April 26, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening to other people’s experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to express facts, opinion, or concern, perhaps to share with people who may follow the blog.
Note:  I often connect words in a phrase with dashes in order to represent an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, the writer expresses his “belief,” knowing he could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.

The Advocate:  See online at theadvocate.com/baton_rouge

Our Views. In 516 words, The Advocate insults the reader, the sheriffs, the DA’s, and other prime responders to crime as well as judges: “Have the courage to do what Texas did.”

Worst of all, releasing criminals imposes further legislative and judicial injustice onto first-responders, especially the police---the people's protectors. It is denial of first-responders civil rights to a job sponsored by management.

Dismissing my petty naiveté, am I to understand that stealing a $600 cellphone places the thief in possession and thereby exposes him/her to a minimum six month to maximum 10 year sentence? I know judges are aware of the range and think cell-phone thieves should be informed, too. Maybe I missed the point. Should the cellphone cost be a consideration? Should it cover even free cellphones? I think so.

If The Advocate’s awareness does not rise above stolen-cellphone possession, they know nothing. I don’t think that is so, but why not address important issues, like keeping Christianity, an institution that promotes hopes for the afterdeath, out of provisions to preserve public life?

And is it moral and true that long-serving inmates should be released to save towering medical costs? Would release actually shift the cost to a different state-paid medical coverage? Is there a shred of public-integrity in this argument?

The Advocate further insults the reader by publishing on the same page Warren Montgomery’s substantive, objective letter. Montgomery's statements reflect public-integrity: Four of ten bills need amendment to make them acceptable to protect the public; wholesale revision of the Criminal Code is premature; oppose the release of criminals; rehabilitation programs need to be in place rather than proposed; local issues may be resolved at the local level. I urge legislators to 1) listen to Montgomery and others who actually work in the criminal system and incorporate their proposals, 2) provide for mental patients caught in the prison system, and especially 3) incorporate legislation that both reduces judicial costs and increases public safety by making efficient use of DNA evidence.

Because serious considerations are not being addressed, I'd like to see the bills that do not respond to Montgomery, the sheriffs, and other public servants sidelined for better preparation. For time to consider DNA benefits, I hope the death-penalty bill sidelines, too,

Today’s thought, Psalms 100:3. David expressed opinion 3000 years ago, perhaps 0.1% back on humankind’s timeline. See blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral18.cfm.  

Humankind has discovered exponentially more since then.

Regardless of how the universe came to be, it benefits each person to understand and make best use of the leading edge of discovery, comprehension, and understanding.

Access to information, on the Internet, empowers each living human to make the most of their perhaps singular opportunity to discover and perfect their person.

Letters

Legislators should not oppose the people’s first responders (Montgomery). To ignore Montgomery and others opposes public-integrity.

Citizens may justifiably ask legislators and the administration, “When are you going to stop opposing public-integrity?”

I see no role for Christianity for addressing Montgomery’s concerns and wonder why The Advocate brought that faction into the picture. Everyone knows that “the Christian thing to do,” is controversial, often opposing public-integrity as well as statutory law.

Capital outlay (Pizer). To William Bonin: I would hate to see the end of John Bel, but he could blame others.
 
Legislature, please consider citizen Pizer’s idea.

 

Liberal democracy (Maumus). Equating taxes to “dues to belong to civilized society,” is an attempt at coercion not to be tolerated.

 

This is the land of freedom from oppression so that a person may earn the liberty to pursue their private perception of happiness rather than conform to an ideology. Neither freedom nor liberty comes from redistribution:  I yield to neither civilization nor society in the hope for public-integrity.

 

How can nonsense like “taxes to fund . . . our prosperity,” enter even a liberal-democrat mind?

With a change of essence I can borrow some words from the letter: a continually bloated budget “is dereliction of duty.” The sales-tax-pretense was public immorality. 

  

Justice reform (Gele’). I agree with your focus on education.

Gele does not address comparisons of education in this state vs other states. As education goes up, crime goes down. With its low education status, Louisiana logically has high incarceration.

When I see Alinsky rules in practice I think, Ahah; another Alinsky-Marxist organizer (AMO).

Rule No. 5: ridicule the opposition. Quoting Gele, “Criminal justice reform does threaten old mindsets, and disrupts entrenched governmental interests.”

I prefer Montgomery letter to Gele’s and The Advocate’s “Our Views.”

Walt Handelsman liberal democracy cartoon. I hope Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sees The Advocate's cartoon, regardless of where they got it. 

That's just the tip of an iceberg of my gratitude that my vote was joined by others---majority voters in 84% of US counties.

 

I wonder what makes The-Advocateville an alien village. Come on, people, join the USA.

Carville (April 24). To Fanaafi Fauese Mapuna Chapman: In 1774, the thirteen eastern seaboard colonies above Florida had formed a confederation of states in perpetuity, or forever. 

 

The states declared independence from England in 1776. With strategy and military power from France at Jamestown, VA, they won the deciding battle. Defeated, England first negotiated a treaty with France, then agreed in the Treaty of Paris, 1783, that the thirteen American states were independent, naming each of them.

 
 

Five year later, nine of the states established and ordained the USA, and within a couple years, all thirteen of the original states had joined. The preamble claims that willing people in their states established and ordained the USA.

 
 

If the people in the seven CSA states had been attentive to the purpose and aims stated in the preamble, they would not have allowed their state legislatures to fire on Fort Sumter.

 
 

These issues have to do with awareness of commitments, purpose and aims by willing people rather than skin-color or slavery.

To Lee Brotherton: Excellent point.

 

And what about the 98% of free inhabitants who, had they the common practice of staying well informed of the facts and empowered by the preamble to the constitution for the USA, would have marched on Charleston, S.C. in 1860 and demanded that John C. Calhoun sit down and shut up.

 

More importantly, well aware that they would not want to be a slave, walked away from the Christian ministers who were preaching that the Bible supports black-slavery as an institution of God?

 

We have the same dilemma today. Perhaps 1/3 of citizens perceive they live according to the preamble, 1/3 are vaguely aware that it does not come from The Declaration of Intendance, and 1/3 are dissidents---uninformed, young, criminal, evil, and otherwise alien to public-security.

The preamble is a civic-agreement that says: the willing people in this state, in order to succeed with this purpose and these goals, hereby establish and ordain the USA. Two-hundred, thirty years of unnecessary neglect have brought the people to 2017 dysfunction.

  

Michael Gerson column, “How can our political bubbles be popped?”. At last, a great column by Gerson. 

 

He’s beginning to see that Trump, with all due derision, challenges everyone to public-integrity. But Gerson has only begun to think, as indicated by some of his expressions.

 

What’s the mystery of Crate and Barrel America? Does it imply digging in unpleasant places? Does it represent classism? And what on earth is truth? Why is human dignity more important than psychological power? Why enter the experiences of others when appreciating their contribution to public-security is sufficient until they offer to share their thoughts. Why is empathy chosen over appreciation?

 

It matters not if Obama is Muslim, black, or white, as long as he volunteers public-integrity. But there is no integrity in focusing on skin color. A journalist would be able to make that point.

 

And Bush’s travesty was invading Iraq. A journalist would address it.

 

Lastly, Trump voters were the majority in 84% of US counties, so distribution of Cracker Barrels by county is not very important.

 

Regardless it seems Gerson is beginning to think.

 

E. J. Dionne column. I appreciate the news about Obama traveling to Hawaii alone. Dionne could have reminded us of this report: “On Friday, Lynch expressed regret about meeting with Clinton but declined calls to recuse herself from the investigation.” See http://govtslaves.info/happy-4th-of-july-hillary-clinton-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/ for more including the FBI meeting.

 

Guest column on “science” (April 21). To GM King: I seek input from readers in order to lessen failures. Few readers grant the effort, but you did. 

 

Thank you for convincing me that “civic” does not work for “public-integrity.” “Civics” use elsewhere is tenuous, but so far, not respecting whether or not a person trusts and commits to the preamble to the USA. So far, that group remains "a civic people". It’s neither a secular agreement nor a public agreement, rather it addresses the community of humankind.

If there are no objections, the first time I revise "civic-morality" to "public-morality," I will footnote "Revised from “civic-morality” after dialogue with GM King, “Federal help still key for saving gulf,” The Advocate online comments, April 21, 2017, online at theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_993aeff0-25f1-11e7-a2d3-63082349626f.html."

I think it will be in these two sentences: “Voluntary public-integrity expresses a way of living. Most people mutually discover public-morality using the-objective-truth rather than submit to dominate-opinion or political-power. Thus, most people conform to public-integrity not by force or coercion but by personal will.”
 
Merriam-Webster supports my use of “civic”: Legal Definition of CIVIC: of or relating to a citizen, a city, citizenship, or civil affairs.

I use “civic” as “relating to a citizen.” “Citizen” is the subject of much debate. I apply it to citizen of humankind. I use “civic” to represent collaboration by two parties for justice where they happen to be at the time of the transaction or connection. Thus, it is not limited to the city, state, country, even the world or setting, urban or rural—it can be in outer space. Their collaboration is not obligated to past opinion. This way of living rises above civilizations, laws, opinion, pure-reason, regulation, etc., and can only conform to the-objective-truth, which I neither know nor can discover by myself. By all means, the-objective-truth does not conform to imagination. Humankind is in the process of discovering the-objective-truth and each person who enjoys freedom from oppression may benefit from the leading edge throughout their lifetime rather than being bound to past opinion or tradition. My usage is not wrong, and may be developed by willing collaborators.
 
While the above paragraphs are mine, I would not have written it except to respond to you. Thank you.

Council votes 37% pay raise (Page 3B). It seems to me some city officials and others work together to increase pay beyond salary----create a personal reward system.

It seems like the unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain. 

Voters may keep track of who participates in this form of picking the people’s pockets and not ever vote for them again.

Phil Beaver does not “know” the-indisputable-facts. 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, education non-profit. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.