Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth,
which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.
Note 1: I often dash
words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity
represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible
error. Note 2: It is important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the people more than for the city.
A personal paraphrase
of the June 21, 1788 preamble: We the civic citizens of nine of the
thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in the purpose and goals stated
herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and
perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited services by the USA. Composing
their own paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive
whether they are willing or dissident toward its principles.
I wrote in favor of 20 cent/gal gas tax increase during the
legislative session, because I want more freedom in the lives of Louisiana’s
working people. I cannot tolerate the loss of life they suffer.
In “Divinity School Address,” 1838, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote “. . . it is well worth the pith and heart of great men to
subdue and enjoy [this world]. The planters, the mechanics, the inventors, the
astronomers, the builders of cities, and the captains, history delights to
honor.” archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/dsa.html
Some members of the American Council of Engineering
Companies of Louisiana might take it upon themselves to create toll roads and
bridges to solve a problem Louisiana has not faced during the five decades I
have been here.
My chorus in this forum is for civic morality using the
agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The
preamble divides the inhabitants into civic citizens vs dissidents. Dissidence emerges
from ignorance, indolence, criminality, evil and more. Civic citizens
collaborate to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth, and realize a
civic culture will always need civic justice in order to constrain the
dissidents. But statutory law cannot be arbitrary; it must have one goal: civic
peace.
The human being is too psychologically powerful to submit to
dominant opinion. Human beings have the possibility and responsibility to live
in freedom. Yet 228 years’ domestic conflict over opinion has brought us to 2017’s
moral morass. A better future is available if most of us agree to collaborate
for civic peace rather than dominance of a dissenting group. When I speak these
words in public, the other party grins, often with an unbelieving response
like, “We need that.” But most invite no more conversation. Why?
I hope most Baton Rouge residents are already imagining reform
for civic peace. Our roads situation is a prime opportunity to put aside arbitrary
differences and most citizens write to our state senator and state
representative to urge a special, short session to relax constraint and pass a
gas tax increase of 20 cents per gallon.
I’m retired and only drive in my vicinity. With fewer miles
per gallon, I pay more tax per mile. But my neighbors are suffering loss of
family time I regret.
Today’s thought,
G.E. Dean (Exodus 20:1 CJB)
“Do not murder.”
Dean says, “Life is sacred from the womb to the tomb.”
Dean is expansive.
I grew up with the KJV “kill” and am glad to consider “murder”---
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Letters
Professors (Audiffred) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_9d186192-da33-11e7-ab55-0724a6ceb4b5.html)
I agree. If most
students cannot present evidence that a professor helped, the professor should
be terminated.
For example,
everyone should know, from university history courses, these facts:
- Loyal British colonists, from 1720 through 1763, complained
about abuse by Parliament.
- In 1774, some loyal British colonists changed their style to
statesmen.
- In 1776, American statesmen declared war against colonizing
England
- In 1781, French strategy and French military power dwarfed American
military, and the British surrendered to both France and the thirteen colonies (self-styled
states).
- In 1783, the King of England recognized the thirteen free and
independent states, naming each of them. In 1784, the free and independent
states ratified the treaty. But they soon realized they could not survive as
free and independent states.
- In 1787, Rhode Island dissented, as twelve states met to
negotiate a stronger confederation of states. Instead, 2/3 of delegates
negotiated and signed a draft constitution for the USA. After approval by the
Continental Congress, ratification by nine states would establish the nation,
the USA.
- On June 21, 1788, nine states had ratified the draft constitution,
establishing the USA. They hoped the other four free and independent states
would join the USA. One did.
- On March 4, 1789, the USA began operation with ten states. By
May, the First Congress had obfuscated some of the promise of the draft
constitution, leaving to future generations the opportunity to discover and
reinstitute the good.-
Neither academia not the press
has responsibly chronicled the American struggle for private liberty with civic
morality. Consequently, in 2017, few citizens realize that the preamble is a
civic agreement that offers the opportunity for voluntary, responsible freedom.
The preamble divides the people as civic vs dissident.
My list comes from documents
rather than textbooks. The above facts establish that the “birthday” of the USA
is June 21, 1788 rather than July 4, 1776. But the importance of the facts goes
far beyond the birthday.
Why do university history courses
not instill these facts of controversy and others in the minds of all students?
Answers should be sought, and if they are unfavorable the professors should lose
their opportunity to influence the people.
To Philip
Frady: Your conversation happily motivated me to look it up (smoke from
incinerated humans) with comments.
"When
dealing with Nazis, whether the Third Reich or Alt-Reich, it's important not to
mistake their idiosyncratic vocabulary for units of communication. Their
function is not to engage in a fruitful exchange of ideas, or even an
unfruitful one. Rather, they aim only to intimidate and recruit. To call
someone else a Special Snowflake tantamounts to a one-sided declaration of
"I am a Nazi; my deepest desire is genocide, and I want to turn you into
ash." urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=special%20snowflake
I often feel my
thoughts and person are attacked by Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO) or a
recruit. I perceive (now) that they view me a Special Snowflake.
I did not feel
that way when my Sunday school teacher called me a heretic and no one in the
class objected. However, when I returned four weeks later, I felt he was comfortable
that I was destined for ash. The experience helped me realize my trust and commitment
had always been in the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. I don’t
plan to return to Sunday school, but don’t mind that some civic people do attend.
Merriam Webster’s
discussion does not include the Nazi view; merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-less-lovely-side-of-snowflake.
The 1860s version in Missouri referred to slavery-abolition opponents. After
that, it became slang for sensitivity to other people; in other words, a civic
citizen ought to appreciate civic peace regardless of the other person’s
responsible hopes.
Did I find your understanding of
political “snowflake”?
LGBT right to choose discrimination (Swanson-Doran)
(theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_4ef53842-da37-11e7-a211-0b0a14417330.html)
The errant
United States Supreme Court opined 5 to 4 that the right to marriage for love
(a sentiment) is on par with the right to marriage for procreation (essential
to the dignity and equality of a child to be appreciated by his or her conceiving
parents).
The baker
is not merely “principled.” He has accepted the civic duty to do everything he
can to reverse Obergefell vs Hodges (2015).
Sooner or later,
the-objective-truth overrules errant opinion, and that’s what makes America promising.
More collaboration for civic justice based on the-objective-truth rather than
dominant opinion would make America great. Humans are too psychologically
powerful to accept arbitrary opinion as statutory law. (Religion is opinion.)
To Philip Frady: Philip Frady
"The errant United States Supreme Court opined 5 to 4 that the right to
marriage for love (a sentiment) is on par with the right to marriage for
procreation (essential to the dignity and equality of a child to be appreciated
by his or her conceiving parents)."
The Supreme Court has no constitutional basis for its opinion. That's the point.
The Supreme Court has no constitutional basis for its opinion. That's the point.
Hold Gov. Edwards responsible (Anderson)
(theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b248b7f0-da2f-11e7-bbc3-cb1cdb53498f.html)
I'd like to see
the honorable Gov. Edwards resign and am not happy about that, since I gave
some campaign money, shook his hand, and voted for him.
The Advocate (Sellen) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_0f64e260-da35-11e7-8ba7-d7fce14e9fe0.html)
Add to your list of offensive writers
Gerson, Milbank, Dionne and more. But I learn a lot from them, so it’s OK.
I question Lowry and Ignatius and opposed
Will until he got off Trump bashing. He’ll never seem the same to me, and I’d
just soon he retire. I think Walter Williams and Byron York are helpful.
Bottom line, I learn from all of
them, except the Roberts couple who I class with Hillary Clinton.
Columns. (The
fiction/non-fiction comments gallery for readers)
Fashion (Froma Harrop) (creators.com/read/froma-harrop/12/17/in-meghan-markles-suits-the-men-wear-them)
As I read, I
had the impression there was an issue Harrop “would not go there.” Women use
fashion for power. Happy is the man who does not fall for it.
Factional Jews (Richard Cohen)
washingtonpost.com/opinions/american-jews-vs-israel/2017/12/04/d3de00e4-d928-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.e25b3d56b770
I don’t pretend to understand, but
the circumstance of Israeli Jews is survival more than prosperity.
Am I to count Cohen’s views as more realistic?
Am I to count Cohen’s views as more realistic?
Wrong answers come easy (Dana Milbank)
washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-not-get-into-the-butcher-or-the-candlestick-maker/2017/12/05/0632b3cc-da01-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.e79d48778832
“The high court has enshrined
the right to same-sex marriage, but neither the court nor Congress has
protected sexual orientation the way they protect race, religion, gender and
disability.“
Perhaps
“enshrined” will not hold. If the court at last considers marriage for procreation,
in other words, the dignity and equality of a child to be appreciated by the
couple who conceived him or her, same sex union, a mutual choice that excludes
monogamous procreation, may become a separate civil provision.
A fantasy violation (Rich Lowry)
heraldextra.com/news/opinion/national-editorials/rich-lowry-no-michael-flynn-didn-t-violate-the-logan/article_774a92d1-cbda-5f09-9a6c-eefb6b49b6f2.html
Lowry continues to disappoint. Flynn admitted to lying to
Vice President Pence, so President Trump fired him.
Other forums
libertylawsite.org/2017/12/06/resistance-and-the-crisis-of-authority-in-american-politics
Wallner’s
essay is so rich almost every paragraph can be developed into a proposal that
is both vital to a civic people and under intense 2017-consideration. I came
back to the essay due to civic obligations to help reverse Obergefell v.
Hodges. Let me start with this erroneous
paragraph:
“If asked, most people today would likely
equate authority with power. Power is rightly understood as the ability to
compel obedience through intimidation and force. But unlike power, authority
does not compel through such coercion. Rather, it is self-evident; people submit
to authority voluntarily. Authority, properly understood, transcends the
back-and-forth of political life. In that way, it resides outside the
government.”
(I worry that
Wallner is code-wording his way to Christianity.) Regardless, the paragraph is
both “rightly” and “properly” understood in Wallner’s proprietary world. With
no particular fault by Wallner (it's typical), it does not pertain to “We the
People of the United States” as defined by the civic agreement in the preamble
to the constitution for the USA. Such people behave for justice in daily
connections with other people more than to cooperate with municipal rules or
social conventions. That’s not hypothetical: There are many civic citizens in
this country.
Consider the unique psychological power of human beings. A
herd of sheep can be led over a cliff. But humans may reject terminal
subjugation and develop the psychological power to control their personal
energy. Yet charismatic persons convince groups to drink poisoned cool aide or
in other ways commit suicide. People who submit to falsehood do so either
through misinformation or through greed and gullibility to personal wisdom. But
the informed, humble person cannot be persuaded to do wrong, as demonstrated by
many people who were survived Nazi concentration camps.
The-objective-truth is power and authority. For example, the
informed human being accepts the power of gravity and conforms to gravity’s
authority. In other words, the human submits to the authority of gravity.
Personifying gravity, we may say that gravity forces the person’s obedience.
Only by misunderstanding or greed would a person defy the power of gravity. But
a person who understands and submits to gravity did not “submit to authority
voluntarily,” as Wallner claims. People submit to gravity for survival. Some
people died trying to fly like a bird.
Relative to gravity, death is a less understood power. Yet
each human encounters death’s authority.
Each human is comprised of body, mind and person. When the
body and mind cease functioning, the person lives on in the memories of loved
ones, friends and acquaintances and in the person’s concrete
accomplishments---children and grandchildren and beyond, fine arts, literature,
inventions, awards, cities they built, reactors they designed, people they
helped and so on. Some people achieve responsible freedom over the course of
their lifetimes.
Some people claim that beyond the body, mind, and person
there exists a soul, whereby there is an afterdeath beyond dust. The person’s
afterdeath may be favorable or not depending upon expressed acceptance of an
authority.
Undiscovered, the authority is constructed on its mystery.
Some people bargain with the mystery for the favorable afterdeath. They bargain
with the mystery---did not “submit to authority voluntarily”. They bargained
with the mystery for a favorable afterdeath rather than in freedom.
I think this issue---private hope for a favorable
afterdeath---is, unnecessarily, the bane of American republicanism. Evolution
developed one species, the human being, who is too physically and
psychologically powerful to submit to any way of living that does not
accommodate his or her responsible liberty. Some develop belief in a favorable
afterdeath and some reject that mystery. Believers have no power over
non-believers: non-believers reject the authority of mystery.
In these 229 years since the USA was established (on June
21, 1788, by 2/3 of the people in 2/3 of the states, among 1/3 dissidents for
their reasons), separation of church and state has never been accomplished. I
think most citizens want civic peace. It can be accomplished by using the
preamble to order civic issues, keeping religious concerns private. The civic
debates may start with the people and extend through the states to the three
branches of the federal government. Civic citizens may collaborate to discover
and utilize the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion to discover
justice. A free and responsible press may chronical a civic people’s ineluctable
march to justice. Civic citizens who believe in the mystery of the soul may
pursue the happiness they want without conflicting the civic peace. The
non-believer and the believer may mutually appreciate personal liberty with
civic morality.
I think and hope this change is happening as I write.
By the way, I was motivated to write again on re-reading
Matthew J. Franck, “The Problem of Judicial Supremacy,” National Affairs, No.
27, Spring 2016, page 137; nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-problem-of-judicial-supremacy.
I wrote in 2015 to suggest to Kyle Duncan, working for Louisiana’s Attorney
General, to defend marriage for procreation rather than “between a man and a
woman.” I was disappointed. In general, religion has no power to discover civic
justice, and that is especially so in the USA.
Phil Beaver does not “know”
the-indisputable-facts, or actual-reality. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth
of which most is undiscovered and some is understood. He is agent for A Civic
People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See
online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
