January 29, 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:  It seems The Advocate did not read its Page 1A article yesterday on the deficit. Therein, Gov. Edwards was quoted, “We should have addressed the overgrowth of government many years ago.” 

 

". . . a grand bargain, giving conservatives lower tax rates and giving liberals new revenues . . ." Relief rather than legislative bargain is what the people of Louisiana need. The Advocate promotes income taxation.

Most egregiously, The Advocate plays the "no option" voice of Barack Obama: the civic people are obstructionists. Without a civic people, there are no income-tax revenues.

BTW: Both The Advocate and Edwards need to accept that Obama has overtly resurfaced as an Alinsky-Marxist organizer, but a civic people are more aware of AMO than ever before. But in 2017, the uglier liberal democrats behave, the weaker their causes. And President Trump, different as he may be, cannot serve as a scape-goat for what a civic people independently perceive.

 

Our Views Jan. 28 La Supreme Court abuse: I wrote to my state representatives and requested an amendment to the Louisiana Constitution or whatever it takes to relieve a civic people of this abuse.

The offenders you mentioned, especially lawyers and judges, deny first responders the civil right to perform to the best of their ability . . . so help them God.

 

It is one of the greatest tyrannies I have witnessed. It denies DA's and investigators' civil rights, too.

 

By this I do not intend to condone first-responder-vigilantism. I am objecting to the vigilantism by lawyers and judges that puts hardened criminals back on the streets to threaten first responders.

Today’s Thought. Thanks for Dean-relief.

Liberal intolerance (Evans, Jan 27). To Glen Miller: I appreciate your interest.

 
Few citizens regard the preamble as the key to Americanism, as I do. In fact, some people either think the preamble was never intended for them or simply oppose it. Opposition existed in 1787-8, and Patrick Henry lobbied to change the subject from "the people" to "the states."

Here’s the preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I’d be interested in your paraphrase as well as Pascanal Petreoff’s. Mine is: We the civic people under our state constitutions, in order to collaborate for the purposes stated in this sentence, specify, establish, and maintain the USA. The modifier “civic” denotes the people who agree to the contract created by the preamble. People who do not agree, intentionally or not, by definition, oppose the agreement.

The signers of the preamble knew why they did not modify to “We the Civic People of the United States.” I speculate that they wanted to express a noble aim of 100% of citizens in agreement to the purposes and aims of the USA. They made this distinction in the articles that followed by not repeating the phrase “we the people.” They used “the people of the several States” once and “citizens” seven times. The amended constitution may have different statistics.

Only 2/3 of representatives for the 13 states signed the preamble and the 1787 draft constitution. I speculate that today’s population has about the same split regarding the preamble: about 2/3 of the people tacitly practice the purposes stated therein.

I work to bring the distinction “civic,” as committing to the preamble, to the people’s attention. I hope to increase the fraction so as to promote public-integrity. Thereby, civic citizens may by example approach the totality: We the People of the United States.

  

James Gill column. The civil rights of first responders, such as NOPD and the DA & investigators, are being denied by Landrieu. They are assigned responsibility for public safety with no support from Landieu, criminal trial lawyers, and judges. Thank goodness La AG Jeff Landry is gathering first-hand information.

 

“Landrieu and the council are on a mission to expand the police department, which might seem a logical response to the crime stats. But a city that seeks more arrests and fewer prosecutions at the same time clearly isn't thinking straight.”

 

Cannizzaro: “the revolving door of the criminal justice system will be put on overdrive and dangerous defendants will be placed back on the streets.” Whose lives will be threatened first? NOPD.

 

“Perhaps, one of these days, citizens will surround City Hall in protest.” A civic people may come out of the closet of indifference anytime they wake up to the-indisputable-facts-of-reality rather than politically dominant opinion.

 

Mark Ballard column.  “Gov. John Bel Edwards and his team have made little effort to build consensus.” IMO Edwards mimics Barack Obama with this tactic: Build a liberal-democrat fear-argument then accuse the other side of obstructing progress.

 

Rep. Ted James seems to speak in code. IMO, NBR constituents, like me, are hit hard by sales tax. On the other hand, many of those constituents benefit from federal redistribution paid by me. Regardless, I want the state to reduce spending in order to stop the extra sales tax.

I urge both James and Foil to resist Edwards’ desire to increase the taxes I pay, whether property tax, income tax, sales tax or service fees. I feel threatened by taxation and inflation, and if you kill me (the taxpayer), there goes your opportunity to feed government and redistribution.

More importantly, better economic times are coming, and Louisiana government largesse should have been curtailed years ago (quoting Edwards). Resist Gov. Edwards' steady-work to instill fear: boldly reduce Louisiana spending.

Stephanie Grace column.  I like that. David Vitter fame: “his thick skin.”

Jeff Sadow column.  Sadow suggested climatechangereconsidered.org/ from which I quote “Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.”

 

Recall that the 193 United Nations like it that the US pays 28% of activities and 22% of operating budgets. In other words, We the Civic People of the United States are victims not only of the liberal democrats among “we, the people,” our pockets are being picked big time by “we, the nations.”

Sadow overlooks subsidence, which is a Louisiana problem totally disconnected from global warming and sea-level. In other words, every penny spent on global warming rather than subsidence could be a total loss. See livescience.com/4186-real-reason-louisiana-sinking.html .

I agree with Sadow: Reject the coastal plan.

George Will column.  Will should opine about baseball rather than Trump-attack. It will get worse as Trump’s administration establishes new federal offices and regulations.
 

In this case, Will’s narrow essay on domestic distribution methods discounts Trump’s focus on bringing manufacturing back to the USA. Amazon distributes products. Trump’s plan is to change the mix of products from mostly overseas sources to domestic sources without destroying other civic nations.

Schedler on fraud (Page 1B). Schedler did not directly address the specific Trump issues: registration in two states and dead voters. Also, there’s the question of fraudulent papers, known by the voter and whoever helped with the preparation but not by the registrars of voters.

Also, consider Donna Brazile perhaps furnishing questions to Hillary Clinton before the debate: washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donna-brazile-fired-cnn-contributor/ . Question her about voter registration drives over her tenure as a liberal Democrat.

If someone interviews people, registers them to vote, escorts them to their precinct, instructs them on how to vote, and knows the person has no idea what they are doing, that is voter-fraud IMO.

Ex-officiers (Page 1B). Cold as my thoughts may be, it seems important for men to note from this case: A man may protect a woman rather than leave. And a woman may allow the police to “tow her car and arrest her and her male companion” rather than compromise her person.

Travel ban (Page 1A). IMO the ban was stated well and suffered the predicable transition problems. I got caught in several events like that myself. For example, in 1978, I had to suddenly fly home because of a technology-trade embargo. Not to make little of the present pains.

“House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said . . . “[Trump] is doing more to shut down terrorist pathways into this country than the last administration did in eight years.”

Texas mosque fire (Page 2A). The loss is terrible. If arson, it is awful.

Safer U.S. (Page 7A). 240,000 murders since 9/11! War losses, 6,640. See journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/us-military-casualty-statistics-costs-war-iraq-afghanistan-post-911 .

Poll (Page 11A). Public opinion polls should be a thing of the past.

Lobbying and Islamic State plan (Page 12A). Each was a campaign promise, and Trump moved fast.

The Opposition (Page 14A).  It’s not the media; it’s the lying media.

 

Voter fraud (Page 14A). Fraud comes when a party hauls someone to the polls with instructions but no personal preferences on the issues.

Tech companies (Page 14A). They speak for their preferences but can manage the change.

Week 1 (Page 15A). Thanks for sharing Trump’s humor: “This is a little weird, isn’t it,” to Obama on the way to the inauguration. We’ll know if Obama heard that.

Other dialogues:

quora.com/Is-there-a-reasonable-limit-to-how-far-out-of-ones-%E2%80%9Cecho-chamber%E2%80%9D-one-needs-to-reach/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

Is there a reasonable limit to how far out of one's “echo chamber” one needs to reach?

I have been trying hard to break out of my comfort zone, and listen and understand opposing views. But there are some views I find incomprehensible. White power advocates, conspiracy theorists, various forms of reality-denial, etc. At what point is it acceptable to close one’s ears?

Phil Beaver

Second answer: You’re commenting on Phil Beaver’s answer but seem to be writing to someone else: White Supremacist.

I’ll skip to your question. “Morality” is the duality good and evil. In any action or thought, a person may choose good or evil. However, he or she may choose a standard by which to judge. For public-integrity, the standard must be the-indisputable-facts-of-reality, hereafter, The Facts.

In civic morality, two parties try to behave so that both of them conform to The Facts. For example, we know that the earth is like a globe, so we may share that fact and conform to it. However, while it is statistically probable that there is extraterrestrial intelligent being, we do not know. Again, we may share The Fact of not knowing.

However, one party may choose an opinion and try to impose that opinion on the party that prefers “I don’t know and accept that I don’t know.” The imposing or coercive behavior—-trying to impose an opinion on someone who does not hold that opinion—-is immoral. Say for example that the believing party is going to send expensive signals into space, intelligently choosing the kind and manner of signal. He or she proposes a tax so that the other must help pay for the signals. Merely approaching the other party to request payment is immoral.

I hope I have explained both morality and civic morality according to public-integrity.

quora.com/?__nsrc__=4

How would you summarize the purpose of life in one sentence?

Each human may discover the opportunity to perfect his or her unique person before dying.

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.