The Advocate personnel still resisting U.S. constitutional heat over 2019 jury absolutism

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 willing citizens of the United States collaborate for civic, civil, and legal self-discipline to provide integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, for ourselves and for the nation’s grandchildren and beyond and by this amendable constitution authorize and 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.

Selected theme from this week

The Advocate personnel seem defensive about their promotion of jury absolutism in Louisiana. They can’t seem to rest on their self-awarded laurels. There’s an old saying: The wicked flee when they begin to sweat.

Our Views (The Advocate, local press in Baton Rouge, LA)

The Advocate personnel express inability embrace freedom of expression as civic fellow citizens (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_7fd9bfe2-fffb-11e8-b4e5-47e05f93734a.html)

The Advocate personnel often seem to think advertising a new scholarly book is a profitable segue for a strawman argument. This opinion opens many debates, particularly civic integrity versus long-standing public censorship by the media.

Learning from the actions of Abraham Lincoln can start with studies to earn humble opinion as to what motivated his person. By humble I mean a personal opinion that admits “I do not know the-objective-truth.” In this case, a discussion with Lincoln in civic integrity rather than honesty might finalize my opinion, still admitting I would not know the-objective-truth.

I speculate that Lincoln was driven, aware or not, to establish a record as the winning politician in every circumstance. For example, his views on black-skin-colored humanity are controversial enough. There are more examples than I know of, but three stand out in my awareness. First, Lincoln’s inaugural address seems politically astute but morally depraved. He challenges the confederate states’ Declaration of Secession and threat of war without the integrity that might prevent bloodshed beyond Bleeding Kansas. His statements were coded so as to preserve his political legacy without solving the moral dilemma.

In 1861, Lincoln said, “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.”

Even though some say Lincoln was a religious iconoclast, would fellow citizens in 1861 interpret the above paragraph as the assertion that the North’s military would defeat an impatient act of war by the South? Most 1861 citizens would respond, “My God is all powerful.”

Lincoln’s Gettysburg address seems among the praised speeches of all time. Wonderfully, it reflects Lincoln’s exceptional appreciation-for and vision-of fulfilling the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble). He said, “. . . that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The U.S. preamble claims either individual discipline according to the purpose and goals stated therein or dissent. On behalf of the people who assent, it authorizes representative-republican laws, institutions, and the provision for discovery of statutory justice (through U.S. constitutional amendment) so as to govern, in collaboration with the states, the people.

I would be the last to claim that Lincoln did not understand that the human being is too physically and psychologically powerful to be governed by dominant opinion rather than the-objective-truth. For example, I do not want to govern anybody: I have my hands full trying to discipline myself. How can The Advocate personnel imagine they can govern? It’s unbelievable!

Lastly, Lincoln had the hubris to write words in a delivered letter that seem to blame his God for what Lincoln allowed to happen, whether he could have prevented it or not: the Civil War. There seems to be no doubt that Lincoln was not resolved that blacks were equal human beings. See http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm. Lincoln wrote an addendum to a conversation, “I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity . . . God alone can claim it.”

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUATION

It seems easy enough to celebrate that you are not a profane democrat like U.S. Rep. Tlaib or three AP writers who opine Trump is as erroneously profane. It is easy enough to be perplexed by the way President Trump deals with lying Democrats, lying Republicans, lying Independents, and the lying media; to lamely claim, “If I were President I’d be known for my integrity”; then reflect on the people’s security the President must protect. I question Trump’s tacit practice of Mathew 7:6; I’d want to use integrity but not place the people at risk and had not realized the Catch 22 before Trump and all the past presidents. Lastly, I write my opinion, review it, then publish it, because I do not claim to know the-objective-truth and am developing the humility of that position.

It is easy enough to recognize that The Advocate personnel wish for obsolete times when they had a lock on public opinion. Then they could prevent the dissemination of opposing opinion, but today, they realize they have lost control. For example, my three blogs are read world wide. Media censorship can be exposed in writing for the readers to use as they will. The arrogance of media schools, formerly journalism schools is also well known. The days of absolute, irresponsible freedom of the press are gone; despite the First Amendment’s neglect of responsibility.

I have sweet memories of the dear patience of letters-editor Bill Bankston (d. 2015). I revised a few letters no less than 200 times submitting them perhaps 20 times each, searching to purge bitterness or pain. I had learned by experience that Bankston would not publish emotionalism. He published some of those repeated submissions, but not all of them. (I do not want to go back to dependence on an editor, yet when I have a message as urgent as the U.S. constitutional path to Louisiana’s brilliant, impartial 9:3 jury verdicts erroneously revised to 10:2, I do submit letters-to-the-editor, hoping they will publish the other view. Letter rejection is their responsibility and freedom.)
 
Again, by experience I learned that The Advocate uses the caption to moderate a writer’s opinion to The Advocate personnel liking. Others taught me that editors change “creator” to “Creator” to express dominant beliefs.

In their campaign to undo a Louisiana treasure in statutory justice, the impartial 10:2 jury verdict, The Advocate personnel demonstrated the will to obfuscate the constitutional history of U.S. impartiality negating British unanimity, Louisiana compliance in 1880, and English reform in 1967.  Unfortunately, some publishers make mistakes on par with Abraham Lincoln’s mistakes---perceive that they are more than fellow citizens and are exempt from the purpose and goals stated in the U.S. preamble.

Some people have said my writing is condescending, but I think they err by mistaking my opinion for the-objective-truth. For example, they can refute my opinions about Lincoln’s writing without claiming they know the-objective-truth and without attacking my person. Also, the people who claim they are tolerant may realize that they are fellow citizens who may collaborate for or against statutory justice. That is, being tolerant may motivate stonewalling but does not establish the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered rather than imposed by arrogance.

It is not too late for media writers to reform, admit to themselves that they are fellow citizens, and begin to journal the people’s march toward statutory justice under the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble.

The Advocate personnel feeling the heat of their transgression against the people of Louisiana (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d19745cc-0ebd-11e9-8f3a-ff600552c1f2.html)

Social democrats like The Advocate personnel who published this Jan 4 “Our Views” hope, intentionally or not, to one day publish a reprise: “On New Year’s Day, an old tradition met its end. Established in the [slavery] days of the [18th] century” the U.S. Constitution was terminated by popular vote that was authorized by Congress.

In 1774, British colonists in this land suffered abuses so declared they were statesmen rather than loyal colonists. Since 1776, Virginia has the Bill of Rights requirements to provide the accused “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers . . .”

But Virginia's provisions did not hold in the US Constitution (established 1788), perhaps because “unanimous” can conflict with both impartial and peers. The US, in Amendment VI (1791), dropped "unanimous" and "peers" leaving those considerations to the states, who must provide impartial verdicts.

Starting in 1880, French-influenced Louisiana brilliantly favored impartiality and peers by creating the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict rather than the erroneous 12:0 absolutism in the other 38 states. By 1967, England had reformed to 10:2 verdicts, specifically to lessen organized crime’s influence on juries. In other words, England also wanted to aid impartiality.

Athenian Greeks, 2400 years ago, despite slave cruelty, suggested that responsible citizens establish equal/equitable law enforcement by discovering statutory justice (my paraphrase). In the U.S., the agreement to collaborate for statutory justice is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. preamble is offered to all fellow citizens.

In civic integrity, skin color is not a valid variable in the pursuit of statutory justice. Furthermore, FBI data show that the chief victim of 12:0 jury verdicts are blacks, because with only 13% demographic, black on black crime accounts for half the crimes. Some people are habitually impartial regardless of skin color.

Both attorneys and legislators swear to uphold the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Quoting U.S. Amendment IV.1 (1868), “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.” Citizens are entitled to protection under U.S. Amendment VI.

As a citizen of this state, I support and demand a jury system that attends to the U.S. Amendment VI requirement of impartiality rather than absolutism. The Legislature’s actions to void Louisiana’s unique provision of impartial verdicts violated U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1. I commend the Legislature to restore the 1880 provision of 9:3 verdicts. If I were a Virginia resident, I’d commend the state to remove the conflict of impartiality and peers with 12:0 absolutism. I would recommend 9:3 impartiality in felony trials and 11:1 for aggravated murder.

Since 1776, Virginia never provided juries favoring impartial peers, and therefore, is not so clearly in violation of Amendments VI and XIV.1. However, Louisiana, in 1880, provided 9:3 verdicts so as to favor verdicts by impartial peers. The people who perpetrated the hoax to persuade voters to think “what if I was accused” rather than “what if my family member was the victim?” are not as responsible for this travesty as the Louisiana instigators, including the Louisiana State Bar Association (I understand all the state’s lawyers), The Advocate personnel, the 2018 Louisiana Legislature, and Gov. John Bel Edwards.

Today, The Advocate personnel, in their “credits,” seem to obfuscate the U.S. Constitutionally accusable if not indictable parties. (I don’t know.)

To William Bonin: Will one lawyer in Louisiana take action to uphold the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution with U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1 regarding Louisiana’s unique provision of 9:3 (1880) then 10:2 (1974) impartial juries?

Is there one lawyer in Louisiana who appreciates his or her fellow citizenship more than an amateur, falsely constructed resolution by the Louisiana State Bar Association? Shame on the LSBA and the lawyers in the Louisiana Legislature who voted for jury absolutism. Shame on Gov. John Bel Edwards.

 

Reading my hometown newspaper helps track how local social-democrats are attacking the U.S. Constitution (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d2122a2e-01a9-11e9-bbea-0f3b042b2631.html)

Today, The Advocate personnel may celebrate a temporal victory in their application of the scholarly opinions coming from media schools. Those opinions serve to overthrow the collaboration for statutory justice that is specified in the 1787 U.S. Constitution. They would overthrow the U.S. rule of law and replace it with temporal compassion of the social democrats: chaos.

Statutory justice is an ultimate, probably unattainable goal. However, the purpose and goals are enumerated in the U.S. preamble and the provision for amendment of the laws and organizations it established. Since then, there have been 27 ratified amendments (which can be reformed if unjust).

The first erroneous scholarly principle is that public policy is determined by public opinion and public opinion is controlled by poles that are statistically designed to support a policy. Thereby, the media may control the people of the U.S. The evidence for these principles is obvious, and the remedy is with the people.

However, the press aids their bid for control of the people by exercising freedom of the press to hide opposing views. I can produce my submissions ID’d 3886, 4043 through 4046 expressing reasons to oppose jury absolutism, none of which the Advocate personnel published. My arguments were not as lawyerly-mature as they could have been, because I also live a life.

The Advocate led the erroneous, unconstitutional movement to end Louisiana’s US Amendment VI provision of impartial 10:2 unanimous felony trial verdicts so as to join the 48 states who unconstitutionally require absolutism or 12:0 verdicts. The victims of this injustice are the civic citizens who collaborate to uphold written law, discover injustices, and reform so as to continually improve toward statutory justice.

It’s quite obvious that Louisiana’s impartial 9:3 jury verdicts came about by historical events: slavery as a common practice to Hammurabi 3800 years ago (ya), Greek cruelty to slaves 2400 ya, slavery condoned in the Church-canonized Bible 1600 years ago, Church instituted Atlantic slave trade with Africa 550 ya, British dominance in placement of African slaves on this continent until 200 years ago, French-influenced Louisiana’s statehood 206 ya, Reconstruction military-presence imposed on Louisiana 150 ya, and Louisiana’s freedom to determine its own laws 140 ya. Only 138 ya, Louisiana recognized that unanimous-majority trial verdicts tend to provide both U.S. Amendment VI’s impartiality and the morality that jury members be fellow citizens who are peers. U.S. Amendment XIV.1 assures individual citizens in the U.S. that no faction in their state can impose injustice.

The Advocate personnel are among the factions who effected injustice to Louisiana citizens who formerly enjoyed Amendment VI impartial trial-verdicts and favor toward jury duty by impartial fellow citizens and fellow citizens who can be influenced toward impartiality. Now, Louisiana has joined 49 other states that do not comport to Amendment VI’s requirement that states provide impartial trials.

Readers ought to beware both The Advocate personnel and the Louisiana State Bar Association, the chief perpetrators of an overthrow of the U.S. Constitution. The idea that social democrats can, on emotions such as “what if you were the accused?” or “the last Jim Crow law” perpetrate the overthrow of the republican rule of law that is specified in the U.S. is destined for reform. However, only citizens who are aware of the importance of individual happiness with civic integrity can effect the current trend toward chaos.

The present levels of chaos may be sufficient to convince 2/3 of the people that, just as economic viability dictates that they work to live according to personal preferences, fellow-citizens must observe the rule of law while they collaborate for statutory justice (or work to approach perfection). In other words, reform can only come from imperfection, but perfect justice is the goal, unattainable as it may be. Collaborating for perfection defines civic integrity.

Manipulating statistical polls as a means of controlling public policy has no integrity, and the motives of scholars who promote the media involvement seem dissident to statutory justice.

It seems to me The Advocate personnel, perhaps feeling their oats, are well underway in a campaign to negate the death penalty for aggravated murder. What travesty will they pursue after that?

Regardless, let the reader beware freedom of the press. And let The Advocate personnel consider whether or not they are individually fellow citizens according to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution or according to their personal emotions and passions. If the latter, they are dissident fellow citizens who are not collaborating for statutory justice. That's my view.

To Lane Sutton: I agree with you, Sutton, but would add a thought. Employees of the press may consider their fellow citizenship: is he or she a collaborator of, by and for the discipline that is offered in the preamble to the U.S Constitution or a dissident to the agreement they may freely reject?

Perhaps the First Amendment "freedom of the press" is to blame, but somehow, journalism has assigned itself an aura of superiority over fellow citizens. If a writer can become a journalist, he or she feels more than a fellow citizen. It's an unfortunate hubris that ruins many intentions for civic integrity.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution states the purpose and goals of the people of the United States. The preamble was written during the week before 39 of 55 constitutional framers signed the negotiated articles that defined the federalism and representative republic at the national level. Some of the framers could not brook the idea of discipline of by and for the people in their states so as to develop the U.S. (by amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and refused to sign the constitution.
 
This event is critical to the individual freedom with civic integrity that this country offers. In other words, without the liberty-to reject the agreement that is stated in the U.S. preamble, fellow citizens have not the freedom-from oppression the framers empowered in 1787.Of the delegates from 12 civic states (one state having dissented from the convention itself) 2/3 of the framers signed the document, leaving 1/3 dissenters for their reasons. I review this to make the point that there has always been dissent.

Nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution on June 21, 1788, establishing the U.S. that the signers envisioned, even though, like an adolescent, they could not possibly know the ultimate purpose: statutory justice. Statutory justice is based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion or deceit. Two dissenting states joined the U.S. before operations began on March 4, 1789. The First Congress, representing eleven states, mostly ignorant of the purpose and goals of the preamble, erroneously established what they knew: Blackstone common law and church-state-partnership in Congress---a “divinity” on par with England’s Parliament. The nation has evolved from that erroneous, unconstitutional tradition.

There is no journal of We the People of the United States marching toward statutory justice, even though the march is ineluctably conducted under the weight of the-objective-truth. There is no journal because the U.S. press never accepted the responsibility that freedom of the press demands.

Thus, as far as I can tell, there are no journalists---only writers who attract enough attention to fulfill a media business plan. If pressured to name my top 3 candidates as journalist, I’d think of Byron York. Then I retreat.

There have been a few economists who were motivated to write for practical viability, even survivability of the nation. Their columns appeal to the people to adopt self-discipline whereby they may manage their local, state, and federal governments. They also don’t touch the tentative hope of the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble: individual happiness with civic integrity.

Personnel who are employed by The Advocate have the opportunity to lead the world to journalism for individual happiness with civic integrity, because the idea is being developed during meetings at local libraries each year (for the past five years): Individual Independence Day each June 21 week and Constitution Day each September 17 week.

The primary goal of these meetings is to encourage fellow citizens to collaborate for statutory justice using the U.S. preamble and the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered---cannot be intellectually constructed.

Workers for the press may at least consider and perhaps appreciate their opportunity to either adopt the U.S. preamble’s agreement or be aware of their dissidence. But don’t miss that “our Posterity” includes grandchildren and beyond.

Becoming a revolutionary state in the U.S. (My comments on Our Views: “Amazon’s lessons for Louisiana,”  December 30) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_03b3dd2c-00e5-11e9-85cb-332ebf9f7938.html)

“The best way to grow business in a community or state, it seems, is to nurture the fundamentals:” education, infrastructure, and civic integrity. The Advocate personnel have a long way to go on civic integrity.

Baton Rouge and Louisiana have the inside track for a revolutionary, achievable better future. Inside because the ideas have been generated over the past five years. Participants in local library meetings that were sponsored by a Louisiana registered education corporation, A Civic People of the United States. There is no intention for the corporation to become a revenue-generating non-profit.

There are two key principles in the proposal. The first is widespread (perhaps 2/3 of fellow inhabitants) trust-in and commitment-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered fellow citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. No political regime has ever promoted the agreement offered by the U.S. preamble as a powerful contract for living individuals.

However, the U.S. preamble tacitly empowers individual happiness with civic integrity. More than any other sentence in the constitution, the U.S. preamble declares willing people’s independence to pursue civic integrity yet does not deny fellow citizenship that opposes development of statutory justice. However, criminal fellow citizens are constrained.

The second is a civic people’s collaboration to-discover and benefit-from the-objective-truth. “The-objective-truth” seems rejected by search engines, I suppose on the basis of grammar algorithms. Even with the quotation marks, Google asks “Lenin: 1908/mec: 4. Does Objective Truth Exist?” “The-objective-truth” responds not to such questions yet exists and humankind works for its discovery. For example, seafarers once wondered if the curvature of the horizon was evidence that the earth is 1) a big ball and 2) a boat cannot fall off. The earth was like a globe 3.8 billion years ago, having been a collection of gas and debris 4.6 billion years ago. Not once did the earth's physical state respond to reason or human imagination: the-objective-truth exists, and the hyphens aid readers in the struggle for freedom from scholarly “objective truth,” “ultimate truth,” and other reasoning about “truth.”

By narrowing the search to Phil Beaver + “the-objective-truth”, there are some pertinent URL’s such as https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/12/06/resistance-and-the-crisis-of-authority-in-american-politics/ featuring scholarly disdain, for the phrase “the-objective-truth,” in particular. Quoting my thread in the discussion, “The rule of statutory justice is what empowers happiness according to personal preference rather than in subjugation to someone else’s dictates. In other words, the object is personal liberty with civic morality.” A year later, I write “the object is individual happiness with civic integrity” and seek collaboration for a better statement.

Albert Einstein suggested that psychology develops from physics (the object of scientific study devoid of metaphysics) in his 1941 speech, “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics.” His speech has no examples from other progeny of physics the object of study: his only example pertains to psychology in conformance to physics. Einstein said civic humans don’t lie to each other so as to lessen misery and loss. Our discussions have suggested that when a people are developing integrity, ethics is the journal of progress, not to retard integrity. These ideas are more inspiring than the classical idea that humankind, the greatest species on earth, is innately evil unless metaphysically controlled.

With most citizens collaborating to use the U.S. preamble with the-objective-truth rather than competing for dominant opinion, Baton Rouge and Louisiana can become, among U.S. states, the magnet for individual happiness that the US seems to the world. And Louisiana may lead the U.S. to civic integrity.

The work of A Civic People of the United States is accelerating locally and the three blogs are being read worldwide. The Advocate personnel could privately ask themselves, “Am I a civic citizen of the United States or a dissident? Do I know and embrace the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered each citizen in the U.S. preamble?”

Letters

Activist against virtue signaling (Tom Hawk) (“Maybe media should focus on crime victims,” Dec 30 letter)

Mr. Hank introduced me to “virtue signalers,” U.S. spelling for a social-democracy appropriation of a term from evolutionary biology; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling. Hank deftly saddles Catholic-Church writer Lopez with the pejorative term. I don’t think “the media” is involved, but The Advocate editors insert themselves in the caption.

Hank challenges Lopez to turn her passions toward victims who can no longer speak for themselves rather than their convicted murderer, referencing Lopez’s case. Lopez says the living murderer ought to get benefit from his attorney’s opinion that the murderer’s childhood caused the heinous crime. Hank is a skillful, impactful writer.

I assert that civic citizens are also victims of Lopez’s will to impose Catholic morals as she sees them on the civic, civil, and legal (not religious, as no religion qualifies) pursuit of statutory justice. Based on the evidence, Lopez is a dissident to the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The pompous writers for The Advocate claim Hawk’s letter is about them, captioning the letter for media focus. My opinion is that the writer who would so distract Hawk’s original writing is also a dissident against the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is proposed for equal justice under statutory law, as offered to all fellow citizens in the U.S. preamble.

I’m past weary of The Advocate personnel’s irresponsible freedom of the press---behavior as though writers for the press are somehow more than fellow citizens. But I like Hawk’s impactful expression.

News

Pope commands the Vatican. U.S. Bishops submit to U.S. statutory law. (Jeff Karoub, AP) (https://www.foxnews.com/us/pope-urges-us-bishops-to-heal-divisions-repair-trust)

 

“In his Christmas address, Pope Francis . . . vowed the church will "never again" hide their crimes.”

As a fellow citizen of the U.S., I urge my Catholic fellow citizens to separate the U.S. Church from the Vatican. A fellow citizen’s spiritual comforts and hopes do not negate his or her obligations to civic integrity.

A common misconception in Mattis’s pride (Robert Burns) (https://www.stripes.com/news/us/leaving-pentagon-mattis-urges-workers-to-keep-faith-in-us-1.562691)

 

Mattis expressed a common, fatal mistake: granting respect when performance is not appreciated. Mattis said, “My views on treating allies with respect . . . formed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.”

In the 1948 Marshall Plan, the U.S. committed to over $100 billion in today’s dollars to rebuild Europe after WWII. NATO was established in 1949. In the 5^th NATO summit, during the Carter administration, the new generation’s leaders questioned commitments to the organization. It seems to me the U.S. generosity is seven decades old. Mattis’s “four decades” marks the increase in U.S.-social-democracy’s acceptance of some European governments’ irresponsibility.

Mattis expresses the social-democracy trend toward unearned respect and claim to “rights” that have not been earned. NATO countries who contract to pay their share of the bills but depend on other countries to cover their dues are not appreciated and have not earned respect. Fellow citizens in the U.S. may ponder the difference between appreciation and respect.

In his inaugural address, President Trump said reform would not come easy. Self-discipline does not come easy.

In general, social democrats and believers overlook a few historical facts. Both governments and gods leave statutory justice to the people. The U.S. is the only country I know of that declares actual reality: Only a disciplined people may observe the law while they collaborate to discover statutory justice. Equal justice may be expected only when most people individually conform to and collaborate to improve statutory law and its enforcement. In other words, imperfect law is in the path to statutory justice.  

In this country, these principles are expressed with uncanny precision and freedom for fellow citizens to dissent in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It seems Mattis is a dissenter. Civic citizens do not promote dissenters who are not collaborating for statutory justice, tacit as the people’s judgement may be.

It seems to me that President Trump tacitly gave Mattis ample time to discover personal, tacit contention with the U.S. preamble. When Mattis did not reform, Trump let him go.

These are my opinions, and opposing views are welcomed.

Writers for the press promoting the criminal side of perfection (Lea Skene) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_d0730a36-0af4-11e9-bbbe-5f2d3f7e6d7a.html)

Is this the first article of here we go again? Will The Advocate writers mimic their campaign for 12:0 absolutism in criminal trials to undo Louisiana’s U.S. Amendment VI impartial 10:2 verdicts?

Skene continues a series to advertise against the death penalty, a social-democracy campaign (govern with emotions rather than justice) made popular perhaps by Gov. John Bel Edwards; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7efc8a18-9102-11e8-8a34-cbac8b9440d2.html

The Death Penalty Information Center is often taken as an anti-death-penalty organization. However, I would study its data to support the quest for perfecting the people’s march to statutory justice by continually improving courts and law enforcement. “DPIC does not take a formal position on the death penalty, but is critical of how it is administered.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_Information_Center

And the Church? Only under Chapter XI Machiavellianism could the house of priestly pedophilia protection, only the last century’s attention to human abuses, influence fellow citizens to side-track the march toward statutory justice. Abraham Lincoln suggested in 1861, “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?” Iconoclastic toward ecclesiastical Machiavellianism, Lincoln asserted that statutory justice cannot come from gods or governments. Justice is the people’s responsibility.

The object of statutory justice is perfection of individual freedom in a conflicted world. But because each human has un-consignable (inalienable) IPEA, the people can only expect to approach perfection, unlikely to achieve it. IPEA is the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority to develop either infidelity or integrity. There will always be individuals who are slow to appreciate integrity or accept IPEA. In other words, for some humans, self-discipline is unlikely. However, by recognizing the actual reality that infidelity exists, yet striving to asymptotically approach perfection, the people may continually improve their statutory laws and law enforcement. In other words, while statutory justice cannot be attained, statutory law and its enforcement can be continually improved.

As a full-paying subscriber, I request The Advocate management to make certain to feature this side of the story in their publications. For example, one of the major innovations in criminal justice is the federal accumulation of a DNA data base beginning in 1980; https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/advancing-justice-through-dna-technology-using-dna-solve-crimes. Properly administered DNA is reliable for exonerating falsely accused persons and has contributed to the reduction in indictments and prosecutions as well as freeing victims of past statutory-law failures. Some are eager to accept DNA evidence of exoneration but reject it to convict perpetrators of even heinous crime. Shame on The Advocate editors if they whine that they cannot understand my “word salad.” It’s alright to disagree, but not on social democracy, an emotional effort to overthrow the U.S. preamble’s pursuit of the-objective-truth.

But my urgent appeal is to fellow citizens. Please review the basis for the pursuit of statutory justice on which our country’s system pursues ultimate perfection: the possible. It is grounded in the admission that there can be no pursuit of perfection if the people assume that there is no imperfection. Putting it in absolute terms, without crime there is no need for statutory law and its enforcement. Again, there is no freedom-from oppression if the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal agreement is itself imposed on the individual. In other words, the whole cannot benefit if the individuals are forced to conform to statutory law rather than collaborate for statutory justice. These thoughts about the power of the U.S. preamble did not come overnight, but I wrote them this morning.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUATION

Four hundred years BC, or 2400 years ago, Athenian Greeks suggested, in my paraphrase, that statutory justice is possible if the people agree to the statutory law. Their laws were imperfect, for example, incorporated a cruel form of slavery. But the concept was just: People who expect equal justice agree to the law. Not every scholar would agree with my statement, and some interpret the Greek idea to say that every human is entitled to justice and the state must provide it on demand regardless of criminal behavior and organizations. Social democrats arrogate that popular opinion may emotionally overthrow statutory law and its enforcement, even when social democracy deters the path to statutory justice.

The Catholic Church canonized The Holy Bible with New Testament 800 years after the Athenian Greek suggestion. Bible references to justice can be used to support any argument anyone wants to express. John, for example in John 15:18-23 assigned to me hate I reject. Bible references to slavery posit that there will always be slaves, and the will of God can be interpreted by the military might that resolves the slave-master relationship. See the addendum to Abraham Lincoln’s conversational review in his letter to Albert Hodges: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm.

It seems clear that the Church ought to concentrate on saving its soul so that it can serve believers and bow out of foolish attempts to impose its eternally erroneous opinions on living non-believers. The era of Christian imposition has past, in my opinion. Indeed, Christianity itself is unqualified to pursue statutory justice. God, whatever that is, has made it clear that both justice and peace are the people’s responsibility. Those of us who admit our responsibility ought not be imposed on by Church believers.

This country’s purpose and goals assert human freedom from oppression so that each citizen may choose to collaborate for statutory justice or not. The agreement to collaborate is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is offered to citizens who volunteer to the objective Greek principle, equal justice under law, deny use of Bible interpretation to discuss the pursuit of statutory justice, and commit to the law and law enforcement even as they pursue the perfection of statutory justice.

It seems the signers (39 delegates) felt the framers (55 representatives of 12 states) had created a federal, representative republic by which the people could eventually deliver civic integrity if not statutory justice or perfection. To the signers and the generations who have been fooled by ecclesiastical Machiavellianism, we owe our generation’s opportunity to establish widespread use of the preamble’s agreement. If not ours, we’ll join the parade of those who did not like the preamble’s civic discipline. Scholarly reference to "the founders" are suspect as attempts to refute what the signers issued for ratification by the people in their states.

I wrote long commentary against The Advocate personnel’s campaign to convince voters to overthrow Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdicts to join 48 erroneous states that have 12:0 absolutism; in other words, perfection. I also submitted letters to the editor and offered columns defending Louisiana’s Amendment VI provision of impartial felony verdicts. Now, The Advocate personnel are writing against perfection (absolutism). There is “DNA” evidence that The Advocate does not envision a responsible and free press that collaborates with the people on their quest to asymptotically pursue perfection.

I think fellow citizens who use their IPEA to develop integrity are developing personal perfection, imperfect as they may be.

To Daniel Miller:

“DPIC does not take a formal position on the death penalty, but is critical of how it is administered.” https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Death_Penalty_Information...

We the People of the United States can have the discipline to stop the judicial abuses that you list. Statutory justice can be developed by the people, but not by gods or governments.

To David Martin:

The Church attempts to impose on the people Romans 12:19, “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.” However, history shows that God, whatever that is, assigned to the people the responsibility for statutory law to continually improve toward statutory justice.
 
That’s clear enough, but the next verse is typical Bible mystery: “On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’”

In the first place, people who would impose on me the moniker “my dear friends” when they do not trust-in and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement for fellow citizens that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution are dissidents to collaboration for statutory justice. I am willing to become a dear friend but attest, based on the evidence, that Sister Prejean has always been a dissident to this country’s agreement on which statutory justice is to be developed.

Second Romans 12:20 is a verse my mom taught me, and I always felt she was implying that through kindness I would be convicting the offender of his or her guilt. But in civic life including among church members, I did not find the instruction to ring true. Arrogant people did not reform on my judgement, which sometimes erred.

I taught an orientation class and used Romans 12:20 as an illustration of ideas that ought not be taken lightly and for which each individual ought to form an opinion. Subsequently, I was kindly invited to attend a silent retreat at Manresa, and I used one of my 30 minute conversations with a Jesuit priest to learn the Church’s interpretation of Romans 12:20. The priest consulted the Bible and four encyclopedia and concluded: I think you are correct. This instruction is not consistent with Jesus’ teachings and I do not have an explanation for it.

Subsequently, in an airplane conversation, Mrs. Jesse Bankston (d), who read a book a day said, I can imagine a pre-Christian, pagan celebration wherein the honoree wore headgear designed to distinguish him or her with enough burning coals for nighttime notice.

According to Chapter XI Machiavellianism, the Church’s impositions on the state will continue as long as the people allow it. Perhaps the era of civic, civil, and legal agreement according to the U.S. preamble has arrived, and the Church may be civically relegated to its proper place: in the hearts and purses of believers.

Columns

Some columnists who are economists approach journalism’s civic integrity (Walter Williams) (https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/disparities-galore)

Columns are opinion essays. Williams’ essay “Disparities distort policy debates” could be pitched to emphasize the importance of each individual’s civic discipline---the tacit hope that is expressed by the U.S. preamble.

By civic discipline I mean acquiring the understanding and intent to live a complete human life, whatever that may mean. In other words, I do not know how to describe a complete human life.

Williams gives two examples. “Jews constitute no more than 3 percent of the U.S. population but are 35 percent of American Nobel Prize winners.” And “Blacks are 13 percent of the U.S. population but, in some seasons, have been as high as 84 percent of NBA players.” In both examples, I speculate that the cause of the exceptionalism in each example is self-discipline and focus more than genes. The key to a happy individual lifetime may be the discipline to discover and achieve the goals the individual’s abilities allow. The ultimate discovery may follow a tortured path if there is an abiding self-discipline. For example, LeBron James may not yet be practicing his ultimate field of greatness.

The purpose and goals that are stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution may be taught from infancy until near-death to motivate the individual to discipline his or her entire life.

The U.S., the people, might be further along its ineluctable journey to approach statutory justice if Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg had said, “. . . that [discipline] of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Political regimes so far have prevented widespread adoption of the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal agreement by individual fellow citizens who want to collaborate for equal law enforcement and to develop statutory justice. Economist who are columnists are more likely than writers who would be journalists to promote widespread adoption of the U.S. preamble.

Posted at the above URL.

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-it-possible-for-the-LGBT-inequality-to-be-beneficial-and-when?

The question: “Is it possible for the LGBT+inequality to be beneficial, and when?”

I don’t understand the abbreviation “LGBT+inequality,” but will answer according to my preferences.

It seems the key to human happiness is fidelity. So far, scholars argue that the fundamental duality respecting fidelity is nature versus reason. However, Albert Einstein has suggested that everything in this universe evolves from physics, for now expressed as E=mC-squared. That is, physics the object of study rather than the study. Einstein’s evidentiary example is that people do not lie to each other so as to lessen misery and loss. The example is supported by Rudyard Kipling’s “The Man Who Would be King.” Moreover, each evening, the earth’s rotation on it’s axis hides our solar system’s sun again: The sun neither sets nor crosses the sky during the day.

Human intimacy without predictable misery and loss requires fidelity. However, every human has inalienable individual being: the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop infidelity or integrity. IPEA cannot be consigned to another person or an institution.

The humans who develop infidelity learn to expect misery and loss but assume it will accrue to others. The individual who develops integrity realizes that he or she does not know the-objective-truth in whole, keeps an open mind, works to discover the-objective-truth, behaves accordingly, and explains the behavior to fellow citizens hoping to learn from them. The individual who pursues integrity for a lifetime may approach the limit of his or her capabilities; that is, approach perfection of his or her person.

When a human being is attracted to another, fidelity requires the reserve to discover the other’s interest. As long as the other has no interest, the attraction should be set aside. With mutual attraction, interest may be explored and otherwise should be set aside. So it goes with consideration, concern, bonding, dedication, monogamy, and promise of companionship for life. In monogamy for life, spouses who mutually pursue integrity may procreate with lessened risk of infidelity to progeny.

Spouses who develop integrity intend to share with their progeny the benefits of monogamy for life. Thus, the decision to procreate is by bonded heterosexuals who intend to share monogamy for life with their children. Thereby, a family unit is formed and the family collaborates to provide a better achievable future for the couples’ grandchildren. While the couples’ children benefit from four great-grandparent heritages, their grandchildren have two additional heritages. Thus, there is a continuity of civic integrity whereby a family works for prosperity and would not burden the grandchildren, for example with debt.

Fidelity to progeny is the key to my response to your question. Some people understand the importance of family fidelity but the statutory laws that developed in the western world do not honor the dignity and equality of a newborn baby. Because the human baby needs about thirty years of support from care-takers in order to develop the IPEA that is unique to the human species, laws tend to treat infants and children until debatable age, typically 18, as property more than person. Children suffer from divorce. Worse, a conception’s dignity and equality to stay with the mom and dad who conceived him or her is not taken seriously by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell vs. Hodges. Likewise, the dignity and equality of a conception is not adequately accounted for in spousal-family statutory law.

Statutory justice, the tacit goal of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, cannot be pursued on dominant opinion. The-objective-truth is a viable standard. The-objective-truth can only be discovered and does not respond to reason or any other human construct, including statutory law. Thus, statutory law must be continually improved by the discovery of statutory justice.

When same-sex partners experience a sequence like attraction, interest, consideration, concern, bonding, dedication, monogamy, and promise of companionship for life, they are in mutual appreciation and commitment and neither god nor man should interfere. However, to procreate requires a physical and psychological breach of monogamy. A third party or more is imposed on the life of any child by egocentric adult contracts.

The same-sex partnership that decides to procreate has introduced new opportunities for infidelity. For example the child whose mature adult would prefer heterosexual monogamy may be derailed from that destiny by early experiences in same-sex relationships. Also, there is nothing physically wrong with a child of a same-sex partnership to discover mutual appreciation with one of the partners and cause mutual termination of the original adult partnership to form a new one, whether same-sex or not.

Daring individuals suffered experimentation with flying-like-a-bird before humans discovered aerodynamics and then jet propulsion. Early ignorance was replaced by the discoveries within physics that led to technology.

Some individuals consider human development a technology challenge: physics can be used to overcome human limitations within the-objective-truth. However, human connections involve the psychology of IPEA and the consequences of choosing to develop either egocentricity or civic integrity. If the choice is integrity, I doubt technology can substitute for mom and dad fidelity to their conception. Therefore, LGBT monogamy requires the partners who want to develop civic integrity to forego procreation and parenthood. That’s my opinion.

If humankind’s quest for statutory justice leads to the conclusion that same-sex partners should not procreate, it will come with a competitive assessment of heterosexual procreation. That is, a child may be considered a person with civic, civil, and legal rights on par with the mom and dad.

In addition, even though a human is typically a candidate for procreation in the mid-teens, the body does not complete the wisdom parts of the brain until age 25, so parenthood ought not begin before perhaps age 35. Thus, procreation licensing may be adopted to protect grandchildren and beyond from immature families. In other words, the LGBT debate will have accelerated the path toward statutory justice according to the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion.

Taking a different approach, I think the tacit, ultimate promise of the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble is individual happiness with civic integrity. By “individual happiness” I mean each human being accepting IPEA and developing integrity. While I do not know, I speculate that individual happiness is ultimately developed by doing the work to understand how to be faithful in every human transaction and connection. If that premise holds, the way an individual may accomplish fidelity is by doing the work to understand the-objective-truth, performing accordingly, and sharing the reasons for the behavior with the affected people. The U.S. preamble is a voluntary agreement, and IPEA may be used to dissent.

Perhaps individual happiness with civic integrity provided to children by same-sex partners can be superior. I doubt it, but if so, an achievable better future may come faster.

I do not know the-objective-truth regarding how to assure the dignity and integrity of a conceived, totally ignorant human being. I have not the ability to assess the limits of IPEA. Therefore, I cannot describe the ultimate justice of same-sex monogamy.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/01/04/homegrown-varieties-of-illiberal-democracy/ (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d19745cc-0ebd-11e9-8f3a-ff600552c1f2.html)

“Perhaps the most obviously fertile ground for illiberal democracy is denying effective judicial review of constitutional rights.” Louisiana’s new criminal jury absolutism, 12:0, ending 138 years with Amendment VI impartiality at 9:3 then 10:2, illustrates illiberal democracy and is due constitutional challenge.

U.S. citizens beyond Louisiana may take interest in a landmark overthrow of the U.S. Constitution that was engineered by the 2018 Louisiana Legislature.

In 1774, British colonists in the eastern seaboard suffered abuses so declared they were rebellious statesmen rather than loyal colonists. Since 1776, Virginia has had the Bill of Rights requirements to provide the accused “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers . . .” Absolutism (unanimous consent) conflicts with impartiality of peers.

Thus, Virginia's 1776 provisions did not hold in the US Constitution (established 1788). The US, in Amendment VI (1791), dropped "unanimous" and "peers" leaving those considerations to the states, who must provide impartial verdicts.

Starting in 1880, French-influenced Louisiana (1812 statehood) brilliantly favored impartiality and peers by creating the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict rather than the erroneous 12:0 absolutism practiced by tradition in the other 38 states. By 1967, England had reformed to 10:2 verdicts, specifically to lessen organized crime’s influence on juries. In other words, England also wanted to aid impartiality of peers.

Athenian Greeks, 2400 years ago, despite slave cruelty, suggested that impartial citizens establish equitable law enforcement by discovering statutory justice (my interpretation appreciating subsequent events). In the U.S., the agreement to collaborate for statutory justice is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. “Statutory justice” seems the “ultimate justice” Abraham Lincoln imagined in 1861.

The U.S. preamble is offered to every fellow citizen regardless of anything: religion, race, skin color, wealth etc. The fellow-citizens’ ability to responsibly dissent against the civic, civil, and legal purpose and goals of the U.S. preamble distinguishes the freedom from oppression this nation offers.

In civic integrity, skin color is not a valid variable in the pursuit of statutory justice. Some people are habitually impartial regardless of skin color. Furthermore, FBI data show that the chief victim of 12:0 jury verdicts are blacks, because with only 13% demographic, black on black crime accounts for half the crimes.

Both attorneys and legislators swear to uphold the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Quoting U.S. Amendment IV.1 (1868), “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.” Citizens are entitled to protection under U.S. Amendment VI.

As a citizen of Louisiana, I support and demand a jury system that attends to the U.S. Amendment VI requirement of impartiality rather than absolutism. The 2018 Legislature’s actions to void Louisiana’s unique provision of impartial verdicts violated U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1. I commend the Legislature to restore the 1880 provision of 9:3 verdicts.

Virginia stands at odds with U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement that states provide impartial juries. Virginia citizens could commend the state to remove the conflict of impartiality and peers imposed by 12:0 absolutism. I would recommend 9:3 impartiality in felony trials and 11:1 in aggravated murder trials. My ratios may be improved by statistical studies of how to favor habitually impartial citizens plus citizens who can be persuaded to be impartial in the state’s process to provide jury trials.

To address “peers,” I think states should only allow in the jury pool citizens who can demonstrate that they collaborate for statutory justice according the U.S. preamble’s purpose and goals.

Readers may take interest in the brilliance of the impartial 9:3 criminal jury verdict in state compliance with U.S. Amendment VI. Oregon still has a 10:2 rule, but Louisiana has joined the other 49 states who do not comply with the Amendment VI requirement for impartiality.

Since 1776, Virginia never provided juries favoring impartial peers, and therefore, is not so clearly in violation of Amendments VI and XIV.1. However, Louisiana, in 1880, provided 9:3 verdicts so as to favor verdicts by impartial peers.

Also, the fact that 1880 was within the Jim Crow era pales before the fact that the U.S. establishment in 1788 was during slavery. The people who perpetrated the hoax to persuade voters to think “what if I was accused” rather than “what if my family member was the victim?” or “as a fellow citizen, I am the victim with absolutism,” are not as responsible for this travesty as the Louisiana instigators, including the Louisiana State Bar Association (I understand all the state’s lawyers), The Baton Rouge Advocate newspaper personnel, the 2018 Louisiana Legislature, and Gov. John Bel Edwards.

I think the illiberal democracy that was perpetrated by the 2018 Louisiana Legislature was U.S. and Louisiana constitutional violation by mendacity.

https://www.quora.com/Is-healthcare-an-unalienable-right-Why-or-why-not

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or personal wellness. Personal wellness requires fidelity to mind, body, and person.

Personal wellness is more than four times more effective than medical care for maintaining health. The person who develops infidelity ought to receive the medical care he or she pays for, either directly or through an insurance contract he or she pays for with earned income.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-inheritances-are-a-good-thing-for-society-or-should-they-be-discouraged?

I think inheritances discourage both individual happiness and civic integrity and thus are not beneficial to humankind.

I write to promote the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Individual citizens are free to adopt the agreement or not, and that is what makes the U.S. a desirable country.

I think the tacit, ultimate promise of the preamble’s agreement is individual happiness with civic integrity. I hope to witness a significant part of the people collaborating for that practice before my death.

Inheritance that is planned and expected does not serve either side of the quest for individual happiness with civic integrity. Therefore, the best plan is to leave nothing and let everyone know that is the goal.

However, we cannot predict, and therefore, a person ought to retain the wealth needed for expected retirement. If funds run out, he or she did not plan well or was unlucky, for example, hit with health problems. If there is an inheritance, it ought to go to the beneficiaries. If the inheritance is so significant as to enable the beneficiaries to form a philanthropy, it ought to be forfeited.

That brings into play another of my ideas:  philanthropy is a means for wealthy persons and entities to circumvent the law and therefore ought to be discouraged. Consider the Catholic Church, for example. It makes no sense to award entertainers so much money that they can feed some starving children. I am not an economist and don’t know how to address this travesty, so all I can do is express my objections to the starving children who got left out of the philanthropy.

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.