his back. Yet others, finding no vacant spot, hopped along behind the snake. Now Slow-Poison, with an eye to making his living, showed them fancy turns in great variety. And Water-Foot, enjoying contact with his body, said to him:
I'd rather ride Slow-Poison than
The finest horse I've seen,
Or elephant, or chariot,
Or man-borne palanquin.
The next day, Slow-Poison was wily enough to move very slowly, So Water-Foot said: "My dear Slow-Poison, why don't you carry us nicely, as you did before?"
And Slow-Poison said: "O King, I have no carrying power today because of lack of food." My dear fellow," said the king, "eat the plebeian frogs."
When Slow-Poison heard this, he quivered with joy in every member and made haste to say: "Why, that is a part of the curse laid on me by the Brahman. For that reason I am greatly pleased at your command." So he ate frogs uninterruptedly, and in a very few days he grew strong. And with delight and inner laughter he said:
The trick was good. All sorts of frogs
Within my power have passed.
The only question that remains,
Is: How long with they last?
Water-Foot, for his part, was befooled by Slow-Poison's plausibilities, and did not notice a thing.
**********
In Lin Yutang's introduction to this section - called The Panchatantra (this story isn't in that collection yet) - he says, "But I do wish that the wise, learned and calculating appeasers of America and Europe had read The Frogs that Rode Snakeback in the childhood and taken that simple wisdom to heart, for I believe Water-foot who gave away the plebeian frogs to the snake was the first of the race of appeasers."
Back to Hinduism
The True Brahman
All this is Brahman. Let a man meditate on that visible world as beginning, ending, and breathing in it.
Now man is a creature of will. According to what his will is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life. Let him therefore have this will and belief:
The intelligent, whose body is spirit, whose form is light, whose thoughts are true, whose nature is like ether, from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed; he who embraces all this, who never speaks, and is never surprised,
He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed. He also is my self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.
He from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed, who embraces all this, who never speaks and who is never surprised, he, my self with the heart, is that Brahman. When I shall have departed from hence, I shall obtain that Self. He who has this faith has no doubt; thus said Sandilya(1), yea, thus he said.
(From the Chhandogya Upanishad)
1 This chapter is frequently quoted as the Sandilya-vidya.
All this is Brahman. Let a man meditate on that visible world as beginning, ending, and breathing in it.
Now man is a creature of will. According to what his will is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life. Let him therefore have this will and belief:
The intelligent, whose body is spirit, whose form is light, whose thoughts are true, whose nature is like ether, from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed; he who embraces all this, who never speaks, and is never surprised,
He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed. He also is my self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.
He from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed, who embraces all this, who never speaks and who is never surprised, he, my self with the heart, is that Brahman. When I shall have departed from hence, I shall obtain that Self. He who has this faith has no doubt; thus said Sandilya(1), yea, thus he said.
(From the Chhandogya Upanishad)
1 This chapter is frequently quoted as the Sandilya-vidya.
A personal note
I was once an environmentalist wacko. Although I never saw fit to join one of their organisations, I was perfectly content with the idea that billions of people needed to be eliminated from the earth so the remaining several million could be happy. That may have been my rock bottom position in that particular, personal downfall.
Then I had a little girl. Since I was not a member of any group which would attempt to pull off a plot to kill billions of us, I decided it was time to take action to foil such plots. To protect my baby.
Then I had a little girl. Since I was not a member of any group which would attempt to pull off a plot to kill billions of us, I decided it was time to take action to foil such plots. To protect my baby.
I know, I know, I promised...
Here's something for you fans of Eastern Religions (although it's Taoism, I hope you don't mind).
The Book of Tao, by Laotse
LXXI. The Way of Heaven
True word are not fine-sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
A good man does not argue;
He who argues is not a good man.
The wise one does not know many things;
He who knows many things is not wise.
The Sage does not accumulate (for himself):
He lives for other people,
And grows richer himself;
He gives to other people,
And has greater abundance.
The Tao of Heaven
Blesses, but does not harm.
The Way of the Sage
Accomplishes, but does not contend.
The Book of Tao, by Laotse
LXXI. The Way of Heaven
True word are not fine-sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
A good man does not argue;
He who argues is not a good man.
The wise one does not know many things;
He who knows many things is not wise.
The Sage does not accumulate (for himself):
He lives for other people,
And grows richer himself;
He gives to other people,
And has greater abundance.
The Tao of Heaven
Blesses, but does not harm.
The Way of the Sage
Accomplishes, but does not contend.
Here's another definition of Whig for ya.
I know you're all dying to know.
The article has many explanatory links.
Notice I don't encourage anybody to study the American Whig Party; that sorry-assed bunch of big government protectionists [aka mercantilists].
The article has many explanatory links.
Notice I don't encourage anybody to study the American Whig Party; that sorry-assed bunch of big government protectionists [aka mercantilists].
Friday, March 05, 2004
Gweilodiaries
Has a very interesting illustration of government failure. ...Almost, we actually got a happy ending here.
When I say "we" I mean humanity. America's State Department wouldn't have let him get this far.
When I say "we" I mean humanity. America's State Department wouldn't have let him get this far.
From the Taxpayers' League of Minnesota.
TABOR Fact of the Week!
The average Colorado resident pays $621 less annually in state & local
taxes than the average Minnesotan. That's why Minnesota needs TABOR!
(Source: Federal Tax Administration)
The average Colorado resident pays $621 less annually in state & local
taxes than the average Minnesotan. That's why Minnesota needs TABOR!
(Source: Federal Tax Administration)
Let's not forget ARI!
Dear Editor:
The United States should demand that the new Iraqi constitution include an explicit separation of state and Islam. The threat posed by a new regime in which Islamic fundamentalism has political power is unacceptable. It makes no sense to have gone to war to overthrow a secular tyranny only to replace it with a religious one that is potentially far more dangerous to America. But to make such a demand would require the current administration to identify Islamic fundamentalism as our ideological enemy and to recognize that the separation of state and religion is a crucial requirement of freedom not only in Iraq, but here in America as well.
David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute
2121 Alton Parkway, #250
Irvine, CA 92606
United States
(949) 222-6550 ext 226
The United States should demand that the new Iraqi constitution include an explicit separation of state and Islam. The threat posed by a new regime in which Islamic fundamentalism has political power is unacceptable. It makes no sense to have gone to war to overthrow a secular tyranny only to replace it with a religious one that is potentially far more dangerous to America. But to make such a demand would require the current administration to identify Islamic fundamentalism as our ideological enemy and to recognize that the separation of state and religion is a crucial requirement of freedom not only in Iraq, but here in America as well.
David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute
2121 Alton Parkway, #250
Irvine, CA 92606
United States
(949) 222-6550 ext 226
Gandelman...
MARTHA STEWART WILL MOVE TO A SLOPPY HOME: She used to be wholesome; now she's Folsom...
Update: Oops, here's the permanent link. I hate to try to put such a long URL in the title slot anyway.
Update: Oops, here's the permanent link. I hate to try to put such a long URL in the title slot anyway.
A couple exerpts on Anarchy
From the Libertarian International:
What Is Anarchy?
by Butler Shaffer
One philosophical abstraction that seems to befuddle most people is "anarchy." To those challenged by complexity – such as radio talk show hosts and cable-TV "newscasters" who are convinced that all political opinions can be confined to the categories of "liberal" and "conservative" – the word anarchy evokes an unfocused fear of uncertain forces. Images of bomb-throwing thugs who smash and burn the property of others are routinely conjured up by politicians and the media to frighten people into an extension of police authority over their lives. "Disorder" and "lawless confusion" are common dictionary definitions of this word.
....
Are there murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and arsonists in our world? Of course there are, and there will always be, and they do not all work for the state. It is amazing that, with all the powers and money conferred upon the state to "protect" us from such threats, they continue to occur with a regularity that seems to have increased with the size of government! Even the current "mad cow disease" scare is being used, by the statists, as a reason for more government regulation, an effort that conveniently ignores the fact that the federal government has been closely regulating meat production for many decades.
Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly "bomb-throwers" of human history!
....
I'm always askin' for trouble.
Update: Further debate.
Update update: People were feedin' me carbs at work all afternoon... My pancreas is workin' just fine. No sugar in this blood-stream.
What Is Anarchy?
by Butler Shaffer
One philosophical abstraction that seems to befuddle most people is "anarchy." To those challenged by complexity – such as radio talk show hosts and cable-TV "newscasters" who are convinced that all political opinions can be confined to the categories of "liberal" and "conservative" – the word anarchy evokes an unfocused fear of uncertain forces. Images of bomb-throwing thugs who smash and burn the property of others are routinely conjured up by politicians and the media to frighten people into an extension of police authority over their lives. "Disorder" and "lawless confusion" are common dictionary definitions of this word.
....
Are there murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and arsonists in our world? Of course there are, and there will always be, and they do not all work for the state. It is amazing that, with all the powers and money conferred upon the state to "protect" us from such threats, they continue to occur with a regularity that seems to have increased with the size of government! Even the current "mad cow disease" scare is being used, by the statists, as a reason for more government regulation, an effort that conveniently ignores the fact that the federal government has been closely regulating meat production for many decades.
Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly "bomb-throwers" of human history!
....
I'm always askin' for trouble.
Update: Further debate.
Update update: People were feedin' me carbs at work all afternoon... My pancreas is workin' just fine. No sugar in this blood-stream.
Hey! The sun's coming out!
Maybe we'll get a chance to see this.
It's been snowing to beat the band all day. Wet, heavy stuff. We'll have to make a snowman.
It's been snowing to beat the band all day. Wet, heavy stuff. We'll have to make a snowman.
John B. had a comment
on my post from the other day about the Walton fortune:
It all boils down to who your god is...God or money.
John B. | Email | Homepage | 03.02.04 - 10:50 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I study economics on the side, and I particularly like Ludwig von Mises' characterization of econ as the study of Human Action, or actually econ would be the branch of Human Action (praxeology) he called catallactics--trading behavior. I was going to try to summarize that page by exerpting but I find that the economy (I guess that's a pun here, though not a funny pun) of his language defeats the effort.
I have mentioned (this is the first entry of three; scroll up) a desire to write about "the love of money is the root of all evil" and how Monetarists, Keynesians and Marxists are all afflicted with "the love of money" while Austrians (the economic school of thought, not the nationality), Objectivists and Christians are not.
[A caveat: the latter three groups may only be lumped together on this issue. I wouldn't want to see what would happen if you tossed one of each into a burlap bag and tied the end shut. The previous troika seem to be getting along famously as advisors to European and American governments.]
It all boils down to who your god is...God or money.
John B. | Email | Homepage | 03.02.04 - 10:50 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I study economics on the side, and I particularly like Ludwig von Mises' characterization of econ as the study of Human Action, or actually econ would be the branch of Human Action (praxeology) he called catallactics--trading behavior. I was going to try to summarize that page by exerpting but I find that the economy (I guess that's a pun here, though not a funny pun) of his language defeats the effort.
I have mentioned (this is the first entry of three; scroll up) a desire to write about "the love of money is the root of all evil" and how Monetarists, Keynesians and Marxists are all afflicted with "the love of money" while Austrians (the economic school of thought, not the nationality), Objectivists and Christians are not.
[A caveat: the latter three groups may only be lumped together on this issue. I wouldn't want to see what would happen if you tossed one of each into a burlap bag and tied the end shut. The previous troika seem to be getting along famously as advisors to European and American governments.]
I thought somebody said he was the king of the Neocons.
Jonah Goldberg said this:
What drives me nuts about all of the talk about deficits is how it makes the deficit seem like the disease rather than the symptom. The disease is a metastasizing federal government, the deficit is little more than a fever.
What drives me nuts about all of the talk about deficits is how it makes the deficit seem like the disease rather than the symptom. The disease is a metastasizing federal government, the deficit is little more than a fever.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Here's another article
about NAFTA. The good news is buried in the back. It hasn't been all bad.
As E. G. Ross said, "the positive is part of the objective," and should be given equal billing with the negative. In fact, I'd guess most of civilization was built ignoring the negative.
As E. G. Ross said, "the positive is part of the objective," and should be given equal billing with the negative. In fact, I'd guess most of civilization was built ignoring the negative.
I agree with Bill Clinton.
Quoted by Larry Elder:
Former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into legislation, said, "NAFTA means jobs, American jobs and good-paying American jobs. . . . NAFTA will generate these jobs by fostering an export boom to Mexico, by tearing down tariff walls. . . .
Already Mexican consumers buy more per capita from the United States than other consumers in other nations. . . . So when people say that this trade agreement is just about how to move jobs to Mexico so nobody can make a living, how do they explain the fact that Mexicans keep buying more products made in America every year?
. . . And there will be more if they have more money to spend. That is what expanding trade is all about."
Former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into legislation, said, "NAFTA means jobs, American jobs and good-paying American jobs. . . . NAFTA will generate these jobs by fostering an export boom to Mexico, by tearing down tariff walls. . . .
Already Mexican consumers buy more per capita from the United States than other consumers in other nations. . . . So when people say that this trade agreement is just about how to move jobs to Mexico so nobody can make a living, how do they explain the fact that Mexicans keep buying more products made in America every year?
. . . And there will be more if they have more money to spend. That is what expanding trade is all about."
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The Responsible Opposing View
Edward Hudgins
Washington Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
-----------
The Problems with "The Passion's" Moral Message.
By Edward Hudgins
The controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ"
reflects a deep divide concerning the moral foundations of our society. The
film's supporters maintain that freedom is threatened when a society loses the
moral compass traditionally supplied by religion and drifts into moral
relativism. The film's critics worry that intolerance is encouraged when a
society is based on religious dogma, and many have claimed that the movie itself
promotes anti-Semitism. (It doesn't; after all, Jesus, his mother, and
disciples, and not just the religious elites and their supporters who condemned
him, were all Jews.)
But neither moral relativism nor religious faith will sustain a free,
flourishing society.
Gibson and many Christians believe that human beings are born with original sin
and worthy of nothing but death and damnation. But because of his love for us,
God sent Christ to take upon himself our sins. "The Passion" graphically depicts
Jesus's cruel torture and crucifixion - penalties that we all deserve. To avoid
hell, we must accept Christ's sacrifice.
In our secular society, many individuals who reject this theology still accept
the moral message of Christianity. But the problems with this message - as well
as a way to a better moral vision -- can be found by examining three themes that
are central in Gibson's film: sin, sacrifice and suffering.
Original sin means that we are all evil not just in any given thought or deed
but by our very nature; that we can't help ourselves; that we must act
immorally. One of the messages in Gibson's film is that since we are all
sinners, we all killed Christ. But this doctrine of inherent and collective
guilt means that morally upstanding individuals are culpable for evils that they
did not create. Further, this doctrine allows moral slackers to excuse their
failing with, "I'm only human."
But in any hour or issue we each are responsible for our own actions - and only
those actions. We each have a choice to stop the impulse of the moment; to think
or not to think; to ask whether our actions are moral or not; and to act either
for good or evil. Yes, it takes strength and fortitude to do the right thing.
But that is exactly why those who make the most of their lives should feel proud
and never accept unearned guilt.
In "The Passion" we see Jesus passively submitting to his own brutal torture and
death, even forgiving his tormenters. Many see Jesus's sacrifice as a moral
model: He forfeited his life to save us sinners; we are all responsible for the
problems of the world; thus we each should sacrifice ourselves for the good of
others. But this is exactly the wrong moral lesson. A morality of life requires
the pursuit of happiness and pride in oneself, not self-abnegation and
acquiescing in the role of a sacrificial victim. It requires that we judge both
others and ourselves, both their actions and our own, by standards of justice,
and not offer moral absolution for the most heinous crimes and criminals.
This is the key to the right moral code: We each have a right to our own lives
and should act out of self-interest, not self-sacrifice. True self-interest
means seeking rational values that preserve and enrich our lives. It means we
should each seek the best within us. It means neither sacrificing ourselves to
others nor asking others to sacrifice themselves for us. It means engaging in
relations with others because we value them and they value us. For example, when
we give up time and money to help a sick spouse -- someone with whom we share
our values, interests, and deepest thought and feeling; someone to whom we bare
our souls; someone who we love -- we are not sacrificing but, rather, affirming
our highest values and self-interest.
"The Passion" shows Jesus suffering and facing death with fortitude. Any decent
human being would feel pity for an innocent man who is tortured and killed. And
each of us will face suffering in our lives. But suffering is the exception and
the world is not a vale of tears. We should plan and expect to achieve our
values and goals. We should know that we have the power to understand the world
around us and to use our knowledge, strength and fortitude to create the things
that allow us to live and flourish: houses and skyscrapers; airplanes and
rockets; medicine; works of art and the like. The essential fact about human
life - the fact on which a morality of life should be based - is not the
inevitability of suffering but the possibility of achievement.
Gibson's film shows the depths of depravity to which humans can sink, and
prompts deep reflection. But only a moral code of personal responsibility, not
original sin; self-interest, not self-sacrifice; and achievement, not suffering;
can avoid the dangers of moral relativism and intolerance, and ensure both
personal happiness and a free society.
Washington Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
-----------
The Problems with "The Passion's" Moral Message.
By Edward Hudgins
The controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ"
reflects a deep divide concerning the moral foundations of our society. The
film's supporters maintain that freedom is threatened when a society loses the
moral compass traditionally supplied by religion and drifts into moral
relativism. The film's critics worry that intolerance is encouraged when a
society is based on religious dogma, and many have claimed that the movie itself
promotes anti-Semitism. (It doesn't; after all, Jesus, his mother, and
disciples, and not just the religious elites and their supporters who condemned
him, were all Jews.)
But neither moral relativism nor religious faith will sustain a free,
flourishing society.
Gibson and many Christians believe that human beings are born with original sin
and worthy of nothing but death and damnation. But because of his love for us,
God sent Christ to take upon himself our sins. "The Passion" graphically depicts
Jesus's cruel torture and crucifixion - penalties that we all deserve. To avoid
hell, we must accept Christ's sacrifice.
In our secular society, many individuals who reject this theology still accept
the moral message of Christianity. But the problems with this message - as well
as a way to a better moral vision -- can be found by examining three themes that
are central in Gibson's film: sin, sacrifice and suffering.
Original sin means that we are all evil not just in any given thought or deed
but by our very nature; that we can't help ourselves; that we must act
immorally. One of the messages in Gibson's film is that since we are all
sinners, we all killed Christ. But this doctrine of inherent and collective
guilt means that morally upstanding individuals are culpable for evils that they
did not create. Further, this doctrine allows moral slackers to excuse their
failing with, "I'm only human."
But in any hour or issue we each are responsible for our own actions - and only
those actions. We each have a choice to stop the impulse of the moment; to think
or not to think; to ask whether our actions are moral or not; and to act either
for good or evil. Yes, it takes strength and fortitude to do the right thing.
But that is exactly why those who make the most of their lives should feel proud
and never accept unearned guilt.
In "The Passion" we see Jesus passively submitting to his own brutal torture and
death, even forgiving his tormenters. Many see Jesus's sacrifice as a moral
model: He forfeited his life to save us sinners; we are all responsible for the
problems of the world; thus we each should sacrifice ourselves for the good of
others. But this is exactly the wrong moral lesson. A morality of life requires
the pursuit of happiness and pride in oneself, not self-abnegation and
acquiescing in the role of a sacrificial victim. It requires that we judge both
others and ourselves, both their actions and our own, by standards of justice,
and not offer moral absolution for the most heinous crimes and criminals.
This is the key to the right moral code: We each have a right to our own lives
and should act out of self-interest, not self-sacrifice. True self-interest
means seeking rational values that preserve and enrich our lives. It means we
should each seek the best within us. It means neither sacrificing ourselves to
others nor asking others to sacrifice themselves for us. It means engaging in
relations with others because we value them and they value us. For example, when
we give up time and money to help a sick spouse -- someone with whom we share
our values, interests, and deepest thought and feeling; someone to whom we bare
our souls; someone who we love -- we are not sacrificing but, rather, affirming
our highest values and self-interest.
"The Passion" shows Jesus suffering and facing death with fortitude. Any decent
human being would feel pity for an innocent man who is tortured and killed. And
each of us will face suffering in our lives. But suffering is the exception and
the world is not a vale of tears. We should plan and expect to achieve our
values and goals. We should know that we have the power to understand the world
around us and to use our knowledge, strength and fortitude to create the things
that allow us to live and flourish: houses and skyscrapers; airplanes and
rockets; medicine; works of art and the like. The essential fact about human
life - the fact on which a morality of life should be based - is not the
inevitability of suffering but the possibility of achievement.
Gibson's film shows the depths of depravity to which humans can sink, and
prompts deep reflection. But only a moral code of personal responsibility, not
original sin; self-interest, not self-sacrifice; and achievement, not suffering;
can avoid the dangers of moral relativism and intolerance, and ensure both
personal happiness and a free society.
What do you make of this?
Do what thy manhood bids thee do, from none but self expect applause;
He noblest lives and noblest dies who makes and keeps his self-made laws.
--from Richard Francis Burton (yes, that Richard Burton).
He noblest lives and noblest dies who makes and keeps his self-made laws.
--from Richard Francis Burton (yes, that Richard Burton).
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Can I post now? OK, so the evidence says I can.
The internet is a fickle thing.
My brother has some interesting comments on the state of reality. And he has comments now, so take him on.
My brother has some interesting comments on the state of reality. And he has comments now, so take him on.
One of the things I find perplexing
Is the attitude of people who insist that evolution be taught in our schools, but who are against what is called Social Darwinism. If survival of the fittest is good for the species, how can it be bad for society?
We libertarians are for a more natural society. I believe I've said that government and governmental institutions are like a shell that needs to be molted now and then, and it's actually happened several times in American history already, although we seem to think that it's the shell that knows what needs to be done.
We libertarians are for a more natural society. I believe I've said that government and governmental institutions are like a shell that needs to be molted now and then, and it's actually happened several times in American history already, although we seem to think that it's the shell that knows what needs to be done.
I get the Liberator Online sent to me via email.
Link. The most recent ones aren't online yet, it appears, but don't be afraid to sign up for them. It's easy to get out of if you don't like it.
Michael Cloud, in his Persuasion Power Points, summarizes Nathaniel Branden:
PERSUASION POWER POINT #158
"No One Is Coming to the Rescue"
by Michael Cloud
No one is coming to set you free.
No one is on the way to restore your liberty.
No one is coming to rescue your life, liberty, and property.
That's great news, says psychologist Nathaniel Branden.
Dr. Branden was intensely interested in what triggered the stunning
progress he saw in successful psychotherapy clients.
"Radical transformation and extraordinary personal growth begin,"
observed Nathaniel Branden, "after they realize that no one is coming
to the rescue."
Clients said, "When I finally allowed myself to face fully my own
responsibility for my life, I began to grow and change."
Dr. Branden discovered that you empower yourself when you say and mean
and act upon these declarations:
"I am responsible for the attainment of my desires and goals."
"I am responsible for my choices and actions."
Nathaniel Branden is right. You are the Prime Mover of your choices
and actions. You are Dominant Cause of your decisions and behavior.
And even when life deals you a bad hand, how you play it - how you
respond - is up to you.
"No one is coming to the rescue," says Dr. Branden.
This toughlove truth pulses with power and energy.
No one is standing in your way.
No one is holding you back.
Cloud goes on to apply this to Libertarian activism, but I thought this much was powerful enough to share more directly.
Michael Cloud, in his Persuasion Power Points, summarizes Nathaniel Branden:
PERSUASION POWER POINT #158
"No One Is Coming to the Rescue"
by Michael Cloud
No one is coming to set you free.
No one is on the way to restore your liberty.
No one is coming to rescue your life, liberty, and property.
That's great news, says psychologist Nathaniel Branden.
Dr. Branden was intensely interested in what triggered the stunning
progress he saw in successful psychotherapy clients.
"Radical transformation and extraordinary personal growth begin,"
observed Nathaniel Branden, "after they realize that no one is coming
to the rescue."
Clients said, "When I finally allowed myself to face fully my own
responsibility for my life, I began to grow and change."
Dr. Branden discovered that you empower yourself when you say and mean
and act upon these declarations:
"I am responsible for the attainment of my desires and goals."
"I am responsible for my choices and actions."
Nathaniel Branden is right. You are the Prime Mover of your choices
and actions. You are Dominant Cause of your decisions and behavior.
And even when life deals you a bad hand, how you play it - how you
respond - is up to you.
"No one is coming to the rescue," says Dr. Branden.
This toughlove truth pulses with power and energy.
No one is standing in your way.
No one is holding you back.
Cloud goes on to apply this to Libertarian activism, but I thought this much was powerful enough to share more directly.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Reading the Angry Economist
pays dividends. Follow the links from this article, "We Owe It to Ourselves".
The ones you've heard of are good. The Leithner Letter may just be better:
"Succumbing to the broken window fallacy has wider and more insidious implications. What was lost in the 11/9 and other attacks was not just physical capital, like tall office buildings, but immeasurable talent and tacit information. Kudlow's and Noah's assessment of the situation utterly discounts the creativity and productivity of the lives lost that day and the lives that will be lost in any resultant wars. This "human capital," which would have produced for many years to come, is completely lost and can never be recovered or rebuilt. To say that humankind will be richer because of the 11 September attack is therefore to assert that we will be more affluent without these thousands of human minds and bodies."
There is no silver lining to the deaths of good and[/or] productive people. A good person, who is not recognised as economically productive still produces happiness for those who know him or her. Money need not change hands for mutually beneficial exchange to take place. And to lose such a person, is a pure loss, with no gain.
The ones you've heard of are good. The Leithner Letter may just be better:
"Succumbing to the broken window fallacy has wider and more insidious implications. What was lost in the 11/9 and other attacks was not just physical capital, like tall office buildings, but immeasurable talent and tacit information. Kudlow's and Noah's assessment of the situation utterly discounts the creativity and productivity of the lives lost that day and the lives that will be lost in any resultant wars. This "human capital," which would have produced for many years to come, is completely lost and can never be recovered or rebuilt. To say that humankind will be richer because of the 11 September attack is therefore to assert that we will be more affluent without these thousands of human minds and bodies."
There is no silver lining to the deaths of good and[/or] productive people. A good person, who is not recognised as economically productive still produces happiness for those who know him or her. Money need not change hands for mutually beneficial exchange to take place. And to lose such a person, is a pure loss, with no gain.
Apparently the Walton's
haven't disgraced Sam's memory. The Walton fortune - Walmart, Sam's Club, etc. - is worth $100 billion now. It was $25 billion when Sam died. Bill Gates is worth $46.6 billion, less than half that, though the $100 bil is divided between five family members.
Yeah, I like baseball stats too.
Oops! I forgot to link Forbes Mag.
Important thought to conjoin with the preceding: Other People's Wealth Benefits All of Us.
Yeah, I like baseball stats too.
Oops! I forgot to link Forbes Mag.
Important thought to conjoin with the preceding: Other People's Wealth Benefits All of Us.
Things are looking pretty good
in at least one Arab country.
I just got my free Forbes Magazine in the mail. If we can get all the bills paid, maybe I'll spring to continue the subscription.
I see J. K. Rowling's got a bil.
I just got my free Forbes Magazine in the mail. If we can get all the bills paid, maybe I'll spring to continue the subscription.
I see J. K. Rowling's got a bil.
This is something I sent to my brother in January
The commies were right about one thing. Dialectic is the road to wisdom. Of course, they were stupid Hegelian perverts: they thought The Universe was engaged in a Dialectic (talking to itself--this is an impersonal universe, mind you) that would guarantee that their political philosophy would win. (Because, of course, God (so to speak) would come around to Marx's way of thinking.)
The first true philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, invented dialectic reasoning, by which they meant: engaging the arguments of their predecessors and gleaning the wisdom they could find from them and then clearly explaining how they, Plato and Aristotle, differed from them. Aristotle was the inheritor of this method from Plato and, with it, single-handedly invented Science and Logic. That statement sounds grandiose. If you study Aristotle (and his great commentators St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) you will see that it is actually an understatement. Admittedly, you have to forgive them for not having God's perspective.
Most of the world's troubles today exist because some people are disappointed that other people do not have the perfect knowledge that only God has. And some people think they do, and act accordingly.
Oh! Yeah. If I pay Blogger a ton of money, I can get all sorts of amenities. I may be able to do that soon. I figure anybody who is inspired to comment will notice the email address at the top of the page.
Sex? What did I say about sex?
Oh. I guess it's such a part of my psyche that I take it for granted. Sometimes good philosophy is just a matter of expressing such things well. Dave Thompson was discussing some cases of teachers sexually abusing their students. I was saying, "Dude! That's what I lived for!" Never happened, of course, but such is adolescence. I'm just admitting that I fail to see the negative side. That's a failing on my part.
Of course, I wasn't imaging Mrs. Scharhaug doing it. Which I'm afraid is about the equivalent of how it goes for young girls. But that wasn't under discussion.
Right, Ron! When I use the phrase "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" - that's what I'm trying to understand and apply. I want to make sure that I don't misunderstand any part of that. I actually think that it is an exercise of the capacities God gave me to question anything that might just be hearsay. To compare it with my own experience. But it is also important to question my interpretation of my own experience when I find that it conflicts with the wisdom of the ages (previous philosophers, the Bible, other sacred texts, old wives' tales). I am not a sceptic. I have faith in the revelation of God's Word and the understanding of God's Natural Law as revealed by God's Gift of Reason to our experience here on Earth.
To cut it short, I have no doubt that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Within Reason. And Love is the essence of happiness. Anything that conflicts with Love will lead to unhappiness. I say that to acknowledge the wisdom of what you said and to offer encouragement to continue in that course.
Dad? I am glad I am not alone in that feeling about Dad. One day, I mentioned to my in-laws that Dad was a mean-ass bastard and that we kids avoided him as much as possible. Not one of my more temperate announcements I'm afraid. They were shocked. I got to see Dad after he really accepted Jesus. You were married by then. You didn't get to see the miracle Jesus worked in Dad. I did, but the Lord seems to have held my tongue... or maybe it was my secular education. I saw miracles and took them for granted. You didn't see Greg before he accepted Jesus, did you? The guy was an unholy mess. A miracle right before my eyes. Ho hum.
That's the other major component of Evil: taking The Good for granted--as if it would exist without the actions of good people. That's the major flaw of Socialism and Communism; they think that good people will continue to contribute to the well-being of their neighbors in the absence of any incentive to do so. "If it's my Right to get this benefit from you, why should I be grateful or return any favor (or good or service)? You owe me!"
Finally, my brother, gossip is temporary. Love is forever. Your siblings love you. We only talk about you in your absence because God hasn't given us perfect knowledge and wisdom, in the hope that we will be able to gain enough understanding to say the right thing the next time we have the opportunity. We dialogue in order to learn. I think you'll find all of us ready to engage you now. In those conferences, it seems like each of us in turn counseled love and understanding when others of us became intemperate. Jesus was always there to encourage lovingkindness. We love Jesus too. If you can accept that, we want you in the conversation.
So,
Love,
Al
The first true philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, invented dialectic reasoning, by which they meant: engaging the arguments of their predecessors and gleaning the wisdom they could find from them and then clearly explaining how they, Plato and Aristotle, differed from them. Aristotle was the inheritor of this method from Plato and, with it, single-handedly invented Science and Logic. That statement sounds grandiose. If you study Aristotle (and his great commentators St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) you will see that it is actually an understatement. Admittedly, you have to forgive them for not having God's perspective.
Most of the world's troubles today exist because some people are disappointed that other people do not have the perfect knowledge that only God has. And some people think they do, and act accordingly.
Oh! Yeah. If I pay Blogger a ton of money, I can get all sorts of amenities. I may be able to do that soon. I figure anybody who is inspired to comment will notice the email address at the top of the page.
Sex? What did I say about sex?
Oh. I guess it's such a part of my psyche that I take it for granted. Sometimes good philosophy is just a matter of expressing such things well. Dave Thompson was discussing some cases of teachers sexually abusing their students. I was saying, "Dude! That's what I lived for!" Never happened, of course, but such is adolescence. I'm just admitting that I fail to see the negative side. That's a failing on my part.
Of course, I wasn't imaging Mrs. Scharhaug doing it. Which I'm afraid is about the equivalent of how it goes for young girls. But that wasn't under discussion.
Right, Ron! When I use the phrase "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" - that's what I'm trying to understand and apply. I want to make sure that I don't misunderstand any part of that. I actually think that it is an exercise of the capacities God gave me to question anything that might just be hearsay. To compare it with my own experience. But it is also important to question my interpretation of my own experience when I find that it conflicts with the wisdom of the ages (previous philosophers, the Bible, other sacred texts, old wives' tales). I am not a sceptic. I have faith in the revelation of God's Word and the understanding of God's Natural Law as revealed by God's Gift of Reason to our experience here on Earth.
To cut it short, I have no doubt that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Within Reason. And Love is the essence of happiness. Anything that conflicts with Love will lead to unhappiness. I say that to acknowledge the wisdom of what you said and to offer encouragement to continue in that course.
Dad? I am glad I am not alone in that feeling about Dad. One day, I mentioned to my in-laws that Dad was a mean-ass bastard and that we kids avoided him as much as possible. Not one of my more temperate announcements I'm afraid. They were shocked. I got to see Dad after he really accepted Jesus. You were married by then. You didn't get to see the miracle Jesus worked in Dad. I did, but the Lord seems to have held my tongue... or maybe it was my secular education. I saw miracles and took them for granted. You didn't see Greg before he accepted Jesus, did you? The guy was an unholy mess. A miracle right before my eyes. Ho hum.
That's the other major component of Evil: taking The Good for granted--as if it would exist without the actions of good people. That's the major flaw of Socialism and Communism; they think that good people will continue to contribute to the well-being of their neighbors in the absence of any incentive to do so. "If it's my Right to get this benefit from you, why should I be grateful or return any favor (or good or service)? You owe me!"
Finally, my brother, gossip is temporary. Love is forever. Your siblings love you. We only talk about you in your absence because God hasn't given us perfect knowledge and wisdom, in the hope that we will be able to gain enough understanding to say the right thing the next time we have the opportunity. We dialogue in order to learn. I think you'll find all of us ready to engage you now. In those conferences, it seems like each of us in turn counseled love and understanding when others of us became intemperate. Jesus was always there to encourage lovingkindness. We love Jesus too. If you can accept that, we want you in the conversation.
So,
Love,
Al
I'm going back over emails I've sent
Here's one to Dave Thompson:
I just saw you on At Issue. Great job! Did you drill every stupid idea that's come down the pike in the last year?
Maybe we should start a new Libertarian Party that takes defense seriously (the world is too messy a place to treat acts of war as individual crimes--individualism breaks down when members of another collective attack you for being a member of whatever group they pigeonhole you in).
George Bush is a strategic thinker. Like George Washington, he's not concerned about winning any particular battle. He's in it to win the war. He's taking the War on Terror to the enemy, and he's keeping the fighting out of here.
I'm just concerned about his communitarian goals. Communitarianism is just "Socialism with a Human Face". Socialism might be a fine philosophy if it didn't involve government force, but unfortunately that's all it is is tax & create a government program & take over sectors of private activity. Steal & butt in.
Here's a slogan: Big Government is Rude Government.
I just saw you on At Issue. Great job! Did you drill every stupid idea that's come down the pike in the last year?
Maybe we should start a new Libertarian Party that takes defense seriously (the world is too messy a place to treat acts of war as individual crimes--individualism breaks down when members of another collective attack you for being a member of whatever group they pigeonhole you in).
George Bush is a strategic thinker. Like George Washington, he's not concerned about winning any particular battle. He's in it to win the war. He's taking the War on Terror to the enemy, and he's keeping the fighting out of here.
I'm just concerned about his communitarian goals. Communitarianism is just "Socialism with a Human Face". Socialism might be a fine philosophy if it didn't involve government force, but unfortunately that's all it is is tax & create a government program & take over sectors of private activity. Steal & butt in.
Here's a slogan: Big Government is Rude Government.
Letter sent to Powerline
Gandelman is a great blogger, no doubt about it, but I'm the token Libertarian. http://oldwhig.blogspot.com. I'm sure he could have done better, although, with my scatter-brained approach, maybe I am entertaining.
And, yes, I'm sure I will do more extended quotes of Buddhist literature. Though, right now I'm working on Hindu stuff. Sort of the back story.
And, yes, I'm sure I will do more extended quotes of Buddhist literature. Though, right now I'm working on Hindu stuff. Sort of the back story.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
A message from Gun Owners of America
Friday, February 27, 2004
While some gun control passed yesterday in the U.S. Senate, the
biggest skirmishes are still to come next week. The battle will be
fought over amendments to S. 1805, the gun liability bill which was
formerly S. 659.
The Senate will continue debating the bill today and Monday, with
votes resuming late Monday night or Tuesday. But one notable
provision passed yesterday -- a Lock Up Your Safety requirement.
This amendment -- offered by anti-gun Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) --
would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by
requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their
handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would
create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who
fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms.
Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense.
This gun control measure has opponents of the bill beaming.
"Remember, the sponsors of this bill stood up and opposed this
amendment," said Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). "The president has
said he wants a clean bill. This is no longer a clean bill."
(Senator Boxer offered a Lock Up Your Safety provision of her own
which was superceded by the Kohl amendment.)
On Tuesday, the Senate is expected to take up several more
amendments including concealed carry reciprocity (for off-duty cops,
not other citizens) and an ammunition restriction study which will
determine whether the ban on so-called "cop killer" ammunition
should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting
calibers such as the 30-06.
Most importantly, the Senate is expected to vote on the McCain gun
show ban and whether to extend the Clinton semi-auto ban.
It is important the Senate understands that any anti-gun language
attached to this bill is completely unacceptable!!!
While some gun control passed yesterday in the U.S. Senate, the
biggest skirmishes are still to come next week. The battle will be
fought over amendments to S. 1805, the gun liability bill which was
formerly S. 659.
The Senate will continue debating the bill today and Monday, with
votes resuming late Monday night or Tuesday. But one notable
provision passed yesterday -- a Lock Up Your Safety requirement.
This amendment -- offered by anti-gun Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) --
would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by
requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their
handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would
create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who
fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms.
Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense.
This gun control measure has opponents of the bill beaming.
"Remember, the sponsors of this bill stood up and opposed this
amendment," said Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). "The president has
said he wants a clean bill. This is no longer a clean bill."
(Senator Boxer offered a Lock Up Your Safety provision of her own
which was superceded by the Kohl amendment.)
On Tuesday, the Senate is expected to take up several more
amendments including concealed carry reciprocity (for off-duty cops,
not other citizens) and an ammunition restriction study which will
determine whether the ban on so-called "cop killer" ammunition
should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting
calibers such as the 30-06.
Most importantly, the Senate is expected to vote on the McCain gun
show ban and whether to extend the Clinton semi-auto ban.
It is important the Senate understands that any anti-gun language
attached to this bill is completely unacceptable!!!
Ron, how'd you get that Blogarama link at the top of your site?
When you add things to your template code, they come out pretty much in the order you see 'em on your site. My comments section required that I add 3 lines of code. One, if I remember right, in the header, one in the body, and one way at the bottom. Read the code. There's really not that much, it just looks ugly.
Let's try that again.
Steven Milloy beat me to the punch
on the Union for Concerned Scientists press release.
I have had a great deal of trouble accessing the report the UCS references. The hackers (your guess which side) may have been after it. But I did manage to print it out once, so it can be done. And, ha ha ha, I have it. So there!
on the Union for Concerned Scientists press release.
I have had a great deal of trouble accessing the report the UCS references. The hackers (your guess which side) may have been after it. But I did manage to print it out once, so it can be done. And, ha ha ha, I have it. So there!
Not that I consider it important
for me the be "fair and balanced" here, but here's a link to Ralph Nader that I'm sure you'll never find on my sidebar.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Holy Cow!
Larry Elder agrees with me:
"Leave marriage to non-governmental institutions, like churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship or private institutions. Adultery, although legal, remains a sin subject to societal condemnation. It's tough to legislate away condemnation or legislate in approval."
"Leave marriage to non-governmental institutions, like churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship or private institutions. Adultery, although legal, remains a sin subject to societal condemnation. It's tough to legislate away condemnation or legislate in approval."
Apparently Joe Gandelman
of the Moderate Voice has taken some heat over this post.
To my mind, this constitutes a nice recovery.
To my mind, this constitutes a nice recovery.
It's over 40 degrees here.
I was out reading in my shorts, t-shirt & sandals. I only came in because the wife went off to curves and I gotta babysit. Plus, I'm fish-belly white and I don't want to burn. I hear the UV rays can concentrate on ya pretty good off the snow. But even the light-gusting wind was pleasant.
I was listening to Taxpayers League Live on AM1280 The Patriot. I've already told you how much I like David Strom.
I truly live the life of the Epicurean.
I was reading Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics, edited by Alejandro A. Chafuen. Check out this passage:
"Those who, for seeing the demise of their business, cling to the magistrates [authority] as a shipwrecked person to a rock and attempt to alleviate their difficulties at the cost of the State are the most pernicious of men. All of them must be rejected and avoided with extreme care."
[Not least by investors--ed. (me, not Chafuen)] That was the great Juan de Mariana, who didn't shy from advocating regicide if you have a bad king.
Here's another guy:
"Garcia criticized merchants and businessmen who avow that they always have the right to earn a profit:
"This is a very big mistake and a diabolic persuasion because the art of business and of those who make money buying and selling must be equally open to profits and losses, depending on luck [fortune]."
And here is Saint Thomas Aquinas justification of profits:
"1. To provide for the businessman's household.
2. To help the poor.
3. To ensure that the country does not run short of essential supplies.
4. To compensate the businessman's work.
5. To improve the merchandise.
"Saint Thomas also ascribed legitimacy to profits obtained from price variations in response to local changes as well as those earned through the lapse of time. Furthermore, he allowed for profits that would compensate the risks of transport and delivery."
I was listening to Taxpayers League Live on AM1280 The Patriot. I've already told you how much I like David Strom.
I truly live the life of the Epicurean.
I was reading Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics, edited by Alejandro A. Chafuen. Check out this passage:
"Those who, for seeing the demise of their business, cling to the magistrates [authority] as a shipwrecked person to a rock and attempt to alleviate their difficulties at the cost of the State are the most pernicious of men. All of them must be rejected and avoided with extreme care."
[Not least by investors--ed. (me, not Chafuen)] That was the great Juan de Mariana, who didn't shy from advocating regicide if you have a bad king.
Here's another guy:
"Garcia criticized merchants and businessmen who avow that they always have the right to earn a profit:
"This is a very big mistake and a diabolic persuasion because the art of business and of those who make money buying and selling must be equally open to profits and losses, depending on luck [fortune]."
And here is Saint Thomas Aquinas justification of profits:
"1. To provide for the businessman's household.
2. To help the poor.
3. To ensure that the country does not run short of essential supplies.
4. To compensate the businessman's work.
5. To improve the merchandise.
"Saint Thomas also ascribed legitimacy to profits obtained from price variations in response to local changes as well as those earned through the lapse of time. Furthermore, he allowed for profits that would compensate the risks of transport and delivery."
I love these foreign blogs
in the fresh blog thing. This one's Dutch. The name translate to "With the Wind in my Hair..." She's a citizen of the world who doesn't like shopping. That's as much as I can make out.
Martje's WebWereld, which means just what it looks like it means, might be more to my taste. I've had a few too many evenings like this myself:
En toen was het al weer zaterdag...
De tijd gaat snel voorbij zeg! Woensdag dus met Daniella naar Amsterdam geweest, dat was erg gezellig, alleen ben ik die avond niet goed geworden en heb een paar uur hangend boven het toilet door gebracht.
Don't waste your life kid. Get to AA.
Martje's WebWereld, which means just what it looks like it means, might be more to my taste. I've had a few too many evenings like this myself:
En toen was het al weer zaterdag...
De tijd gaat snel voorbij zeg! Woensdag dus met Daniella naar Amsterdam geweest, dat was erg gezellig, alleen ben ik die avond niet goed geworden en heb een paar uur hangend boven het toilet door gebracht.
Don't waste your life kid. Get to AA.
The Misesian Critique
Of Churchill's career:
Without principles or scruples, Churchill as a prominent member of the Liberal party government naturally played a role in the hijacking of liberalism from its roots in individualism, laissez-faire, free trade and bourgeois morality, to its transformation into the "New Liberalism" as a proxy for socialism and the omnipotent state in Britain and in America.
Without principles or scruples, Churchill as a prominent member of the Liberal party government naturally played a role in the hijacking of liberalism from its roots in individualism, laissez-faire, free trade and bourgeois morality, to its transformation into the "New Liberalism" as a proxy for socialism and the omnipotent state in Britain and in America.
Friday, February 27, 2004
My brother gets mad at me when I don't get
his take on prophecy. I'm still kinda waiting for David Wilkerson's Vision to happen. There's a backlog of prophecies that need to come true before I'm convinced that the Second Coming is imminent. And the Second Coming is supposed to be good news. Let's be a little more joyful, eh?
Reading a little deeper
into John Plain and Tall, I saw this explanation of our current state of affairs. This is enough. Occam's Razor says you're probably best off to accept the simplest explanation. We don't need any conspiracies.
My response to a
gentleman who wanted to express the other side of the gay marriage issue:
I don't stand with the President on this one. In fact, I pretty much only stand with him on his conduct of the war on terror.
The Government doesn't confer sanctity, and the benefits it does provide are a bribe to get us to join in worship of it. Almost all the problems government has been given credit for solving were solved by private actions, either business or charity, before the government got off its dead ass and stuck in its dead hand.
I am against any established religion warping its theology to fit you in, but Deism, the Religion of Thomas Jefferson's "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" would not reject you. I believe you are a product of nature, and I've seen gays produce. I'm impressed. You must be a part... The future would be sadder/weaker/uglier/whatever without your contribution.
That's a bit of a digression, but it's meant
Sincerely,
Alan Erkkila.
I don't stand with the President on this one. In fact, I pretty much only stand with him on his conduct of the war on terror.
The Government doesn't confer sanctity, and the benefits it does provide are a bribe to get us to join in worship of it. Almost all the problems government has been given credit for solving were solved by private actions, either business or charity, before the government got off its dead ass and stuck in its dead hand.
I am against any established religion warping its theology to fit you in, but Deism, the Religion of Thomas Jefferson's "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" would not reject you. I believe you are a product of nature, and I've seen gays produce. I'm impressed. You must be a part... The future would be sadder/weaker/uglier/whatever without your contribution.
That's a bit of a digression, but it's meant
Sincerely,
Alan Erkkila.
Dave Thompson's on!
For that weird-ass statist Kris Krok!
GDSOB! I missed a bunch of it!
KSTP AM1500 http://www.am1500.com.
He's bitching about Bush spending more money than Bill Clinton. Amen, bro!
GDSOB! I missed a bunch of it!
KSTP AM1500 http://www.am1500.com.
He's bitching about Bush spending more money than Bill Clinton. Amen, bro!
Hey, Bro!
This is right up your alley. These people have visited my blog according to Site Counter. For those who are worried about the information Site Counter provides, I only see the URL of the ISP. By mapping that to the times of the visits I can tell that Ron uses AOL, but that's as much as I can tell. This one is NIPR.MIL. Hm.
Carnicom says they looked at him for 10 1/2 hours. I got 0, so it looks like they were here less that a minute. I'm not scary enough.
Carnicom says they looked at him for 10 1/2 hours. I got 0, so it looks like they were here less that a minute. I'm not scary enough.
My beloved Arnold Kling,
who runs the Econlog at my even more beloved Economics Library, pointed me to this article: REAL WORLD ECONOMICS: Free trade trade-offs always pay off BY EDWARD LOTTERMAN. It explains why I remain a radical Free Trader.
I wish I could get the Pioneer Press in this town.
I wish I could get the Pioneer Press in this town.
So the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
isn't irredeemably evil. A very interesting firearms decision.
All right (note the 2 'l's and the space) I'll save ya the work of clicking through - from the decision:
"...there is no evidence that section 922(o) was enacted to regulate commercial aspects of the machinegun business. More likely, section 922(o) was intended to keep machineguns out of the hands of criminals—an admirable goal, but not a commercial one." . . .
All right (note the 2 'l's and the space) I'll save ya the work of clicking through - from the decision:
"...there is no evidence that section 922(o) was enacted to regulate commercial aspects of the machinegun business. More likely, section 922(o) was intended to keep machineguns out of the hands of criminals—an admirable goal, but not a commercial one." . . .
I somehow missed the fact
that the Ur-Civilized Japanese have the death penalty.
Another thing I noticed on the way in: Minnesota Education Reform News, here on Blogger.
Another thing I noticed on the way in: Minnesota Education Reform News, here on Blogger.
Things are looking up a bit for Martha Stewart.
The big charge was dismissed. This article doesn't make clear what the other charges were. More research to do I guess. Think I'll do it?
Here is an interesting timeline
of the Korean War.
I looked it up in an effort to understand what my dad was thinking when he turned 18 in August of 1952. He went to work on the Great Lakes boats, hauling grain and iron ore. Salt and Limestone were also big back then.
Dad was considered part of the merchant marine then, so he didn't go to war.
I looked it up in an effort to understand what my dad was thinking when he turned 18 in August of 1952. He went to work on the Great Lakes boats, hauling grain and iron ore. Salt and Limestone were also big back then.
Dad was considered part of the merchant marine then, so he didn't go to war.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
I still disagree with Hoppe about Iraq though.
I think it was necessary to resolve the situation created by Bush Sr.
And here's the only anti-war position I respect.
Because it comes from principles which are well explained, not mere partisanship or weakness. There's a lot more here than that though. I was very pleased to read what Hans-Hermann Hoppe has to say in this article.
This is what our and the French
Revolutions would have looked like under the scrutiny of the modern media. No country has ever been successful that didn't work out its problems for itself. The deals for aid need to come from within as well. Keeping in mind that we don't get our groceries from a central authority.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
I was just reading along in my archives
when I noticed that I had made a promise to discuss John Wesley sometime soon. Well, obviously I'm not prepared to do so right now, but I'll pull out my books and see what I think you'll find interesting. The Wesleys, John and Charles, lived in the era of the Old Whigs, and I'm sure they had their influence on the philosophy of freedom.
Judging by the teachings I've heard from Leonard Ravenhill, I'd say they had a pretty profound effect on the Charismatic Movement as well.
Judging by the teachings I've heard from Leonard Ravenhill, I'd say they had a pretty profound effect on the Charismatic Movement as well.
Welcome!
Get to work MissDirtySouth! No relation I'm sure.
Just a funny thing that happened on the way to my blog.
Just a funny thing that happened on the way to my blog.
What happens if I do this?
Report from the Front
February 25, 2004
Special Interests or the Special Use of Force?
By Edward Hudgins
Washington Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
Denouncing special interests is all the rage on the current election landscape.
Each candidate accuses the others of wanting to give benefits to some unfairly
favored group at the expense of others. The sheer hypocrisy of all candidates
reflects an even deeper truth about the system that they all support.
Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race vowing to fight the special
interest groups that pay money for special favors from Washington. Of course,
Nader does not consider it a special favor to him and his Green friends when the
federal government prohibits property owners from using their own land in ways
they think are not friendly to the environment. Nor does he see himself as an
agent of corruption when he urges the federal government to prohibit people from
buying products of which he disapproves. But he denounces businesses that
manufacture those products, and that hire lobbyists to keep those products
legal, for subverting the will of the people.
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean denounced John Kerry, his chief rival for
the Democratic presidential nomination, as the recipient of more special
interest money than any other candidate. But Dean no doubt does not treat as a
special benefit the federal government’s milk program, which looks to have been
designed by Soviet planners and mafia dons. That program helps dairy farmers in
Dean’s native Vermont get higher prices for their products, at the expense of
consumers, by threatening to throw competitors who charge lower prices in jail.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) denounces those big corporations that contribute to
President Bush and the Republicans. But Kerry doesn’t think he’s doing anything
“special” when he blocks all efforts by Congress to rein in the “Big Dig,” a $15
billion pork barrel road project that is a bonanza for Kerry’s constituents as
well as contractors and unions in his state -- at the expense of taxpayers in
the other 49 states.
Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has called Kerry on his special interest hypocrisy. Of
course a substantial part of Edward’s campaign funds comes from predatory
plaintiff’s attorneys, many of whom are ambulance-chasers who pervert our system
of laws in order to shake down businesses -- or any other “deep pockets” --
with nuisance lawsuits that enrich them at the expense of producers and
consumers.
And yes, the many Republicans do, as Democrats charge, use the government to
protect or funnel special support to their business friends.
All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth over special interests evades the
fundamental premise of a free society, the premise best articulated by Ayn Rand:
“There is no conflict of interests of men who do not desire the unearned, who do
not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving
value for value.” When governments stick to their proper functions of protecting
the life, liberty and property of citizens, no conflicts arise. All individuals
who seek rational goals benefit by living under objective laws that preserve
their rights.
Special interest groups that benefit at the expense of others are created by
government when it uses force to limit the private use of property, private
contracts between consenting individuals, or private behavior that does not
violate the equal rights of others. In such a system, raw political power rather
than production and trade become the coin of the realm. Politicians compete to
see who can promise one group more of another group’s money or freedom while
denouncing their victims as “special interests.”
As Rand observed, in such a system political manipulators set up “new conflicts,
such as ethnic minorities against the majority, the young against the old, the
old against the middle, women against men, even welfare-recipients against the
self-supporting.” And she was right on the mark when she said that in such a
system, “a legislator’s job consists in sacrificing some men to others. No
matter what choice he makes, no choice of this kind can be morally justified.”
If politicians – especially Republicans who claim to stand for limited
government -- were sincere in their concern about interest group influence in
Washington, they would point out that it is because government has the power to
crush an industry with the stroke of a regulator’s pen or with a new tax, and to
enrich one group with loot taken from others, that interest group conflict
reigns. They would declare it their aim to roll back political power, to prevent
government from running the lives and managing the wealth and property of
individuals. And they would declare that the only moral system appropriate for
men is one in which individuals use reason to produce goods and services for
exchange with one another rather than using force backed by government to steal.
******************************
The Objectivist Center is a national not-for-profit think tank promoting the
values of reason, individualism, freedom and achievement in American culture.
For more information, please visit www.ObjectivistCenter.org. To unsubscribe to
this list, or to subscribe to the Center's Web Update List, please visit
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/email_updates.asp
February 25, 2004
Special Interests or the Special Use of Force?
By Edward Hudgins
Washington Director
The Objectivist Center
ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
Denouncing special interests is all the rage on the current election landscape.
Each candidate accuses the others of wanting to give benefits to some unfairly
favored group at the expense of others. The sheer hypocrisy of all candidates
reflects an even deeper truth about the system that they all support.
Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race vowing to fight the special
interest groups that pay money for special favors from Washington. Of course,
Nader does not consider it a special favor to him and his Green friends when the
federal government prohibits property owners from using their own land in ways
they think are not friendly to the environment. Nor does he see himself as an
agent of corruption when he urges the federal government to prohibit people from
buying products of which he disapproves. But he denounces businesses that
manufacture those products, and that hire lobbyists to keep those products
legal, for subverting the will of the people.
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean denounced John Kerry, his chief rival for
the Democratic presidential nomination, as the recipient of more special
interest money than any other candidate. But Dean no doubt does not treat as a
special benefit the federal government’s milk program, which looks to have been
designed by Soviet planners and mafia dons. That program helps dairy farmers in
Dean’s native Vermont get higher prices for their products, at the expense of
consumers, by threatening to throw competitors who charge lower prices in jail.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) denounces those big corporations that contribute to
President Bush and the Republicans. But Kerry doesn’t think he’s doing anything
“special” when he blocks all efforts by Congress to rein in the “Big Dig,” a $15
billion pork barrel road project that is a bonanza for Kerry’s constituents as
well as contractors and unions in his state -- at the expense of taxpayers in
the other 49 states.
Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has called Kerry on his special interest hypocrisy. Of
course a substantial part of Edward’s campaign funds comes from predatory
plaintiff’s attorneys, many of whom are ambulance-chasers who pervert our system
of laws in order to shake down businesses -- or any other “deep pockets” --
with nuisance lawsuits that enrich them at the expense of producers and
consumers.
And yes, the many Republicans do, as Democrats charge, use the government to
protect or funnel special support to their business friends.
All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth over special interests evades the
fundamental premise of a free society, the premise best articulated by Ayn Rand:
“There is no conflict of interests of men who do not desire the unearned, who do
not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving
value for value.” When governments stick to their proper functions of protecting
the life, liberty and property of citizens, no conflicts arise. All individuals
who seek rational goals benefit by living under objective laws that preserve
their rights.
Special interest groups that benefit at the expense of others are created by
government when it uses force to limit the private use of property, private
contracts between consenting individuals, or private behavior that does not
violate the equal rights of others. In such a system, raw political power rather
than production and trade become the coin of the realm. Politicians compete to
see who can promise one group more of another group’s money or freedom while
denouncing their victims as “special interests.”
As Rand observed, in such a system political manipulators set up “new conflicts,
such as ethnic minorities against the majority, the young against the old, the
old against the middle, women against men, even welfare-recipients against the
self-supporting.” And she was right on the mark when she said that in such a
system, “a legislator’s job consists in sacrificing some men to others. No
matter what choice he makes, no choice of this kind can be morally justified.”
If politicians – especially Republicans who claim to stand for limited
government -- were sincere in their concern about interest group influence in
Washington, they would point out that it is because government has the power to
crush an industry with the stroke of a regulator’s pen or with a new tax, and to
enrich one group with loot taken from others, that interest group conflict
reigns. They would declare it their aim to roll back political power, to prevent
government from running the lives and managing the wealth and property of
individuals. And they would declare that the only moral system appropriate for
men is one in which individuals use reason to produce goods and services for
exchange with one another rather than using force backed by government to steal.
******************************
The Objectivist Center is a national not-for-profit think tank promoting the
values of reason, individualism, freedom and achievement in American culture.
For more information, please visit www.ObjectivistCenter.org. To unsubscribe to
this list, or to subscribe to the Center's Web Update List, please visit
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/email_updates.asp
It's time folks.
Third and last chapter of The Conquest of Death.
Death said: "The good is one thing, the pleasant another; these two, having different objects, chain a man. It is well with him who clings to the good; he who chooses the pleasant, misses his end.
'The good and pleasant approach man: the wise goes round about them and distinguishes them. Yea, the wise prefers the good to the pleasant, but the fool chooses the pleasant through greed and avarice.
'Thou, O Nachiketas, after pondering all pleasures that are or seem delightful, hast dismissed them all. Thou hast not gone into the road that leadeth to wealth, in which many men perish.
'Wide apart and leading to different points are these two, ignorance, and what is known as wisdom. I believe Nachiketas to be one who desires knowledge, for even many pleasures did not tear thee away.
'Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round, staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind.
'The hereafter never rises before the eyes of the careless child, deluded by the delusion of wealth. "This is the world," he thinks, "there is no other"--thus he falls again and again under my sway.
'He (the Self) of whom many are not even able to hear, whom many, even when they hear of him, do not comprehend; wonderful is a man, when found, who is able to teach him (the Self); wonderful is he who comprehends him, when taught by an able teacher.
'That Self, when taught by an inferior man, is not easy to by known, even though often thought upon; unless it be taught by another, there is no way to it, for it is inconceivably smaller than what is small.
'That doctrine is not to be obtained by argument, but when it is declared by another, then, O dearest, it is easy to understand. Thou hast obtained it now; thou art truly a man of true resolve. May we have always an inquirer like thee!'
Nachiketas said: 'I know that what is called a treasure is transient, for that eternal is not obtained by things which are not eternal. Hence the Nachiketa fire-sacrifice has been laid by me first; then, by means of transient things, I have obtained what is not transient.'
Yama said: 'Though thou hadst seen the fulfillment of all desires, the foundation of the world, the endless rewards of good deeds, the shore where there is no fear, that which is magnified by praise, the wide abode, the rest, yet being wise thou hast with firm resolve dismissed it all....
'The knowing Self is not born, it dies not; it sprang from nothing, nothing sprang from it. The Ancient is unborn, eternal, everlasting; he is not killed, though the body is killed.
'If the killer thinks that he kills, if the killed thinks that he is killed, they do not understand; for this one does not kill, nor is that one killed.
'The Self, smaller than small, greater than great, is hidden in the heart of that creature. A man who is free from desires and free from grief, sees the majesty of the Self by the grace of the Creator.
'Though sitting still, he walks far; though lying down, he goes everywhere. Who, save myself, is able to know that God who rejoices and rejoices not?
'The wise who knows the Self as bodiless within the bodies, as unchanging among changing things, as great and omnipresent, does never grieve.
'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses his body as his own.
'But he who has not first turned away from his wickedness, who is not tranquil, and subdued, or whose mind is not at rest, he can never obtain the Self even by knowledge.
'Who then knows where He is, He to whom the Brahmans and Kshatriyas are (as it were) but food, and death itself a condiment?
(From the Katha Upanishad)
Feel enlightened?
Death said: "The good is one thing, the pleasant another; these two, having different objects, chain a man. It is well with him who clings to the good; he who chooses the pleasant, misses his end.
'The good and pleasant approach man: the wise goes round about them and distinguishes them. Yea, the wise prefers the good to the pleasant, but the fool chooses the pleasant through greed and avarice.
'Thou, O Nachiketas, after pondering all pleasures that are or seem delightful, hast dismissed them all. Thou hast not gone into the road that leadeth to wealth, in which many men perish.
'Wide apart and leading to different points are these two, ignorance, and what is known as wisdom. I believe Nachiketas to be one who desires knowledge, for even many pleasures did not tear thee away.
'Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round, staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind.
'The hereafter never rises before the eyes of the careless child, deluded by the delusion of wealth. "This is the world," he thinks, "there is no other"--thus he falls again and again under my sway.
'He (the Self) of whom many are not even able to hear, whom many, even when they hear of him, do not comprehend; wonderful is a man, when found, who is able to teach him (the Self); wonderful is he who comprehends him, when taught by an able teacher.
'That Self, when taught by an inferior man, is not easy to by known, even though often thought upon; unless it be taught by another, there is no way to it, for it is inconceivably smaller than what is small.
'That doctrine is not to be obtained by argument, but when it is declared by another, then, O dearest, it is easy to understand. Thou hast obtained it now; thou art truly a man of true resolve. May we have always an inquirer like thee!'
Nachiketas said: 'I know that what is called a treasure is transient, for that eternal is not obtained by things which are not eternal. Hence the Nachiketa fire-sacrifice has been laid by me first; then, by means of transient things, I have obtained what is not transient.'
Yama said: 'Though thou hadst seen the fulfillment of all desires, the foundation of the world, the endless rewards of good deeds, the shore where there is no fear, that which is magnified by praise, the wide abode, the rest, yet being wise thou hast with firm resolve dismissed it all....
'The knowing Self is not born, it dies not; it sprang from nothing, nothing sprang from it. The Ancient is unborn, eternal, everlasting; he is not killed, though the body is killed.
'If the killer thinks that he kills, if the killed thinks that he is killed, they do not understand; for this one does not kill, nor is that one killed.
'The Self, smaller than small, greater than great, is hidden in the heart of that creature. A man who is free from desires and free from grief, sees the majesty of the Self by the grace of the Creator.
'Though sitting still, he walks far; though lying down, he goes everywhere. Who, save myself, is able to know that God who rejoices and rejoices not?
'The wise who knows the Self as bodiless within the bodies, as unchanging among changing things, as great and omnipresent, does never grieve.
'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses his body as his own.
'But he who has not first turned away from his wickedness, who is not tranquil, and subdued, or whose mind is not at rest, he can never obtain the Self even by knowledge.
'Who then knows where He is, He to whom the Brahmans and Kshatriyas are (as it were) but food, and death itself a condiment?
(From the Katha Upanishad)
Feel enlightened?
Now that I've calmed my berserker bloodlust
you want to see what the Finns think of Matt Helm? Oh! I'm sorry, that site is literally about the Dans Macabre.
There's this guy, but he's no fun. Oh, well, never mind.
Update: my Finnish is really awful. Let's go fix it at Tavataan Taas!
There's this guy, but he's no fun. Oh, well, never mind.
Update: my Finnish is really awful. Let's go fix it at Tavataan Taas!
Harry Binswanger beat me to it.
And did it better. I was going to come out of the closet on this side of the War on Terror, Maybe I have and didn't notice. He's right about Libertarians too, on this issue.
I still say that Bush is a better strategic thinker when it comes to the use of the military than anybody else out there.
Binswanger:
The Democrats do have something to pillory Bush with--and they'd get my vote if they used it. It's not: "Why did you think the threat from Iraq was 82% when it was only 58%?" It's: "Why did you go against the Little Satan, Iraq, while turning a blind eye to the Great Satan, Iran?"
I'd oppose to that what I call the Matt Helm doctrine: when you're holding a gun on a guy and his buddy comes up and sticks a gun in your back, you shoot the guy you've got the gun on and then worry about the second guy. No hostage games, no negotiations. Just win. If you play games, you die.
I still say that Bush is a better strategic thinker when it comes to the use of the military than anybody else out there.
Binswanger:
The Democrats do have something to pillory Bush with--and they'd get my vote if they used it. It's not: "Why did you think the threat from Iraq was 82% when it was only 58%?" It's: "Why did you go against the Little Satan, Iraq, while turning a blind eye to the Great Satan, Iran?"
I'd oppose to that what I call the Matt Helm doctrine: when you're holding a gun on a guy and his buddy comes up and sticks a gun in your back, you shoot the guy you've got the gun on and then worry about the second guy. No hostage games, no negotiations. Just win. If you play games, you die.
And while I'm talking about Mises.org
Here are two takes on the Martha Stewart matter: Mises.org and Cheating Culture.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The great science fiction author
L. Ron Hubbard said, [something like] "Never let a word go by you that you don't understand." Thereby assuring the unusual level of success of the Scientologists. Here is a great tool for equaling their feat The Hyperdictionary.
Ron pointed out this
TCS article, which led me to do a google search for this, and by which I also found this:
Response to Emerson's "Self-Reliance" Together with Miss Joy Zhou.
Amen, sister.
Update: oops, I guess I missed something. This is Bob Huang's home page. He's the one Miss Joy Zhou is "together with". To that I can only say: amen, brother.
Response to Emerson's "Self-Reliance" Together with Miss Joy Zhou.
Amen, sister.
Update: oops, I guess I missed something. This is Bob Huang's home page. He's the one Miss Joy Zhou is "together with". To that I can only say: amen, brother.
Don't forget your Sowell
at Townhall.com
"The thesis of both media liberals and political liberals is that there are vast millions of people who work hard all their lives and still remain poor. The next chorus of this song is that only the government can save the day for such people. The grand finale is that politicians need to take more money out of your paycheck to buy the votes of those to whom they give it."
"The thesis of both media liberals and political liberals is that there are vast millions of people who work hard all their lives and still remain poor. The next chorus of this song is that only the government can save the day for such people. The grand finale is that politicians need to take more money out of your paycheck to buy the votes of those to whom they give it."
Monday, February 23, 2004
Well, once again it's later'n hell.
Quick update on where I'm at. Still sober, but it's all just luck today. I suppose I can credit my priorities, as adjusted by trial and error: I don't put my desire for a drink (at least not the first drink) ahead of my family's needs, as my knowledge of those needs grows more sophisticated.
I was going to get into Yama's discussion of the afterlife, but I got bogged down over at Amanda's blog reading the discussion of whether the humanities or sciences are better. I vote: the distinction is false. She started the thing Friday night, and I got to it tonight, so my comments are way at the end.
I just advocated Epicureanism in a vague way, and slandered deconstructionists as proto-nihilists. J.B.'s comments seemed very much the most cogent. Better than HAC's even.
I was going to get into Yama's discussion of the afterlife, but I got bogged down over at Amanda's blog reading the discussion of whether the humanities or sciences are better. I vote: the distinction is false. She started the thing Friday night, and I got to it tonight, so my comments are way at the end.
I just advocated Epicureanism in a vague way, and slandered deconstructionists as proto-nihilists. J.B.'s comments seemed very much the most cogent. Better than HAC's even.
There are a couple assertions
here that I deny:
Move over, Enron. Wal-Mart is the new punching bag.
In the run-up to elections, America's top employer takes it on the chin for driving US jobs abroad and trampling workers at home. Should it share the blame?
BY Clayton Collins | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
"The same relentless focus on cost-cutting that makes it an outstanding example of managerial innovation may also make it a more unconscionable employer than many others," says Jim Hoopes, professor of business ethics at Babson College, in an e-mail. "Corporate life for low-end workers is a lot harsher everywhere than it was a quarter-century ago," writes Mr. Hoopes, "[but] my impression is that there are few, if any, companies facing an equivalent number of legal actions for ... unfair labor practices," even pro-rated for size.
There was a lot more screaming and yelling from boss to workers back in the seventies. If you objected, you were fired. If you were union, maybe you didn't get fired, but they weren't concerned about such small potatoes b.s. back then either.
"The postwar economy was built around mass consumption - the notion that through broad participation in mass market we could create a more egalitarian America," says Lizabeth Cohen, a historian at Harvard University and author of "A Consumers' Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America." But in a global economy, that notion no longer holds, says Ms. Cohen.
Is this person on the side of the "little guy?" If so, why don't foreign "little guys" count? What would Jesus say? Look, the more people involved in cooperating to construct beneficial products, the better off everyone is.
This is the opinion of Edwin A. Locke, of Capitalism Magazine:
"No one has a "right" to business success or a "right" to be protected from competitors through government intervention. One only has a right to try to compete through voluntary trade. In a free economy, companies that offer the best value for the dollar win and the losers invest their money elsewhere."
Move over, Enron. Wal-Mart is the new punching bag.
In the run-up to elections, America's top employer takes it on the chin for driving US jobs abroad and trampling workers at home. Should it share the blame?
BY Clayton Collins | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
"The same relentless focus on cost-cutting that makes it an outstanding example of managerial innovation may also make it a more unconscionable employer than many others," says Jim Hoopes, professor of business ethics at Babson College, in an e-mail. "Corporate life for low-end workers is a lot harsher everywhere than it was a quarter-century ago," writes Mr. Hoopes, "[but] my impression is that there are few, if any, companies facing an equivalent number of legal actions for ... unfair labor practices," even pro-rated for size.
There was a lot more screaming and yelling from boss to workers back in the seventies. If you objected, you were fired. If you were union, maybe you didn't get fired, but they weren't concerned about such small potatoes b.s. back then either.
"The postwar economy was built around mass consumption - the notion that through broad participation in mass market we could create a more egalitarian America," says Lizabeth Cohen, a historian at Harvard University and author of "A Consumers' Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America." But in a global economy, that notion no longer holds, says Ms. Cohen.
Is this person on the side of the "little guy?" If so, why don't foreign "little guys" count? What would Jesus say? Look, the more people involved in cooperating to construct beneficial products, the better off everyone is.
This is the opinion of Edwin A. Locke, of Capitalism Magazine:
"No one has a "right" to business success or a "right" to be protected from competitors through government intervention. One only has a right to try to compete through voluntary trade. In a free economy, companies that offer the best value for the dollar win and the losers invest their money elsewhere."
Word of the day: frisson.
My brother's definitions are funnier, but...
fris·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fr-s)
n. pl. fris·sons (-sz, -s)
A moment of intense excitement; a shudder: The story's ending arouses a frisson of terror.
The context: from the Christian Science Monitor:
February 23, 2004 edition
New wild card: Nader joins race
The consumer advocate announced his candidacy Sunday, on the heels of Dean's withdrawal. Democrats are chagrined.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Ralph Nader has sent a frisson of anxiety through the Democratic Party by announcing he will run for president.
--------
Ralph Nanny's gonna save us all.
Update: I got the definition from Dictionary.com.
fris·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fr-s)
n. pl. fris·sons (-sz, -s)
A moment of intense excitement; a shudder: The story's ending arouses a frisson of terror.
The context: from the Christian Science Monitor:
February 23, 2004 edition
New wild card: Nader joins race
The consumer advocate announced his candidacy Sunday, on the heels of Dean's withdrawal. Democrats are chagrined.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Ralph Nader has sent a frisson of anxiety through the Democratic Party by announcing he will run for president.
--------
Ralph Nanny's gonna save us all.
Update: I got the definition from Dictionary.com.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
I haven't praised Bruce Bartlett enough.
Bartlett mentions Bill Clinton's superb trade policy (at least by comparison to either Bush, and all presidents between Reagan and Coolidge, not inclusive). The Clinton boom can be exclusively attributed to that and giving Greenspan a free hand with monetary policy.
One more thing I noticed is that it seems like liberals like to pass laws to express the feelings of Society with no thought of the nasty things that need to be done to enforce them or any intention of doing those things. Sort of like what InstaPundit said about this. (If you don't want to register, at least read what Reynolds cited.) His quote:
"Perhaps this explains the different degree of enthusiasm for international agreements on the part of Europe and the United States -- the United States actually worries about having to comply with them, while the Europeans, unfettered by any such concerns, are free to posture."
American conservatives don't pass laws based merely on feelings, but they are a danger to actually enforce dumbass laws merely because they're on the books.
The purpose of prisons is to get dangerous people off the streets, the purpose of civil penalties is to strongly discourage the commission of thoughtless harmful acts. You might say the former is for personal harms, the latter is for impersonal harms.
One more thing I noticed is that it seems like liberals like to pass laws to express the feelings of Society with no thought of the nasty things that need to be done to enforce them or any intention of doing those things. Sort of like what InstaPundit said about this. (If you don't want to register, at least read what Reynolds cited.) His quote:
"Perhaps this explains the different degree of enthusiasm for international agreements on the part of Europe and the United States -- the United States actually worries about having to comply with them, while the Europeans, unfettered by any such concerns, are free to posture."
American conservatives don't pass laws based merely on feelings, but they are a danger to actually enforce dumbass laws merely because they're on the books.
The purpose of prisons is to get dangerous people off the streets, the purpose of civil penalties is to strongly discourage the commission of thoughtless harmful acts. You might say the former is for personal harms, the latter is for impersonal harms.
I had to extricate myself from an ugly situation
the other day (which, as I say, I don't care to discuss further than that--nothing illegal...yet, I may write the state attorney general) but it kind of knocked my into myself. [Yeah, yeah, shut up.] Hence, the obvious searching through religious texts for wisdom (and comfort).
Ah, cripes! It's almost one o'clock.
Ah, cripes! It's almost one o'clock.
Where'd my book go?
Oh, well.
I didn't find much useful online about the Upanishads, before I got that book, so I thought I'd share some of mine. Would you like an Upanishad? I haven't actually read ahead in this story, but it looks like Yama is about to explain the afterlife.
Hey, I typed that, slightly condensed, exerpt with only two typos. Too bad I didn't time myself.
Update: whoops! I just spell-check it. Three typos have to be added. I'm aftaid I'll have to poinder the meaning of that. It appo/roaches incompetence.
Sorry, I took so long getting back to it, but the old compaq was acting up, so I defragged the memory. But that didn't do it, so I put all my picture files on CD and cleared out that space, then it took ungodly long to re-defrag. Plus, the baby woke up and took 7 oz of milk out of a bottle mom pumped for her, then when the wife got home [uh, the last two matronly terms refer to the same woman, who is not my genetic antecedent] she had to feed her some more. And she shows some signs of starting to teeth. Did you get all those pronouns straight?
I didn't find much useful online about the Upanishads, before I got that book, so I thought I'd share some of mine. Would you like an Upanishad? I haven't actually read ahead in this story, but it looks like Yama is about to explain the afterlife.
Hey, I typed that, slightly condensed, exerpt with only two typos. Too bad I didn't time myself.
Update: whoops! I just spell-check it. Three typos have to be added. I'm aftaid I'll have to poinder the meaning of that. It appo/roaches incompetence.
Sorry, I took so long getting back to it, but the old compaq was acting up, so I defragged the memory. But that didn't do it, so I put all my picture files on CD and cleared out that space, then it took ungodly long to re-defrag. Plus, the baby woke up and took 7 oz of milk out of a bottle mom pumped for her, then when the wife got home [uh, the last two matronly terms refer to the same woman, who is not my genetic antecedent] she had to feed her some more. And she shows some signs of starting to teeth. Did you get all those pronouns straight?
Saturday, February 21, 2004
From the Conquest of Death, in the Upanishads:
Chapter One explains how Nachiketas, after having been sacrificed by his father Vajasravasa to Yama - whom the footnote calls "The King of Death"- wins three boons, or wishes, due to the King's inhospitable reception.
Chapter Two discusses the wishes.
Nachiketas said: 'O Death, as the first of the three boons I choose that Gautama, my father, be pacified, kind, and free from anger towards me; and that he may know me and greet me, when I shall have been dismissed by thee."
Yama grants this wish.
Nachiketas said: 'In the heaven-world there is no fear; thou art not there, O Death, and no one is afraid on account of old age. Leaving behind both hunger and thirst, and out of the reach of sorrow, all rejoice in the world of heaven.
'Thou knowest, O Death, the fire-sacrifice which leads us to heaven; tell it to me, for I am full of faith. Those who live in the heaven-world reach immortality--this I ask as my second boon.'
Yama said: 'I tell it thee, learn it from me, and when thou understandest that fire-sacrifice which leads to heaven, know, O Nachiketas, that it is the attainment of the endless worlds, and their firm support, hidden in darkness.'
...
The generous, being satisfied, said to him: 'I give thee now another boon; that fire-sacrifice shall be named after thee, take also this many-coloured chain.
'He who has three times performed this Nachiketa rite, and has been united with the three (father, mother, and teacher), and has performed the three duties (study, sacrifice, almsgiving) overcomes birth and death. When he has learnt and understood this fire, which knows (or makes us know) all that is born of Brahman, which is venerable and divine, then he obtains everlasting peace.
'He who knows the three Nachiketa fires, and knowing the three, piles up the Nachiketa sacrifice, he, having first thrown off the chains of death, rejoices in the world of heaven, beyond the reach of grief.
'This, O Nachiketas, is thy fire which leads to heaven, and which thou hast chosen as thy second boon. That fire all men will proclaim. Choose now, O Nachiketas, thy third boon.'
Nachiketas said: 'There is that doubt, when a man is dead--some saying, he is; others, he is not. This I should like to know, taught by thee; this is the third of my boons.'
Death said: 'On this point even the gods have doubted formerly; it is not easy to understand. That subject is subtle. Choose another boon, O Nachiketas, do not press me, and let me off that boon.'
Nachiketas said: 'On this point even the gods have doubted indeed, and thou, Death, hast declared it to be not easy to understand, and another teacher like thee is not to be found--surely no other boon is like unto this.'
Death offers many temptations to be let off that boon.
Nachiketas said: 'these things last till to-morrow, O Death, for they wear out the vigour of all the senses. Even the whole of life is short. Keep thou thy horses, keep dance and song for thyself.
'No man can be made happy by wealth. Shall we possess wealth, when we see thee? Shall we live, as long as thou rulest? Only that boon which I have chosen is to be chosen by me.
'What mortal, slowly decaying here below, and knowing after having approached them, the freedom from decay enjoyed by the immortals, would delight in a long life, after he has pondered on the pleasures which arise from beauty and love?
'No, that on which there is this doubt, O Death, tell us what there is in that great hereafter. Nachiketas does not choose another boon but that which enters into the hidden world.'
From The Wisdom of India and China, edited by Lin Yutang (this may be it). I'm pretty sure the copyright has expired.
More later.
Chapter Two discusses the wishes.
Nachiketas said: 'O Death, as the first of the three boons I choose that Gautama, my father, be pacified, kind, and free from anger towards me; and that he may know me and greet me, when I shall have been dismissed by thee."
Yama grants this wish.
Nachiketas said: 'In the heaven-world there is no fear; thou art not there, O Death, and no one is afraid on account of old age. Leaving behind both hunger and thirst, and out of the reach of sorrow, all rejoice in the world of heaven.
'Thou knowest, O Death, the fire-sacrifice which leads us to heaven; tell it to me, for I am full of faith. Those who live in the heaven-world reach immortality--this I ask as my second boon.'
Yama said: 'I tell it thee, learn it from me, and when thou understandest that fire-sacrifice which leads to heaven, know, O Nachiketas, that it is the attainment of the endless worlds, and their firm support, hidden in darkness.'
...
The generous, being satisfied, said to him: 'I give thee now another boon; that fire-sacrifice shall be named after thee, take also this many-coloured chain.
'He who has three times performed this Nachiketa rite, and has been united with the three (father, mother, and teacher), and has performed the three duties (study, sacrifice, almsgiving) overcomes birth and death. When he has learnt and understood this fire, which knows (or makes us know) all that is born of Brahman, which is venerable and divine, then he obtains everlasting peace.
'He who knows the three Nachiketa fires, and knowing the three, piles up the Nachiketa sacrifice, he, having first thrown off the chains of death, rejoices in the world of heaven, beyond the reach of grief.
'This, O Nachiketas, is thy fire which leads to heaven, and which thou hast chosen as thy second boon. That fire all men will proclaim. Choose now, O Nachiketas, thy third boon.'
Nachiketas said: 'There is that doubt, when a man is dead--some saying, he is; others, he is not. This I should like to know, taught by thee; this is the third of my boons.'
Death said: 'On this point even the gods have doubted formerly; it is not easy to understand. That subject is subtle. Choose another boon, O Nachiketas, do not press me, and let me off that boon.'
Nachiketas said: 'On this point even the gods have doubted indeed, and thou, Death, hast declared it to be not easy to understand, and another teacher like thee is not to be found--surely no other boon is like unto this.'
Death offers many temptations to be let off that boon.
Nachiketas said: 'these things last till to-morrow, O Death, for they wear out the vigour of all the senses. Even the whole of life is short. Keep thou thy horses, keep dance and song for thyself.
'No man can be made happy by wealth. Shall we possess wealth, when we see thee? Shall we live, as long as thou rulest? Only that boon which I have chosen is to be chosen by me.
'What mortal, slowly decaying here below, and knowing after having approached them, the freedom from decay enjoyed by the immortals, would delight in a long life, after he has pondered on the pleasures which arise from beauty and love?
'No, that on which there is this doubt, O Death, tell us what there is in that great hereafter. Nachiketas does not choose another boon but that which enters into the hidden world.'
From The Wisdom of India and China, edited by Lin Yutang (this may be it). I'm pretty sure the copyright has expired.
More later.
Friday, February 20, 2004
It's probably ill-advised
but let me indulge in the fine [boozer] tradition of making excuses.
I am unhappy with my inability to control, unaided, my consumption of alcohol. That wouldn't be a problem if my judgment were not impaired under the influence. My bottom was no where near as low as those of others I've heard about [Now, no jokes about my scant 32" inseam on a six foot man.]
I see nothing on these pages that I disagree with that I know was written while I was imbibing. (I did make kind of a dumb comment on Arnold Kling's Econlog, early one morning. Find it yourself, if you care that much.) I believe, in other words, that I am not apt to discover anything wrong with these views without discussing them with rational, reasonable people. The true dialectic is personal conversation.
I admit my problem here for several reasons: 1. accountability, although that is a crushing burden that addicts can seldom bear; it's "one day at a time," and, if I can't handle that, one hour at a time or five minutes at a time. Procrastination and laziness are actually useful tools for combatting addiction. And I'm not sober for you. 2. Maybe I can help somebody else. My story is more powerful at meetings, where the setting is pretty personal. Come to AA if you've got an addiction problem. You wouldn't believe how warm, caring and understanding people can be, without smothering you. They know just what you're going through. Somebody there is now, or has been, right where you are. The key is to listen. Be humble before (my favorite phrase) "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God."
Drunks are experimenters. We deny the validity of the old laws and try to create a new theory. When we know we've failed, we go to AA. As long as we haven't already breathed our last. You hit bottom when you see nothing but a long slide into a black abyss on the other side of that next drink. No matter where you are on the slippery slope.
I had a third point, but it's late and I'm tired.
Nighty night.
I am unhappy with my inability to control, unaided, my consumption of alcohol. That wouldn't be a problem if my judgment were not impaired under the influence. My bottom was no where near as low as those of others I've heard about [Now, no jokes about my scant 32" inseam on a six foot man.]
I see nothing on these pages that I disagree with that I know was written while I was imbibing. (I did make kind of a dumb comment on Arnold Kling's Econlog, early one morning. Find it yourself, if you care that much.) I believe, in other words, that I am not apt to discover anything wrong with these views without discussing them with rational, reasonable people. The true dialectic is personal conversation.
I admit my problem here for several reasons: 1. accountability, although that is a crushing burden that addicts can seldom bear; it's "one day at a time," and, if I can't handle that, one hour at a time or five minutes at a time. Procrastination and laziness are actually useful tools for combatting addiction. And I'm not sober for you. 2. Maybe I can help somebody else. My story is more powerful at meetings, where the setting is pretty personal. Come to AA if you've got an addiction problem. You wouldn't believe how warm, caring and understanding people can be, without smothering you. They know just what you're going through. Somebody there is now, or has been, right where you are. The key is to listen. Be humble before (my favorite phrase) "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God."
Drunks are experimenters. We deny the validity of the old laws and try to create a new theory. When we know we've failed, we go to AA. As long as we haven't already breathed our last. You hit bottom when you see nothing but a long slide into a black abyss on the other side of that next drink. No matter where you are on the slippery slope.
I had a third point, but it's late and I'm tired.
Nighty night.
Here's the definition
of Liminality:n. 1. (Anthropology) that temporary state during a rite of passage when the participant lacks social status or rank, is required to follow specified forms of conduct, and is expected to show obedience and humility.
Maybe I should join the Limitarian Party.
Lim`i`ta´ri`an Pronunciation: lĭm`ĭ`tā´rĭ`an
a. 1. Tending to limit.
Courtesy of The Free Dictionary.
Free the Dictionaries!
a. 1. Tending to limit.
Courtesy of The Free Dictionary.
Free the Dictionaries!
I just learned a new word.
Liminality. Liminality.com describes it as coming from "the Latin word 'limen,' which means 'threshold.' It was used by Arnold Van Gennep (1908) in his treatise on rithes of passage to describe that place in between one social state and the next (for example, being single and being married)."
I was looking for something altogether different naturally. But it's an interesting article.
I was looking for something altogether different naturally. But it's an interesting article.
Cause and Effect
Such an action will bring this kind of reaction.
KeepAndBearArms.com Alert
February 19, 2004
Late evening breaking story...
KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority
Police say Investigation "Ongoing"
"Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil
authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results
in a police investigation that includes not only calls from
detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming
to your home?"
"That's what happened to longtime gun rights activist and
professional writer David Codrea this week. ...
Codrea! I doubt these words are new to you:
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."
KeepAndBearArms.com Alert
February 19, 2004
Late evening breaking story...
KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority
Police say Investigation "Ongoing"
"Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil
authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results
in a police investigation that includes not only calls from
detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming
to your home?"
"That's what happened to longtime gun rights activist and
professional writer David Codrea this week. ...
Codrea! I doubt these words are new to you:
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."
Thursday, February 19, 2004
They told me Catholics were going to Hell...
John Burzynski's message sounds just like a lot of sermons I grew up hearing from the various fundamentalist churches I went to. I say that as a compliment to all concerned.
I sent John a letter the other day, I hope it's all right to print it:
________
Hey, John,
I'm actually a Libertarian (just got my card in the mail). You can see my views--if you read back a ways, my blog is more like my notes on life while I try to figure out how to organize something I'd like to try to publish (an admission that 'I got nothin'!')--at http://oldwhig.blogspot.com.
By the way, I have encouraged my 50 readers to check your blog out. I'm open minded to good thinking wherever it comes from; my views are likely to change soon. I'm becoming more convinced of the efficacy of praying to Jesus. It does seem that The Lord blesses those whom I bless.
Sincerely,
Al Erkkila
___________
Of course, Ayn Rand would oppose that take with the Benevolent Universe Premise: life's not as nasty as those with a complicated pack of contradictions to sell would like you to believe. As long as you don't consider work to be beneath you.
I sent John a letter the other day, I hope it's all right to print it:
________
Hey, John,
I'm actually a Libertarian (just got my card in the mail). You can see my views--if you read back a ways, my blog is more like my notes on life while I try to figure out how to organize something I'd like to try to publish (an admission that 'I got nothin'!')--at http://oldwhig.blogspot.com.
By the way, I have encouraged my 50 readers to check your blog out. I'm open minded to good thinking wherever it comes from; my views are likely to change soon. I'm becoming more convinced of the efficacy of praying to Jesus. It does seem that The Lord blesses those whom I bless.
Sincerely,
Al Erkkila
___________
Of course, Ayn Rand would oppose that take with the Benevolent Universe Premise: life's not as nasty as those with a complicated pack of contradictions to sell would like you to believe. As long as you don't consider work to be beneath you.
The Lord told me
To cast my net on the other side of the boat. I seem to be a heretic on every subject. What was that Bible site Amanda was talking about? Here it is, Bible Gateway.com. I actually own most of these. The keyword search isn't helping me much. Where's my &^(%&^&% (excuse me) concordance. Ah, John 21:6.
3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
Or, as Steven Covey would say, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."
update: added link for Covey.
3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
Or, as Steven Covey would say, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."
update: added link for Covey.
Hey! I noticed earlier that
The Catholic Packer Fan blogrolled me. Hey! How come he gets 'w's in his url and I don't?! Huh? What's up with that?
No, actually I haven't been drinking.
In fact, I went to a meeting tonight. First time since late October. I wasn't succeeding alone. To put it mildly. I was back to my old tricks. I hear that the last thing you want to do is get a drunk's mind racing.
The Holy Spirit is at those meetings.
Did I tell you all that drinking and websurfing don't mix. You make contact with some unsavory characters. I don't think I want to explain further in public.
No, actually I haven't been drinking.
In fact, I went to a meeting tonight. First time since late October. I wasn't succeeding alone. To put it mildly. I was back to my old tricks. I hear that the last thing you want to do is get a drunk's mind racing.
The Holy Spirit is at those meetings.
Did I tell you all that drinking and websurfing don't mix. You make contact with some unsavory characters. I don't think I want to explain further in public.
Starsplash
Made this point last week. (Sorry, I'm just getting around to reading that stuff. I'm playing a perennial game of Ketchup. You know "catch up". I just discovered HAC (see links) about that time and I wanted to see what she had to say about everything.)
I personally think the government should get out of marriage altogether. But I do agree that, in this case, one of the other three branches of government (the administrative branch, the legislative branch or The People) ought to act to protect their role in the making of their constitution.
I personally think the government should get out of marriage altogether. But I do agree that, in this case, one of the other three branches of government (the administrative branch, the legislative branch or The People) ought to act to protect their role in the making of their constitution.
These people want increased
spending, regulation and centralized control, i. e. bigger government. They're complaining about reductions in the increases. I haven't looked into the EPA report issue very deeply, but I bet all these accusations are verifiable. I am commencing my study now. Yes, I have prejudices. So do you.
Larry Elder bats cleanup for Tom Sowell.
(Walter Williams is the leadoff hitter.) Townhall.com has two great articles today, one by each of the gentlemen in the title. Sowell explains the ineradicable, amoral nature of inequality (it's not immoral, nor is it eradicable). Elder refutes the Left's take on the War on Terror.
Elder's not up at Capitalism Magazine yet, but you can find many other writers platooning in the number two spot there. Today, it's John Ridpath.
Elder's not up at Capitalism Magazine yet, but you can find many other writers platooning in the number two spot there. Today, it's John Ridpath.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Ron says he can't handle links.
My control panel has a little button with a world icon on it.
Highlight the word you want to turn into a hyperlink
then click that button.
I usually open a second window,
go to the website I want to link,
click once in the address thingy so the URL is highlighted,
right click,
select copy,
go back to Blogger and
paste that address in the little window that popped up when you clicked the world button.
Highlight the word you want to turn into a hyperlink
then click that button.
I usually open a second window,
go to the website I want to link,
click once in the address thingy so the URL is highlighted,
right click,
select copy,
go back to Blogger and
paste that address in the little window that popped up when you clicked the world button.
Starsplash, my brother,
said the other day that Ted Kazinski's problem was that he was in too much of a hurry to wait for persuasion to work. I have said that Government is the Institutionalization of Impatience. Government is Force. A great quote, which has been, so I hear, falsely attributed to George Washington, says "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
I don't fault Kazinski for thinking he could act like the government. I fault him for resorting to government-like behavior before trying persuasion. But then again, his views are de rigueur at our universities and government schools.
He is, and they are, wrong.
I don't fault Kazinski for thinking he could act like the government. I fault him for resorting to government-like behavior before trying persuasion. But then again, his views are de rigueur at our universities and government schools.
He is, and they are, wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
