Sunday, September 26, 2010

I read an interesting thought earlier today by Ronald R. Cherry :

"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."

 As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring.  But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.

I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.

First, there is no such thing as equal law.  By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society.    It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.

Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed.  For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules."  As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today?  What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?

And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness.  Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution.  But consider:  If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?

More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right."  Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of  "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise.  But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.

The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.

The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement  in any attempt to apply it to real life.  It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Why protecting our borders IS important

Why is it important?  Bear with me, and consider the following:

People are wrong when they say that the current problem amounts to Hispanic bashing. The anger is not at Mexicans or any other Hispanic group because they are Hispanicit is because they are Illegal.

My father was an immigrant. My mother's parents were immigrants. They waited for years to be granted the opportunity to come here. They had to prove that a job awaited them. They had to have a sponsor who guaranteed that they would have a place to live and who also guaranteed that they would support them for one year if they lost the job that was promised.

In other words, they found out the rules, obeyed and lived by the rules, and were rewarded by the legal right to come to America. They felt honored by the opportunity, and they proved their own honor.

How does that have 
any connection with illegal entry to the United States? Does Mexico care what the nationality is, of ethnic background, of those who attempt to enter Mexico illegally? If you do not know, the answer is, "No, they do not care and treat all the same...harshly.

Our government has forgotten or decided to abdicate its main responsibility...protecting its citizens. If illegals were coming over the border wearing uniforms and carrying guns, would you expect the government to send in troops or do whatever was necessary to protect our borders? I suspect that you would say yes, but if not then you certainly do not value the existence of the United States. So, what is the difference. We are still being invaded. And, while shooting invaders who do not carry guns may not be appropriate, stopping them is still very appropriate, and rewarding them for invading is absolute insanity.

Not stopping them is virtually inviting the overthrow of the government. This administration, and the one before that, is doing exactly that and, in my mind, is the very epitome of seditious behavior.

But...there is another major reason why we should protect and close our borders. We are telling the children of this country, as well as the American public generally, that our laws don't mean anything. Really. They are discretionary and can be ignored if they are inconvenient. No, you say? Prove it. Ask anyone you come across whether a law has to be obeyed if you do not like it. I will bet that the answer that you get the most time is “it depends.” Our government passes laws that they don't read, hold protecting our borders hostage to getting illegals in this country on a citizen track so they can vote the “right” way, allow one race to picket a voting place while preventing others from even questioning the citizenship of voters and allowing felons to vote. And we wonder why our youth has no moral standards? How can they...we don't have them ourselves.

In the 60's, when protests meant something, civil disobedience meant that you were going to be arrested and that you were going to be in jail.  You had decided that going to jail for breaking a law that you believed should be changed was a price...a consequence...that you were willing to meet in order to make a point.  There was no expectation of being let out or not serving the had broken the law, and you expected to pay the price.  After all, if the law meant nothing, why change it?  We respected the law and wanted laws to be changed so that they were Just in addition to being the law...we believed in law.

Today?  No one expects to be arrested after breaking laws in protest.  Even the courts act disrespectful to the law...they do not enforce them.  The Government clearly does not respect the law or the Constitution...if does not honor the commitments the law or the Constitution puts on it.  You disagree?  How about the obligation to protect our borders?  How is that going?  When instead of protecting the borders, the government puts up signs warning citizens that travel in an area of the United States of America is prohibited because of illegal activities that come in over the non-protected border, that raises a question of how my government is acting in accordance with the least in my mind.

Why doesn't someone write about that?  Why don't we as citizens impeach our "representatives" (that is a joke) for non- and malfeasance?  Why don't we explain that when Reagan gave amnesty, the deal was that the government was going to close and control the border and it hasn't been done...the government lied.  And we are not going to accept promises again...Close and Protect the border, prosecute employers who hire those in the country illegally, stop spending public money to aid those who did not respect us enough to get legal authorization to come to this country or to stay here.  Respect the Law...and stop selling us lies.