tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85182318135807488862024-03-13T15:10:11.745-07:00Doubtin' ThomasMusings on life in General, with a particularly jaundiced eye on politics and logic (or the lack thereof) in America today.Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.comBlogger219125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-47303310805466620742023-08-30T18:17:00.002-07:002023-08-30T18:17:53.500-07:00Is it too late to save our Republic?<p style="text-align: left;"> History has not been kind in its review of past experiments by Homo sapiens in self-governing. Whatever the heights reached, all past experiments have collapsed. </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> Those that were based on the personal power of an individual failed when that person died.</li><li>Those based on an ideal of any sort, failed when those ideals were abandoned in practice if not in words.</li></ul>Students of various concentrations will focus on different elements of any society, even as they agree that there is "trouble in Paradise." Those who study human nature will suggest one of many as the major reason for decline. Those who come from a study of the Bible will agree in part but disagree in still another part, while those who study politics and governance will come up with still another major factor.<p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Who is right?</p><p style="text-align: left;">I don't know... absolutely. I strongly suspect that the most accurate answer is likely to be an amalgam of all of those raised, plus some not yet discussed (at least to our knowledge).</p><p style="text-align: left;">But I have a suggestion for a prime "trigger" that guaranteed the collapse of our Republic. And I place the blame on a historical hero of the United States of America: </p><p style="text-align: left;"> <b> </b><b>Abraham Lincoln!</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Surprised? Yeah... me too. But hear me out. There are two absolute truths that contribute to the inevitability of the collapse of the United States of America:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>The inherent limitations of a Republic to remain responsive to the citizenry, and</li><li>the inherent nature of man to never relinquish control once acquired.</li></ol><div><b><u>Limitations of a Republic</u></b>:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">In November of 2013,
Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a
speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not
the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.
That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN. Now, most of us have had ideas
come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb appears. But...this
speech caused flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually.
Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government
on the current status of political representation.<br />
<br />
I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.
But the differences between a pure democracy and a republic were never a
matter of intense or critical study. Nor was there ever a study of the
advantages and/or limitations of a republican form of government.<br />
<br />
Had this been, and does it continue to be, a missing element is our Social and
Governmental studies? To answer that question completely requires a
reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas
Jefferson. Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might
want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN ( <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers" target="_blank">http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers</a>
) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour
of video. The substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening
to Professor Livingston I present below...and I am confident that substance
will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.</span><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
general view of republican governance was one where size mattered,<b> if you were
going to have representative rule.</b> If you get too big, you lose
representative responsiveness. Jefferson's vision was one of additional
republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the
people's control of government. The republics would then band together in
a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade. Up until the Civil War,
succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for
growth. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental
philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states
could not </span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">secede,</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> and the "indivisible" term became the norm when
speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being
the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and
control was to be centralized. The French Revolution resulted in the formation
of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking
to the individual as the political unit.</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as
laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet
the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and
enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives
elected one Representative for every 30,000 people. But in 1911 the
number of Representatives was capped at 435. The result is that today
there is one Representative for every 720,000 people. </span></p><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">If
the 720,000 to 1 ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would
be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all.</span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; mso-fareast-language: #00FF; mso-font-kerning: .5pt;">On the other hand, to
keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; mso-fareast-language: #00FF; mso-font-kerning: .5pt;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">We have outgrown our ability to functionally self-govern. The result is the gradual </span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">buildup</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> of awareness on the part of the public that "their" government is no longer "theirs!" Add that to the fact that over time those involved in governing become intoxicated with their power and influence and lose all instinct to hide their disrespect and disdain for those who elect them, and the awareness of loss of both freedom and benefit from the government becomes a growing visceral anger in the citizenry. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><b><u>The Human DNA-based desire to retain power benefit once achieved</u></b>:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">There is no proof that Abraham Lincoln knew about the conceptual and operational limitations of a Republic. And there seems much to suggest that he was not a power-hungry person ready to sacrifice others to his personal goals, but was rather a person who cared about others and would have </span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">earnestly</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> denied being "power-hungry."</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">But he was surrounded by elected officials who certainly saw the possibility of the southern states breaking away and forming their own Republic as a loss of power (and certainly financial opportunities). On his part, it is arguable that he would see the formation of a southern republic as a sign that he had failed as President to "protect" the "country" as he viewed it.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">His (and the northern states) success in preventing the formation of a new Republic cemented the ultimate destruction of the United States of America. It is now too large to govern on the basis of citizen control, and that is proven by the current behavior of the National Government in dictating to citizens rather than looking to those citizens for direction.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">That the argument for placing the </span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">burden</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> of History on Abraham Lincoln for the ultimate demise of the United States of America.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-62885927443094572212023-08-27T18:46:00.003-07:002023-08-27T18:46:41.236-07:00Are we all on The "Plantation?"<p> Humans are made uneasy, sometimes even scared, by "different." When we were kids, a new kid in school had to be... what is today's grown-up word?... "vetted" before he became a part of the integral group.</p><p>This has been true all through human history. It won't change. And... it isn't a bad or good thing, just an element of life.</p><p>What used to make America Great (among a number of things) was that people who were "different" came here ready to contribute but also ready to assimilate. They assimilated habits, attitudes, ideas from those already here BUT those already here also learned about and adopted habits, attitudes and ideas from the newcomers.</p><p>Were there fights? Yes! Was there disrespect and derision coming from both sides? Of course. But the end was that when a person who came to this country showed that they could do a job, would respect the truth and tell it, as well be happy for the opportunity to become part of the country... there was acceptance, assimilation, and the "melting pot" became a fact and was proven to work.</p><p>Even today, Blacks see discrimination when they are not automatically accepted as they are, or their behavior and ideas are not embraced. Why is that discrimination? Why aren't they expected to go through the same "rite of passage" that the rest of us had to experience? Italians were disrespected, not accepted, nor were their ideas of life when they arrived. It took time for them to embrace American life as it existed, get used to the habits and mores of those already here... but when it happened, they became a part of the whole. </p><p>The exact same thing happened to the Irish, the Scandinavians, the Spanish, and all the other nationalities that came to American shores. There was no difference in the challenge.</p><p>There WAS one difference, though. and that was that most people of color did not choose to come to America. They were enslaved by their own people, sold to middlemen, and the brought to America where Plantation owners continued the enslavement. THAT was profoundly different... and injurious.</p><p>But no person of color today in America that wishes to be a part of America has any impediment different from every other citizen if he or she wants to strive to be a successful part of America. Look at the success of President Obama... of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Supreme Court Justice Thomas, Senator Tim Scott and others. They succeeded because of effort and showing a desire to join with others to accomplish positive things.</p><p>The biggest impediment to to Blacks today is an attitude that many of them hold that was fostered by the very political party that claims to want to "help" them... the Democrat Party, together with the portion of them that can be labeled as "Race Profiteers." Giving anyone, regardless of background, education, skin color or foot size, money because they are not succeeding in school or in the workplace is not helping them...It rewards the imprisonment of dependency.</p><p>What should have happened was the creating of programs that rewarded success, mandated successful teaching, in school and in trades, that was proven by accomplishment. Don't reward birthing children into single parent homes. Hunt down "fathers" and enforce their support of the children they father. Show respect by expecting accomplishment and success even as you make tutorial help available where needed... provided the recipient(s) work to benefit from the help. Reward 100% attendance in schools. Then step back and see how the colored community matches and may even outpace the accomplishments of those from other parts of the world when they come to America. They are just as able and I claim we disrespect them by not expecting superior accomplishments and contributing to American Life in major ways as a regular thing.</p><p>But...back to the headline...</p><p>Has anyone else noticed how all of America is starting to look like one giant plantation? One controlled by a limited group of "overseers" and brooking no challenge to their authority?</p><p>We now life under a dual dictatorship of the government bureaucracy and angry minority of various deviant purposes. We now are being forced to promote beliefs, actions and attitudes of which we disapprove. Once we were prepared to ignore beliefs found abhorrent in the interest of civil individual freedom. </p><p>Suddenly we have to promote behavior, mistreatment of children, and deviant lifestyles or we find ourselves fired and unable to support our families. That is no different from being enslaved on a plantation or being an indentured servant! We no longer even have the right to decide what power we want to use to power our cars, or cook with, or walk around without a diaper over our faces if the overseers declare that we must. And that is also true about medical procedures. Now our plantation overseers can declare we need to be injected with something on the grounds that "IT IS GOOD FOR US," all to be taken on "trust" and without any proof that has been checked for truth and accuracy. That has already happened during the COVID fiasco. And it is being threated again, and will be activated whenever the overseers deem it necessary to prove to us that THEY are in control and that WE must obey.</p><p>It is a large plantation and often feels as if we have a degree of freedom, but stop and look around and you'll see the same walls being built around us that emulate the process that hunters used to use to trap wild pigs. Put out free food! Put up a fence next to the food! Keep putting out more food! Add a second side of the fence! More food! Build a third side of the fence and add more food. Finally put up the gate and you have the pigs trapped and you can feed them OR NOT at your discretion because you now own them. Our government denies it but that is what they are doing to our entire country. When they have the right mix of people here they will finish the fencing, shut the gates and they will own us and no longer try to hide it.</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-1133793125073330432023-07-16T15:08:00.003-07:002023-07-23T22:09:05.226-07:00Do you REALLY want a fair election?<p> There are two challenges that predominate today that make a "fair" election possible. For the purposes of this discussion, define "fair" as</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Truthful campaigning with the guaranteed right of an opponent to reply on the merits of a claim or accusation; and</li><li>the guarantee of honest and truthful preparation, submission, and counting of votes.</li></ol><div>Not sure how number two can be accomplished with the current judicial climate. One would be to go back to everyone voting on election day unless the individual would be out of his or her home town or out of the country and applied for an absentee ballot. If applied to everyone, that would seem to be not only fair, but Constitutional.</div><div><br /></div><div>Campaigning is a different matter, and that arguably could be solved quickly if the American people wanted to do exactly that. Everyone is looking for an edge. Human nature doesn't ever reward or strive for "fairness," so acting as if it is, is duplicitous. Not sure if this would help the voter searching for truth, but how about:</div><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul><li>requiring every campaign advertisement to require also providing the opponent's answer or explanation. In print it would be on the same page as the original claim or accusation. In broadcast, it would follow immediately and be clearly labeled as the "official" reply.</li></ul><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><p>Have an independent research panel, subject to charges of perjury charges for errors, empowered to fact check each and every campaign ad, statement and reply for truthful accuracy, including a duplicitous parsing of sentences to appear to say one thing but not technically saying anything of the sort (a common practice in politics today). THAT sort of thing is lying by inviting assumptions on the part of the reader, listener, viewer. And make prosecution mandatory, not at the discretion of any prosecutor or Judge; an accusation leads to a trial, no excuses or way(s) out.</p></li></ul><p> I suspect that would stop the "October Surprises" as well as the "Russian dossier" type fabrications. It would also cut the profits of news publications, stations and print shops, although each "job" would require double the space of the initial claim or accusation, so maybe it would even out. </p><p> Violations could escalate to make the rules effective: first violation would deserve a monetary fine, a second... elimination from a debate... a third, removal from the subject ballot. </p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-85636758929895947722023-07-01T06:19:00.001-07:002023-07-01T06:32:49.340-07:00Re-establishing a Meritocracy will restore equality in America!<p> One of the biggest negative factors in America in 2023 is the perception(s) of racial inequality. Arguably overblown by politicians and media, there is nonetheless an ongoing existence, and it is worth considering the likely causes of the survival of that inequality.</p><p>Over just the last century, trillions of dollars have been spent, advertised and publicized as dedicated to erasing that inequality. A close examination of those expenditures strongly suggests that those funds were not only not effective in the asserted goal(s) but in fact exacerbated the inequality. Why? Consider:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The government funded those not working with no requirement to do any work or train for future employment, thus sending the unstated message that not working was not only acceptable, but that to expect the poor to actually train for employment was beyond their ability.</li><li>Poor women who had out of wedlock children actually were given more publicly funded money the more out of wedlock children they birthed, abandoning any effort to identify and hold the men fathering those children responsible for supporting their families.</li><li>Funding of education became oriented to meeting the demands and aligning with teachers' union's definition of education as well as their focus on teachers' salary increases independent of schoolchildren's level of achievement, leading to "social" advancement from grade to grade without requiring minimal student accomplishment of learning goals, thus granting High School diplomas to children not educated to a level that enabled them to hold meaningful employment.</li></ul><div>For many poor and virtually all minorities, these steps all served to artificially handicap and often block advancement in the business world and resulted in valid resentment on the part of those subjected to this disparate treatment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not being able to deny the factual basis of the resentment, government has for years tried to illegally and imperfectly make up for these underlying and causative errors by granting employment and admissions not earned to those who did not receive the promised or implied level of education needed, and this was done in a manner that left the unstated and unadmitted impression that those in charge of these programs were doing so because the recipients were not capable of success</div><div>on their own initiative. This was and remains absolutely untrue and serves to insult and disrespect the abilities and potentials of the poor, whether of minority status or not.</div><div><br /></div><div>But once identified, what can and must be done to provide true equality to all?</div><div><br /></div><div>No one can perfectly and completely identify and promise results... but there are a number of steps that may be worth considering:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Stop rewarding failure</b>. Make unemployment and any grants dependent on some public work effort and/or job training. Doing so provides the recipient not only with the potential of future employment but the working and study supports his or her own sense of self-worth.</li><li><b>Stop financially rewarding out of wedlock births</b>, instead increase the public effort to identify and hold the father(s) of such children financially responsible.</li><li><b>Stop social promotion in schools</b>. There was a time when if a child didn't pass the tests (and tests ARE needed) they were held back. That has to be restored as the norm.</li><li><b>If children in a class are not learning, the teacher has to be held responsible. </b> It is time for them to be accountable for results. If a person cannot effectively teach, they should not be being paid for or holding the position of "teacher." That insults the children, their parents, and the school district and school in which that person is employed... as well as pulls down the respect other effective teachers deserve to receive.</li><li>If a school or school district will not serve the children first, parents must be able to transfer their child to a school where their child's learning and accomplishment is paramount. That means <b>educational tax money moving with the children, not based on residence address.</b></li><li><b>No child cannot learn</b>, and any argument to the contrary must never be accepted. If a child is recalcitrant and refuses to learn, at a certain age they should be made to enroll in the military where many youth used to be saved by the installation of discipline absent acceptable excuses. It did work. It will work again.</li></ol><div>There are certainly more possibilities and readers may want to add those for consideration. This is not a "save all" or "perfect" list. It is but a starting point for a discussion... a realistic one... about recognizing what is, what is wrong with what is, and some of the ways worth considering if America wants to get back to valuing what it used to and what its <b>success is based and dependent upon... Meritocracy</b>.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>We claim to guarantee a chance, not a result, ... but we do need to re-establish access to that chance instead of implying that some are not able and thus preventing a mental attitude dedicated to achievement and self-worth. <b>It isn't money. It is respect, with the concomitant responsibility, that must be taught, expected and honored.</b></i></div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><p></p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-42212596353134952302023-06-23T14:06:00.001-07:002023-06-24T17:35:59.624-07:00We are abandoning what made America great<p> My father was an immigrant. He did it legally; he got citizens to guarantee a job, filled out all the necessary paperwork and waited for approval. He came to this country with hopes, a job to earn his keep, and a desire to make a life for himself and to help his mother (a widow) and his sister.</p><p>He also came with a vision of America. He often told me that he knew people here were different... from many parts of the world. But he also said they (and He) came here to become a part of what America was... a blending of many nationalities that came with a common desire to become "better" than they could in their "home" country.</p><p>Dad respected his birth country, Norway, and honored the people there. BUT he always pointed to his citizenship papers and was proud to say he was an American... not a Norwegian-American, but just... American. He came here not to reproduce Norway, but to become a part of what America is all about. And he saw people joining in pride to be part of that whole. </p><p>Sure, many nationalities upon arrival banded together to make their adjustment easier, even as their children went to school and became proficient in English, history, and learned how to succeed in America... and to be proud of belonging. </p><p>My father loved music and he often made the analogy comparing America to an orchestra. All classes of instruments are different, and the players have different abilities as well as individual attributes. But they come together knowing the purpose is to advance the performance of the orchestra. They are segregated by instrumentation, they play different parts, they interpret music in varying ways. But all that individuality is voluntarily subjugated to the conductor's direction and interpretation to create a whole... a whole musical offering that sees the beauty of the unified effort and vision.</p><p>THAT was the America that welcomed (well, mostly. Even "square heads" were joked about and not always welcome in the beginning) his presence and his willingness to "take a chance" and depend on his own self-worth and the quality of that effort.</p><p>Today, many in America want each instrument to not only "be in charge" of their music, but to declare that to not get their own way was an insult and a lack of respect. That seems true within the instrument category and withing all of the instruments in what used to be an orchestra. That "orchestra" has turned into a group of anarchists producing chaos instead of music and not even being in the same room without throwing words (or worse) at each other. The Conductor has been "cancelled" and two attitudes have taken over:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>victimhood, and</li><li>tribal narcissism</li></ul><div>Add to that a foolish and false belief that there are no such things as consequences, and the result is disintegration of all that enabled America to become the great nation it once was, as President Reagan once described it, "a shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world. It (or at least the politicians and self-described <i>leaders</i>) has destroyed itself.</div><div><br /></div><div>Just as chaos of individualism absolutely destroys the purpose and existence of an orchestra, so the current narcissistic victimhood tribalism ideology will destroy the United States of America.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sadly, Reagon's city on a hill is being destroyed from within. I miss it, and my father would feel even more disappointed were he still alive.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-74650268378408464202023-04-18T07:31:00.001-07:002023-04-18T07:31:19.288-07:00Isn't the United States too big, and its governing too far away from its Citizens?<p> A reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson. Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN ( <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers" target="_blank">http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers</a> ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.</p><br />The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule. <b>If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness. </b> Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government. The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade. Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln, reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined that the southern states could not secede and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of multiple aligned republics being the future political unit disappeared. The formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit set the example.<br /><br />No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and the one by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.<br /><br />How does this lead to a loss of control of our government?<br /><br />At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected <b>one</b> Representative <b>for every 30,000 people</b>. But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435. Now, there is <b>one</b> Representative <b>for every 720,000 people.</b> If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.<div><br /></div><div>Until 1914 the Legislature of each state selected and voted on the Senators to serve in the Washington, D. C. national Senate. Subsequently, our "elected" Senators are selected by direct voting, which no longer is guaranteed to reflect the political stance of their subject state, but by their ability to be attractive to the voters, which is directly affected by the amount of money they can negotiate for from very rich and opinionated "donors." Those are who your Senators see as deserving of allegiance, not the voters' political and personal wants and desires., regardless of what the political ads or speeches say!</div><div><br /></div><div> <b>The republican view of governmental responsiveness to citizens as well as to the rule of law has been <u>lost</u>.</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Is it any surprise that our "elected" officials and bureaucrats that have never met more voters than they have bureaucrats do not have any instinct... any conscience...</div><div>to suggest that they owe any "allegiance," "care," or "oath of office" obligation to those citizens in the rest of the country? Is it any surprise that many of them see "us" as the enemy?</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Distance does <b>NOT</b> make the heart or the allegiance grow fonder, and almost inevitably leads to disrespect and betrayal!</i></div>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-82545667947636669372023-04-18T00:41:00.000-07:002023-04-18T07:33:16.657-07:00We shoot ourselves by giving up on the study and discussion of History<p> When was the last time that you felt that your government was being responsive to you, your values, your needs? When was the last time that you felt that the government was there, in the words of the old half-joke, to help you? When was the last time that you trusted the government to do the right thing?</p><br />If you are like most of the people I know, on all sides of the political spectrum, the answer is, "never!"<br /><br />For a long time I have searched for a true answer for why this seems to be true. Some have blamed ideology. Others point to the need for term limits. But these answers seem hollow and superficial. Would changing those things change our attitude about today's United States of America Federal Government? I suspect not. So, my search has been ongoing, fitfully, for some time, since it seems that if one cannot define and truly identify the source of and reason for a problem, there is no hope at all for "fixing" it...assuming that it can be fixed. And suddenly a whole new area of study and possible answer to my ongoing questions came to my attention.<br /><br />In November of 2013, one Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN. Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb goes off in your brain. But...this speech had flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually for an hour of rapt listening...and nodding ascent. Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of the country.<br /><br />I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic. But the difference between a pure democracy and a republic was never, at least in my case, a matter of intense or critical study. Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and limitations of a republican form of government.<br /><br />What an error in our educational content. But, perfectly understandable. Why? To answer that question completely requires the reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson. Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN ( <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers" target="_blank">http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers</a> ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video. But I will share the substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.<br /><br />The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule. If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness. Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government. The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade. Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized. The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.<br /><br />No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.<br /><br />All of this is interesting on its own, but you might ask how this translates to the perception that we have lost control of our government...and it is a good question.<br /><br />At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people. But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435. The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people. If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members. And the Supreme Court now is the decider of what the Constitution says. This means that we have lost the republican view of governmental responsiveness as well as the rule of law.<br /><br />Additionally, consider that the number of votes necessary to enact laws and authorize spending, all concentrated in Washington, D.C., is 268, and if you limit that to a quorum minimum, the number drops to 135. This level of representation has resulted in a national debt of over 17 Trillion Dollars, and total unfunded liabilities variously estimated to be anywhere from $220 Trillion to $238 Trillion. This is the burdon that our government has placed on our descendants. To give you some prospective, in 2011 the Gross Domestic Product of all of the countries in the entire world amounted to $72 Trillion.<br /><br />Now you start to see the source for the assertion that we no longer control our government.<br /><br />David Hume wrote on how to solve the problem of size and save the responsiveness of government in a large republic. Both he and Jefferson realized the greatest danger to the existence of a republic was corruption; the danger of a group of representatives to make decisions for their own purposes and aims. The answer was to divide America into 100 republics, not states, and move the House of Representatives out of Washington to each republic capitol, with each republic having 100 Representatives ( getting us back close to one representative for every 30,000 citizens). The Senate would pass a bill, and then it would send that bill to each Republic for ratification.<br /><br />This greatly reduces the likelihood of corruption, as the cost and logistics of lobbying 10,000 Representatives in 100 different locations would be at best, problematic and at worst, impossible. There would also be the benefit of Representatives living and being constantly available to their constituents countering with "their" wishes at home, rather than reaching out electronically to "representatives" enjoying their comforting isolation and support from the "deep state" in our nation's Capitol.<br /><br />With such a process, the Senate would be less inclined to introduce bills with "earmarks" and "pork" projects that were clearly not beneficial to all, as there would be greatly reduced chance of passage by the House of Representatives. And those bills which have merit, but not on the gigantic scale of the Commonwealth, could and would be adopted by those republics individually as they saw the smaller scale need.<br /><br />Of course, the best operation of the republican form of governance is still the small republic. The analogy presented by Professor Livingston seemed most apt, even if not absolutely correct from a medical viewpoint: when a cell grows beyond a certain size, it divides...when it does not it is a cancer.<br /><br />This is why our government no longer serves us; why it may still be "of the people", and "for the people", but is no longer "<i>by</i> the people." Now I can begin to study and ponder on what the solution may be, including those as presented by the application of David Hume's "Large republic" concept. But is seems clear that the status quo has nothing to offer.<br />Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-51481409103084194972022-10-15T08:23:00.004-07:002022-10-15T08:23:46.499-07:00Will there ever be any limits to defining "abortion?"<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;">There was a time in America when the killing of an unborn child was considered both a sin and a crime. Today, it is considered a simple "option" by any women who sees the results of her enjoyment of sex as "an imposition." That view was not acceptable then. But it is now. On that basis alone, may I suggest that what I now suggest may seem extreme and unacceptable now, but may very well be public policy in less than 20 years:</span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Since a child is not viable and able to live on its own even after birth and the mother is seen as responsible for it until it reaches its majority (with a few select exceptions), it would be consistent that, just as an unborn with a defect may now be terminated, why should not a child that develops an illness, has mental deficiencies, or is diagnosed as a dangerous psychopath be able to be killed by the mother,... at her sole discretion? After all, isn't that the power that women who currently become pregnant have right now in states that legalize abortion while the child is still in the womb... even if only the feet remain there? </span></span></span><em style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"> If there is to be equal <u>protection</u> under the law, that there should also be equal </em><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"><em><u>NONPROTECTION</u></em></span><em style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"> under those very same laws?</em><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span><em style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </em></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;">Make a note of this and be prepared to revisit it in the light of developments in the next two decades. </span><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Logic applies and, as separate but equal as a concept fell in the last century, so will the current protection wrongly granted to minors when denied to those in the womb</span></span><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: "Open Sans", "Open Sans Hebrew", Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">A secondary challenge is that almost all who favor allowing the killing of children in the womb simultaneously oppose the killing (the "death" penalty) for those convicted of murdering others. That is clearly illogical. These are usually the same people who repeat the mantra, "follow the science," which recognizes the humanity and viability of children in the womb. That relegates the "non-personhood" argument and artificial and denigrating term "fetus" to the curb. Science says that the "fetus" IS a human being and shows that it senses and recoils from pain and danger.</span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">An argument that says a child with no record of any action or choice may be legally killed by the "mother" but denies society the right to kill a person that has murdered and/or raped and or caused the death of another intentionally is just beyond defense. None has ever been presented... at least not to me. If there is one, I'd like to hear or read it so I can "understand" the argument.</span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Simply saying that one person's existence being a "complication" or "burden" to another has never been seen as a defense to a charge of the second murdering the first... and simply creating a definition that claims to state a difference is spurious at best. </span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">No one has ever responded to these arguments with either logic or reason. All that comes forth are personal insults, gestures, and obscene language or simply walking away without offering any response. Understandable... but sad.</span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #070707; font-family: Open Sans, Open Sans Hebrew, Arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">The Supreme Court has done all of us a favor. They put the question of killing babies in the hands of secular legislatures throughout the country, where it belongs. Why? Because although I see abortion as murder, it is the right of the majority in each state to decide on the character of aborting babies, and when. The will of the majority of the people should rule. I do not suggest that makes the act right, but if a citizenry decides to legalize abortion, it should clearly be the decision of that very group, state by state. And that decision, and its ultimate consequences, should be clearly on the heads of each voter and each state legislator. (<i>And I understand and sympathize with their angst at having that burden cast upon them. It was easier when any blame or consequences rested on the Supreme Court rather than on them. But that was wrong, and now they have both the right and the obligation to rule.)</i></span></span></div>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-45620287820820243902022-10-02T11:48:00.001-07:002022-10-02T11:48:22.256-07:00ALL Social Media should be labeled as "disinformation!"<p> The ongoing discussion about censorship in social media is a false flag. Whether it is put out there by a coordinated group or person is immaterial. The fact is that virtually everything in print today can be argued or accused by someone to be a lie, wrong, mistaken, or otherwise not to be believed or trusted. And THAT is the purpose of the "disinformation." It is designed to cause the thought or comment to be dismissed without consideration. It is simply a "soft sell" censorship, aiming to cause all readers or listeners to dismiss the subject comment or thought without any serious (or, actually, ANY) consideration or allow it to affect thought, belief, and/or action by the reader or listener.</p><p>This is simply a cancellation of the Constitution's promise and premise of "Free Speech," which is predicated on no preempting of thought, comment or plea prior to the reading or hearing of that by the public. The whole benefit of "free speech" is to allow differing points of view a public forum, in the belief that the clear light of day exposes falsehoods as discussion follows. To prevent that is to invite indoctrination and dictatorial control.</p><p>Just who or what takes that control is immaterial to the individual. It is the loss of the ability, much less the right, to judge what and why any action is being taken, denied, approved, or financed that destroys a society, a republic, a democracy, or any government. And that removes civil existence as a norm. It also removes any sense of individual freedom as being "protected" or enforced by governance.</p><p>It is wrong to accept any claim that allowing, codifying, or denying any statement (verbal, broadcast, printed, et. al.) is simply a desire to prevent lying or creative facts. That, in any form, is a recipe for loss of the right to confront all assertions publicly and invites, if not guarantees, dictatorial rule by some entity. That can be a "created" public attitude, government censorship, or anything in-between. Only free discourse and argument in the public square ensures that any honest set of beliefs can be adopted by a people. It does not ensure that the decision will be an "absolute right" decision... just that it will be one made by a majority that decides for at least that moment that the result is desirable and intended.</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-78965001759479905972022-05-07T08:53:00.001-07:002022-05-07T08:53:36.697-07:00Why our Federal Government ignores what the Voters want!<p> In 1790, The United States of America first census declared a population of Three Million, Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Fourteen people (3,929,214). The 1791 House of Representatives had a membership of Sixty-nine (69).</p><p><b>Each </b>Member of the <u>1791</u> House of Representatives represented (and was elected by) <b>approximately Fifty-six Thousand, Four hundred Ninety-five (56,495) people. </b></p><p>In 2020, The United States of America census declared a population of approximately Three Hundred Twenty-five Million, Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventy-eight (325,719,178) people. The 2020 House of Representative numbered Four Hundred Sixty-five (465) members.</p><p><b>Each</b> Member of the <u>2020</u> House of Representatives represented (really?) (and was elected by) <b>approximately Seven Hundred Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-one (700,471) people.</b></p><p>Does any sane, logical, thinking individual seriously consider that any one of us presents a significant impact on "our" House of Representative official with an impact of 1/700,471<span style="font-size: xx-small;">th</span> on his or her holding office? Does any one of you <i>believe</i> that they <i>really</i> care?</p><p>Perspective:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>To reach the same level of representation that existed in 1791, the House of Representatives would have to grow to 5,720 members. That is NOT workable in Washington, BUT it would work if:</li><ul><li>Each state's delegation remained in their State's Capitol </li></ul></ul><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li> Total voting was transmitted and tabulated in Washington electronically, with each state's result counting as a weighted total (just as is done with the Presidential election tabulation).</li></ul><li>As a comparison, if today's level of representation were to have applied to the United States of 1791, the House of Representatives would have consisted of Six (6) members, and four (4) states would have had NO representation. </li></ul><p></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>The responsibility for our current government's failure to represent the "people" can be broadly cast in many directions, but a major degree is directly attributable to President Lincoln and his Congress. Why?</p><p><b>His refusal to accept the separation of the southern States of the Republic into a new one started us on the road to being badly governed! </b></p><p>Many of the Founding Fathers discussed and recognized that the responsiveness of a Democratic Republic was dependent on limiting the size of government; as government grew in size, it became less representative and responsive while becoming more and more dictatorial and controlling. Many of them expressed a vision of the "United" states giving birth to additional, limited sized, Republics as the area and the population to be governed grew, each becoming allied with the originals for the purpose of common defense, but each maintaining a responsiveness to and for the segment of population they governed in a manner that maintained control in the people, not the government.</p><p>If that vision had survived the emotional, moral and financial challenge that brought on our "civil" war, we would today likely be an amalgam of five (5) Republics, each with its own Capitol, its own Supreme Court, it's own Congress, and each contributing to the cost and maintenance of a common Military governed by 5 member panel representing each of the Republics, and overseeing the necessary financial support of that defense.</p><p>Alas, that did not happen. So today we (the individual "people") are ignored by an elected and bureaucratic cadre of what is (not inappropriately) often labeled the "Deep State," they members of which are dedicated to preserving and growing their own power, security and financial well-being.</p><p>I have no solution (other than to imagine that we are in the throughs of the same decline and obliteration suffered by the Greeks...and the Romans...and all the other once successful efforts to "do it better" than the last). But if we are self-destructing, at least our last thoughts can include the knowledge of where we erred.</p><p></p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-73883434713086887162021-10-17T11:39:00.000-07:002021-10-17T11:39:12.698-07:00Statistics have corrupted America<p> Statistics, of and by themselves, are inconsequential. To properly understand and use them, one needs to know who compiled them AND their (or their organization's) agenda...and there is <i>always</i> one.</p><p>America today is slowly but inexorably crumbling under what is euphemistically called "social" justice and "racism." It is supported by those who use the concepts to attain and retain power over others...NOT to be either "social" or "just." Funding anything or anyone because of so inconsequential a thing as "skin color" is not only silly...it is demeaning. How dare anyone argue that skin color correlates to ability or value? That is moronic. One might as well argue that hair color, foot size, or height is such an indicator. </p><p>Those who disagree with me point to statistics to prove that discrimination exists with regard to skin color. NEWS FLASH: we all, of all backgrounds and origin, discriminate every day. We associate primarily with those who make us feel most comfortable and with whom we agree on most things. Many of us have deep feelings and arguments ( I think of them as discussions) about the matters about which we disagree...but when that is done, we <span> USED TO REMAIN FRIENDS. I still have acquaintances who feel the same way. But many have faded away.</span></p><p><span>Why? Because Social Media (a false term, as it is primarily an attack vehicle and NOT to better society or make people more sociable) has lured us into judging the value of a person by their position on just one thing. We have forgotten how to appreciate and value the whole person as separate from his or her position on any one topic. How shallow and obtuse can you be to make such an error...or is it purposeful? If you can shut down any but the opinions and beliefs you hold dear, and chose to do so...as the Political and Social Left is currently successfully (to a large extent) doing in America, how soundly based can those beliefs be? If not tested, how can you be prepared what challenges may arise in the future. Imagine if the concept of a flat world had been supported by refusing even the utterance of the idea of a world that was round? What if the concept of using anything but horses for transportation had been suppressed?</span></p><p><span>The very power of the Left today would never have developed if the efforts now being made by them to control communication and people had been applied to THIER ideas and concepts. Yet they feel no shame in working to eliminate discussion of challenges to their policies and beliefs.</span></p><p><span>If America had stayed true to the concept of America as "The Great Melting Pot" all would be well today. Immegrents used to learn language, social skills, and behavior so they could become a part of America...not create a mini-version of the country they left. If America had remained focused(and would again focus) on PERFORMANCE and EXCELLENCE as well as HONESTY, all would still be well. But we did not.</span></p><p><span>Why did so many immigrants come to America when they knew they would initially be looked at askance by citizens who distrusted their "difference," their allegiance, their appearance and their language? After all, THEY weren't brought here as slaves, were they? Why did they come?</span></p><p><span>Arguably it was because they saw greater opportunity to EARN a better live in America than where they originated and wanted to BECOME AMERICANS.<span> They WANTED to ASSIMILATE, and become a part of America. They wanted to value themselves the way Americans valued people. That attitude has apparently vanished in today's America. No wonder the Republic is under attack.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Statistics (were you wondering when the title of this piece was going to make sense) have been used to eliminate the concept of "The Melting Pot" and "assimilation" from becoming "an American."</span></span></p><p>Keeping statistics about employment, wealth, crime and anything else creates the assumption of causality between the categories used. That presumption is and should be considered false unless proven...and that has not been proven. Why not proven? Because they are tracking two SYMPTOMS, not causes. Race doesn't <i>cause</i> crime. Color of skin doesn't <i>cause</i> crime, or stupidity. Neither does hair color or style, foot size, or nose shape...but if we started to track those with statistical precision, <u>someone</u> would argue causality so that they <i>could get support for increased control, power or financial benefit</i>.</p><p>Instead, most young people in America today have become hyphenated Americans instead of assimilating: they are AFRICAN Americans, IRISH Americans, HISPANIC Americans... What nonsense. My father came to America so that he could TAKE A CHANCE for success; no guarantees, no certainty. He left the country of his birth because he wanted to have a better life. We all have that opportunity. If an American feels that he or she cannot succeed and achieve in America, they have the right to research and find such a country and move there to TRY to achieve their dream. Those who are descendants of African slaves could chose to emigrate to a country in Africa, become part of a visible majority and have no reason to suggest that skin color somehow inflicts a disadvantage...but few do that. That suggests that they do have opportunity in America that is greater than anywhere else and can be achieved through effort and accomplishment. And despite the race-baiter who claim to be "leaders," they have proven very capable of such success...in business, in law, in our Supreme Court and in political positions of power. Any suggestion of lack of opportunity to TRY is demonstrably nonsense.</p><p>As for America, if we stopped keeping statistics on Race, skin color, age and country of origin, like the Irish, Germans and those from the far East and worked at "assimilation" we would in a remarkably short time again become a nation of Americans who respected and valued each other as individuals in total, not just one belief or skin color or political ideology.</p><p>Stop allowing profiteers in ALL walks of life from using statistics to lie to us about our motives and beliefs. Stop schools from indoctrinating and get back educating and being able to be challenged and respond intelligently, not dismissing and censoring.</p><p>Start once again promoting excellence (in ALL things) and achievement as the basis for gaining education, wealth, acceptance. Equality of OPPORTUNITY, NOT RESULTS is the goal. Consequences of failure cannot and will never be avoided...only occasionally delayed. </p><p>If we all wake up to these truths (not "woke"...whatever that dog whistle term really means), the Republic can not only survive, but thrive and move forward. I pray that will happen. </p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-8661532876089153462021-07-21T09:57:00.000-07:002021-07-21T09:57:46.333-07:00The Revenge of the World on the Ugly American (with help from within)<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The Revenge of the World on the Ugly
American<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">(with help from within)<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">In
the late 1950’s Lederer and Burdick wrote “The Ugly American,” which pointed
out the arrogance and nerve of American’s attitude toward the rest of the world
and their way of live.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As transportation
and communications improved exponentially, Americans and their businesses expanded
into the world and carried with them the concept that all American ideas and
practices were the solution to everything and the pre-existing attitudes and
values of everyone else were not just worse, but wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">In
America today, the rest of the world, with help from the Baizuo Democrat
Leftists, is getting its revenge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
most of the last century and before, the immigrants from around the world came
to America to become Americans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
gave up most of the practices from their home country to assimilate into
American society and adopt our ways, language, moral precepts, and became
within a generation just like all those before them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who have watched Americans emigrate to
other countries have seen the same thing happen in reverse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">But
Twenty-first Century America is being overrun by people who have come to
America, many of them illegally, who want to change America into a better
version of their country of origin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of
course, many of them define that as meaning that THEY are in control in the
form of a Dictatorship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rest have
ideological beliefs that are anathema to any form of democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they are aided and abetted by Americans
who came to America from countries that abused them in search of freedom, which
they now are using to destroy the very country that saved them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not to be undone, there are power hungry
Americans who see the resulting chaos as a way of grabbing more power.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The
questions is…why do the majority of current Americans accept this
degradation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are they evaluating and
throwing away individual freedom, or have they been indoctrinated by an
educational system now in the control of those who believe democracy is a bad
way to govern?<o:p></o:p></span></p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-731249847592132002021-02-14T08:46:00.000-08:002021-02-14T08:46:51.880-08:00"Citizens" vs "Government": Which serves the "will" of the "people?"<p> Violence recently visited our nation's Capitol. Elected Officials responded with fear and outrage. Some died. Generally, the Media condemned the people who demonstrated anger with the Federal Government.</p><p>Does anyone else note the similarity and parallels of this event with the Boston Tea Party and other violent events in our country that proceeded the Revolution? </p><p>For years, we have been surrounded by the attitude and claim that government exists to serve the people. We even used to call our elected officials and other who get a paycheck from the Government as "Public Servants." Not sure if that term survives in today's America, however. But is is curious how that concept was jettisoned universally in the wake of the demonstration of anger against what many today refer to as "the Washington Swamp." Across the political spectrum, few deny that our elected officials no longer act and vote in a way that demonstrates that they represent those who live in the districts and states from which the were elected...ostensibly to represent the whole of those states and districts rather than serve their personal goals, wants, and desires.</p><p>No objective person believes that if Ms. Hillary had been elected anyone not "in the know" in Washington would ever have known about the weaponization of our security agencies, about the lying to the FISA court, and other self-serving motivations of those at the head of these Federal Agencies. The hatred of a person coming to office that wasn't looking for or flattered by being offered a ":seat in the Washington 'club' " was not only natural but essential to the "swamp's" survival. And survive they did,.</p><p>Perhaps, however, those who are members of and who value "the Swamp" might be wise to know that those who showed their anger can very well be described as a "small faction" of the electorate, but for each person who was protesting in anger there are 100 who could not attend and who are just as convinced that our government no longer serves or cares about us but instead exists to create power and financial security for themselves. They act and speak as if none of us notice how our elected officials come into office with average self-worth, are paid salaries that barely cover the cost of living in D.C., yet retire with vast fortunes...the source of which is never explained or questioned.</p><p>For now, "the Swamp" abides. But I wouldn't bet the farm on just how much longer its control will survive. And the Media is seen as just as corrupt. Tomorrow is another day. As investment firms advertising always says (quickly, in small print or too fast to actually hear) "past performance is no guarantee of future performance." I would add to that "or of survival." </p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-68944289779682038642021-01-23T07:40:00.003-08:002021-01-23T13:09:53.711-08:00Spending money you don't have isn't "Ideology,"...it is FRAUD<p> Life in general, and government in particular, exists with multiple beliefs and ideologies held by many. Arguments and discussions are (or, at least used to be) commonplace throughout the world. Where a practical democratic element exists, different ideologies come to power and then lose it on a fairly regular basis.</p><p>But some practices go beyond the pale...and for some reason no significant part of America's population wants to acknowledge this. Consider the following:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>As of January 23, 2021, at 8:05 am, the United States National Debt Budget deficit was above Twenty-Seven Trillion Eight Hundred Million ($27,800,000,000,000) Dollars;</li><li>As of the same time, the United States National Debt deficit total was above Eighty-two Trillion Two Hundred Billion ($82,200,000,000,000) Dollars;</li><li>United States Gross Annual Domestic Product output is just over Twenty-one Trillion, Two Hundred Billion ($21,200,000,000.000) Dollars.</li></ul><div>We owe more than the value of what we produce in a year. And the total unfunded liabilities are almost four times what we produce in a year.</div><div><br /></div><div>Any organization other than our government would already be in bankruptcy.</div><div><br /></div><div>This kind of Ponzi scheme is why Bernard Madoff is in jail right now.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the Federal Congress had not exempted themselves from application of the RICO statutes when they were written and passed into law, a majority of Congressmen and women would now have jail cells adjoining Madoff...which may explain why they did, in fact, exempt themselves.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why do you all ignore this corruption? Is it because, like many of Madoff's customers, YOUR check cleared? ...because YOU are getting "stuff" that you don't have to pay for?</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps it is time to start drafting a (apologies to the Catholics out there) "mea culpa" letter to your great grandchildren and beyond. Perhaps you need to come up with a defense for your stealing their financial well-being. And I wouldn't waste time with the "I didn't know" or the "I only did what I was told was ok" defenses...they didn't serve those tried in Nuremberg and they won't save your reputation here. Want to make it right? Each family just send a payment of Twenty-eight Thousand, fourteen ($28,014) to the Federal government right now (the amount will grow by tomorrow)</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh...and you folks in New York, California and other states where the State is spending money they don't have had better check how much more you need to sent your Governor to balance their budget(s).</div><div><br /></div><div>I have failed them too...but at least I spoke up, and voted based on candidates' recognition and willingness to stop this generational theft.</div><div><br /></div><div>What will you say?</div><p></p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-39195066221089165262021-01-09T10:41:00.000-08:002021-01-09T10:41:11.933-08:00Hatred of People is an abhorrent display of the worst of human nature<p> Do you "hate" anyone?</p><p>Why?</p><p>My Dad once, when I was discussing what my benefits would be if I tried to do a particular thing, responded that I should never consider "what I would make or accomplish" as a first question. "What do you mean?" was my response. He said, "first, ask what is the cost or the effort needed, then ask if you have the time, effort or the money and if you can afford to lose the time, effort or money. If the answer is that you can't, then don't bother with the consideration of what you might gain...you can't afford it."</p><p>If one considers his or her "hates" it is likely that the "why" has very little to do with the soul or essence of the person, but is about fear of the effect on the hater of the beliefs or the actions of the person they claim to hate. And the basis of the fear is immaterial; it can be behavior (speeding down your road) or politics (favoring policies you find threatening) or something else.</p><p>Hatred also reveals a mind out of control, under the influence of the "flight or fight" emotional response that drowns all trace of logic and inevitably leads to unfortunate consequences.</p><p>All homo sapiens are of "mixed" instincts and behaviors. The worst of criminals or psychopaths has performed some (perhaps singular) act of kindness or goodness, while even those among us who we consider "saint-like" or "good" has some secret (again, perhaps merely a singular) act that is sinful or abhorrent. All or nothing appellations are simply doomed to be inaccurate...and inaccuracy of judgement leads to bad decisions and unwanted consequences.</p><p>Also...hatred, when exhibited, demeans the hater and demeans and brings disrespect on his or her beliefs or arguments. It is not attractive. And it is never productive.</p><p>Perhaps the next time you think, or say, "I hate him (or her)," it would be well to pause and consider what is causing you to be fearful or threatened. Is it an actual act by the person? Is it something they believe, or something or some action that they support? Because that same person may also be in favor of any number of things that you also favor and see value in...if you hate the person, you are hating those things too. That is illogical and flawed reasoning, so it would be well to think it through.</p><p>Hatred displaces logic and loses arguments on the merits. When someone with whom we are arguing starts calling you names or resorts to swearing, that person has lost the argument and fear of that has directed him or her to insults rather than reason. Hatred is just an extreme extension of the same.</p><p>Our lives on this earth are short enough. Do any of us really have enough time to waste on "hating?" Frankly, I pity those that "hate" and just refuse to spend time listening to or spending time with them. Many can argue, disagree, discuss and even if unconvinced can still respect each other and be civil...perhaps even be friends...even while honoring differences in our lives and minds, and those are the people I want to be around. How about you?</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-28030222100570909582020-12-28T09:37:00.004-08:002020-12-30T09:29:23.683-08:00America has become a corrupt nation that is unlikely to remain "Great" for long<p> The Founding Fathers knew human nature. They also knew history, particularly the history of the great empires of Greece and Rome. While they didn't know that America would grow into the most successful, wealthy, and powerful nation in history, they did have hope that it would endure and provide the freedom for its citizens that they wished and had fought for themselves.</p><p>Our government was set up to limit its power and, while there was never any way to stop it's growth or accumulation of power at the expense of the rights of individual citizens, the did try to build in roadblocks in the path to such power. They split the legislative branch into two with only one reflecting the number of citizens in each respective state while the other had the same number regardless of size. Power was similarly divided between the Legislative branch and the Executive Branch, and a Supreme Court was created with the power to stop or reverse actions by either branch to act contrary to the Constitutional guarantees. Terms of office were staggered, with 2, 4, and 6 year terms set to further complicate attempts to gain power at the expense of the people. </p><p>Recognizing the danger of combining the power to rule with the "higher" authority of any one religion, they even stipulated that one's religion could not be a pre-requisite for holding office and that no particular religion could be made the country's "Official" religion, as was true in Great Britain. Yet they also mandated that religious worship be the free guaranteed choice of any citizen, not to be interfered with by any government.</p><p>They tried.</p><p>Just as with those who built the Greek empire and, later, the Roman empire...they failed.</p><p>An objective study of history suggests that the evil that resides in the human species is not to be denied...particularly over time; a combination of narcissism and of greed ultimately defeats all bonds designed to insure honesty, moral standards and respecting all human beings as equal. That is what destroyed Greece...and Rome, and what is clearly happening (one could claim that it has already happened) in the United States.</p><p>Do you disagree?</p><p>The downfall is gradual, happening in small incremental steps that go largely unnoticed...at least as to the (perhaps) unintended consequences.</p><p>First: Ownership of property...the basis for taxation...is eliminated and non-owners of property are given the vote. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that when spending decisions are made by those elected by people who aren't paying taxes, no limits on conflagrate spending exist. In our respective households, spending is controlled by those who earn the money to be spent if disaster is to be avoided. No such limit survived at the Federal level.</p><p>But that was just the start.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Shortly after the nation was formed (circa 1790), each member of the House of Representative was elected by approximately one thousand one hundred (1,100) voters</li><li>In 1909, each member of the House was elected by Twenty-three thousand nine hundred fifty-one (23,951) voters</li><li>In 2016, each member of the House was elected by Two Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand (296,000) voters.</li></ul><div>No thinking individual believes that today the wants and needs of any one of us matters to our Member of the United States House of Representatives.</div><div><br /></div><div>Add to that the fact that there are no term limits for holding legislative elective office and the foundation for corruption, narcissism, and lack of interest in fulfilling the oath(s) of office is clear and unavoidable.</div><p></p><p>Second: Freedom of Speech was redefined. What originally was understood to be prohibition against <i><u>prior restraint</u></i> on speech, in no way restricting consequences of all speech, was inferred by the courts as a prohibition of <i><u>consequences</u></i> of speech. Further, the Press (now, media in general) was granted immunity from prosecution for libel when making false statement about "public" figures absent proof of Malice...and the courts have revealed themselves as being less than anxious to a finding of malice even when the average citizen would have no such hesitation. That Freedom of Speech was also permitted to be used in the promotion of governmental systems antithetic to the existence of a Democratic Republic. Those who preferred a Socialist, Marxist, Fascist or Dictatorship to any democratic form of rule were, and remain, free to argue for such and if supported by the Press, free to promote such ideologies with lies, fictional claims and even physical attacks with no consequences.</p><p>Third: Freedom of Religion. Already mentioned early on but expanding and clarifying the developments, the courts once again have defined Freedom OF Religion to mean Freedom FROM Religion in the public square; evidence and the appearance of the Ten Commandments are legally removed and prohibited from public lands public buildings. The removal of the moral precepts contained therein from public view, the legal removal of daily prayer to start a school day and the prohibition of discussion of religious beliefs in schools, Universities, Colleges, Town Halls and Courtrooms has lead to a removal of absolute standards for civilized behavior in return for continually decreasing comparative standards of behavior allowed to be exhibited regardless of their lawlessness. </p><p>Curiously, America's apparant desire to disrespect and remove any behavioral authority of the Christian religion does not interfere with the clear respect afforded the religious beliefs of Islam, which is the only religion of which I am aware that directs it's followers to kill those who speak in opposition to Islam, to strive for political power that, if attained is to be used to eliminate all other religions and install Islam law and standards as part of governmental rule. The motivation for this attitude is murky and the logic totally escapes any analytical mind.</p><p>Fourth: Education. Mentioned last, but likely the most influential element in the destruction of America, education at the start of the Twentieth Century was established for all and based on the Prussian Model. It involved the teaching of basic civil skills (arithmatic, reading, writing and some history) and creating a mind-set that accepted regimented behavior.</p><p>In America, the regimentation portion of the curriculum was rendered inconsequential because of the need for all members of a family to work in order to survive and the constantly expressed corrective attitudes of parents when reviewing what their children had been "taught." But the freedom of schools to explore different areas of learning was left in local control, and with teachers in short supply, that control quickly moved into the hands of teachers. At the same time, those with socialist, Marxist, communist and fascist ideological beliefs found education to be an area of employment that did not prevent them expressing, albeit diplomatically, their beliefs regarding life and government. By mid-century they were firmly in power of k-12 education and by the 1970s held firm control, as yet not declared, of a majority of Colleges and Universities. As the Twenty-first Century dawned they began to reveal their ideologies, and "free" speech began to be denied to anyone espousing Democratic, Conservative or Moral Precepts that Leftist Activists found objectionable or disrespecting of their own views.</p><p>And so it is today.</p><p>Anarchist violence exists with approval in a number of our nation's cities. Elected officials actually support those who commit the violence, encouraging contributions to bail out those who have destroyed the property of others, who have assaulted and even killed U.S.Citizens and been revealed to be non-citizens in the country illegally and with pre-existing felony convictions. We have elected people to public office who want to interfere and even eliminate law enforcement that protects the average citizen, even as those same elected individuals employ security forces, both private and public, to provide for their armed protection.</p><p>Does this sound like a country on a firm foundation, on track to continued success.</p><p>When questionable election activity cast doubt on the veracity of election results, and the highest court in the land refuses to examine the matter, does that sound to you like a country that will long exist in its present form?</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-42084807615350327652020-12-21T08:06:00.001-08:002020-12-21T08:06:48.829-08:00The Devil Went Down to Georgia...<p> This time he left the fiddle behand and brought Soros' bribe money and his army of minions whose souls he has already bought. No fair competition this time; he intended to win and bring Venezuelan-style Socialist/Marxism to the United States. Two wins in Georgia and he will have won.</p><p>Controlling the Senate, continuing to hold control over the Senate and with a Leftist President in the White House, He could taste the destruction of this annoying Republic. That control would allow him to add to the Supreme Court justices that would see their roll as assistants to the Congress, pass limitations on personal freedom, legally eliminate Freedom of Expression through changed definitions, and never again have to return to the individual citizen the freedoms taken from them through the fear created by the COVIC-19 Pandemic.</p><p>1984 may not have happened on the stipulated year...but is is about to take place. The Left (Biden never criticized the lawlessness in Portland or other cities, Harris actually stumped for funds to get law-breakers bail paid by supporters) approved of lawlessness by Antifa, BLM and Anarchists throughout the country as they destroyed the ability of citizens to peacefully enjoy their towns and their private property.</p><p>Under a Biden Administration, the Right to Protest will include the right to invade you businesses, your towns, your homes and even your (heretofore) private lives. </p><p>Khrushchev was right; his goals were reached by our own hand, as narcissism outvoted the Constitution, wrong overcame morality, and equality became...not of opportunity...the guarantee of all living at the lowest common denominator of life. Consequences will no longer be visited upon anyone...except, perhaps, for the sin of attempting to better yourselves without harming others.</p><p>Now we can know how the horror that a minority of Greek and of Roman citizens felt as they watched their civilizations crumble and fade away.</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-56013074589629240032020-11-01T08:43:00.000-08:002020-11-01T08:43:53.147-08:00Perhaps THIS is why President Trump is hated/opposed by those on all sides...<p> I haven't had the stamina to write for quite awhile. In the face of such an atmosphere of hatred from the Left and derision on the right, as well as the Gubernatorial-declared self-imprisonment (clearly non-productive since COVID is increasing even in the fact of masks and confinement) life just seems to be an existence confined in a warlike maelstrom, ... mental, physical and emotional. Some days I turn off the radio, television, computer, then close the door and pray that no one knocks...hoping to restore some sense of civil equilibrium. But the next day the chaos still exists. I keep asking, "WHY?"</p><p>Why the Left extremists hate President Trump is easy to define: he denied Hillary her place as the first women President (although honesty would insist that her loss was her own doing),...and a Liberal one at that; he is the first elected President to come to Washington with no interest in, and has refused to join, the "good old boys politicians and bureaucrats club"; he fights back when attacked, </p><p>The Media's hatred is also no mystery: he fights back when they attack him; he refuses to think they and their actions/comments are sacrosanct; he points out their "taking of sides" (well, actually just one side...opposing anything he says, things, or does) and lying.</p><p>But the opposition and disdain on the part of many Conservatives and the "clubhouse" Republicans has always been more of a mystery. One would think that the fact that he has kept more of his campaign promises than all of the Presidents since FDR put together would elicit their support. He has turned out to be much more "Republican-ish" than the Right expected when he ran for the nomination...being more pragmatic and only failing in the area of financial national planning...and with a singular exception all politicians on all sides of the fence have failed in THAT area. So...WHY?</p><p>Finally, I think I may have a possible answer. It came as I was muting still another insurance commercial and noticed with abhorrence the image of an ostrich with its head burried inb the sand. No, I don't recall the advertiser but if I did I assure you that I would never consider buying their product. </p><p>It was the "head in the sand" syndrome that suddenly struck me as being the "reason" for many on the Right to dislike and oppose Trump. They prefer to see politics as having a "gentile" image and existence. It is far from that, of course, and at some basic level they...and we...know that; it is a dirty business involving lying and compromise (always the enemy of doing the right thing and leading us to an even lower "common denominator" of human condition. BUT they have always succeeded in denying or ignoring that side of their profession by using the language of diplomacy or ignoring lies and insults not made to their face. It was a more "comfortable" view of their profession and their lives.</p><p>President Trump was and is not diplomatic. He doesn't play "make believe." He responds to attacks even if those attacks come from a distance. He destroyed...and continues to destroy...the illusion that politics was a "gentlemen's" game of high purpose. Those who value their image more than their actions hate the fact that President Trump has confirmed what the American People have long suspected: that for the most part, politicians run a self-serving con game designed to enrich and grant themselves more and more power; that few ever intend to wilfully leave Washington, D.C., and return (horrors) to their "home" towns again...they like being "special" and being treated that way. But President Trump has confirmed that ALL of Washington is a SWAMP infested with greed and criminal enterprises and that there are literally NO good guys or women that have been able to fight the ubiquitous corruption.</p><p>President Trump may not be able to defeat or eliminate this state of affairs. As a matter of fact it is pretty certain that little will change after he leaves office. But at least the American Public now know the Truth.</p><p>And I thank him for that...and for his efforts.</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-19565727298098122242020-08-08T09:28:00.001-07:002020-08-08T09:33:59.078-07:00Chief Justice John Roberts is a "Player," not an "Umpire!"<p> During his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts spoke continually of "seeing" himself as an Umpire, calling legal balls and strikes, rather than a player affecting the outcome of the game. That concept no longer seems applicable, given his actions in a number of his opinions since becoming Chief Justice.</p><p>To be fair, Justice Roberts never promised to "be" and umpire but continually referred to how he saw himself...at least during the period of his confirmation. On that basis it isn't possible to say he testified falsely or even that he didn't mean his testimony to be truthful. </p><p>But perhaps his testimony provides both a cautionary tale and evidence that we should parse the statements by and sentences of those who testify under oath very carefully. Perhaps even more importantly, the questions posed should be written carefully so they might require answers that are transparently unequivocal. </p><p>In Judge Robert's case the proper follow-up question should have been, "...and do you, yourself, testify that this is the manner in which you will perform, if confirmed, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, sir?"</p><p>That question was never asked. It should have been. And that points out one of the great failings of almost all politicians when on camera, in public view, or campaigning: they don't listen. If the listen, they hear what they want to hear and often they don't listen at all because they are already thinking about their own next question or statement.</p><p>Almost all politicians end up like "fence-post turtles" (found from time to time in farming country) seen upside down on top of a fence post: they sure didn't get there on their own, they're totally useless, and they have no idea what to do next to help themselves or others.</p><p>What most Judges have in common is the tendency to forget they aren't God. They are part of a system that should be honored. In Judges' cases, they <u>aren't</u> superior to the other parts of Government and need to remember that they are (or SHOULD BE)<u> limited</u> to their assignment...and that is to point out truthfully and accurately failings in our Justice system and in written laws. It is Congress and/or legislatures that have the responsibility to change or correct the laws under which we live, and not for any court to provide a "do-over" or a "correction." </p><p>Our Supreme Court is "supreme" <u>only over other courts</u>. It is NOT supreme to the legislature, even though it has the power to rule that a law passed by Congress violates our Constitution; <u>it can stop</u> the application of the law, but it<u> CANNOT and should not ever CORRECT</u> what it (the Court) sees as an error by the Legislature or Congress. </p><p>The Supreme Court of the United States is empowered to LIMIT actions by the Chief Executive, the Congress, and of the States to act in ways contrary to the United States Constitutional requirements. It is NOT empowered to REWRITE laws; that is for other branches of government.</p><p>It is profoundly unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts and other members of the Court all to often seem to forget their own limitations in favor of a narcissistic temptations to act as (or in place of) God.</p><p>Our Founding Fathers hoped that they were creating a governing entity that divided power in such a way the abuse of power would be prevented. Unfortunately, they apparently (falsely, as it turned out) presumed that elected officials would honor their oath(s) of office and if not, that the people would exercise the power to remove them.</p><p>The Founding Fathers did not foresee (and perhaps could not foresee) the elimination of moral conscience and the removal of God and the Ten Commandments from public life. And so we have riots, looting, assaults, disrespect and disowning of "law and order" and the police that would provide that and a "silent" (so far) citizens wonder in the quiet of their homes where the U.S.A. into which they were born has gone, and if it will ever return.</p><p>And Chief Justice Roberts now bats clean-up calling his own balls and strikes with no umpire in sight.</p>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-89605703419960418322020-07-27T15:27:00.000-07:002020-07-27T15:27:47.209-07:00Why do we reward Failure & Bad Behavior?Sixty years ago our government "discovered" that over 60% of Black and minorities were living in poverty, and under-performing in schools. "The Great Society" was formed; it gave money to those minorities that were living in poverty and under-performing in schools, and it provided financial assistance for and access to low cost housing.<div><br /></div><div>That has continued, virtually unabated, to the present. Failure was rewarded.</div><div><br /></div><div>Consider what might be the case today should all of that money have been provided to and rewarded the over 30% that WERE achieving and succeeding. What if those who were failing saw that the path to success and reward was to maintain a family, learn in school, work after school, and gain degrees (High School, Junior College, College and advanced degrees) that would insure the financial assets to provide their children with better housing, better education, and the opportunity to more fully enjoy the fruits of success?</div><div><br /></div><div>Many suspect that the government's choice to reward failure was purposeful: it attracted votes (and therefore re-election) for the politicians; it reduced the appearance of poverty; it also made those receiving government funds dependent on the continuation of those funds, as they didn't come with job training or improved education. The result was what could reasonably be seen as a continued "plantation dependence" on the government for both direction and subsistence, supporting an almost slave like acceptance of government direction and control for supporting a subsistence level of living.</div><div><br /></div><div>And as whole industries sprung up to distribute government funds and service agencies, there actually grew a disincentive to improve the lot of the poor, as it would eliminate the jobs and power of those agencies. As time went by there was less and less inclination on the part of those administering these policies to suggest attacking the cause of poverty rather than ameliorate the symptoms. Except for a few organizations working to reward achievement, there is little acknowledgment of this long term failure.</div><div><br /></div><div>This needs to change.</div><div><br /></div><div>And it is possible that the nation would benefit from abandoning the statistical fascination with Race and possible switch to focusing on "foot size" or even "hair color" as a means of determining who may be discriminated against. Or...if logic ever prevails...perhaps we could focus on achievement and/or motivation?</div><div><br /></div><div>Considering the state of the nation today, I'd even accept using "civility" as a basis for job and benefit qualification...or, in the case of reporters, "truth."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-6050331598031626922020-07-21T09:42:00.000-07:002020-07-21T09:42:04.089-07:00Is America being "Colonized"?Nothing is forever. Nations fail. Countries disappear...not as land areas (although that has happened) but moving borders, and migration and invasions change the character. Even where the name has remained, what currently exists bears little resemblance to that same area's character, personality and governance of even a century ago...with the exception of the United States of America.<div><br /></div><div>Certainly Europe has much of the same borders, but the political existence is largely changed, with the advent of the European Union, and other changes in self-perception, Europe and the world generally has seen huge changes.</div><div><br /></div><div>America has defied the general rule and remained generally stable during its entire existence. A great degree of credit for this can be correctly ascribed to the Founding Fathers creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents, and the attitudes they represent, made governmental change possible without revolution and upheaval, and the success of individual efforts resulting in an economy that made possible successful defense of its borders against all invaders. </div><div><br /></div><div>But nothing is forever. Just like businesses, nations are affected, and threatened, by stupidity, carelessness, non-interest, laziness and greed...any one of which is capable of leading to a nation's downfall.</div><div><br /></div><div>Australia, the East and West Indies as well as Africa existed for years, only to fall to the colonization by Europe. Even America started in that fashion, with European nations descending on the North American continent, driving out and subjugating the natives to a European lifestyle and values.</div><div><br /></div><div>The United States used to be a destination for folks who were unhappy with their country of birth, either with the governance or the possibilities for advancement. They came to America because it provided opportunity for both personal freedom and success in accordance with their efforts and abilities (not guarantees of success but the guarantee of an opportunity to succeed). But in the last century it is now apparent that resident desire for power joined forces with immigrants (both legal and illegal) who came with the desire to change America into the kind of country they had left, with the great improvement of allowing THEM to exercise the power. They did not come to "join" America, but to reform and subjugate it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even our Media (ostensibly) serving our common interests, declare the white majority to be racist, even as the non-white population break laws, harm property and people and declare that they deserve to be given whatever they define as success. It is the media and the minority that display racist attitudes and "values." If the White majority were truly racist, the actions of the minority would long ago have seen them executed or deported. </div><div><br /></div><div>Current events reveal that America is being threatened by what can only be labeled as "colonizing" forces; BLM, the LGBT+ community, and Marxists, Socialist and Communist organization and individuals protest, riot, destroy and kill in an effort to overturn our Democratic Republic. Many oppose it...but many native inhabitants in India, Australia, and Africa didn't like or accept the values imposed by European colonization either. </div><div><br /></div><div>The questions come down to:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li> whether the European DNA of our past renders us unqualified to oppose this attempt to take control and change the essence of the United States and its Constitutional foundation of over 200 years; and</li><li>whether the fact that weapons possession and law provide the "native" population with sufficient choice and motivation to oppose these colonization attempt(s).</li></ol><div>Or..,will the majority seek to ignore or appease the invaders from within. Will we. like a frog placed in warm water over a roaring fire...simply sit placidly by as we are overcome, subjugated and killed by the enemy? Should we all start language lessons? Arabic and/or Mandarin might be the better choices. </div></div><div><br /></div>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-18826997734031275612020-05-28T12:27:00.001-07:002020-05-28T12:40:48.378-07:00COVID-19: a discussion<i>(Disclaimer: I am not a medical doctor. I have no qualifying scientific degrees. But, at almost 78 years of age I am in the "at risk" category according to all reports, and as a retired, multiple degree holding individual who is curious and has the time, I have been reading all I can find about this virus and trying to establish a layman's understanding of just what the SARS-CoV-2 threat is all about. That leaves me with questions as well as a lot of ideas and my intent is to share them with anyone who is also curious and wants to take the time to consider my findings and thoughts. So...I am not TELLING anyone what to do or what to think...just musing out loud...or in print, to be accurate. Proceed at your own risk)</i><div style="text-align: left;"><br />My assumptions (perhaps better termed, "presumptions"):</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The "unknown" causes fear</li><li>Sudden "unknown" causes contagious fear</li><li>Fear eliminates logic</li><li>Lack of logic makes for bad or flawed decisions</li></ul>About the beginning of this year presented reports of a rapidly growing health threat from an unknown extremely contagious virus that held out danger of inordinately large mortality rates on a world-wide basis with no medical solution or intervention known to exist.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The fear was immediate and grew exponentially. The "flee or flight" instinct took immediate hold, with "fight" not apparently in play so "flee" was the almost universal reaction. Just what "flee" meant was varied but generally became what we now refer to as "lock-down" and "spacing." "Logic" was still on holiday, albeit with some groups and individuals attempting to approach the danger looking for solutions that would bring "fight" back into contention.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">One of the perils of having some folks attempting to repond logically to a threat when the majority is still in "flee" mode is that even if the logical approach presented in incomplete and/or in error, it SEEMS like the siren of truth, logic and reason and rarely is questioned or doubted. But...almost inevitably there ARE errors and gaps. These are to be expected. But...what SHOULD happen is that these presumptions be examined almost daily to discover, correct or eliminate all that is wrong. Consider the following:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Predictions of enormous loss of life were predicated on estimates that were flawed.</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;">One of the errors was basing projections on no effective steps taken to minimize the effect and the spread of the virus from person to person. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Initial presumptions were that the virus was long-lasting on various surfaces and was virtually impossible to avoid between individuals closer than 6 feet from one to another.</li></ul><div>This has turned out to be largely untrue, as current reports by the medical community suggests that the virus does not remain dangerous on most surfaces for more than a short time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Then there were the errors and presumptions that caused authoritative declarations to be made (and largely accepted) closing businesses, transportation, community interaction and person to person contact of all kinds. Some of these errors:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Not recognizing that "lock-downs" were ineffective when the virus was already present;</li><li>Even while recognizing that the elderly and those with pre-existing medical challenges were primarily at risk for loss of live, Governors chose to send recovering patients to Nursing and Old Age Homes resulting in infection of others already at risk of death.</li><li>Reacting politically rather than logically in an election year by deciding that they (the politician office holders) had to do SOMETHING lest the voters think they didn't care. Clearly the right action in some situations is to NOTHING until or unless <u>PROVEN</u> FACTS point to a specific line of action.</li></ol><div>When one reflects on the fact that just over two years ago (2017, Fall) America went through an immensely severe flu season that resulted in as many deaths as has resulted from COVID-19 and no one lifted an eyebrow or even thought, much less suggested, that we "lock-down" for safety, a question and set of facts comes to mind. Every bug, every virus we have experienced has an approximately two (2) year life span. The Spanish Flu in the last century ran its course in two years. Others have the same record. So...I suggest the following questions are appropriate to put to the medical community for responses and answers:</div></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>If enormous funding results in a vaccine claimed to be effective and is available in a year, will it be claimed that it is the vaccine that eradicates the occurrence of this virus? Or will its virtual disappearance be the result of the natural two (2) year life cycle?</li><li>Does the "lock-down" approach truly operate to lessen, minimize, or otherwise protect the public from the effects of this virus? Doesn't such "isolation actions" lessen or even prevent a development of a "herd immunity"? </li><li>Has medical research adopted the proper presumptions as to optimal treatment? Some articles have reported that the oxygen level of COVID-19 sufferers have dipped dangerously low WITHOUT fever or corresponding obstruction of lung function (these come later, suggesting to some that the lung problems result from the virus, and are not the direct cause). And other reports are that the implementation of respirator treatment puts the lungs under pressurized oxygen with actually has been shown to decrease the ability of the lung tissue to absorb and oxygenate blood, actually acting to deprive patients of oxygen and contribute to death. Some reports and at least one presentation on Youtube, by Dr. Zach Bush ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU</a> ), suggests that upon diagnosis of the low oxygen blood levels prior to any fever or lung obstruction it might be wise to consider a treatment such as used for cyanide poisoning, currently involving three (3) injections. If that increases blood oxygen levels, then there may be no development of lung obstruction eliminating all but liquids and bed rest to recover. Shouldn't medical authorities have to respond to this concept...and any others?</li></ul>And finally...at least for now...can't we all agree that in an medical event Government, Politicians, and holders of elected office should not be allowed to "not allow an emergency to go to waste" and seize control of our lives in a way that we would never allow if not for the fear that they encouraged, fed, and enlarged in order to try to validate their power grab(s)?</div><div><br /></div><div>What do you think? </div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-89845939223624793402020-05-12T10:44:00.003-07:002020-05-12T10:44:29.261-07:00Why are we fat?Those who study these things report that, as a nation, Americans are fat.<br />
<ul>
<li>Is that true?</li>
<li>If so, why? and,</li>
<li>Can or should we do something about that?</li>
</ul>
<div>
Statistics suggest that more Americans are overweight than ever before. Moreover, general observance and anecdotes back up those statistics, so it seems that the we <i>are</i> fat.<br />
<br />
"Why" is always going to be an individual answer if total accuracy is your goal. But for the purposes of this discussion, general habits and behavior will be the focus. Two primary reasons for obesity and being overweight suggest themselves:<br />
<ol>
<li>Over-eating; and</li>
<li>lack of sufficient exercise.</li>
</ol>
<div>
And it is likely that a combination of the two would have the most impact. Certainly there are individuals who have medical challenges that cause increased body mass, but generally it is clear that more food (or bad choices of food) and less exercise are the cause.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But...what are the root cause(s) of those factors? Again, observation suggests three major causes:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Television;</li>
<li>development of the two income family; and</li>
<li>The internet.</li>
</ol>
<div>
The advent of Television in the late 1940's was the beginning of a quantum shift in children's attitude and interest in physical activities. Oh, it didn't show up immediately; children and teenagers had developed habits over the years of playing baseball, football, basketball, hockey in the winter, and other activities such as dodge ball, hide & Seek and others that exercised their growing bodies and those habits stayed with them. But parents with children born in the early 1950's and later found that it was easier to get housework done and get some needed "down time" if their children weren't out running around, getting hurt and into trouble in the neighborhood, but instead watching "educational" programs on the Television. And if the kids stayed quiet and out of harms way even as the found that they could switch the channel to watch cartoons...well, how harmful could that be...it was make-believe.<br />
<br />
Following World War II, men came home to a nation where women had gotten used to working, earning money outside the home, to a nation where new and better products were available and a general desire to own a home and live better than before. So men got jobs too, and grandparents watched children during the day. On weekends parents "caught up" on household matters and acted as parents once again.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That wonderful new thing...Television...turned out to be a soporific tool for young children not available before. So, little by little, parents weren't heard commanding their children to, "go out and play, it is a beautiful day!" Instead they were content to enjoy the peace and quiet of the house, bothered only by the occasional need to tell the kids to"turn the sound down" on the television. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, there was still (and that continues today) the "gym period" at school. But that doesn't really provide physical activity, as studies report that on perhaps 20 +/- minutes of activity occur since most of the time is spent standing around as the upcoming activity is being described and teams and/or pairings are set up. Gym periods were and are only a light reminder of the intense sports and exercises that used to be the norm at recess (no longer much in existence), after school and on weekends. So Gym is of little effect and/or consequence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Those "television children" grew up be parents that did not exercise themselves and certainly were less and less likely to make <i>their</i> children do any different. Meanwhile, the<br />
"two income" family became the norm, leading to less consideration being given to meal preparation; tv dinners, take-out meals became more ubiquitous, and kids home from school found lots of high calorie snacks in the refrigerator to eat while the sat on the couch watching....wait for it....television. They were NOT going out over the neighbor's kids house to play sandlot baseball or shoot hoops. No...none of that was or is happening today.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For years, the only exercise some kids got was when they had a report due for school and had to...gasp...walk or travel to the library and research the subject. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But even that tiny bit of exercise was about to be made elective. Because now the Internet came into existence. Now neither child or adult had to leave the easy chair or the chair in front of the personal computer. Exercise? Why? For what purpose? Besides, life is becoming more complicated and more things have to be learned, so eliminating running in the park (or even walking) puts more stress on one's time...so that takes a back seat (and often doesn't remain in the vehicle).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Internet and the television became more highly developed, so it then gave birth to the "smart phone" (although that confuses me, as I have had one for more that 15 years and it still hasn't made me any smarter). Now both kids and adults don't even have to meet to talk; I caught my two grandsons texting each other <i><b><u>across the same room!</u></b></i> I have a friend who, when he visits his children and grandchildren, confiscates the kids phones as he arrives and only gives them back as he is packing to leave, telling them that they are going to learn how to converse with him and each other person to person with their voices and looking each other in the eye. After a painful day, he says the begin to enjoy it...and he has hopes that they actually may be able to negotiate their way through a job interview at some time in the future. But I wonder if some will even be able to do that...or maintain concentration on anything for more than 45 seconds.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But...getting back to the subject...our parents AND we took the easy way out even while intending, perhaps, to do the right thing. We failed to balance our desire that our kids learn (from educational programs) with their need to develop their bodies to carry their brains through a long life...and that inevitably led (and continues to lead) to shorter life spans and increased pain and discomfort during the latter years. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For some time I have thought that most families (both adults and children) would benefit from shutting down all forms of electronic access for a week each month...maybe even on at least one weekend day each week...and instead schedule outdoor physical activities (games, hikes, walks) to coincide with face to face conversations.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I know many families who even now require that all phones be muted or turned off and left in another room while the family has dinner at the table and combines the dinner hour with conversation. That should be an "always" thing...for all of us.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If we don't work to change our ways, I fear the the fictional "Matrix" as seen in the movie of the same name will become a very unpleasant and unenjoyable reality. However, if today's parents recognize the benefit of, and the need to, reverse this process, it <u>can</u> be reversed. But it means making a conscious and consistent effort to push children away from the computer, the cell phone and the couch to make them "go out and play." It means getting other parents with children of the same age on the same page,getting together in the park and letting (perhaps, in the beginning) <u>making</u> them get involved in pick-up games of dodge ball, hide & seek, flag and touch football, baseball. NOT organized, like Little League and the such...although those are great. It is the non-athlete who needs to add physical activities to an otherwise seductive sedentary life style. Jogging, hikes are good too. And this all has the advantage of also refreshing the mind and actually making the time in front of a computer more productive.<br />
<br />
I sincerely hope that just thinking about all of this will cause at least a few to take the steps to truly show a way to save (or at least better benefit) our wonderful children.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-54849232979965745892020-04-27T18:14:00.001-07:002020-04-27T18:14:27.211-07:00Why do businesses succeed...and fail?Quick, simple answers pop right up. But pause a moment and the simple answers just don't provide complete understanding. The obvious answers are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>make money and become rich;</li>
<li>a challenge you can't refuse;</li>
<li>compete and win; </li>
<li>see and meet a need.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The truth may be that there are as many reasons for starting a new business as there are people trying. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Most businesses start with one common trait: each and every founder of a successful business was stubborn and a leader.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is, however, one additional trait: perceptiveness. They understood and met the needs of the customer...of the marketplace. Quality and Price always go together if there is to be success.<br />
<br />
An study of the beginnings of any business only teach us about that...the beginning. There have been many men who started a business and ran it successfully, only for it to fade and fail upon the death of the founder. Why?<br />
<br />
Many stubborn leaders don't want to delegate; it gives up control of quality and process and leaves the leader subject to mistakes and lack of drive by others and is anathema. They don't like it; it smacks of lack of control and giving up of power. They will make it very uncomfortable for anyone who pushes for any sort of delegation. That stress will tend to drive all but the most subservient away...to other businesses or enterprises, leaving no one of leadership quality to continue the business upon the passing of the founder.<br />
<br />
The businesses that survive do so because some just as stubborn subordinate refuses to be driven out and values what the business does more than a good relationship with the founder OR the founder comes to see the business not as an extension of themselves, but as having a business life and purpose of its own, and comes to appreciate nurturing it as a separate entity, welcoming others with new and different approaches. If all at the top management level continue to respect and nurture that approach, the business will survive until that attitude fades and dies or the quality of leadership fades and dies. Either will lead to collapse or absorption by another, successful, company.<br />
<br />
Why be concerned with such considerations? One major reason is as a potential investor. You can be certain that the attitudes and quality of management, whether of a start-up or an ongoing business, are of paramount reason to a Warren Buffet and others who make their living as investors. Whether buying stock, or investing in ownership/profits of start-ups, success depends on evaluating the motivation and talents of those at the top (or, in the case of a new business...the bottom). As a person looking for a job, the same evaluation would be a benefit, if only to work at getting a job that would last.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518231813580748886.post-72427686036688934932020-04-16T07:38:00.000-07:002020-04-16T07:38:40.716-07:00Why are Journalists an endangered species?When at Syracuse University more than half a century ago, I wanted to be in Radio as a broadcaster. One of the prerequisites for such a profession was the ability to write good news stories. Syracuse at that time had, and perhaps still has, a Journalism School that was considered one of the best in the country...as well as a reputation for turning out folks ready to perform well in both Radio and Television.<br />
<br />
At that time, "reporters" were looked up to by most (as long as they were not targeting you); they worked at being objective, thorough and factual. At that time opinions and judgement was confined to the "Editorial" pages of a newspaper. Even Radio and Television stations clearly announced and labeled "editorial commentary" as such before and often even upon the completion of that. News anchors such as Walter Cronkite would finish the news portion of the broadcast, pause, and then offer some version of, "We'd like to offer this editorial (or opinion) about ...." indicating what the subject of the comment would be about, and closing with the clear statement that what you had just heard was an editorial offered by the news department (of whatever station or network the program appeared on).<br />
<br />
You could pick up competing newspapers with different political or social agendas and get the same news with the only difference being if you read a morning or an afternoon paper, and that was just because there were more details in the afternoon papers on the morning "breaking" news.<br />
<br />
Those professional journalist reporters would give you all the facts of a given story but leave it to each reader to decide for themselves whether the story was about "good" or "bad." It was both the readers' right AND their obligation to decide on the worth, value and labeling about each and every story on the "news" pages.<br />
<br />
I spent two semesters being shown and learning how to write a story about anything and everything by supplying the "5 'W's & the 'H' " ( <u>W</u>ho, <u>W</u>hat, <u>W</u>here, <u>W</u>hy, <u>W</u>hen, and <u>H</u>ow). I've been asked why it would take two semesters, a whole year of classes and assignments, to learn to do that. The answer is that you had to do this quickly and accurately <u><i>without the use of adjectives</i></u>. Thank about doing that in your own life! Most things we see happen around us we automatically "adjectivise" (my own made up word). We see things as "funny" or "sad," or "good" or "bad." Rarely do we say to another, "something happened to me today"...usually we say, a <u><i>funny</i></u> thing happened to me today." And we rarely tell anyone anything with ALL the facts as I listed above. So the time is spent developing the discipline to get the entire litiney of an event, and getting them accurately so the person hearing or reading your recital ends up with a Full, Accurate, and Complete understanding and stands ready to make their own individual judgment about what happened.<br />
<br />
In the 1950's and 1960's a reporter who did not keep his or her stories objective and accurate became known as unreliable, and disrespected by his or her peers and, for as long as they remained employed, his or her editors...and usually assigned to unimportant stories where mistakes or missing information didn't hurt the newspaper very much.<br />
<br />
Today I challenge anyone to pick up a newspaper, listen to a radio news program, or watch a television hard news program and not notice: 1. missing facts; 2. inaccurate assertions; 3. adjectives; and 4. even judgments thrown at you as a done deal. You have been told in advance by the person providing the "story" what to think about it and what to feel and do as a response. You are being indoctrinated; the value(s) have already been assigned and communicated to you. If you are a busy person just checking in on what is going on, you may not even be aware of this "directive as to what to think and how to value" what you have just heard.<br />
<br />
Aside from the natural annoyance and, perhaps, anger arising from this discovery of how you are being "<u><i>talked down to</i></u>," you may start to ask yourselves..."how did things change from what used to be...and why?"<br />
<br />
May I suggest that there are two major (and I am certain there are other contributing elements) factors:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The Educational System as it exists today in America; and</li>
<li>The ubiquitous presence of the Internet.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Mass education in the United States has always been based on the Prussian model which taught basic arithmetic, reading and writing as well as teaching them group discipline so as to make children useful and governable employees and citizens when they reached their majority. Until the 1960's, this tendency toward indoctrination was offset and even defeated by the moderating effect of parents who would discuss what their children learned in school, adding the element of questioning what was taught and solving problems in a manner once described as "thinking outside the box," that is...looking at what was taught not for itself, but asking oneself, if not the teacher, <u>why</u> is this being taught.<br />
<br />
After World War II this changed for two basic reasons: First, the "keep up with the Jones-es" attitude led to more mothers entering the work force for a second salary to pay for more and better "stuff" and also to pay for higher education for the children, eliminating much of the time and directing parents away from questioning their children about what they were learning. Falsely, parents turned to presuming that the schools were teaching their children rather than indoctrinating them to accept commands, suggestions and governance instead of questioning and delving in the purposes of those commands, suggestions and governance; second, Progressives in the era of Teddy Roosevelt continuing from that period had slowly but inexorably taken virtual control of our entire educational system(s).<br />
<br />
Formulated in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they had taken advantage of parental concern for earnings rather that their children's education to first shade their teaching and then to bring in texts that emphasized a preference for governmental and authoritarian direction as being in the interest of the entire country. The largely unstated trade-off was individual freedom and thinking not aligned with what was taught (alternative label: indoctrinated). This is now evident not only in grades 1 through 12, but in University and College settings, as non-progressive thinking, speaking and attitudes are virtually silenced if not expelled from campuses.<br />
<br />
The second major factor for the disappearance of professional journalism is the Internet. Combined with the laziness of the general public and their willingness to accept and not question what is presented, the competition for readership, ratings and/or viewership has resulted in speed at the expense of accuracy, and shear volume of noise over truth.<br />
<br />
The editors who once looked at accuracy, depth, absence of adjectives and completeness as the qualifiers, and never considered putting out anything else are no more...replaced with those who hold the same title but value profit, speed and their own personal and business agenda(s) of political and societal nature, and see no fault in turning what we once looked upon as organizations that informed us to organizations dedicated to Public Relations and Propaganda.<br />
<br />
We get the government that we deserve. It doesn't matter is we knew what we were doing or choosing; consequences aren't voided because of stupidity, carelessness, or even saying, "I'm sorry." That same reasoning applies to the media that still (falsely) claim to serve us; that we, like a drunk at a bar, demand more and more simply insure that the consequences are certain.<br />
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Doubtin Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275589401331009534noreply@blogger.com0