Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge: 10-2 jury debate

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for responsible freedom more than for the city, state, nation, or other institution.

A personal paraphrase of the June 21, 1788 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement: Willing citizens of nine of the thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in the purpose and goals stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and the children --- and to cultivate limited USA services to us and our states. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

Our Views

May 15 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_f178d0e6-5300-11e8-be1f-bbdbc9751ed9.html)

Marsha Marshal, 6/16/2018

Mr. Beaver, the facts of American law are just that, facts, based on the actual objective truth, not the Beaverite Preambist dogma.

The rest of us live in this real world of functioning American law and jurisprudence. You live in your Own Private Denham Springs with your EBRPL meeting followers, assuming any of them are real and not figments of your imagination.

You continue to fail to recognize you were in a civil trial, not a criminal trial. And in Louisiana law, like many other states, civil trial jury decisions don't have to be unanimous. Changing those civil trial procedures isn't on the ballot November 6th. Changing criminal trial procedure for 12-person juries is. That's not an opinion. That's how state law works.

My vision of an achievable, better future is Louisiana going to jury unanimity on November 6th. That's what I'm working towards.

I still don't see what principality Mr. Obama is the sovereign over. Is it High-poppa-Lorum or Low-poppa-Highrum?

LikeReply3h

To Marsha Marshal: Why Denham Springs rather than Watson? Let me take this opportunity to again thank Steve Crump for suggesting (five years ago) that EBRP library rooms were civically appropriate for preambling: what a liberating idea he had.

Addressing me "Mr. Beaver" is abusive: you may call me Ray.

June 14 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8e9d3c26-6e7d-11e8-b9fe-7fbd6152aabf.html)

I was concerned when the GOP backed David Vitter for governor and delighted that the people did not agree; I hope the GOP failed again. (I have to admit I now think they correctly passed on Jay Dardenne, for whom I campaigned on perceived fiscal reliability.) The Advocate failed their first opportunity to balance views on Louisiana’s 10-2 jury treasure.

Typically, The Advocate personnel diabolically used all they learned from social sciences and journalism schools to control their presentation with words and phrases that obfuscate opposing interests and concerns. Criminals create victims. The reason for a justice system is to deter criminals by defending victims. The object is victim justice rather than criminal justice!!! Victim justice begins with identifying the criminal rather than an innocent party. The victim is not defended by conviction of an accused innocent.

The Advocate falsely represents data coming from crime actually dominated by blacks. Most crime is black on black. I have no idea how someone thought of Louisiana’s brilliant 9-3 jury vote, but it aids human justice---even if the creativity was motivated by Jim Crow law. The system could be designed for all black jurors when the criminal is black. Would the black community want to return to Louisiana’s earlier 9-3 jury vote? I think so.

[Since posting, I discussed this with MWF, my wonderful family. Civic justice begins with the district attorney’s evidence beyond a shadow of doubt to indict the accused. That process has never been more efficient and fair, especially with progress on using DNA evidence!!

Louisiana’s U.S. constitutional duty is to provide an impartial jury of 12 local citizens. Starting with a large pool of candidates, e.g. 36, each prosecution and defense exercise limits, e.g. 12 each, using both grounded and arbitrary exclusions to enhance both possible unanimity and expected impartiality to select 12 jurors. The selected jury is deemed impartial yet subject to individual psychological error. Systematic error can place a biased citizens on the jury, and that is a failure of civic justice.

Failure to comprehend judicial instructions as well as compassion are psychological. But intent to favor the accused or the victim is bias. Bias has always been a factor and was when Anglo-Saxons touted unanimity within a proprietary society; for them, only 4%, the elites, could vote in elections, whereas today 100% of non-felon adults may vote.

In the system that has evolved from the Anglo-Saxons, even our Supreme Court is known to be biased. The present typology seems to be 4 social democrats, 2 swingers, and 3 constitutional republicans. The Court’s civic morality is further lessened by religious affiliation, 6 Catholics (one controversial) and 3 Jews. In 2018, the American people are ready for a civic culture, but have not the leadership to establish mutual, comprehensive safety and security. A civic culture would be better served by 4-2 rather than 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, Judeo-Christian dominance is causing chaos. The people need civic integrity rather than reason or faith.

Today, the states’ citizens are more individually-independent yet morally-diverse than ever before. Some people want to be fed while they demand more food. Some women want to get naked and scream #metoo. I think 2/3 of citizens develop integrity from age ten until death. With 1/3 dissidents, for a state to provide an impartial jury is a daunting commitment. Louisiana has a justice advantage in comparison with the 48 states that require unanimous juries. The Louisiana advantage is not only in favor of justice but in saving judicial expense. Saving come especially in the cost of exacerbating injustice by exonerating criminals. In other words, victim injustice in a jury trial begs more crime. A civic culture is served by 1) indictment beyond a shadow of doubt and 2) impartial jury decision.

Before 10-2, Louisiana had 9-3 jury rule. I want to understand if the change to 10-2 followed the objective truth or was made on emotional/political bases.

There’s plenty of evidence that 2/3 of citizens collaborate for civic morality. For example, 2/3 of citizens think a woman should have privacy in her decision to remain pregnant; http://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2017/01/26/5-facts-about-abortion/. A study shows that 87% of juries reach decisions conforming to the judge’s opinion; https://www.ipr.northwestern. edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-WP-06-05.pdf. It seems reasonable to think that some jurors, initially biased, reform under the courtroom experience.

Using these assumptions, 2/3 imparital citizens, and 61% of other citizens perhaps inflluenced by positive courtroom influence, we obtain the 87% judge concurrance statistics. We can then compute possibilities with various decision rules and the introduction of biased jurors, who either can or cannot take the 61% courtroom influence. With either 12-0 or 11-1 decision rule, impartiality is not possible in the study, and indeed the reported data for the national results is 13% wrong results according to judges. 

Continuing with the 10-2 rule, 2/3 of 10 jurors may be impartial yet subject to psychological error. But the courtroom influence has 61% chance of convincing the 1/3. Thus, there’s a basic (2+.87)*10/3 =9.57 impartial jurors. The remaining jurors may number 2, 1, or 0, either impartial or biased, giving six possibilities. With 2 biased juror taking the 61% reform the total impartiality becomes 10.4, exceeding 10. With the 10-2 rule there's 50% chance of an impartial jury.

The study shows the sequence of possible impartiality, always with 12 jurors but decision requirement declining by 1 each case, possibility of impartiality follows, in percent starting with 12-0: 0, 0, 17, 50, 60, 67, 79, 81, respectively, ending at 5 required for decision. The study shows a theoretical improvement of 25% on restoring the 9-3 jury rule. Obviously, 0% for 12-0 does not always happen, because the assumptions 1/3 citizens initially dissident to impartiality and 61% reform due to courtroom influence are theoretical. Obviously, with 12-0 or 11-1, one firmly-biased juror is ruinous, and the study shows that 9-3 is required to accommodate one firmly-biased juror. An 8-4 rule would accommodate 2 firmly-biased jurors.

“More than 75% of felony defendants had a prior arrest history, with 69% having multiple prior arrests”; https://www.bjs. gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=23. One is constrained to ask why a Louisiana judge would want more secrecy and the Louisiana legislature would sacrifice the brilliance of the 10-2 jury rule. The 12-0 jury rule would increase revenues to the judicial system personnel: judges, lawyers, DA’s, sheriffs, police departments, and other first responders, such as EMS, fire departments, hospital emergency rooms, medical services, family services, etc! I can even see that it helps revenues for church businesses! Call it judicial churn increased by increasing crime. It is no wonder that the people who want civic integrity may feel attacked from both sides: crime and the judicial system. GOP votes 80% for picking the people’s pockets: Why?

The actual reality is that the systematic repression of the legal power of the preamble to the constitution for the USA is beginning to show its evil. The premise of the preamble is this: willing people authorize and manage, first, themselves and their state constitutions and, second, authorize and limit the USA’s service to the people in their states.

When the preamble was written, there were many dissidents to its goals. But there were two major objections: dissident factions wanted to preserve the confederation of states to govern the eastern seaboard and re-institute American-British common law with American allegiance to God and his son Jesus Christ. The 1787 Signers, 2/3 of representatives of the people, intended to end those two major wants. The Signers collectively differed from many of the people who are hallowed as Founders, including some Signers. The USA was established on June 21, 1788, by the required 2/3 of free and independent states. However, the First Congress, incidentally representing ten states, reinstituted American common law with American theism. The American Bar Association still pays homage to both Magna Carta and Blackstone and the U.S. Supreme Court in Greece v Galloway (2014) upholds traditional legislative divinity; assesses my civic objections as niggling.

Individuals of 1788 were 1) busy earning the lifestyle they wanted and 2) negligent about the freedom-from oppression with liberty-to pursue individual happiness that was offered to willing people by the preamble. Most were accustomed to common law and American theism and did not resist the 1889 usurpation of the authority they offered each other in the preamble’s civic agreement. That negligence has exponentially increased as generations and immigration dilute the un-discovered American dream: individual liberty with civic morality. When 1860 secession from the USA was proposed, We the People of the United States in the CSA did not imagine they could march on their state capitals and announce, “Not on my watch will you secede from the USA!”

Either most 2018 Louisiana citizens will develop civic integrity, starting with the preamble or something civically better, or the divergence from civic justice will continue until chaos ensues. Losing Louisiana’s admirable 10-2 jury vote would exacerbate the civic chaos. On this issue, Louisiana could make a statement: 2/3 of registered voters could vote, and 2/3 of the votes could uphold the brilliant justice of the 10-2 jury vote. The rest of the USA would take note, and 48 states might stampede to a 4-2 jury vote, leaving Louisiana with a chance to further its excellence.]

The point of a jury trial is impartial decision [with justice to the victim, including not convicting an innocent individual]. The 10-2 jury rule helps achieve the U.S. constitutional requirement of impartiality, and that is why the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Louisiana’s law. As in 2016, I am struck by the Louisiana GOP [tyranny] of recommending against what the Supreme Court upholds. I have learned to expect The Advocate to fail civic justice.

I do not envy the honesty of anyone who misquotes John Adams: “. . . —must the whole five hundred be unanimous?” See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-01-02-0830. When someone has not the integrity to read what he quotes, a civic people owe him or her no forgiveness. I admit: I only read enough to realize Adams was arguing with himself.

Moreover, John Adams’ ramblings in 1786 have no bearing on 2018 application of the 1791 Constitution. Adams spoke for proprietary English subjects turned statesmen in 1774 under the Massachusetts constitution he authored in 1779. Adams knew not that a nation would form on the 1788 authority of We the People of the United States. As of 1788, what Adams thought is impertinent. In other words, we are not slaves to Adams.

Much has transpired since then. Individuals today may ask their person five questions. Am I a human being? Am I a citizen of the USA? Do I want civic integrity? Have I effectively rejected the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA? Do I realize that “posterity” includes my children, my grandchildren, and beyond? To answer those five questions, especially the third one, is not easy, but not one of the questions begs consideration of [your gender], your race, your creed or your religion.

I commend The Advocate personnel and all fellow-citizens to consider those five questions before doing the work to vote respecting a Louisiana treasure: the 10-2 jury vote. Also, 400 years of scholarship on the basis of civic morality has focused on reason and faith or science and religion, obfuscating civic integrity. A new way of living is possible, so discover the vote that favors your individual preference.

I commend The Advocate personnel to ponder Louisiana’s other treasure: freedom of expression. Louisiana adds "but is responsible for abuse of that freedom." I commend the legislature to enact law enforcement for that provision.

Marsha Marshal

Alright, Mr. Beaver. Let's rumble.

Apparently you want "law enforcement" to put Advocate reporters in jail, still, even after I explained, chapter and verse, how that is a profoundly unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the freedom of the press.

You'd fit in great with the Louisiana Legislature in passing unconstitutional laws. They do that all the time, and some of them LIKE IT.

Let me ask you again: In your commended new state law, will this be a misdemeanor or felony? How much time should Mr. Simerman get for his article earlier this week? Should The Advocate's editorial board get jail time for this editorial?

Actually, the purpose of the American criminal justice system established by the Bill of Rights is justice for everybody; the accused, the victim, the public at large. When the Constitutional measures enshrined in the 4th-8th Amendments are summed up, it's clear the Founders intended the system to lean towards protection of the accused, to make it harder to put people in prison, in order to prevent tyranny in America. Prosecutors have to work hard in the U.S.A. to lock people up; jury unanimity in criminal trials is one small part of that larger system.

So, it's anti-American to set up a criminal justice system with its "object ... victim justice rather than criminal justice."

How, Mr. Beaver, did The Advocate "falsely represent" criminal data? They reported just what was recorded by the various JDCs they got records from. They never denied a disproportionate number of defendants and victims in Louisiana criminal courts are black.

Actually, you acknowledge you have a very good "idea how someone thought of Louisiana's brilliant 9-3 jury vote" - you wrote in the next phrase "the creativity was motivated by Jim Crow law." You answered your own question: Someone thought of this brilliant non-unanimous jury vote "motivated by Jim Crow law."

I'll be even clearer in why the 1880 change to jury rules got done. The people running the state that year overturned Reconstruction 4 years prior, they changed the state constitution the year before, and that year they passed non-unanimity to neutralize as much as possible black voters' continuing presence in the state's venire (they hadn't enacted mass disenfranchisement in the 1879 Constitution; that would come in the 1898 re-write). They also wanted to stuff Angola Penitentary with as many warm bodies as possible because they were getting filthy rich off of convict lease, a business so brutal inmates died in custody on average within 7 years, so they needed more people all the time to keep the Gulag functioning.

But thanks for acknowledging jury unanimity was "motivated by Jim Crow law" and in spite of that, you praise "Louisiana's brilliant 9-3 jury vote".

Next, Mr. Beaver writes, "The system could be designed for all black jurors when the criminal is black. Would the black community want to return to Louisiana’s earlier 9-3 jury vote? I think so."

Whoa, Nellie. Any state law that imposes all-black, or all-white, juries violates about a half-dozen SCOTUS decisions, and the U.S. Constitution's 6th Amendment. And you're a racist.

We used to have this thing down here called "the all-white jury." Along with non-unanimity, it was a meat grinder for black folk during Jim Crow. My God, forgive Phil for he knows not what he doesn't know.

https://en .wikipedia. org/wiki/All-white_jury

Let's start with Strauder v. West Virginia (1880): Under the 14th Amendment (incorporating the 6th Amendment down to the states), a state law excluding black people from juries was found unconstitutional.

Norris v. Alabama (1935) further found blacks can't be systematically excluded from the venire.

Batson v. Kentucky (1986) found peremptory challenges striking black jurors because they're black is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Court didn't take up Justice Marshall's advice and strike down the peremptory challenge system entirely as unconstitutional; but hey, you take what you can get.

https://en. wikipedia .org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

Two years ago in Foster v. Chatman (2016) the SCOTUS continued its jurisprudence on race and juror challenges.

https://www .thenation. com/article/the-supreme-court-didnt-fix-racist-jury-selection/

So, nobody's ever gone to the Supreme Court challenging an all-black jury. But, prima facie, any jury selection practice or - God forbid - state jury law that explicitly mandated a mono-racial jury aligned with the race/ethnicity of the defendant would be a fantastically unconstitutional measure that would be struck down with delicious, sadistic contempt and prejudice by each and every federal judge, from every district court, from Sea to Shining Sea.

So, Mr. Handel? Can you take us to the break? "YOU HAVE NO CASE!"

LikeReply3h

Marsha Marshal

Okay, what's left to demolish?

Ah, right. Mr. Beaver's trash-talking John Adams as 'impertinent.'

America's greatest legal mind of the 18th Century, the 2nd President of the United States, Founding Father, American diplomat to Britain and France; Mr. John Adams' 1786 book is just "ramblings" when he wrote 'the unanimity of the jury preserves the freedom of mankind.'

Mr. Adams reprinted that book in 1797, he never repudiated his position on jury unanimity, which was common sense, unquestioned, anywhere by anyone in America back then.

Mr. Adams knew extremely well a nation would form based on the U.S. Constitution; he was the first Vice-President and second President of that very country.

And it wasn't just Mr. Adams who advocated unanimity; James Madison did in his first draft of the 6th Amendment. Madison never repudiated his position on unanimity. No state, anywhere, adopted non-unanimity anywhere in America until Louisiana in 1880. Supreme Court justice James Wilson, a framer of the Constitution, wrote in his 1804 book "To the conviction of a crime, the undoubting and the unanimous sentiment of the twelve jurors is of indispensible necessity."

The towering 19th Century American legal mind, Justice Joseph Story, wrote in 1833 "unanimity in the verdict of the jury is indispensible."

http:// volokh .com/2010/09/09/unanimity-as-a-requirement-of-the-trial-by-jury-from-1765-to-1833/

And the legal history goes on, and on, and on like this, right through the 19th and 20th centuries. But Phil Beaver knows better. How does he do it? Not through reason, or science, or anything else from Western thought in the past 400 years, which he dismisses in this manner: "400 years of scholarship on the basis of civic morality has focused on reason and faith or science and religion, obfuscating civic integrity. A new way of living is possible, so discover the vote that favors your individual preference."

In other words, just pull your opinions out of your behind. The Enlightenment, reason, science, be damned.

LikeReply3h

To Marsha Marshal:

Who can refute artificial intelligence (AI) that generates ideas like the arbitrarily denied Ray writing from Denham Springs?

Does the AI actually think tomorrow the sun will rise again?

June 13 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_a99e84cc-278c-11e8-8e1f-4f9ff7993156.html)

The Advocate personnel have no appreciation for individual integrity; otherwise, they would not make statements like, “Kennedy . . . typically favors sound bites over serious policy discussions.”

In a hypothetical Senate hearing on The Advocate personnel’s integrity, Senator Kennedy would have them packing to leave after his first question, much as Matthew Peterson withdrew: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-judicial-nominee-who-struggled-to-answer-basic-questions-pulls-out/2017/12/18/eadf1326-e424-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e18e4a6290bc. Kennedy has the integrity to help We the People of the United States although exposing a bad Trump choice.

The Advocate personnel and John Bel Edwards perhaps team up on West Point’s honor code and share the Louisiana legislative camaraderie that deceiving is not lying; https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/08/nyregion/reviewing-west-point-s-honor-code.html. I studied this West Point issue after I realized what a mistake it was for the local GOP to allow Edwards access to the Governor’s mansion. Perhaps The Advocate personnel publish unreliably on their own.

And Edwards’ apparent Vatican partnership might allow for him to team up with seeming minister coalitions like Together Baton Rouge, an Alinsky-legacy affiliate. These Chapter XI Machiavelli associations don’t help the fact that Edwards has industries in disarray about who to trust regarding state tax subsidies.

Louisiana people are crying for relief from nursing home legislative graft. Edwards could have provided the leadership to save $200 million, but did not; http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_ba5a089c-2bb8-11e8-830e-e7b818c796ce.html.

Edwards called a seventh session because he cannot be trusted, yet is stubborn to get more money to spend. Following the honor code, an abject failure for the people, Edwards ought to step aside.

The Advocate has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Until its personnel begin to promote their IPEA for integrity, The Advocate has no chance of reversing its unreliability.

Updated June 4, 2021.

Letters

Civic citizens June 8 (Robert Hebert) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b1b15166-6a9f-11e8-ad43-77587bb5279d.html)

To JT McQuitty: I appreciate your collaboration and also extend sympathy to many writers.

There was a time when journalism was viewed as a noble endeavor. Recognizing the fallacy, in the mid 1940s, a commission tried to establish professionalism and published “A Free and Responsible Press,” 1947; https://archive.org/details/freeandresponsib029216mbp. Obviously, professionalism did not take.

I hold both We the People of the United States and journalism schools responsible for entrapping writers into irresponsible freedom of the press. Like all other human endeavors, integrity is paramount, and power has pushed integrity out of the journalism. However, much as a minister knows he does not know anything about the afterdeath, that vast time after the body, mind, and person stop functioning, the writer knows when he is lying.

Therefore, I feel sympathy for writers who aspire to be journalists, without reforming journalism. William F. Buckley rejected James Baldwin’s pity for the white man; Baldwin could have admitted mutual humanity---could have joined We the People of the United States as described in the preamble to the constitution for the USA instead of escaping to Europe where no one understands the American dream---individual liberty with civic morality. Buckley understood the dream but never articulated it, even in 1965, when he expressed the need to restrict voting to civic citizens---rather than allow biased whites in Mississippi. Other than that spontaneous brilliance, I feel Buckley’s failure in the event was extreme arrogance and hubris when he could have collaborated for human understanding; civic morality; justice. Buckley hurt humankind, especially the Cambridge crowd, who departed, proud of their ignorance.

Columns

Stuyvesant dumb down (Richard Cohen) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/new-yorks-mayor-wants-to-demolish-a-school-system-that-lifts-kids-out-of-poverty/2018/06/11/42168d6c-6dab-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.dc0dc3aa5d2c)

“Blacks and Hispanics comprise 67 percent of New York’s public school students. Yet Stuyvesant’s incoming freshman class contains only 10 black students, 27 Hispanics, 151 whites — and 613 Asian Americans.” The mayor wants to dumb it down.

Cohen cites Kay S. Hymowitz https://www.city-journal.org/html/diversity-not-merit-15948.html

Civics dumb down (Lt. Col. Eric M. Saulsbury) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_85c3f9c4-6e81-11e8-9bd8-a3ce6ae2925e.html)

Accurate civics might help, and I explored the question a little. The values are great incentives for individual student development more than adult satisfactions.

“On June 15, 1775, George Washington, at the request of the 2nd Continental Congress, agreed to lead the Continental Army. He had distinguished himself as a commander for the British army in the French and Indian War of 1754. But by 1774, Washington had joined the Continental Congress as a delegate from Virginia. On July 3, 1775, Washington officially took command of the poorly trained and under-supplied Continental Army. Ultimately, they were victorious.” https://americacomesalive. com/ day-in-history/june-15-1775-gw-accepts-command-continental-army/ . Actually, the deciding battle was planned and militarily overwhelmed by France, who had joined their second hundred years’ war against England with the American Revolution.

The title in 1775, according to the seal, was “Department of the Army—United States of America”; https://themilitarywallet. com/ history-of-the-us-army/. I do not think that has changed. I hope someone will help me understand the phrase that was accurate then, perhaps the United States, as in U.S. Army or United States Army in America. When the 13 colonies changed their style to “states” in 1774, their combined domain covered from north of Florida and Louisiana to Nova Scotia and westward to the Mississippi. In other words, they were the United States of eastern seaboard America north of Florida.

A selling point is the Army Values, published at https://www. army. mil/values/index.html. An individual can read them and develop his or her personal expressions of the essence, then return it to the original. The “Loyalty” statement changes my view someone in uniform. The “Duty” statement recalls mutual expectations in collaboration. I suggest reworking the “Respect” statement to express that appreciation comes first, and “best effort” seems erroneous. The “Selfless Service” statement reminds me of the obligation of one citizen to the other: Never relinquish encouragement and hope for mutual development of civic integrity. The “Honor” statement expresses the belief that humans are motivated by reward as well as “doing right”; in other words, they are compatible incentives. I suggest reworking the “Integrity” statement to how an individual develops integrity and manages the law; the imperative “do and say nothing that deceives others,” alone, makes my effort to read this rewarding. The “Personal Courage” statement could cite psychological courage, which is perhaps more important to the human being that physical courage. I don’t recall reading the word “discipline” yet got its essence.

If I were considering the U.S. Army, understanding, perhaps by sixth grade, the values my person might develop there would motivate me to make certain I qualified. The issue adds to my wish to move some of TOPS funds into K-12 education with an emphasis on encouraging the individual student rather than satisfying teachers, administrators, book salesmen, non-profits businesses, and legislators.

Racial dumb down (Walter Williams) (http://www.nvdaily.com/uncategorized/2018/06/walter-e-williams-the-harm-from-obsession-with-diversity-inclusion/)

Blacks seem to have lost hope for being either 1) human or 2) moral citizens: “In some predominantly black high schools, not a single black student scored proficient in math.”

I think it’s the consequence of AMO (Alinsky-Marxist organization), which emerged in the late 1960s.

The Advocate chose large font for the caption and deleted Williams’s conclusion.

“Mac Donald answers the question of whether scientific progress depends on diversity. She says: “Somehow, NSF-backed scientists managed to rack up more than 200 Nobel Prizes before the agency realized that scientific progress depends on ‘diversity.’ Those ‘un-diverse’ scientists discovered the fundamental particles of matter and unlocked the genetics of viruses.” She might have added that there wasn’t even diversity among those white Nobel laureates. Jews constitute no more than 3 percent of the U.S. population but are 35 percent of American Nobel Prize winners. One wonders what diversity and inclusion czars might propose to promote ethnic diversity among Nobel Prize winners.”

Love overboard (Kathryn Jean Lopez) (https://www.uexpress.com/kathryn-jean-lopez/2018/6/8/overcoming-politics-and-polarization)

Dorothy Day: “Our lives must be a pure act of love, repeated many times over.” “. . . love is something we can all get behind.”

In so many instances love is overboard, even unwanted. Individuals often want privacy. Day’s “must be” is an imposition, so I prefer “may be.”

In many statements about civic morality, “appreciation” expresses good will. I like appreciation "is something we can all get behind."

BTW: I trust actual reality rather than religion.

(Posted as a comment on the above cite.)

To the Texasoutcast:

Why do you say traitors? I like that word choice as well as "obscenely radical" rather than "polarizing." I want to understand your thoughts more than share mine.

To the Texasoutcast again:

Your use of the word "traitor" to characterize the dividers seems right. Please look at my Facebook page, Phil Beaver, Baton Rouge, LA, and read yesterday's post. The theory written there is the product of five years public library meetings intending to persuade citizens to use the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Henceforth, I will include "traitor" in my list of dissidents to the agreement.

I encourage citizens to accept that We the People of the United States limited and authorized, in other words, established, the USA on June 21, 1788. Since they provided for amendment of the articles, the preamble's agreement is temporal with time yet constant in direction: civic integrity or human justice or individual liberty with civic morality or use of discovered actual reality. In other words, it is a living sentence.

I have trouble with two suggestions: unity and posterity. Therefore, in my paraphrase, I use integrity and children, respectively.

I occasionally google to find other preamblers. Yesterday, I stumbled upon conlaw. org. Their noble objective is to persuade us to understand and take responsibility for our obligations to posterity. I like it and have copied about 100 pages of text, which may be their entire information.

I feel like a puppy with a new leash for understanding the actual power of the preamble: I think in this country it is the master, if people like you and me communicate and make both the clergy and the politicians accept that We the People of the United States have legally taken charge of civic integrity for both themselves and the dissidents.

That is, people who collaborate for civic integrity hope that dissidents will catch on and join a civic culture. If not, and the dissident causes actual harm, they face constraint and coaching in civic integrity.

Race, religion, and creeds have no standing in collaboration for civic integrity. Civic citizens of 2018 do not consider the opinions of James Madison or modern officials, aware of the opinions as the citizens may be.

News

Caught (Ben Myers) (http://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_6a4044c8-6fe9-11e8-badf-ef99645ff07d.html)

I don't wish harm to anyone, especially my Catholic family and friends.

It is time to revise the First Amendment so as to protect individual development of civic integrity rather than religious institution.

Many citizens, perhaps 75 million, are long since fed up with Vatican institutional crime as well as America’s Judeo-Christian-political partnership---Chapter XI Machiavellianism.

Believers may discover and develop hopes for a heavenly afterdeath without sacrificing civic integrity. And by all means believers may stop imposing the cost of “religious freedom” on a people who prefer civic integrity: We the People of the United States who trust-in and commit-to the preamble, including the Catholics who prefer integrity.

Obama a dissident to the USA (Michael Kunzelman, David A. Lieb, Mark Ballard) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_d506e6c0-6f55-11e8-9b8f-c359f0d14683.html)

Two points.

First, “Democrats aided by Holder and former President Barack Obama are attempting to better position themselves . . . “ Barack Obama, the AMO prince behind OFA (offices in Chicago and Washington, DC), is alive and well and still wants to control the USA; nbcnews. com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311. Obama wants to continue the punishment of innocent blacks whom so many elite Democrats exploit.

Second, the first legal provision in the constitution for the USA is the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble. For example, its establishment on June 21, 1788, legally changed this country from a confederation of states to a nation to be managed by willing people in their states. Government of by and for the people had never been proposed and so far has been prevented by church-state political partnerships or Chapter XI Maciavellianism; constitution. org/mac/prince11.htm

The agreement offered in the preamble divides the nation into civic citizens and dissidents. The citizens’ agreement does not discriminate on skin color, religion, ethnicity or birthplace. The articles that follow the preamble provide for amendment when injustice is discovered and statutory justice is learned. Only adults who can attest that they adopt the civic citizen status may vote with integrity.

Black people may embrace two political principles: black skin indicates neither inhumanity nor non-legitimacy and therefore has no impact on citizenship. Black citizens, like all others, either adopt the preamble or choose dissidence. That’s a pretty strong statement, so I await your collaboration.

That does not suggest that black dissidents are the only unwilling citizens or that their activities against oppression have no value. People who honestly believe that this country favors Judeo-Christianity rather than African-American Christianity or the factional-American Protestantism of the 1790s have not the integrity to attest to the agreement that is offered in the preamble. I think civic integrity should be required to vote.

With a Supreme Court comprised of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews, one of the three branches of government that were commissioned to comply with the preamble seems dissident, not of individual choice, but by complicity, at least. We have a long way to go, but perhaps the purpose has been made clear by the events of the past 230 years.

I hope I am making political sense to most readers and that those readers will join in the work to establish civic integrity in Baton Rouge. Read, consider, and paraphrase the preamble. Challenge your trust and commitment; use your personal integrity to write the essence of the agreement in words you would offer for civic collaboration. My paraphrase changes the issue of unity to integrity and clarifies that “posterity” starts with my children and beyond.

In review, my two points are: the USA-dissidence of Barack Obama is alive and well but so is the preamble after 230 years of neglectful, lame articulations like “we, the people”. It’s We the People of the United States [authorize and limit in our state constitutions and this national constitution] the USA.

We the People of the United States (Mark Sherman, Mark Ballard) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_0021e160-6dcc-11e8-a182-e33040050720.html)

Just as honesty is insufficient for developing integrity, existence is insufficient qualification for voting.

An individual should responsibly act in his or her best interest for his or her life, rather than for an organization that would persuade him or her to sacrifice for their cause. For example, it is not advisable to pay a charlatan to save your unthreatened life; in fact, if the police are not sufficient to save your life, your only recourse is self-defense.

The USA offers citizens a culture of civic integrity using the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. So far, civic integrity has been neglected because of an indolent civic population, We the People of the United States, who could collaborate to develop civic justice. Moreover, the political regimes in power have bemused the people with “freedom of religion” and “Judeo-Christian tradition”; Greece v Galloway (2014) erroneously says I am niggling to object to legislative prayer (or, in word, legislative divinity).

In civic justice, We the People of the United States, or civic citizens, are easily identified by behaviors like consistently voting, paying taxes, saving to accumulate wealth, both observing and collaborating for statutory justice, and civic good will. Likewise, dissidents are easily identified. Agreement to collaborate on the preamble or not divides the population into civic citizens vs dissidents to human justice. Some civic citizens can only offer good will and collaboration for human justice.

Many citizens don’t admit that the preamble is a legal sentence on which this country’s governance changed from a confederation of states to a federalism that is maintained by the people who are willing to manage both their state and the central government. In addition to qualifications already in use, a citizen ought to attest that he or she trusts-in and commits-to the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA as a qualification for voting.

I commend the Louisiana Congressional delegation to initiate the institution of this federal legislation. Maybe call it the National Civic Integrity Act.

Kennedy correct (Elizabeth Crisp) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_a5197e72-6e5c-11e8-a322-fff7ebf6289f.html)

I agree with Kennedy, and among Nungesser's first actions ought to be to replace Jay Dardenne. I apologize for every call I made saying Dardenne was a statesman who would preserve the people's pocket books. I do not apologize for my vote against Vitter, much as I regret the vote for Edwards. The experience certainly turned me against the GOP of Louisiana, but that's only an initial influence in my next vote.

To Brenda Wright: If your question is for me, I am responding to what I read without fear of my innocence/ignorance rather than reading and wondering what the writer is thinking.

I have thereby discovered that The Advocate personnel are the most unreliable people I am exposed to.

Louisiana can require a responsible press (John Simerman) (http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_192dfbf2-6dbe-11e8-97f4-2b3ac52019e5.html)

Louisiana already has at least two outstanding laws: 1) responsibility for consequences of expression and 2) the 10-2 felony jury decision. We need enforcement of the expression-law against media that trivialize the people or their statutory laws: neither a free press nor a free and responsible press is sufficient.

Here’s what I want the Louisiana legislature to do about John Simerman’s opinion published by The Advocate personnel as news: Create a law that empowers law enforcement to arrest a journalist for particular infractions of Louisiana’s protection of a responsible and free press. Also, hold the publisher responsible, using fines of say a year’s profit for each infraction. For example, when a publication trivializes rather than substantially repudiates a U. S. Supreme Court decision or denies the importance of the civic agreement in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

There’s a lot more to write about this, but I want to review the justice of Louisiana’s 10-2 jury law. In Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) the robbery victim directly identified the robber. The prosecution affirmed guilt.

The Supreme Court decision held:

1. Louisiana’s less than unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases do not violate the Due Process Clause.

a. Disagreement by three jurors does not negate the vote by nine.

b. Want of jury unanimity does not establish doubt.

2. The Louisiana legal scheme intends to enhance the administration of justice. In other words, neither perpetrator nor victim is favored.

3. The victim’s identification of the criminal was not tainted.

Reference: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/case.html

The Advocate personnel egregiously trivialized the people and their supreme court in “ruling that states were free to tinker with their own jury rules,” rather than the reality: We the People of the United States uphold Louisiana’s procedures for assuring an impartial jury in felony cases.

The Advocate personnel prove time and time again that a free press is unworkable: We the People of the United States require a responsible and free press. The only way to enforce press integrity is for a majority of citizens, about 2/3, to create statutory laws that enforce a responsible and free press.

In its own time, the USA may revise the First Amendment to require a responsible and free press, but in the meantime, Louisiana can again be a leader among the fifty states’ quests for civic integrity.

To Marsha Marshal: You don't seem to actually realize the amateur you represent.

Google "Let’s Revise the First Amendment", click on the first URL, and learn that I have been urging We the People of the United States to amend the First Amendment since before August, 1999.

My work did not stop. Then, I wanted to defend the human duty to think rather than to defend the institution of religion. Now, two decades later, I want the First Amendment to defend civic integrity.

I doubt you can find someone's definition of "civic integrity" to draw from beyond the catch-all http://talknerdy2me. org/civic-integrity/ let alone imagine or care what I mean by "civic integrity."

I challenge you to employ your IPEA to show error in collaboration for civic integrity.

BTW: How can you be so base as to debate my name in a post to me? You may re-read your AMO instructions and perhaps find relief from such voluntary folly.

Note: I posted this four times before it took, on June 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM. Ashley in the online department, 388-0698 helped me put a space before the .org so as to kill the hyperlink, and that worked.

To Marsha Marshal again: Only civic people collaborate.

Your behavior seems so feral you cannot discipline yourself to accept the name I allowed for you to address me: Ray.

To Marsha Marshal: You don't limit who can call me what: Anyone can call me Ray. I don't respond to Jay.

To Marsha Marshal: I wrote, “Here’s what I want the Louisiana legislature to do about John Simerman’s opinion published by The Advocate personnel as news: Create a law that empowers law enforcement to arrest a journalist for particular infractions of Louisiana’s protection of a responsible and free press. Also, hold the publisher responsible, using fines of say a year’s profit for each infraction.”

I leave it to you to explain what you read.

To Marsha Marshal again:

http://senate. la.gov/Documents/Constitution/Article1.htm

Documents > State Constitution of 1974 > Article I

ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

§7. Freedom of Expression

Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.

To Marsha Marshal again: Again, I wrote, “Here’s what I want the Louisiana legislature to do about John Simerman’s opinion published by The Advocate personnel as news: Create a law that empowers law enforcement to arrest a journalist for particular infractions of Louisiana’s protection of a responsible and free press. Also, hold the publisher responsible, using fines of say a year’s profit for each infraction.”

Then I verified "Louisiana’s protection of a responsible and free press."

I leave it to you to 1) explain what you read and 2) attempt to justify adolescent demands on your objections to what you read.

As you read, seemingly for the first time, the Louisiana constitution improves on the USA's First Amendment, which stipulates freedom of the press. Louisiana adds "but is responsible for abuse of that freedom." I was not there, when that phrase was considered and included in 1974 (if not earlier). However, the point is, it is a treasure in this great state, much as the 10-2 jury vote is a treasure for helping provide an impartial jury. And that is the topic.

However, on my way to 80 years old, I cannot remember when Mom and Dad taught me not to pull practical pranks like yelling "Fire" in a crowded place, because I could cause a stampede with personal injuries, even death and would suffer guilt whether discovery or not. In hyperbole I could say I've always known not to yell "Fire" or the like. I understand that false warning is not protected speech but cannot cite a law.

I think it is good policy for adults to read honest opinions from experts and decide, based on the evidence, whether the expert develops integrity or not. For example, I have already written that I would not want you on the jury for any case. We had the unfortunate experience of my state senator, Dan Claitor touting his privation of integrity as a lawyer some thirty years ago. I will not vote for him again, much as I would not vote for Vitter or Edwards under any circumstance.

You obviously think you are essential and that the crying need for a law to influence the press to stop lying does not speak for itself. I am satisfied that just as murder screams from the walls, the air we breathe is screaming for a responsible and free press to replace The Advocate. I am dismayed that The Advocate personnel do not respond to my explicit plea.

But the point here is not free expression. It is the value of a person. Most crime in this state is either black on black or white on white. MWW recently said that and made sense without data. It somehow reminded me of Muhammad Ali’s late 1960s push for black power; youtube. com/watch?v=ejQj1CfOR1w.

Black citizens may think of themselves as humans first, citizens second, and either civic or dissident depending on considering and adopting or not the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The idea of separation on skin color was never the objective of the preamble, as noted by Frederick Douglass. He sincerely called my ancestors “fellow citizens” in 1852; rbscp.lib.rochester. edu/2945.

If Ali had his way, and black citizens had black justice, I think he would want the 10-2 black jury rule so as to help defeat dissident citizens. If not, it seems Douglass would oppose Ali.

Further, by keeping actual data on resulting justice/injustice, the fifty states could try variations from 5-4, like the Supreme Court, to 12-0 and share the evaluations. I have no idea what’s best, but feel confident Anglo-Saxon tradition, perhaps good for them in their time, is not good for the 48 states that use it in the USA today. If he wants to develop integrity, Gov. Edwards will rescind his erroneous signing of Act 335.

I hope your civic morality will reform and you will vote in November to keep the 10-2 rule. I admit I assume you are not an artificial-intelligence program or an alien to Louisiana. You neither offer good will, nor civility nor civic morality. For all I know, you are a Russian trying to influence voting in the USA. But with honest neighbors like Dan Claitor and most The Advocate personnel, I have no time for concern about aliens.

Marsha Marshal

Mr. Beaver,

So, there's no current Louisiana state law that defines what abuse of free speech is? And your proposed state law would define that abuse to include:

"trivialize the people or their statutory laws"

"trivializes rather than substantially repudiates a U. S. Supreme Court decision"

or

"denies the importance of the civic agreement in the preamble"

So, I'm getting four crimes you want put on the books.

1) Trivializing the people
2) Trivializing the people's statutory laws
3) Trivializing rather than substantially repudiating a U.S. Supreme Court decision
4) Denying the importance of the civic agreement in the Preamble

Did I miss any of the four acts of free speech you want criminalized in Louisiana?

I'm not criticizing you, I'm just trying to help you get clarity on what you want the law to be.

You'll have to answer these questions, or your Representative will, when your bill goes before committee. I'm guessing, one of Judiciary A, B, or C. If you don't have answers to these basic questions, your bill won't advance. Consider this a free advising session to improve your proposed legislation.

Now, would these violations of law be misdemeanors or felonies? How much jail time are you proposing here, Mr. Beaver?

What's the evidentiary standard for these crimes? How do you know when somebody's trivializing, or not?

When the law refers to 'trivializing the people,' am I correct that you're only referring to the 2/3rds of Americans who in their genes and memes support the Preamble civic agreement? Would it be legal to publish in Louisiana an article that trivializes the 1/3 of dissidents, such as those in AMOs or believe in African-American Christianity?

When does substantial repudiation shade over into trivializing? Or Preamble importance defense become denying Preamble importance? The DA's are going to need some legislative intent guidance when they're prosecuting Mr. Simerman on this.

Also, would your proposed law include only journalists? Or would others who trivialize the people, their statutory laws, U.S. Supreme Court decisions and/or deny the Preamble's civic agreement also be subject to criminal prosecution?

Please help us understand what you want Louisiana state law to be.

Like · Reply · 4h · Edited

Marsha Marshal As you read, seemingly for the first time, the Louisiana constitution improves on the USA's First Amendment, which stipulates freedom of the press. Louisiana adds "but is responsible for abuse of that freedom." I was not there, when that phrase was considered and included in 1974 (if not earlier). However, the point is, it is a treasure in this great state, much as the 10-2 jury vote is a treasure for helping provide an impartial jury. And that is the topic.

If Ali had his way, and black citizens had black justice, I think he would want the 10-2 black jury rule so as to help defeat dissident citizens. If not, it seems Douglass would oppose Ali.

To Marsha Marshal again: There's a culture of individuals who adopt the agreement that is offered in the preamble's essence in order to develop civic integrity. Let's go there.

“Son, use my blindness to see,” an old, erroneous strategy (Lea Skene) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_a1ec8ec4-6a88-11e8-917f-2b2a522cc737.html)

If you can’t tell, let me say: I think The Advocate personnel oppose civic integrity.

An acquaintance whom I have never met yet perceive to be a friend advised me not to write against attempts to impose factional Christianity on civic morality: I cannot write to promote civic morality without citing major constraints against human justice. I think the friendship has strengthened.

Another friend said that my writing is condescending. I responded, “How can that be, when I often write, “I do not know much of the-objective-truth.” I also clarify that some of my ideas have not been tested by civic collaboration. I never got clarification but recognize that the accuser claims superiority, much as a person who touts tolerance or promotes racism.

It is tragic to be subjected to a hometown newspaper whose personnel seem unaware of Kahlil Gibran’s poem, “On Children”; http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html. Further, The Advocate personnel promote racism at a time when citizens may be encouraged to regard themselves as both human beings and fellow-citizens according to We the People of the United States in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The last goal in that agreement addresses children, grandchildren, and beyond---posterity.

Christianity promises that sons will learn the errors of the fathers. But a better way is known. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to establish civic integrity. Belief in Christianity promises a favorable afterdeath, that vast time after the body, mind, and person have stopped functioning. How that works is a mystery. However, civic integrity for living comes from the people. Actual reality makes it plain that human justice comes from the people.

I am eternally in opposition to Abraham Lincoln’s political and rhetorical hubris, expressed no more plainly than in his March 4, 1861 vailed threat about the CSA’s February talk of war: “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.” Lincoln could have been clear so as to avoid a war, for example, saying, “The CSA thinks their god will deliver them against the 27:7 might of the North. But military power will rule over factional prayer, once again.”

The folly of “My god will help my children recover from my refusal to use my IPEA to develop civic morality,” may end for 2018 individuals who consider their opportunity. The hope for favor in the afterdeath need not end, but only the individual can decide how to use his or her IPEA. IPEA cannot be relegated or delegated.

By all means, The Advocate personnel present no evidence that they choose to employ IPEA for civic morality, human justice, or integrity. Yet their IPEA cannot be denied.

Front page tabloid article (Terry Jones) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_1660a52a-690c-11e8-afcf-03458b9b701a.html)

The Advocate personnel must have abandoned all pretense of reliability---recognition of their individual power, their individual energy, and their individual authority (IPEA) to pursue integrity---to promote government (authorized force) based on skin color. The Advocate’s outrageous departure from civic morality is laughable, as long as no one shoots me, beats me with a hammer, or starts a box-cutter into my front tire . . . again.

How can any person stoop so low as to publish the following statement without actual data: “Verjanis Peoples, director for the School of Education at Southern University. . . found that graduates from Southern University and Grambling State University . . . once provided nearly 50 percent of the state's public school teachers.”

The segue, “But that has changed,” informs me that the unreliability is Terry Jones’ and The Advocate’s rather than Peoples’. Perhaps the reality is that at one time half Southern’s and Grambling’s graduates were teachers.

Here’s my first attempt to find data: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s_001.asp. Percent non-hispanic teachers in 2011-12, white, black, and mixed, respectively in USA 81.9, 6.8, 1.0 and in Louisiana, 74.4, 19.9, 1.3. Twenty percent is no where near 50%, so Jones must be writing about something else.

It seems to me The Advocate’s business plan is to drive civic citizens to stop reading The Advocate so that The Advocate can have its way with the facts. I will continue to read and oppose The Advocate personnel’s plan and the egregious tax measures they support.

Nevertheless, I voted for all taxes in support of education in my last opportunity to do so. Our future depends on children realizing that they have the misfortune of being reared during a low point in civic morality in the USA and that they must discover civic integrity on their own.

Children especially cannot find integrity in the extant The Advocate, as some earlier commenters aptly noted.

BTW. Today’s article reminds me of The Advocate’s egregious campaign to ruin Louisiana’s outstanding law that helps provide an impartial jury, in compliance with the USA’s Sixth Amendment. Louisiana asserts that unanimity among 10 of 12 jurors that prevents 2 biased jurors from forcing injustice. Forty-eight states suffer the ancient English opinion that it takes all 12 members of a citizen’s jury to correctly protect victims of crime from the possibility of erroneous indictment. In other words, The Advocate’s egregious work ignored the interests of both the crime victim and a civic people who maintain statutory justice in an age when DNA and other technology empowers the judicial system. The Advocate twisted this actual reality to assert that black-skinned criminals need extra protection from black-skinned civic citizens. The Advocate may use it IPEA to admit to itself that black-skinned people are human beings first and US citizens who may adopt the first legal statement in the US constitution, the preamble, as readily as other citizens may. We’ll see if The Advocate personnel reform.

Citizens of Louisiana, take interest in your future and do the studies necessary to decide to vote to keep Louisiana from joining 48 states that suffer jury unanimity---try to provide impartiality without the Louisiana 10-2 jury law or better.

Tory Williams Thank you, Tory, for sharing your explicit concern.

We have a long way to go. But if most Baton Rougeans, about 2/3 of citizens, individually 1) accept being human and 2) choose to be We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble to the US constitution, an achievable, better future may start.

If you like my focus on integrity, you might enjoy an essay I posted yesterday at https://www.quora.com/Is-global-ethics-a-possibility .

I think we can get the job done despite The Advocate’s business plan, whatever it may be.

Second comment: Terry Jones included 2011-16 data on degrees in education. The totals are 272 from Southern and Grambling versus 324 from UNO, the least among 4594 from five competitive universities. The data beg a question and make a statement.

The question the data asks: how many of the 4594 are now black educators; more than 272? The statement the data makes: In civic integrity, Southern and Grambling may close.

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-American-dream-still-attainable-and-realistic-or-should-we-redefine-the-American-dream-based-on-more-modern-models-of-success

The accepted American history is a myth.

The actual history informs me that the America dream is individual liberty with civic morality, which is attainable for persons who develop civic integrity. By civic morality I mean mutually, responsibly living rather than preserving arbitrary traditions. By individual liberty I mean (responsible) pursuit of personal preferences rather than the dictates of someone else.

Myths: few people realize that in 1774, farmers liberated Worcester, MA, driving the British officials out of office and homes. Then 12 of the 13 British colonies met in the first continental congress, changed their style to states, and departed to write state constitutions. Before their next scheduled congress, war motivated them to declare independence. Admitting their weakness, they negotiated for France to combine their existing war with England. With victory, the thirteen states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris stipulating each free and independent state by name. They tried to get along that way for nearly four years, but met to strengthen the confederation. One state rebelled, suspecting plans to form a nation. On June 21, 1788, the ninth state ratified the 1787 constitution, establishing the USA. Thus, the USA is 230 years old rather than 242. The USA began operations on March 4, 1789, with ten states, two states remaining dissident and one remaining a rebel.

Moreover, the preamble is the first legal statement in the constitution. It legally changed the form of government from a confederation of states to a federalism; the people, with their respective state constitutions, authorized a limited nation. The preamble offers a civic agreement by which the citizens divide themselves: civic citizens vs dissidents to the agreement. Civic citizens collaborate for human justice.

https://www.quora.com/Is-global-ethics-a-possibility

I think global ethics is a possibility.

Integrity is the practice of discovering the-objective-truth, which may be “We do not know”; learning how to benefit from the discovery; behaving to benefit; listening to fellow-citizens for either conformation of the behavior or collaboration for a batter way; and remaining open minded to discovery that demands a change in behavior.

Members of a civic culture are aware that dissidents against morality also have IPEA but apply it differently. Therefore, a civic people discover statutory justice using the-objective-truth (actual reality) rather than dominant opinion—human arrogance, which dissidents will never accept. For example, non-Christians pity Christians who act according to John 15:18–23. Civic citizens, both Christian and non-Christian, do not tolerate hate to or among themselves. There’s no place for the word “hate” among civic citizens [or families (Luke 14:26)].

People who use IPEA to develop integrity acquire comprehensive fidelity. Beyond fidelity to the-objective-truth, fidelity extends to all people: self, family, friends and neighbors, the people (nation), humankind (the world), and the universe, both respectively and collectively.

In fidelity, the civic citizen in every thought, every word, and every action, neither initiates nor tolerates harm. Harm is resisted in kind, so violence is resisted by preparation for defense. The civic citizen uses his or her IPEA to manage the lesser powers: appetites (banality), religions and other societies (coercion), and governments (force).

I think articulation of these principles and dissemination of this or better expressions of them is all that is needed for a better future: Most people in the world want individual liberty with civic morality, or human justice. By all means, every individual should be unconstrained in his or her development of civic integrity.

https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-read-when-I-am-20-years-old

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to establish civic integrity. By civic integrity I mean the practice of responsibly pursuing individual happiness rather than the dictates of others while collaborating with their civic behaviors. Some people use their IPEA to oppose civic justice, and their behavior may need constraint in order to prevent harm or make retribution for harm done. Thus, a culture of civic integrity admits that IPEA is as used according to personal preferences and therefore a civic people must provide statutory justice that will inspire and motivate dissidents to reform.
I think the above ideas, if improved by extensive collaboration, would provide a sound basis for a better future. Thus, I encourage young people to take interest in civic integrity.
To get started, I suggest consulting some book lists under related topics, for example, self reliance. I found 733 titles at Popular Self Reliance Books. (When I changed to topic to “civic integrity” there were no hits.) The number, many of which are not interesting to me, motivated me to search with “best” or “top ten,” but the hits seemed subjective. I liked the variety at Lists of books - Wikipedia, and it features top 100 lists by different enterprises. I do not think it wise to just take a list and read it, for example, Top 20 Best Self Help Books of All Time - Matt Morris. I’ve read some of them and would not re-read them.
However, I often re-read parts of Emerson’s “Self Reliance.” In the middle of my eighth decade, I think he is talking about developing integrity, not only for self but for fellow-citizens, even fellow-man.
Back to my first recommendation for you, I would do all I could to acquire an understanding of what it means to choose to use IPEA to develop civic integrity.
With that understanding and commitment, I would pursue the reading the interests my person—-not the image mom and dad had for the person or any other provider had—-what interests the person here and now.
Working from a list, choose a title that interest you and Google with the title and “critical review”. Read the article and either consider looking for other reviews or make your decision if you are so moved. Rarely should you decide to read a book, but when you do, carefully note words, phrases and passages that affect you, whether positively or negatively. Digitally record page numbers so that you can return to issues in the future.
If a point in the book is especially motivating and it is referenced, put the reference on your list for consideration. If the reference would mean diverting your path, characterize that diversion. For example, my above searches on “self reliance” took me to “self help” with categorizations.
The least interesting reading for me is current events and opinion—-a vast waste of time. (Thank you for reminding me of this failing by me.)
Most importantly, maintain a record of your journey and the discoveries that change your direction. Make certain that recorded contains many events of collaboration with other interested persons. That kind of dialogue cannot happen at parties, where people are either trying to relieve the strain of living or renew the joy of human relations. But it can happen in spontaneous meeting, and over long, deliberate nourishment of common interests.
I hope this helps.

https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-understanding-politics-society-and-culture-is-important

I answer the question: Why don’t cultures foster civic morality?

Just as a person may work to pay for the lifestyle he or she prefers, each individual may collaborate for civic morality, which is human morality. However, politicians know that most people are willing to subjugate themselves to anyone who promises to take care of them. The people submit to authoritarianism.

Each human being has the potential to discover civic integrity, but most societies, civilizations, and cultures suppress the discovery of individual responsibility and accountability. By that I mean that each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop civic integrity. If not, he or she may be more subject to other people and fate than to personal endeavor.

In civic integrity, most citizens, at least 2/3, collaborate to discover and utilize the-objective-truth (actual reality) rather than conflict for dominant opinion. However, politicians observe that they can control the people who neither stay informed, nor collaborate for human justice, nor manage the lesser authorities. The individual contends with appetites (banality), societies (coercion), and governments (force). Many people, aware or not, subject their IPEA to self-satisfaction, religion, and/or government.

When the USA was established in 1788, there appeared for the first time on earth the opportunity for most people to accept their IPEA and collaborate for civic integrity. However, by May, 1789, the first congress re-instituted Chapter XI Machiavellianism: the partnership of clergymen and politicians to pick the people’s pockets. The first congress replaced Blackstone common law with Canterbury Protestantism with local common law and factional American Protestantism. Greece v Galloway (2014) certified traditional legislative divinity in the USA. But the prevailing regime in 2018 is reportedly Judeo-Christianity. However, the U. S. Supreme Court seems more Judeo-Catholic.

As long as 2/3 of citizens remain indolent about the freedom-from oppression that empowers the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness, the USA will continue to suffer the unhappiness of a wealth-building government and a wealthy Church located at the Vatican.

I work for a better future that is achievable right away by using the legal sentence and civic agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA to collaborate for statutory justice based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. We the People of the United States can establish civic integrity.

I hope this responded to your question, and I would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/Assume-equality-of-opportunity-was-achieved-Wouldnt-that-just-privilege-the-smarter-people-Isnt-true-meritocracy-a-myth

The question: Assume equality of opportunity was achieved. Wouldn't that just privilege the smarter people? Isn't true meritocracy a myth?

The common words and phrases are packed with controversy. I will try to answer with clarity in my meaning rather than try to consider the myriad reader-opinions.

Humans face many unknowns. One art of coping is to assume, construct a theory for applying the assumption, and take action accordingly. It’s an erroneous practice. When I do not know, I admit to my person, “I do not know.”

Equal opportunity is controversial from beginning to end.

First, “Women begin puberty with about 400,000 follicles, each with the potential to release [an ovum].” During her fertile years, a woman might produce 400 viable ova at the rate 13/year. With 64 million fertile women in America, there may be 0.8 billion possible ova/year from 0.8 trillion follicles. There are about 9 million reported conceptions and 4 million live births each year. About 85% of the pregnancy terminations were caused by biological problems, leaving only 15% abortions for fun (MWW’s term). No one knows how many conceptions did not attach to the womb and therefore passed out of the woman’s body unnoticed. All these unequal outcomes for the 0.8 trillion follicle, and the pope arrogantly says life begins at conception!

Second, the 4 million infants born each year have differing physical and psychological capabilities, let alone differences of environment and personal care.

However, every newborn shares one opportunity. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop discipline. The person who grasps IPEA early and develops discipline fast may acquire civic integrity. If so, he or she will develop comprehensive fidelity. If so, he or she may work to perfect his or her person until the moment the body, mind and human being stop functioning. Thus, individual perfection is a function of physics: energy, mass, and space-time. Consequence of individual living, whether ruin or personal perfection, is unique, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for each individual.

One need not read a book to understand the humanity of Steve Jobs’ life: Initially healthy, in controversial self-development and service, he changed the world of communications yet fell prey to biology, a branch of physics, at age 56. Then there is Stephen Hawking, who was stricken early yet performed during a long life. Where’s the relative meritocracy and comparative privilege in the fact that I am 75 (in a couple weeks). I feel very fortunate to be alive, low as I may be in my progress toward civic integrity.

In smarter people privilege, acquiring the pursuit of integrity seems paramount. Whether by exceptional innate psychology or by coaching, the individual works to discover the-objective-truth (actual reality); learns how to benefit from the discovery; behaves accordingly; listens to fellow-citizens’ responses to the behavior and adopts better ways; and remains open to discovery that demands that fellow-citizens (civic citizens) collaborate to change behavior. Civic citizens collaborate to constrain dissidents and encourage reform more than punish un-civic people. Yet punishment cannot be avoided in criminal and evil incidents.

“True meritocracy” seems to ignore Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia. When an individual ignores personal needs like food, shelter, physical and psychological well-being, and work, he or she usually becomes a ward of fellow-citizens and thus subjugated by his or her own negligence. He or she must habitually thank a fellow-citizen for bureaucratically delivering whatever life-style the public can afford to supply. Doing the work necessary to earn a preferred life style is essential to personal fidelity, and negligence whether by intent or innocence negates civic integrity.

There remains the question of who takes the responsibility to make up for the negligence. In every community there are people who decide to spend their IPEA to collaborate for civic integrity. Their first consideration is to provide for people who in actual reality cannot provide for themselves: the indigent. I need not describe such cases, but my first concern is always neglected and abused children and second, neglected and abused women. However, all people appreciate the fellow-citizens who take the risks to help people in need. Often, they experience material sacrifice more than privilege.

Such leaders often sacrifice their personal risk-management and leisure. But the civic challenge is to delineate the indigent from slackers and criminals: people who either neglect their own individuality or choose to use their IPEA to take advantage of both 1) the civic people who take responsibility for the actually indigent people and 2) the needy. In other words, in civic integrity, there are: leaders who take the risks to help the indigent, fellow-citizens who authorize and support the leaders, the indigent, and slackers and criminals. Among the worst criminals are takers who pretend to be leaders. Many of the celebrated politicians and ministers are persuasive takers.

The popular myth is democracy. So far, in the 230 years since the USA was established, an irresponsible press, social-democracy universities, jealous European governments the USA rejected, and the American Chapter XI Machiavellian Judeo-Christian partnership have bemused the USA in a recent struggle to end the American republic and institute social democracy.

The legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA 1) offers termination of Blackstone common law and Canterbury Christian dominance left from colonization of this land, 2) terminated the Union of states according to the 1777 Articles of Confederation, and 3) established each individual’s opportunity to either collaborate for human justice or dissent. When the representatives of the people of nine states established the USA on June 21, 1788, the Confederation was reduced to four free and independent states according to the January 14, 1784 ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. By May 29, 1790, all thirteen free and independent states had joined the USA. Secession by the CSA was defeated by the military power of the USA, and today there are fifty states.

Living fellow citizens may collaborate to interpret the purpose and goals that are offered in the preamble for their lives and expectations for their children, grandchildren and beyond—-posterity. When injustice is discovered, civic citizens may amend the constitution to provide justice. For example if the legal unity the original states sought has been fulfilled, perhaps the national focus should be updated to civic integrity that fosters individual integrity.

America did and still does offer the individual freedom-from oppression and the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the dictates of someone else. Perhaps that was understood by the 2/3 of the delegates to the Philadelphia convention who signed the 1787 Constitution but was never articulated by 2/3 of free citizens. During that time, free citizens have expanded from perhaps 4% to nearly 100%. No one can predict the ultimate goal or success of the agreement that is offered in the preamble. However, under no circumstance should the people collaborate to prevent the individual from choosing to use IPEA to develop civic integrity.

I have tried to be specific about key words and phrases: assume, equal opportunity, smarter people privilege, true meritocracy, and myth. I hope this essay serves to state that meritocracy is a consequence of IPEA plus the individual's choices as his or her lifetime unfolds rather than a dominant opinion. The ultimate goal of the USA perhaps is to empower the individual to discover and develop civic integrity.

I write to learn so hope there are collaborative comments.

To JT McQuitty: Interesting; comments about Tocqueville discourage me from reading his massive volume that I own.

I always heard that most people don't apply their capabilities, e.g., use only 10% of their mental power. I think Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-use-only-10/, takes an erroneous approach. That is, it is not a matter of brain power.

Civic integrity, seems promising for a better future.

In a culture of civic integrity, each feral infant would be encouraged and coached, during the 30 years it takes for an individual to establish the basic understanding and intent to live a full human life, to develop integrity. With integrity during a life of service until retirement and beyond, the clutter of some 8 trillion man-years of evolution may be set aside by each individual. The person who practices integrity may live in the leading edge of actual reality according to his or her responsible preferences.

Perhaps the consequence would confirm the old saw that most people perform at 10% of their potentials.

Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work. Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.

Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge

Saturday, June 16, 2018

10-2 jury debate

No comments:

Post a Comment