January 27, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-indisputable-facts-of-reality have not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by learning other people’s experiences and observations. The comment box below invites sharing facts, opinion, or concern. (I read, write, and listen to establish my opinion as I pursue the-objective-truth.)
Note:  I often connect words in a phrase with the dash in order to represent an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth without addressing possible error or attempting to balance the expression.
 
The Advocate:

Our Views: Do I detect a shift in The Advocate’s approach? Are they finally nudging attention toward Jimmy Leblanc’s failure? Supplicant: “a person who asks for something in a respectful way from a powerful person.” (Cain is not God.)

 

“Write for eighth-grade level” took on a new spin for me: Cause the eighth-grade-level-reader to look up words and thereby educate himself or herself. Thank you, people who are The Advocate! What a powerful civic word: supplicant. I only used it in religious thought. In civic matters, I think I'm sovereign: I'm of "we a civic people."

 

BTW: Supplicant is instructive. If you approach Gov. Edwards and other officials as they wish, you are respecting divinity. You are supplicant toward God’s anointed official. According to Chapter XI Machiavellianism, government partners with a religion is to create that divine image for the elected official. Heretofore, this practice has worked so well that our 5:4 supreme opinion committee defended it in Greece vs Galloway (2014) and therein labeled me niggling for my objections. (I objected in 2006 to David Vitter and in 2016 to Garrett Graves.)

 

The state v city competition in Baton Rouge is interesting. The governor may have a Vatican-government-partnership and the mayor a factional-Protestant-government-partnership. Vatican partnerships represent about 20% of the people, but a factional-Protestant partnership may represent only 5% of the people! It is easy to see that Mayor Broome with her racist Dialogues on Race and black church is at odds with Gov. Edwards and an apparent Vatican partnership. But elected officials should represent 2/3 of the people. The cultural conflicts in Baton Rouge position us to emerge an example for the world by establishing a civic culture. Officials cannot accomplish the reform, but could nudge us toward a civic culture.

 

There is historical evidence that 2/3 of the people want civic safety&security, hereafter Security. And I think in the USA that super-majority has existed for 230 years. In 1787, the preamble to the constitution for the USA was written and signed by 2/3 of representatives for the USA. The preamble is a utopian sentence that promises Security if the people adopt its civic agreement. The agreement is neglected yet Security is sought. Meanwhile, the religious-majority has morphed from 99% factional-Protestant to 23% non-affiliated, and a civic people reformed voting by only 5% of free citizens to 100% of all non-criminal citizens. Consider your civic neighbors and their collaboration for Security. Notice that the super-majority in traffic collaborate for Security. Regardless of religious affiliation or none, perhaps 2/3 collaborate for Security in all civic connections and transactions.

 

The 1/3 dissidents include people who are innocent, ignorant, criminal, evil or otherwise alien to Security. The 2/3 would either reform or constrain the 1/3. In a civic culture, every real-no-harm religion flourishes according to believers’ preferences. However, religion cannot be imposed on a civic people---the 2/3 who want Security. We are at an assent from a nadir in civic morality, and we can accelerate reform by understanding the preamble and calling ourselves “we a civic people” to distinguish from the 1/3 against Security. The 1/3 are included in “we the people” yet need reform or to be constrained.

 

Being a civic person is a choice. Statutory law can be enforced, but no one can force civic morality or public-integrity. However, a willing civic people can establish Security.

Today’s Thought. Bone up on the-indisputable-facts-of-reality, hereafter The Facts. For all I know, God is responsible for The Facts, but I doubt it.

  

Shelter at home (Edwards). Tacitly, Gov. Edwards disparages the witnesses of citizens who were interviewed for The Advocate’s article. I’m listening to the people.

 

Each time Gene Mills writes a letter to the editor, I nudge LFF to get someone else to represent them. I’m beginning to get the same feeling about the people of Louisiana: If a letter to the editor is needed, get someone other than a whiner to write it.

 

Security (Daigle). Great letter.

 

One suggestion. Consider writing "what 'we the civic people' want" rather than “we the people.” The change would express two points: 1) we the people includes dissidents, criminals, evils and other aliens against Security and 2) a super-majority of people understand and practice the civic agreement that is proposed in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, even though they don't express appreciation for each other for that way of living.

 

When elected officials act against the civic agreement in the preamble, they choose to be of “we the people” but exclude themselves, personally as citizens, from “we the civic people.” It seems to me Landrieu chooses “we the people” rather than "we the civic people of the United States."

 

BTW: Some justices on the Supreme Court use their webs of erroneous opinion to justify 5:4 opinions that rebuke the preamble. Some justices choose to place themselves outside “we the civic people of the United States.”

Cal Thomas column. You are tacitly writing that Trump assumes the ends justify the means, and I do not agree with you. We’ll see.

 

Dana Milbank column.  Trump has the capacity for correction. The press has no capacity for shame.

Robert Samuelson column.  Trump offers transparency rather than isolationism. Prudent parties will recognize opportunity and behave likewise. The enemy will keep on being secretive IMO. We’ll see.

Clarence Page column.  Well written and provocative.

  

However, IMO the press loses. Page could have made the point that Obama’s election was historic for the world. For the first time a biracial man who is tagged black was elected president of the USA. The popularity overseas was notable, so it won’t surprise me if Trump’s overseas viewership was less.

 

But I most appreciate Page’s attempt to deal with other peoples’ efforts to analyze Trump’s practice:  “truthful hyperbole” or “alternative facts” and perhaps Trump’s own “exaggeration.”

 

IMO, Trump’s conduct throughout the campaign until now is based on his assertion that most members of the press have an agenda and do whatever they can to force their agenda onto the people. It’s not only the press: It’s academia. I refuted a professor in a presentation at the LSU School of Mass Communications: I heard the falsehood that public policy is determined by public opinion (and mass comm determines public opinion). She wanted me to take a course and I wanted her to read the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

 

Quoting Page, “. . . in a courtroom . . . Each side has its set of facts and the other side has its . . . facts.” Page illustrates that some artists assemble words without regard for meaning. An alternative statement is: In court, each side renders opinion when the-indisputable-facts are not known (borrowing words from my friend Gordon). For example, when DNA proves parenthood, opinion is impertinent.
 
When the media or anyone approaches Trump with opinion, Trump responds with exaggeration. If the other party offers to collaborate on the-indisputable-facts, Trump is prepared and has a warm smile. We’ll see if my opinion must reform to the-indisputable-facts.

 

Page reminds me of some past failures in integrity IMO. To my knowledge, George Washington never publically admitted to himself the help in both strategy and military power he enjoyed from France at Yorktown, VA, in 1781. And Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address revised the establishment of the nation from 1788 to 1776, when formerly loyal British subjects declared 13 states each independent from England. In 1783, the 13 independent states signed a treaty to that effect. Lincoln’s woeful revision has cost we, the civic people of the United States dreadfully.
 

Mexico debates (Page 1A). Stopping the coyotaje business alone would help both the US and Mexico. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyotaje. It might hurt any Vatican-Edwards-partnership yet improve the Louisiana economy. We’ll see. 

 

Aging tax (Page 1A). A civic people may collaborate for civic morality anytime they perceive it is their duty to themselves. Just as a person may earn a living to enjoy freedom from tyranny, he or she may work for civic justice in order to have the liberty to live according to personal preferences.

Flood aid (Page 1A). I’ll never forget Gov. John Bel Edwards telling me he could not, if elected, work with Senator Bill Cassidy, a member of the other party. It seems Gov. Edwards does not regard the people of Louisiana as number one in his part of the world.

Wary of new mayor (Page 1A). I’m wary of public imposition of her God and Dialogues on Race.

Colleges in charge of their budgets (Page 3A). College give-aways should be cut until they stop promoting liberal democracy, Alinsky-Marxist movements, infidelity, socialism, communism, racism, public-opinion-control, and other wasteful fluff. The human being is too psychologically powerful to be ultimately manipulated.

Wildlife, fisheries (Page 3A). I trust Auditor Daryl Purpera’s office and find Barham’s story weak.

Louisiana vs The People (Jan. 26, Page 1A).  Charles Foster Kane:

Your reaction is typical. People look for a reason to dismiss a civic person---someone who likes the common-sense of the preamble to the constitution for the USA and lives by it.

Regarding fellow citizens based on blood color rather than skin-color is a great concept no matter who made me aware of it. It changed my regard for “togetherness” and “solidarity.” You choose to reject the concept and bring in a lot of side-issues about Trump. That is known as the straw-man fallacy.

I seek people who want public-integrity and think 2/3 of the people are willing to iteratively collaborate, defining the 1/3 dissenters. It’s a personal choice that can change anytime.

I hope you join a civic people. 9/17 is not important.

Federal raid on charter school offices (Page 2B). More black-eyes for charter schools as public schools. This example needs immediate attention. I’m thinking administration of charter schools needs to be brought back into state control rather than entrepreneurial opportunity: too much administrative expense, less assurance of teacher qualifications, too much opportunity for indoctrinating children in a religion, etc.

Also, we need more oversight on public schools to assure that the huge budgets are not being churned for adult satisfactions rather than children learning.

Other dialogues:

quora.com/Do-you-support-gender-equality/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

Do you support gender equality?

IMO, each person may remain faithful to the physical gender with which he or she is born. It is popular to think that if at some point in life’s journey a person decides his or her psychology is opposite his or her body, he or she may change.

 

Alternatively, he or she may seek help from a civic practitioner. This is a new field of service that springs from the collaboration with my friend Brij Mohan, who wishes to elevate “social work” to “social practice” and my wish to elevate “social morality” to “civic morality.”

 

In civic morality, a person continuously works to comprehend the-indisputable-facts-of-reality, hereafter The Facts. He or she then works to maintain fidelity to The Facts, self, immediate family, extended families, the people, the nation, the world, and the universe, both respectively and collectively. Hereafter, this collective practice is called Fidelity.

 

I support gender equality respecting the human quest for Fidelity.

 

I have written before on this topic, and some of my answers may be found at the following:

quora.com/What-is-socioeconomic-equity/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-be-a-man-in-terms-of-feminism/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

quora.com/Do-you-believe-that-equality-for-men-and-women-exists-in-todays-world-If-not-do-you-think-it-ever-will/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

 

The last URL lists other answers.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts about my responses.

 

quora.com/In-a-capitalist-society-will-there-always-be-a-lower-class/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

In a capitalist society will there always be a "lower" class?

It seems so.

 

There must be innovation. Innovation requires creativity and personal risk. Most people just want to live, and therefore, most people prefer to work for the entrepreneur rather than take risk. The system to support the civic agreement—-you take the risks and rewards and I will work for a living—-places the worker in a lower economic class.

 

However, civic morality requires equal person-hood. I work to establish an American free-enterprise system wherein the worker is paid enough to live and also save&invest so as to build financial security. It requires the lower economic class to actually save&invest! It also requires him/her to collaborate for public-integrity so that GNP may be distributed so as to support life plus save&invest for the most menial needed service. The minimum income may require a higher percentage to cover save&invest, so that part of pay may need to be held in an account like an IRA.

 

The working person in the lower economic class must be well-educated, must earn a living and save&invest, and must iteratively collaborate for civic justice.

 

People who do not care to work or contribute to civic justice forfeit freedom.

Phil Beaver does not “know”. Phil trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood. Phil Beaver is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, an education non-profit. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.