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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.
Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, and grandchildren and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states. I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people..
It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equality in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.
Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.
Clearing the way for reform
Louisiana voters in 2/3 majority ended the Jim Crow controversy over Louisiana’s gift to the world: the impartial unanimous-majority jury verdict. It seems organizations for absolute verdicts wrote that every citizen is entitled to a 12:0 decision. I guess it should have been no surprise that voters would not think “But wait! I will not commit a crime and will not be the subject of a jury trial.”
Now, the Louisiana Legislature may get to work on a constitutional amendment to fulfill U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement that states provide impartial juries. I suggest that fellow citizens must demonstrate that they trust-in and commit-to equal justice under law in order to qualify for either the jury pool or election to public office.
Our Views
A “Phil Beaver” with a no pic pic may be an imposter November 3 reprise (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_06c2a956-de00-11e8-a3ca-0f77dd464d0d.html)
A “Phil Beaver” with a no pic pic may be an imposter November 3 reprise (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_06c2a956-de00-11e8-a3ca-0f77dd464d0d.html)
To the real Phil Beaver: read my comments below and who answered me and it is obvious who is using your name here.
Phil Stanley Thank you for this evidence that "Marsha Marshal," perhaps an artificial "intelligence," hacked my FB.
Also, it was an occasion for me to explore management of my account. I found an unknown one entered by messenger on Nov 5 at 8:31 PM. That's about right. I deleted the account. We'll see if the non-pic pic stops appearing.
Also, it was an occasion for me to explore management of my account. I found an unknown one entered by messenger on Nov 5 at 8:31 PM. That's about right. I deleted the account. We'll see if the non-pic pic stops appearing.
What will you do if this fails, as it should?
I'll try, try again, Mr. Bonin.
Marsha Marshal Are you in the Legislature?
Mr. Bone-in,
No, I’m not.
No, I’m not.
All the hype about this topic and all of the articles on it are a good distraction from other important issues, and is really much ado about nothing.
Changing the state constitution is hardly "much ado about nothing."
wikipedia. org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
wikipedia. org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
Marsha Marshal I think it is much ado about nothing. Also the Founding fathers were not supportive of lot of things that are going on in this generation in the USA. I will just be glad when this is issue is over one way or the other so some more important issues can be discussed in the news. Of course, a lot of very important issues are never reported in the news in the detail that this jury issue has been reported, and not nearly as much time has been spent on them in the news.
Besides about the only people I see supporting this amendment here on the Advocate comments are the same people who like to use profanity and the "f" word in their comments. (I will add that at least Marsha does not seem to do that here.) The use of profanity by its supporters does not add much at all to convincing me that this Amendment is worth supporting.
Mr. Stanley, I'm yet to hear Senator Cassidy, Congressman Richardson, the Governor, the Louisiana Family Forum, or the 78 member supermajority of the Central Committee of the Louisiana Republican Party use profanity. But I've never been invited to their parties.
Marsha Marshal I was referring to the people who comment here.
Mr. Stanley, I think the opinions of Louisiana's sitting U.S. Senator and the supermajorities of the state House, State Senate, and Central Commitees of the State Republican and Democratic Parties are a bit more important than any of us "people" here on this pathetic comment board.
Marsha Marshal Gee, it sounds like you are distancing yourself from your usual allies here (you know who they are). The politicians you mention only have one vote at the election just like everyone else does. Besides some of the opinions of the leaders/politicians of the USA, including some opinions the USA Supreme Court in the past, have landed the USA in the bad position it is now in regarding a lot of issues. By the way, have you remembered that decision you said you lost at the supreme court, or is it all still a big blur?
Mr. Stanley, no, politicians have more than just their vote. They have the megaphone of their office to endorse ballot measures like this. What is your point here?
Marsha Marshal There are also other politicians who are against this amendment who have not made the news for some reason. My point is that voters will ultimately decide this tomorrow. I will vote against, but if it wins or loses I will not lose any sleep either way.
To Marsha Marshal: It is obvious that Phil Beaver is not the one who wrote the comments above and you will notice that my previous replies are to Marsha Marshal and not Phil Beaver.
11/8/2018, 2:15 PM with help from Emma I clicked on the beaver-animal-pic account labeled “Phil Beaver” and the url was https://www.facebook.com/marsha.marshal.129. To the right of the “love” circle over the beaver nose, right of “Phil Beaver,” right of “Add Friends” and right of “Message” at the three horizontal dots, I clicked. In the drop down, I clicked “Give feedback or report this profile.” Then I clicked “Pretending to be Someone” and “Me.” We’ll see if the messages get taken down.
The entity labeled Marsha Marshal has my sympathy and hope for reform.
The entity labeled Marsha Marshal has my sympathy and hope for reform.
From my view the press is getting a lesson November 8 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9e29a948-e2ab-11e8-9e8c-87b8e94a481a.html)
From my view, The Advocate personnel beg justice, and reform is on the march.
The U.S. Constitution subjects all aspects of governance to a civic people’s discipline. A civic people of nothing else is on an ineluctable march toward integrity in statutory justice.
Revision of the First Amendment so as to empower Congress to enforce press-integrity seems inevitable.
(In a concomitant revision, the religion clauses may be deleted so as to protect the development of civic integrity.)
To Elaine O. Coyle: I know you did not intend to insult vultures. Ugly as it is, they instinctively do good for the world.
Judging their products, most writers for the press intend harm to fellow citizens, including those whose votes the writers oppose.
To J.T. McQuitty: Thank you.
I wish you could find a survey of how presidents handled Matthew 7:8 regarding presidential, confidential discussions with liars.
Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” I never imagined the presidential analog, “The lie stops here,” until Trump.
It seems Trump decided long ago: “Come with integrity and we may eventually converse. However, I’ve grown accustomed to lies. My body, mind, and person (body, intellect, and heart in Hawthorne terms) is humble to humor in order to gain, maintain, and defend the presidency.”
Trump would be brief.
Many writers for the press and their editors writhe in their personal intentions: In this Bible interpretation, their analog is dogs and swine (pigs).
I would speak of journalists if I knew of any integrity.
I once had an acquaintance of some twenty years’ appreciation. He had taught me that “freedom of the press” means the editor writes the caption to your letter for the editor's use. Lastly, on the phone, he said he was well enough, so I visited him for an hour in the hospital. We reminisced, mostly about his career. At my exit, he mentioned his editorial status: If anyone mentioned the meeting to him, he’d deny it. I don’t like recalling a theretofore pleasantry, but the current The Advocate personnel remind me often.
Strange how some writers and editors disconnect from fellow citizenship perhaps above humanity.
To J.T. McQuitty again: Orwell was an Englishman and sought absolutism-by-reason under constitutional church-state-partnership. And discerning lies from facts is indeed a refined intellectual sport. However, most human beings have neither the propriety nor a whisper of time for it: humans are busy living.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution specified a federalism under the people’s self-discipline (see the U.S. preamble) and oversight of both their state and the national government. Each branch of the national government had its limits, and freedoms not granted those branches were reserved to the people in their states.
However, after nine states established the U.S. on June 21, 1788, two reluctant states joined and the U.S. operations began with eleven states, on March 4, 1789. The eleven state Congress was obliged to add a bill of rights.
With sudden duty, adolescent parents do what mom and dad did. However, “mom and dad” is four grandparent-in-laws, so the child gets subjected to adolescent confusion. Many people call members of the First Congress “founding fathers,” but Congress, like adolescent parents, woefully knew no better than to promote common law: Blackstone with factional-American-Protestantism as partner replacing Canterbury.
Congress evaluated the British Bill of Rights (1689). Statements there need public scrutiny, including: “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
Such government control of speech was the attention of widespread reform in Western thought; https://www.britannica.com/story/250-years-of-press-freedom.
The idea is to free the people rather than institutionalize irresponsible journaling of events. The First Congress knew that, but did not devise a limited press, even though the signers of the 1787 Constitution had limited three branches: Congress, the administration, and the courts.
We the People of the United States, those who want mutual, comprehensive safety and security experience and observe enslavement by a press that manipulates the factions of people. It is up to our generation---our self-discipline rather than our self-governance---to limit the press. Most human beings have not the luxury for press-liars nor the political liars they nourish.
To JT McQuitty again: "He would probably be ill-advised to mess with his batting technique," was perfect for my point: Trump has been humbly handling liars quite well, so I would not want to change his method.
My style with Matthew 7:6 is more patient; I try to confirm what I think.
(For example, someone repeatedly, violently verbally-abused me, and I requested relief. Finally I shared appreciation that the earth will un-hide the sun again tomorrow. The person neither appreciated the factual perspective nor woke up to the-objective-truth, so I dropped the dialogue. I hope for reform some day and remain open for collaboration.)
(For example, someone repeatedly, violently verbally-abused me, and I requested relief. Finally I shared appreciation that the earth will un-hide the sun again tomorrow. The person neither appreciated the factual perspective nor woke up to the-objective-truth, so I dropped the dialogue. I hope for reform some day and remain open for collaboration.)
For me, collaboration starts with the fact that I firmly do not know what I do not know. Trump does not seem drastically different---seems to accept that there are some things he knows.
To Richard Portier:
It was nice to think there was a profession called journalism. However, it no longer exists.
It was nice to think there was a profession called journalism. However, it no longer exists.
Freedom from civic integrity November 5 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_b1effb04-dd37-11e8-914f-67e0c4eaf5b1.html)
The photo that accompanies this article reflects The Advocate personnel’s political partnership in an egregious campaign to undo one of French-influenced Louisiana’s triumphs over colonial British tyranny.
Then follows the egregious recommendation: “Amendment 2: Unanimous jury verdicts. Yes. This would change a rule, from the racist Jim Crow era, that felony convictions do not require a unanimous jury verdict. Louisiana's rule, nearly unique in the nation, should be changed.”
Somebody said power corrupts. Irresponsible power begs unlimited woe. The First Amendment’s unfettered freedom of the press has been corrupted personnel who perhaps never encountered civic integrity. If that is so, media schools (formerly journalism schools) are to blame. These days some media schools teach that public opinion determines public policy, statistically manipulated polls control public opinion, and the media control the people. Wow! No wonder The Advocate personnel write like newcomers.
Fellow citizens, this country began with volunteers who signed up with entrepreneurs to settle a new continent in order to escape oppression in their homelands. “Granted a charter by King James I in 1606, the Virginia Company was a joint-stock company created to establish settlements in the New World. This is a seal of the Virginia Company, which established the first English settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607.” See http://www.ushistory.org/us/2b.asp.
“After 1660, following the English Civil Wars and the brief republic under Oliver Cromwell, the reinstated monarchy started the large-scale involvement of the English in the slave trade. King Charles II and his brother James, Duke of York, helped establish a company that would control all English business in African slave trading. By 1672 it was called the Royal African Company (RAC) and its symbol was an elephant with a castle on its back.” See https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/britains-involvement-with-new-world-slavery-and-the-transatlantic-slave-trade. This article is well worth reading. It describes the importance of biased interpretation of the Holy Bible to persuade people of a god’s goodness. “Africans were now cast as negroes. Ideas about their racial inferiority were connected by some Europeans to the biblical story of Noah and the curse he placed on his son Ham, which passed on to all of his offspring. It was conveniently decided that the descendants of Ham were black Africans, while Noah’s other sons, the ancestors of the Semites and Europeans, were free.” Abolitionists also wrote.
Wil Haygood‘s biography of Thurgood Marshall begins, “The hunger for negro freedom began as soon as the first slave ships from West Africa and Brazil landed on America’s shores.” Really? Individuals that were captured by African kings, chained, and thrown in to dungeons were happy until they landed in America? That’s about as believable as The Advocate personnel’s ignorance about Louisiana’s gift to the world: the unanimous-majority criminal jury verdict. It arose from the U.S. quest for freedom from British colonial oppression and the Blackstone-Canterbury partnership of church and state. The reader is constrained to understand the principles on which a human being can be as biased as Haygood: what civic integrity beckons Haygood and like-minded thinkers?
What drives The Advocate personnel’s Jim Crow zeal? Surely not a book!!?? Ed Tarpley’s (LSBA’s) divine, miraculous greed? The black and white phantasms The Advocate produced beginning 2018 April Fools' Day? (I enjoyed family that day but got to work on Monday.)
TO BE CONTINUED
CONTINUATION
The sequence of actual reality that negates the fantasy concocted by The Advocate personnel is as follows.
The British subjugated loyal colonists with false accusations and fabricated criminality followed by trials in England; http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring08/trials.cfm.
Directly addressing British tyranny, the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, No. 8, states “That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to . . . a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. . . that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.”
Typically leaving unsettled state issues open, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2 states, “The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . .”
U.S. Amendment VI, 1791, after negating James Madison’s bid for jury absolutism states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial* jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ” Notice also that the U.S. Constitution dropped the insistence on “peers,” perhaps regarding it a state issue.
*Given a selection of fellow citizens who agree to “equal justice under law,” which could be regarded as “peers,” some will be habitually impartial, some will be persuadable one way or the other, and some will be indecisive, leaving a hung jury. With statutory justice and courtroom excellence, the habitually impartial plus the jurors who are persuaded toward impartiality form a unanimous majority that negates the erroneously persuaded and indecisive jurors in the minority. So far, so good. However, in actual reality, some fellow citizens do not want justice or are not peers yet manage to win a seat on the jury, and therefore the impartial unanimous-majority is critical for both the victim and the accused and the rest of the potential victims of injustice. The 10:2 verdict is critical for fellow citizens who agree to equal justice under law, or peers, and the 9:3 verdict allows for one juror who does not believe in justice or is not a peer. These considerations of the role of peers have always been true, and that is why Virginia’s “unanimous consent” or jury absolutism was excluded from both the 1787 U.S. Constitution and U.S. Amendment VI.
U.S. Amendment XIV.1, 1868, states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (The Louisiana factions who concocted the Amendment 2 referendum, collective as they may be, breeched Amendment XIV.1.)
In 1880, French-influenced Louisiana enacted impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority felony verdicts, uniquely negating jury absolutism.
Typically leaving unsettled state issues open, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2 states, “The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . .”
U.S. Amendment VI, 1791, after negating James Madison’s bid for jury absolutism states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial* jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ” Notice also that the U.S. Constitution dropped the insistence on “peers,” perhaps regarding it a state issue.
*Given a selection of fellow citizens who agree to “equal justice under law,” which could be regarded as “peers,” some will be habitually impartial, some will be persuadable one way or the other, and some will be indecisive, leaving a hung jury. With statutory justice and courtroom excellence, the habitually impartial plus the jurors who are persuaded toward impartiality form a unanimous majority that negates the erroneously persuaded and indecisive jurors in the minority. So far, so good. However, in actual reality, some fellow citizens do not want justice or are not peers yet manage to win a seat on the jury, and therefore the impartial unanimous-majority is critical for both the victim and the accused and the rest of the potential victims of injustice. The 10:2 verdict is critical for fellow citizens who agree to equal justice under law, or peers, and the 9:3 verdict allows for one juror who does not believe in justice or is not a peer. These considerations of the role of peers have always been true, and that is why Virginia’s “unanimous consent” or jury absolutism was excluded from both the 1787 U.S. Constitution and U.S. Amendment VI.
U.S. Amendment XIV.1, 1868, states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (The Louisiana factions who concocted the Amendment 2 referendum, collective as they may be, breeched Amendment XIV.1.)
In 1880, French-influenced Louisiana enacted impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority felony verdicts, uniquely negating jury absolutism.
In 1964, the U.S. passed the Civil Rights Act against discrimination.
In 1967, England mimicked Louisiana, enacting 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence on trials.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s 9:3 unanimous-majority felony verdicts. Can Louisiana officials, under their individual commitment to uphold the U.S. Constitution rebuke its provisions? Voters can render that question moot by rejecting Amendment 2.
Provision of impartial juries is not constrained by skin color, and anyone who construes jury impartiality to be so constrained has done a grievous injustice to both the Great State of Louisiana and the United States, which looks to other states for innovation to develop civic integrity.
Act 493 is a shameful bill by the 2018 Louisiana Legislature, and both the Louisiana State Bar Association’s instigation and The Advocate personnel’s role in the event are egregious.
I encourage peers---fellow citizens who want equal justice under law---to vote “No” on Amendment 2.
The U.S. Constitution and the Church November 28 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0c9a0d46-bd04-11e8-a444-77f0a738a9f4.html)
A
Confirm Kavanaugh October 15 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d2693f70-b2cc-11e8-bc27-0b8506ba4bd9.html)
MWW
Letters
Not certain (Pamela Steeg) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_295dc49a-e2b1-11e8-8c4f-afb630685c5f.html)
When Obama won his first term I sincerely told MWW, "Well at least the nanny state will get its chance to lead the way to their ideas for an achievable, better future."
I've learned my lesson and don't have a good feeling on reading Steeg's celebration of attitudes that I oppose. My idea of “for a more just world” is to collaborate for the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble.
People who do not trust-in and commit-to the agreement in the U.S. preamble or better have not the propriety for “equal justice under law”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.
I was in a library meeting just after Trump was elected and the women there suddenly asked me if I believe in God. I responded, “I don’t believe you asked me that in a civic meeting. Nevertheless, I trust-in and am committed to the-objective-truth.” I perceive that good will vanished. Today, I may have learned why.
Leila Pitchford-English takes for granted a recent event at a Baptist church featuring a female lord of hatred; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/faith/article_b76fa728-e255-11e8-92bf-53a2a986bc37.html. “I kind of find hate exhilarating. It’s very addictive. Who would you be without your hate? It’s hard to even know." It reminded me of the cost of discipleship: Luke 14:26 and moreover, John 15:18-25.
I hope women who are into hatred will consider an alternative: mutual, comprehensive safety and security through collaboration for civic integrity using the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Civic integrity offers an achievable, better future.
The Advocate personnel ought to let writers caption their letters (Link Savoie) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_7e91412a-e3a2-11e8-860d-833772be18fd.html)
Savoie, given the opportunity, might have captioned his letter “Appreciate fellow citizens on Veterans Day too,” or better. Maybe Savoie likes The Advocate editor’s caption.
However, The Advocate personnel don’t seem to comprehend encouragement for widespread goodwill among fellow citizens. People say “follow the money.” Maybe conflict and confusion is better for some business plans. (BTW, editors: the "Taps" music sheet seems not an appropriate image for Veteran's Day.)
So far, I have not seen Walter Hackney’s letter in the online edition; online may have a different caption. Hackney might have captioned the letter, “Privacy our obligation to ‘our Posterity’,” or better. Hackney’s letter is evidence that the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal agreement is in the memes of some Americans as well as the genes of some citizens’ children.
I don’t know why, but Hackney typically did not define the majority in “the will of the majority.” I work to persuade people to collaborate for “equal justice under [legal agreement],” and in the U.S. the agreement is stated in the U.S. preamble; the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is an agreement that offers self-determination with mutual, comprehensive safety and security or civic integrity . . . or not.
Strangely, The Advocate personnel don’t seem to relate to the U.S. preamble; the subject is the people in their states. Are The Advocate’s writers and editors so enslaved they cannot read and comprehend the agreements to serve the people in their states that are specified for a responsible press; https://archive.org/details/freeandresponsib029216mbp/page/n5? Do any of them hope to become members of a profession or help establish one at last? Or are they satisfied to be tools for competitive factional organizations? Can the writers and editors imagine that I beg reform from “freedom of the press” predictably run amuck rather than for destruction? “Journalism” is so tainted, perhaps a new professionalism could survive; maybe chroniclers or archivists dedicated to the-objective-truth.
We the People of the United States (the responsible majority) need a responsible press. The First Amendment’s press-freedom, erroneously stipulated by the 1789-93 Congress, may be either earned before We the People of the United States or not.
I recently was and may again be inspired to offer a letter or column to a newspaper. But I would do so with the demand that they publish my caption. I no longer accept freedom of the press to caption my letter yet accept their chosen business plan even though I do not respect it.
To Paul Spillman: "Some served out of patriotism. Some served for the adventure. Some served for the career. And some served because they couldn't do anything else."
Do all “serve”? A detailed list like this begs consideration of the negatives that follow "anything else." We the People of the United States may do all we can to establish at last mutual, comprehensive safety and security, collaborating to civically, civilly, and legally discourage and constrain anything else.
We observe in this forum that some fellow citizens and resident aliens mau-mau mutual, comprehensive safety and security or civic integrity.
Too soon to call Trump a hero (George Simpson) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_f10140ee-e383-11e8-aa0d-a731499ddb0a.html)
Mr. Simpson, I voted for Trump/Pence twice and am all set for my third and fourth votes for them.
Respecting Trump, though, I wish he would explain his interpretation of Matthew 7:6. How is the president of the United States to handle a room full of persons who behave as dogs and swine?
Did other presidents face liars? How did they handle it?
Note: I think The Advocate personnel cut this message: To Kyle Juneau: I read, write, speak, and collaborate to motivate fellow citizens to consider the civic discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble. It is the U.S. civic, civil, and legal agreement on which fellow citizens may collaborate for statutory justice. It defines "Equal justice under law" in the U.S.
Fellow citizens lamely refer to "we, the people," often to make a divisive political point, but almost never to initiate civic integrity. The "w,tp" slight to the actual subject of the U.S. preamble is not incidental and perhaps started with a special font on the 1787 document. The subject is We the People of the United States, and the predicate in paraphrase is because we want, followed by the tacit collective goal, individual happiness with civic integrity for our grandchildren and beyond ("our Posterity").
I do not claim to know the-objective-truth, but one experience and observation I have is that most people seem to oppose the hope: at least 2/3 of fellow citizens trusting-in and committed-to the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble. I speculate that 230 years of neglect of the U.S. preamble has come about because of a succession of political regimes that consider the English, constitutional Chapter XI Machiavellianism as an effective plan for enslaving the people under their personal gods.
I travel to express this message for civic integrity rather than social morality and to seek collaboration for reform. In this crazy world I try to deny concern for my safety.
Note: I think The Advocate personnel cut this message before I posted the one above: To Kyle Juneau: I object to your awful shooting-vision using Beaver as the object and have no sympathy for you but hope for reform. I’d prefer not to read your name again, knowing I don’t always get what I want.
I read, write, speak, and collaborate to motivate fellow citizens to consider the civic discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble. It is the U.S. civic, civil, and legal agreement on which fellow citizens may collaborate for statutory justice. It defines "Equal justice under law" in the U.S.
Fellow citizens lamely refer to "we, the people," often to make a divisive political point, but almost never to initiate civic integrity. The "w,tp" slight to the actual subject of the U.S. preamble is not incidental and perhaps started with a special font on the 1787 document. The subject is We the People of the United States, and the predicate in paraphrase is because we want, followed by the tacit collective goal, individual happiness with civic integrity for our grandchildren and beyond ("our Posterity").
I do not claim to know the-objective-truth, but one experience and observation I have is that most people seem to oppose the hope: at least 2/3 of fellow citizens trusting-in and committed-to the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble. I speculate that 230 years of neglect of the U.S. preamble has come about because of a succession of political regimes that consider the English, constitutional Chapter XI Machiavellianism as an effective plan for enslaving the people under their personal gods.
I travel to express this message for civic integrity rather than social morality and to seek collaboration for reform. In this crazy world I try to deny concern for my safety.
Putting seriousness aside for a moment, for this work, now in its sixth year of meetings at local libraries, to be threatened by your jocular image of Beaver being shot is neither erasable nor forgivable. I'll never forget it and hope you will reform.
On the other hand, I appreciate your suggestion that Fumio is actually GM King, LSU professor. I could not confirm that at the FB page, which has the URL, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012604601304 and the perhaps fake reference to “her”: “To see posts on Fumio's timeline, send her a friend request.” There’s a similar message at the perhaps criminal FB account “Phil Beaver,” https://www.facebook.com/marsha.marshal.129. That account also has the note, “Went to Lee High School - Baton Rouge, La.”
What makes you think Fumio is GM King?
Also deleted: To Kyle Juneau: I appreciate your suggestion that Fumio is actually GM King (LSU professor ?).
I could not confirm your claim at the FB page, which has the URL, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012604601304 and the perhaps fake reference, “To see posts on Fumio's timeline, send her a friend request.” There’s a similar "her" message at the FB account “Phil Beaver,” https://www.facebook.com/marsha.marshal.129. That account also has the note, “Went to Lee High School - Baton Rouge, La.”
What makes you think Fumio is GM King?
Also deleted: To Kyle Juneau: Click on the Fumio non-photo. The FB account has the URL, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012604601304 and “To see posts on Fumio's timeline, send her a friend request.”
However, the above message held as a separate Phil Beaver post. Phil: this forum offers diminishing returns.
To Matthew White: How did other presidents protect the-objective-truth? I would never have imagined Trump's tacit use of the advice about liars in Matthew 7:6 (M76), but cannot recommend mine.
I collaborate to discover the-objective-truth, expressing my hard earned opinion when I do not know the-objective-truth. For example, I share that the earth's rotation will un-hide the sun again tomorrow, but do not predict that Trump is an American hero.
In other words, when I know I do not know, I assert doubt. Even though I accept my humanity and experienced errors, I neither lie nor pretend to lie. Yet I would neither assume that Trump lies nor advise him to change his M76 practices.
Will you address these questions about M76?
To Matthew White again: I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Ribbon. In my eighth decade and constrained (by choice) to positive movies with MWW I have no time for creative Protestant horror.
I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry six decades ago, and that was enough Christian horror for a lifetime. I have not read “The Crucible,” but am familiar with the Salem “witch” murders. Today, there’s the daily news of clergy abusing children. Why read horrible fiction when we may oppose current Christian horrors?
You wrote, “. . . but he claims to know The-Objective-Truth.”
News
Civic, civil, and legal reform to separate church from state is called for (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_4f64e39a-e50d-11e8-9703-631dc747df5a.html)
The list I saw from New Orleans is so obsolete it means nothing. Furthermore, past victimization is now a matter for statutory justice that overcomes Chapter XI Machiavellianism.
As a civic citizen, I am more interested in reforms that protect children’s intimacy from priests and other church employees.
One easily enacted reform is school-children’s dress codes. We the People of the United States may require the Church to reform K-12 dress codes for Fall 2019 so that the priestly object of worn apparel is not titillating. The children in the apparel, who are persons of dignity and equality under the civic, civil and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble, may demand this reform of priestly and other adult amusement.
To Shannon Chapman: We the People of the United States may separate church from state at last. Protecting children from priests and other clergy is a first priority.
Organizing to leverage ignorance (John Simerman and Gordon Russell) (https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/politics/article_50c09b98-e2d9-11e8-b333-87fd78775b22.html)
In my eighth decade, as I try to discern a way to suggest that people may be all they can be, I perceive that the elites long since (maybe 800 years ago) gave up on the masses. The elites are resolved to protect themselves from the masses by building buffers and actual walls so as to live in islands of safety and security. I read, write, and speak so as to listen for ideas that could change that unfortunate development.
But this article is a shameless lesson: Some organizations thrive on ignorance.
"’Give Louisiana the same rights afforded by almost every other state!’ Many voters were simply ignorant of Louisiana's aberrant jury law, and once they learned about the issue, they tended to support unanimity . . . John Kay, state director of Americans for Prosperity, the libertarian PAC funded by the Koch brothers said. ‘Give Louisiana the same rights afforded by almost every other state!’"
"’Give Louisiana the same rights afforded by almost every other state!’ Many voters were simply ignorant of Louisiana's aberrant jury law, and once they learned about the issue, they tended to support unanimity . . . John Kay, state director of Americans for Prosperity, the libertarian PAC funded by the Koch brothers said. ‘Give Louisiana the same rights afforded by almost every other state!’"
Everybody knows campaign slogans are not true, but it takes time to consider the realities the lies conceal and from this quarter, The Advocate personnel suppressed opposition: I wrote letters-to-the-editor and offered a guest column. I guess I’ll keep trying.
Louisiana is a state, not a person. People have opportunity to develop integrity but don’t have criminal “rights.” Nevertheless, some people think crime pays and develop criminal skills. The people who are developing integrity, of civic necessity, develop statutory justice. The impartial unanimous-majority verdict favors integrity rather than criminality, as England demonstrated by enacting 10:2 verdicts in 1967.
In Louisiana, about 500 trials under impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict rules happened last year. By The Advocate’s statistics, that number may increase by 40% or to 833 when criminals opt for trials under jury absolutism, 12:0 verdicts instead of 10:2. Louisiana will operate like “almost every other state.” In other words, the sloganeer’s “same rights” statements apply to criminals rather than citizens who develop integrity. I thought 2/3 of voters would notice they are not criminals and vote for impartiality.
The fact that Louisiana’s impartial unanimous-majority verdicts developed from 1774-1791 U.S. reaction to British tyranny and Louisiana’s French heritage, all of which survived the Jim Crow decades, may sink in as the future unfolds. Also, the legal importance of U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1 and Johnson v Louisiana (1972) may come into public view.
When the-objective-truth overcomes ignorance, Louisiana may restore its impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts and enact 11:1 verdicts for capital trials. I commend the Louisiana Legislature to get started now. The-objective-truth is already known to them.
No kudos for Dan Claitor (John Simerman and Gordon Russell) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_194bd5ca-e1d9-11e8-996b-eb8937ebf6b7.html)
Unfortunately, “voters jettisoned a [138-year-old] mainstay of Louisiana justice Tuesday,” reversing my hope for Amendment 2’s 2/3 rejection.
No kudos for a key player in the “miracle”: I recall State Senator Dan Claitor pivotally collaborated at a key Senate vote in The Advocate personnel’s campaign that began on April Fools’ Day 2018; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_2dfdc6d4-43f7-11e8-adc7-93bd2300e000.html. I guess Claitor fell out of press-favor.
Perhaps this case proves the current trend from some mass communications schools: public policy is determined by popular opinion; statistically manipulated poles determine public opinion; and the press drives the fake science. We the People of the United States may emerge and begin to discipline the press as well as politicians.
I worked hard to understand Louisiana’s brilliant unanimous-majority felony verdict, enacted in 1880 and would be glad to help re-establish it at 9:3 for felonies and 11:1 for capital trials. Slow as my learning was, I feel I discovered a document that covers the entire U.S. background.
Directly addressing British tyranny, the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, No. 8, states “That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to . . . a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. . . that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.”
That paragraph from the days of George Mason, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other politicians begins that section of today’s Constitution of Virginia; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article1/.
Key British redresses in the paragraph are addressed by the words speedy, impartial, unanimous, and peers. In pertinent provisions of the U.S. Constitution, two words are missing: unanimous and peers. It’s up to the states to address “unanimous” and “peers” but the U.S. requires speedy and impartial. England reformed from the unanimous requirement in 1967, allowing 10:2 verdicts to lessen organized crime’s control of the judicial process.
A state that moves from impartiality to partiality-for-crime is subject to U.S. Amendment XIV.1. I think what has been done by the Louisiana Legislature is unconstitutional according to both U.S. Amendment VI and U.S. Amendment XIV.1. However, I am no longer interested in affecting the current trend.
Also, I have done all I want to do about media-manipulation-of-populism. Let the people discover personal enslavement in their own time. Condescending fellow citizens may refer to my expression as pompous, but it is only my opinion: I do not know the-objective-truth.
I resume my 6-year-old work to draw favorable attention to an agreement for equal justice under law: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Under that agreement, or better amendment, peers collaborate for mutual comprehensive safety and security; in other words, statutory justice; again, civic integrity, a practice that begins with discovering the-objective-truth rather than emotionalism. My method is to speak, listen, and collaborate for an achievable better future.
Other fora
https://www.quora.com/Why-should-I-pay-by-working-for-people-not-working-getting-assistance-welfare-to-have-kids-when-I-cant-even-afford-to-have-my-own-children?
A more pressing issue is grandchildren.
Unfortunately, we live in an era when political regimes have so repressed the U.S. preamble that most people don’t even know the purpose and goals under which “equal justice under law” is offered in this country. I work to change that. The last five years’ essays (119) are organized in categories at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
Here’s one leading edge of U.S. preambling: “our Posterity” refers to the parents’ grandchildren and beyond. Thus, a young family may develop a life that provides for a better life for the parent’s grandchildren. If that principle had been promoted from June 21, 1788, when nine states established the U.S., you might not be posing your question. Also, the U.S. might not be $21.7 trillion in debt. Since the debt is growing, that’s $5.4 million debt greeting each newborn. However, the First Congress restored an unconstitutional American (not U.S.) tradition that mimics 1789 constitutional British church-state–partnership or Chapter XI Machiavellianism (The Prince). We the People of the United States may reform this tyranny.
When I was a parent and a Christian, I read Kahlil Gibran’s poem, “On Children,” and took to heart that my children were not my children but were their own persons. I read the poem to them and encouraged and supported their individualities, but without the grandchildren concept I expressed above. That is, I did not encourage our family to think we were developing a life that could provide a better life for my children’s children. What travesty by me! Also, I counted on Bible interpretation instead of adopting the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority by which each fellow citizen may either develop civic integrity or not.
The consequence of past generations repressing the agreement to civic-discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble is the abyss that is unfolding as I write. Neither favored income and wealth nor poverty nor entertainment matters when fellow citizens are shooting each other in the streets. I cannot imagine today’s children developing a better future for their grandchildren, but Gibran’s poem imagines goodness marches on.
In my blog is an essay, “Child incentives brief,” that suggests education reform over the next three decades. I have since learned that James Q. Wilson made a perhaps similar suggestion; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/james-q-wilson-and-american-exceptionalism.
I cannot imagine adult reform.
MWW and I worked for our children to have a better life, but the family never discussed our grandchildren having a better life. I think I’m glad we don’t have grandchildren.
Another leading edge principle from our work is that the U.S. preamble tacitly offers individual happiness with civic integrity rather than conflict for dominate opinion and wealth. We think widespread collaboration on our leading edge concepts would date the abyss and begin the ascent.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-different-but-equal?
I take the question to relate to human existence and respond regarding the ovum’s transition to a person.
For each ovum the odds of becoming a person are so near zero, they may be considered equal for each ovum. If the ovum becomes a person, the person is not only different but unique.
I hope this helps. Let me know if I made a false assumption.
When I was young, the impression I got was that I was free to take care of myself and that if I worked for my daily needs, I could earn them. Only if the entire country was in deep depression might my welfare be threatened.
I had opportunities for satisfying pursuits, such as playing the violin, playing the piano, collecting coins for speculation, collecting fossils and such. However, I felt more secure focusing on science, narrowing to chemistry, then choosing chemical engineering. University ChE was so frightening to me I studied hard and won a role as a Cooperative Engineering Scholar. Thereby, I paid for the rest of my college and graduated with 1.75 years on the job training.
The AIChE instilled a code of integrity. For example, I was the ChE in charge of technical fidelity in a foreign country and was told by local management to lie to the government. I maintained the integrity of my company. The nanny-state officials this country now has don’t know that integrity is a practice rather than a hope.
I served one company for 35 years and pretty well learned how to fulfill personal Maslow’s needs. On a couple of occasions, I felt like I was drowning and considered depending upon a civic peer or personal friend. However, I felt that if I did not remain independent I might bring them down. I appreciate people.
In my eighties, I feel I know something about individual happiness with civic integrity. Phrases and words like social morality, civilized, cooperation, organization, coalition, civil rights, Marxism and other ideas that detract from collaboration for civic integrity oppose me. The imposition of “society” opposes me: we are humankind.
I do not know the-objective-truth so share my hard-earned opinion. I hope my view helps and would be glad to discuss.
I would like to change the U.S. First Amendment two ways.
First, I’d like the religion clauses replaced with support for developing civic integrity, where “integrity” means the practice of discovering and conforming to the-objective-truth; in other words, actual reality.
First, I’d like the religion clauses replaced with support for developing civic integrity, where “integrity” means the practice of discovering and conforming to the-objective-truth; in other words, actual reality.
Second, I’d like protection of both speech and the press to be changed from absolute freedom to responsibility to conform to the theory that obtains from the-discovered-objective-truth.
With those changes, first, We the People of the United States may take the assessment of personal gods or none out of civic morality; in other words, separate private pursuits from public responsibilities; again, separate church from state.
Second, Congress may then create laws that would enforce both responsibilities for expressions that cause actually-real harm both for the individual and for the media.
Second, Congress may then create laws that would enforce both responsibilities for expressions that cause actually-real harm both for the individual and for the media.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment