July 15, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening when people share experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to write.

Note 1:  I often dash words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, a person expresses his “belief,” knowing he or she could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.
 Note 2: It is important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the people more than for the city.

A personal paraphrase of the preamble by & for Phil Beaver:  Willing people in our state routinely, voluntarily collaborate for comprehensive safety and security: continuity (for self, children, grandchildren & beyond), integrity (both fidelity and wholeness),  justice (freedom-from oppression), defense (prevent or constrain harm), prosperity (acquire the liberty-to pursue choices), privacy (responsibly discover & pursue personal goals), lawfulness (obey the law and reform injustices); and to preserve and cultivate the rule of law for the USA’s service to the people in their states.
Composing their own paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive whether they are willing or dissident toward the preamble.  

Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_54e600be-6729-11e7-bba8-4f57af639f26.html)

Quoting, “[Thoreau] wrote plainly and directly, advancing the American notion that one should say what he means. In these days of obfuscation and double-talk, we need such examples now more than 

ever.”

On reading these thoughts one is constrained to confront The Advocate’s hypocrisy; but not to linger. 

Thoreau seems guilty of honestly expressing no integrity---not doing the work to understand and represent the-objective-truth. James Comey’s perhaps nanny-state honesty mirrors Thoreau. The-objective-truth that has been discovered makes itself plain to all people who strive for integrity. Also, it provides theory about the unknowns and thereby doubt in constructs that don’t fit the facts. The open-minded person asserts, “I don’t know, and I refuse to believe what I don’t know.” A debate about Thoreau’s failures is shared in Donovan Hohn’s “Everybody Hates Henry,” newrepublic.com/article/123162/everybody-hates-henry-david-thoreau.

  

What seems outstanding about the American culture is the will to discover integrity by living rather than by studying. Americans read and listen for the essence then look for public integrity in the faces and actions of neighbors, "we, the people." For 230 years, regimes have obfuscated and denigrated as secular the civic agreement that is offered by the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Yet willing people, strengthened by the American meme, maintain an ineluctable march toward comprehensive safety and security despite dissidents, domestic and foreign.

The 2017 press has been confronted by President Donald Trump, who carries a warm smile, dedication to just enough news to know the essence, and the power to respond to liars. His approach is to confront lies with lies; honesty with honesty; integrity with integrity. He follows up with “We’ll see how it goes.” The sooner the press wakes up, the better. But the road from the press’s habitual lies, innuendo, anonymity, to honesty is difficult, and the path to integrity seems daunting.

However, the elements of integrity are straightforward: 1) do the work to understand whether you are addressing the-objective-truth or a mirage, 2) do the work to understand the-objective-truth and how to benefit, 3) act according to understanding; publicly share the reasons for your behavior, and 4) be alert to new discovery or viewpoint that requires understanding to change.

I hope someday I’ll think of my hometown newspaper as a free and responsible press. It will come when it seems my work for understanding leads to the conclusion that they collaborate for public integrity rather than to impose a dominant opinion.

To JT McQuitty: I agree. It seems the writer for The Advocate never acquired the perception that the best life requires only one opportunity with "Walden," because the person wants to get on to the next opportunity, whether it be Plato or King, as in Martin Luther, Jr.

  

(I'm one of those rare persons who thinks Emerson is worth many recycles. It took me 20 years, with as many re-readings, to get the kernel in Divinity School Address: Phil Beaver, you have the psychological power to perfect yourself---oh what a message. But Robert Ingersoll can be effective on one reading.)

Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Psalms 136:1, CJB). “Give thanks to ADONAI, for he is good, for his grace continues forever.” 

Dean says “Take time to thank the Lord. It will be time well spent.”

The 2017 Templeton Prize winner relieves us of Dean’s mysteries about evil. “Plantinga counters that in a world with free creatures, God cannot determine their behavior, so even an omnipotent God might not be able to create a world where all creatures will always freely choose to do good.” Thus, if we do good, it is on us.

I am grateful for every breath I take; every smile I see; every song I hear; every sprig I dig or plant; every thought I share; every rebuke I experience; every bloom I deliver to MWW. It is all part of life, which I appreciate.

Letters.

Election contributions (Burke). (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_8c72ebd6-67e8-11e7-b41a-93a8b773362b.html)

To Victor Roscoe: I agree with you. Burke’s propaganda, reading above the lines, may be summarized: To be a sovereign citizen, make certain your vote is grounded in public integrity.

Regarding energy supply, Democrats will push for “renewables” before they are economically feasible, which places the public in double jeopardy, as some of the renewable technologies will fail. Also, the energy that contributes to everything that goes into renewable technologies rides on the back of fossil fuels, so premature development adds to fossil fuel consumption.

In general, beware non-profits. Most are supported by “philanthropists” who are pushing either a business plan or an ideology that cannot stand the test of public collaboration.

For example, most persons did not negotiate their before-conception: would they negotiate their after-death without the philanthropically imposed fear of the unknown?

Shameful physician coalitions (Bonnyman). (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b72b9a22-67f1-11e7-8108-df4ba3dc9e95.html)

To Scuddy LeBlanc: Physicians who write these letters for some reason don’t fear the future. They supported Obamacare before Ms. Pelosi found out what was in it.

Now, we know what was in it was financial disaster for people who were happy with their insurance and happy with their doctors as well as everyone else.

Humankind is too psychologically powerful to cooperate with the proposal: I’ll nourish my appetites and you pay the bill.

Bonnyman and others who want to continue the gravy train may be begging woe. I’d like to see the list of 100 who signed Bonnyman’s letter.

   

Columns. (The fiction/non-fiction comments gallery for readers)

  

Long a Sterling-vigilante shooter, June 30 theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_5d0cd146-5dc9-11e7-bed4-6f2b3845350e.html

Most people are willing to collaborate for a culture of comprehensive safety and security. However, the evidence is that the people are divided between the willing and the dissidents. Among the dissidents are individuals who want to establish dominance not on the-objective-truth but on coercion, force, and/or violence. Coercion can be subtle, such as insisting on a mixed constitution---one that maintains classism. Some dissidence is dehumanizing.

A willing people must respond to violence. They choose statutory law to challenge dissidents to consider collaboration for comprehensive safety and security. Statutory law requires enforcement.

Vigilante law, for justice, requires the people to understand and prepare for enforcement; everybody carries a gun and is trained to kill. Vigilantism has been proven ineffective, yet some factions thrive on vigilantism, for example, by disruption. A willing people authorize local police to be first responders when persons threaten the public with violence. State police support the local police. Willing people maintain the National Guard against organized violence.

There are dissidents who imagine their violence will overcome first responders. Dissidents who so act invite woe, and woe often comes in unexpected ways, sometimes, death.

 
Most people are willing to defend the police against violence in all circumstances except police vigilantism. When the police become vigilantes, the people willingly constrain the police. But being human does not equate to police vigilantism.

 
The USA seems to be split 45% each for and against with 10% other. We might reform to 2/3 for and 1/3 dissident-and-other if the willing collaborate for comprehensive safety and security. The consequences may be freedom-from oppression and the opportunity to earn the liberty-to pursue personal preferences rather than submit to opinionated dominance.

 
These are my opinions and hopes for a better future. I hope most citizens would either agree or correct my oversights. Most of all, I want to collaborate on the adjective “comprehensive,” and offer ideas when I perceive opportunity.

Other forums 

quora.com/The-price-of-liberty-is-eternal-vigilance-Thomas-Jefferson-My-question-is-is-liberty-absolute-freedom-worth-it/

A friend and I have skirted discussing this quite a bit lately. Just the other day, we were questioning without resolution, the meaning of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. In some earlier, European non-fiction, “property” took the place of “happiness.” Many scholars justify opinion of what was meant by the five authors led by Thomas Jefferson. However, many 17th and 18th century writers equivocated “liberty” and “freedom,” leaving readers in doubt.

I use a dash trick to distinguish them: Whether a person has freedom-from oppression or not, he or she may acquire the liberty-to pursue personal preferences rather than adopt or yield-to arbitrary opinion.

Freedom-from arbitrary opinion is a communitarian function that is constrained by human collaboration—-and necessity—-to conform to the-objective-truth. In other words, humankind cannot have freedom-from the facts of reality. Thus, I don’t think “absolute freedom” is possible.

Liberty-to pursue personal preference may involve acquisition of power or wealth so as to, for example, responsibly fly to the moon and back. However, the individual may opt to, by progressing in integrity, perfect his or her unique person; in other words depart every connection with justice for both parties. Some earn the liberty-to live an exemplary life as they perceive it.

I am a USA citizen and happily work to maintain the liberty-to live according to my preferences. The more I learn the more I realize I have never had freedom-from oppression.

The principal tyranny in the USA is freedom of religion, an institution, when what people need is freedom of thought, a moral duty. Bemusement by religion, an American inheritance from England, prevents most citizens from collaborating for civic morality derived from the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion.

However, with an open mind, a person has the liberty-to pursue personal preferences even when freedom-from oppression is not available. It is well worth earning the open-mindedness to pursue liberty-to choose.

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