Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on
the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below
invites readers to write.
"Civic" refers
to citizens who collaborate for responsible freedom more than for the city,
state, nation, or other institution.
A personal paraphrase of
the June 21, 1788 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal
statement: Willing citizens of nine
of the thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in the purpose and goals
stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity,
liberty, and preservation for the children --- and to cultivate limited USA services
to us and our states. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this
paraphrase, yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended
by the people.
Our Views
April 9 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_a31aab0c-6b4e-11e8-a074-bf3eb1ec0b3d.html)
April 9 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_a31aab0c-6b4e-11e8-a074-bf3eb1ec0b3d.html)
The Advocate personnel did their part to hound Tom Schedler into
submission to hearsay about a woman who had carried on with him for a decade; http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d81ccadc-4a43-11e8-92d3-e7cb1870e857.html.
Gov. Edwards said Schedler should resign; https://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/john_bel_edwards_tom_schedler.html.
The systematic tolerance for diddling adolescent-aged citizens and
children is appalling and smacks of Vatican-style management. It makes me
visceral that elected officials in this state protect the abuse of children by
religious and political elites.
Surely something can be done! The Advocate personnel lead when they
should be silent and whine when they could be forceful.
I rescind every good thought I ever had about “journalists.” Journalism
has used freedom of the press to corrupt itself!!! I want my sentiment to
change, but first, The Advocate personnel may develop contrition then reform.
April 1 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9e97a99e-32d3-11e8-a696-b72954df9722.html)
To Marsha Marshal:
I address my preamble-paraphrase, which I offer for collaboration for
2018 living.
"Union" referred to the 1774 confederation of states under the
Articles of Confederation, 1777. However, I view the preamble as an invitation
to civic agreement by the extant We the People of the United States rather than
the inhabitants of 1787 or 1788. Citizens are free to dissent, and I guess that
about 1/3 of citizens are dissidents, some by default.
I am willing to commit to integrity, but not unity. The USA I work for
offers each willing individual liberty with civic morality. Each citizen has
the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority
(IPEA) to develop integrity. Some people do not like the work required for
integrity (establish understanding, learn the benefits, behave accordingly,
civically discuss the understanding and listen, and remain open to new discovery).
Some people see opportunity to pick the pockets of people who are too indolent
to collaborate for integrity. I consider indolence and criminality as among
dissidence to human justice. No way would I want unity with dissidents.
However, I will always offer collaboration to develop integrity and fidelity. I
work for integrity both as understanding and wholeness, but prefer dissonance
when injustice has not be discovered or corrected.
BTW. The preamble is the first legal statement in the constitution for
the USA. On June 21, 1788, the ninth required state ratified that civic
sentence and the articles that follow, amended as they are. Thus, on that June
21, the Confederation of States was reduced from thirteen to four states. The
four were dissident to the USA. A month later, one state joined, and on March
4, 1789, the USA began operations under the people in ten states. In another
year and a half, the three dissident states, including a rebel that had not
collaborated on the constitution except by the negativity of abstinence, had
joined.
June 7 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8c22279a-69aa-11e8-8e0a-4f39d1c93357.html)
The Advocate personnel produced news articles and an
editorial that offer tentative hope. However, to anticipate actual reform, we
may in future observe that The Advocate personnel are contrite and have
reformed in order to develop integrity---not due to ProPublica, but on their
own.
Reporters, Rebekah Allen in https://www.propublica.org/article/louisiana-lawmakers-promote-bills-that-help-their-relatives-and-clients
and Decca
Muldowney in https://www.propublica.org/article/legislators-in-many-states-can-push-bills-theyd-profit-from
write facts about elected officials picking the people’s pockets. Then, The
Advocate editors call attention to the evil and suggest a start toward reform:
“Voters must make
their own judgments, but they need a clear understanding, when legislation is
being debated, of what a lawmaker’s private interests in a bill might be.
Greater transparency . . . would involve more rigorous rules of disclosure
among legislators when a bill is filed.”
I’m a five-decades full subscriber, and feel I am civic citizen each time The Advocate sues for public information. I will also feel civic when I next vote against rather than for Dan Claitor, because of his support for HB 699 against transparency and SB 243 against impartial jury-unanimity, wherein Claitor sensationally gloated over his past honest privation of integrity. Privation of integrity seems characteristic of more than some lawyers. Many legislators and other officials are lawyers.
I’m a five-decades full subscriber, and feel I am civic citizen each time The Advocate sues for public information. I will also feel civic when I next vote against rather than for Dan Claitor, because of his support for HB 699 against transparency and SB 243 against impartial jury-unanimity, wherein Claitor sensationally gloated over his past honest privation of integrity. Privation of integrity seems characteristic of more than some lawyers. Many legislators and other officials are lawyers.
The
Advocate was egregious in sensationalizing the past, especially the incendiary
origins of Louisiana’s commendable measure to provide jury impartiality.
Louisiana law provides for decisions on unanimity by 10 jurors, negating the
power of up to two biased jury-members. The fact that bias prevails among
dissidents to civic morality is plain to everyone, including The Advocate
personnel. And everyone knows that every human has the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.
The
Advocate personnel, workers for other media, and Louisiana’s officials may not
want to accept IPEA. Also, many use their IPEA to pick the people’s pocket.
However, a civic people know dissidence to civic morality immediately:
Immorality screams from the very walls and empty space.
Along
with a new governor, I am especially looking for a new senator for my district.
I have tentative hope that a reformed hometown newspaper is developing. We’ll
see how defense of a Louisiana treasure---jury decisions on unanimity of ten of
twelve jurors---unfolds before the November vote. Keeping that provision of an
impartial jury decision alive in the USA is important to the entire nation, and
the ability to track its impact on human justice is equally important. Gov.
John Bel Edwards may veto Act 335, reversing his error.
June 6 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_93584092-68cb-11e8-b61d-7b34ba1e5e62.html)
June 6 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_93584092-68cb-11e8-b61d-7b34ba1e5e62.html)
The Advocate
personnel have consistently lobbied for the legislature to do John Bel Edwards’
will: pick the people’s pockets for more
state spending.
It’s poetic
that the staff would move their ultimatum to the front page of the news
section.
“. . . it's time for the people, through their
collective outrage, to save it from the shoals of crisis.” Recall John Bel Edwards and create
legislation that requires a responsible and free press---put some enforcement
in Louisiana’s constitutional protection of free expression yet liability for
consequences.
To JT McQuitty:
Readers who
click on your URLs do well; at least I am glad each time I click and read.
“Groups do not make choices; only individuals
do.” Our annual library meeting on June 21, next at Goodwood Library at 10:00
am, celebrates Individual Independence Day;
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8721598/53421699/5th-annual-individual-independence-day-celebration
.
“Kenneth
Arrow’s “impossibility theorem” shows that there is no mechanism for making
collective choices, other than dictatorship, that translates the preferences of
diverse individuals into a well-behaved social utility function.” The civic
agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA,
established June 21, 1788, offers individual collaboration for living in this
place at this time rather than the dictates of either the state or the national
government. The preamble is a civic rather than secular agreement. We think at
least 2/3 of US citizens live that way but are prevented from recognizing each
other by 1) the clergy-politician partnerships that have run federal political
regimes since March 4, 1789 and 2) eight-hundred years of scholarship that pits
reason versus religion as the basis of moral living (one view of “the common
good”), obfuscating integrity. In actual reality, integrity is the basis of
moral living. With individual integrity, a majority may develop that prevents
dictatorship, social democracy, elitism, and many other errors we tolerate.
Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and
the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Integrity empowers and
nourishes fidelity. People appreciate fidelity, and everyone wants
appreciation.
“Voter ignorance is rational because the cost of gathering information about
an upcoming election is high relative to the benefits of voting.” This is
especially true with free and irresponsible media. The Advocate is so biased
toward using social democracy to ruin this constitutional republic that I trust
the commentary more than The Advocate’s “reports.” And I’m a full subscriber
and have been for five decades! I want a Louisiana law that coerces The
Advocate to develop state responsibility within federal freedom.
“Legislative catering to the interests of the minority at the
expense of the majority is reinforced by the logic of collective action.”
Perhaps Shughart felt he was above discussing Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO)
like Saul Alinsky himself and the current prince, Barack Obama of OFA; https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311. W.F. Buckley, Jr. felt AMO was worthy of
objections; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI .
Listen to Alinksy endorse opinion-based violence during the last two minutes.
“. . . public interest evokes a Madisonian perspective on the
problems of democratic governance . . . public choice recognizes that men are
not angels . . .” Madison’s folly is made plain by today’s republican progress
despite social-democracy chaos. Individuals who take interest in their civic
welfare do not respond to appetites (banality), societies such as religions
(coercion), or government (force): they use their IPEA to manage these lesser
powers. For example, 2/3 of Irish (majority Catholic) voted to allow women to
terminate their pregnancies in Ireland. Similarly, in America, 1.7/3 favor the
pregnant woman’s decision in most cases; http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/.
“. . . it is not necessarily desirable to use the same voting
rule for all collective decisions; and . . . the public’s interest can be best
protected . . . by making collective choices at the lowest feasible level of
political authority.” The agreement offered by the preamble to the constitution
for the USA is a legal statement, and only adult citizens who demonstrate that
they trust-in and commit-to the agreement should have the right to vote: The
preamble establishes “the lowest feasible level of political authority.” In
other words, IPEA without civic trust and commitment does not qualify for
political authority.
This reform may seem shocking to some Republicans and some Democrats, perhaps John Bel Edwards, but it is not at all shocking to civic citizens according to the preamble.
This reform may seem shocking to some Republicans and some Democrats, perhaps John Bel Edwards, but it is not at all shocking to civic citizens according to the preamble.
To Jim Walley: Share
what you have been saying so I can benefit. If not here, friend me on Facebook
or write a separate message there.
In my view, Louisiana's 10-2 rule is a treasure that ought
not be squandered over the sensational emotionalism The Advocate writers used
in their hope to foil the public.
I bet some of the legislators who were lawyers professed
"Let the people vote," but that was not their motive.
Between now and November I will take every opportunity to
encourage both civic citizens and dissidents to preserve the opportunity for a
unanimous ten-unbiased jurors prevent the injustice of two biased jurors.
Providing an unbiased jury is important to every individual,
without consideration of skin color, religion, or any other peculiarity. The
USA does not preserve English ideals. The laws of this land ineluctably work to
fulfill the purpose and goals stated in the preamble.
To Jim Walley: This evil
is made possible by the classical argument that humans are good and bad, that
civic morality can only happen by coercion or force, and that religion and
government may partner on the coercion and force using Chapter XI
Machiavellianism; http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm.
We assert that every human has the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.
Many people have never considered developing integrity and many do not
understand integrity or that honesty is insufficient.
People who say they do what they do because the pope tells
them what to do while the pope manages systematic sexual abuse don’t realize
how people who are developing integrity view their infidelity to civic morality
as pitiable. The women whom legislators abuse with anti-abortion laws view the
legislators with contempt.
I must stop; my rage seems pitiable: The women whom legislators abuse with
anti-abortion laws view the legislators with contempt. John Bel Edwards can
veto the latest legislative attack on pregnant women and legislative arrogance
against the physical, biological and psychological authority that gave women
the power to remain pregnant or not.
To
Michael Justice: I wrote, “Providing
an unbiased jury is important to every individual, without consideration of
skin color, religion, or any other peculiarity.”
What did you read?
To JT McQuitty: Right.
And philanthropy converted to a tax burden is tyranny. Consider TOPS and the Taylor Foundation’s involvement in the tax. I’d like to re-dedicate 90% of TOPS funds to the children in K-12.
Preventing political tyranny is the reason the education non-profit corporation I registered in Louisiana is not a 501-c-3 charity.
And philanthropy converted to a tax burden is tyranny. Consider TOPS and the Taylor Foundation’s involvement in the tax. I’d like to re-dedicate 90% of TOPS funds to the children in K-12.
Preventing political tyranny is the reason the education non-profit corporation I registered in Louisiana is not a 501-c-3 charity.
Letters
Undeserving (Bo
Bienvenu) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_d3f226fc-6a9e-11e8-8440-a7797699efe8.html)
“ . . . they don’t deserve to the
there,” applies first to citizens who do not understand, adopt, and promote the
civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the
USA.
“We the People of the United
States” established the USA on June 21, 1788, but, so far, have not accepted
that the preamble is a legal statement that promises an achievable, better way
of living: Individual Independence with
Civic Morality. Statutory justice rather than dominant opinion constrains
dissidents and motivates them to join the civic culture.
Civic citizens
(Robert Hebert) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b1b15166-6a9f-11e8-ad43-77587bb5279d.html)
Writers who
aspire to be journalists can learn more from economists than from media
personnel, such as The Advocate’s employees. We are fortunate to have Robert
Hebert’s generous writing, and may appreciate The Advocate for publishing Hebert’s
letters.
However, I would
like to change one conventional phrase, “law-abiding citizens,” to “civic
citizens,” meaning citizens who adopt the preamble to the constitution for the USA
as the statement of civic integrity. The preamble divides us: civic citizens vs dissidents. Civic citizens
collaborate for human justice rather than merely abide the law.
The Advocate personnel
consistently lobby for social democracy to defeat American republicanism, thereby
choosing dissidence. The preamble offers
citizens the agreement to collaborate for human justice by collaboration to establish
statutory morality. Many journalism schools mislead students to favor
"social sciences," or design and production of statistics so as to
create political power from mere opinion; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making.
The preamble, on
June 21, 1788, legally established the USA, terminating the 1774 confederation
of states and the 1777 Articles of Confederation.
It is lame to
reference “we, the people.” “We the People of the United States” adopt a civic
agreement and develop the articles that follow in an ineluctable march toward
individual liberty with civic morality. This achievable, better future can be accelerated
by hometown newspapers whose personnel focus on civic integrity more than
freedom of the press.
News
Submission of
IPEA a bad idea (Tyler Bridges) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_57504034-65e4-11e8-b7bd-838eb086ca74.html)
Bridges and The
Advocate typically fail readers by not addressing the immorality of civil legislation
against women and their viable ova.
MWW objects to what she calls “abortion for
fun.” However, she appreciates women and their innate responsibilities to their
ova. That’s about all she’ll say about it---the details hurt her viscerally, so
the rest of this post is mine.
Most fertile
women individually take care of her body, mind, person, and relationships,
because she collaborates for best possible outcome for her and her delivered
conceptions: the child she and the man who bonded with her produce. She is
acutely aware of the chance for natural abortion or her demise during gestation
and responsibly prepares before conception. The conceiving bond is for life,
because grandchildren need grandparents.
Every person
has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority
(IPEA) to develop integrity, for example, to understand the woman has the
responsibility for her viable ova and the man is obligated to protect and join
her collaboration with her ova. In no way would an authentic man threaten a
woman and her ova.
Abortion for
fun accounts for less than 15% of recorded abortions, not counting the unknown
percentage of conceptions that do not attach to the womb---pass out of the
woman’s body unnoticed. In numbers, there are about 9 million conceptions and 4
million live births, so there are 0.75 million abortions for fun and 4.25
natural abortions, not counting the failures to attach. Why do legislators
abuse women about their natural responsibilities? Religion’s subjugation of
women.
Accepted
American scripture informs Judeo-Christian subjugation of women. First there’s
Genesis 2:21-24, part of the writer’s expression of the creation. The
subjugation is emphasized in Ephesians 5:22-33. A neighbor said, “Phil, your
explanation of IPEA seems correct, and I submit mine to the Lord.” My neighbor
may be religiously correct but un-civic. Can anyone can make a case for the
civic morality of ignoring the welfare of ova? Within a woman’s body, life
begins with ovulation and cannot have a good outcome without her care and his
care.
Gov. Edwards is
un-civic if he agrees with Bridges that Edwards is only following Catholic
errors in their determined subjugation and abuse of women; it’s personal denial
of IPEA. Also, Rep. Marcus Hunter reflects a similar privation of integrity in
“I believe it’s a personal decision between you and your god.” Readers deserve
attention to “you and your god,” as both particular to each person. Moreover,
in Hunter’s case, “your god” ignores the welfare of potentially 400 viable ova
for each woman during her fertile years. Through technology, each woman’s
viable ova could become a person.
It is up
to a civic people to end the folly of Judeo-Christianity’s erroneous influence
on civic morality. My guess is that 2/3 of both Jews and Christians are civic people.
For them, IPEA and the personal opportunity to develop integrity during your
one lifetime has not been bemused by American freedom of religion. Religion
represses the believer’s opportunity to develop integrity; the believer may be
aware of the tyranny and manage his or her god.
The idea of freeing the USA from
the tyranny of freedom of religion so that each citizen may choose to use IPEA,
individual power, energy, and authority to develop integrity is shocking!!!
However, only a short experience with freedom of integrity would make it
evident that an achievable, better future was underway. With freedom of
integrity, religious hopes and civic morality would each function for the
individual’s person rather than the institution’s hubris.
Civic citizenship
as common ground (Rebekah Allen) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_66b1ee8a-5ec6-11e8-9410-2bcfe33292c6.html)
I appreciate
Rebekah Allen's research on this question and would like to see a thorough
review of each legislator's particular method of picking the people's pocket. Further,
do any of them subsidize, collaborate with, or leak to The Advocate? Is John
Bel Edwards getting rich at the expense of the people? What about his apparent
Vatican partnership? Certainly, some administrators are highly overpaid.
For example, examine
the overwhelming legislative support for diluting Louisiana's unique jury law. Providing
a 10 of 12 jury decision helps assure an impartial jury in the contest between
victim and the accused. Requiring 12 of 12 or unanimity shifts the
justice-balance against the victim. It also increases the cost of trails to
favor lawyers, judges, DAs and all the rest of the judicial system. The people,
especially victim families, lose.
If Louisiana
follows John Bel Edwards’ advice to become like 48 other states, the USA loses
Louisiana’s leadership on overcoming English tradition in order to meet each
state’s obligation to provide an impartial jury. With unanimity, only one
biased jury member can ruin the unanimity of ten impartial jurors; the states
that allow that traditional English injustice are in error. With modern methods
such as DNA evidence, connecting criminals to the crime is increasingly
certain. Also, unbiased citizens come in all skin colors! But the lawyers use
social emotions and admit their own integrity failures to reverse this
objective logic! Too many of the legislators are lawyers and for other insider
reasons promote the judicial industry at the expense of the people.
It is important
for citizens who are interested in their individual welfare to vote in November
against the constitutional amendment to require unanimous jury decisions.
We’ll see if
The Advocate personnel examine the victim’s view in the debate they sensationalized
using socially-charged facts rather than objective examination.
“Somehow, we the
people, need to find a common ground.” We are working on it and have an annual
meeting in two weeks.
On June 21,
1788, willing people of nine free and independent states established the USA by
ratifying the 1787 Constitution. The next day four dissident states had the
opportunity to join. Only one did before the USA began operations on March 4,
1789. Citing July 4, 1776 as the nation’s birthday is part of the mythology
that keeps the people bemused!!!
More
importantly, on June 21, 1788, willing people legally changed the plan for
“unity” in this country---from a confederation of states under Congress to
management by individuals in their states who trust-in and commit-to the civic
agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The
preamble is a civic rather than secular sentence.
We call people
who accept the civic agreement “civic citizens” and the others “dissidents”. That
includes innocents, rebels, criminals, and worse. Thus, the first step in
finding common ground is for the people to admit to themselves that citizens in
the USA are divided: the USA, as designed by the signers of the 1787
Constitution (2/3 of the delegates representing 12/13 of the states) does not
expect a utopia. Appreciating the preamble’s purpose and goals, we celebrate
the willing individuals.
For these reasons,
especially the individuality of the agreement, we title our annual June 21
celebration, “Individual Independence Day.” Please attend, at 10:00 AM, June
21, Goodwood Library, Conference Room A; http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8721598/53421699/5th-annual-individual-independence-day-celebration .
Other fora
“Kate Spade, Entrepreneur,” https://www.wsj.com/articles/kate-spade-entrepreneur-1528414544
Anyone who aspires to write, let alone claim journalism, may
contemplate the base materialism (and bassesse) of this text and its ending, “the
world’s good fortune . . . a large legacy.”
I hope death delivers each individual to dust rather than afterdeath awareness.
I hope death delivers each individual to dust rather than afterdeath awareness.
Jack Phillips, “The High
Court Let Me Live My Faith Again,”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-let-me-live-my-faith-again-1528413065
I appreciate the
civic relief granted Phillips by the often morally errant Supreme Court and
Phillips sharing his individual pursuit of happiness. He, like all fellow-citizens
has my best hopes and wishes for responsible pursuit of individual happiness.
However, it is
important for him and others to expect that in ultimate human justice, the
mystery of Jesus cannot be imposed on civic citizens: those of “We the People
of the United States” who adopt the civic agreement that is offered in the
preamble to the constitution for the USA. The agreement is neutral to each
religion (including theism), ethnicity, and race.
Every citizen has
the opportunity to trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s agreement or not.
Moreover, every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the
individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. With integrity, the
individual admits “I do not know,” when his or her hopes and comforts are
founded in mystery rather than discovery. For example, to the question “Is
atheism true?” integrity requires the admission to self, “I don’t know.”
I doubt that
Phillips innocently shares his truth in Colossians 3:17 but neither the
divisive Exodus 20:7 (misnomers), Luke 14:26 (family hate) nor John 15:18-23 (civic
hate). It is important for Christians to stop trying to impose their mysteries
onto civic morality; to recognize that fellow citizens collaborate for private
happiness that does not ruin human justice.
On the other
hand, the nine voters on the Supreme Court must admit to themselves that Mark
10:7-8, while a poetic expression implies the actual reality that the ovum from
a woman is fertilized by the spermatozoon of a man, and thereby, developing a
human being is made possible. Thus, there are two issues involved in civic
marriage: adult bonding, which is not gender specific, and commitment to develop
a human being. Responsibility for the newborn, the “our posterity” in the
preamble, this citizen does not want to take from biological families.
Assuring a newborn
person equity and dignity in the three-decades transition from feral infant to
adult who has the understanding and intent to live a complete human life is a
civic culture’s duty that is best assigned to the conceiving couple. With
technical origins such as breaking a couple’s monogamy, petri-dish conception,
surrogate gestation, and same-sex parenting a civic culture seems untenable to
this citizen: The culture is not doing
all it can for equity and dignity of the individual person. Furthermore,
technological creation of human beings to serve same-sex partners invites new
variations of family infidelities. A partner and child may reasonably fall in
love and motivate divorce by the partners.
Mixing poetic
expressions from the Bible with civic collaboration to discover and deliver human
justice is a failure of the USA’s commitment to freedom of religion rather than
freedom of integrity. The First Amendment may be and should be amended to
protect integrity rather than religion.
To Jim Roberson on
FB:
I appreciate your catalog of concerns.
In this D-day anniversary, with NFL flag-controversy, I do
not appreciate a veteran who claims he can be willful toward the USA. He or she
can say whatever they want, but if they do not trust-in and commit-to the civic
agreement that is offered by the preamble to the constitution for the USA, they
neither have nor can win my respect until contrition and reform occurs to them.
On the other hand, if my neighbor is so alarmed that he
burns his flag, I'm going to knock on his door and say, "Neighbor, I got
your message. What happened to you and how can I help?"
Thank you, Paul
Seaton, for 1) the most comprehensively informative book review I have ever
read, and 2) an illustration of effective word choice that invites George F.
Will to either retire or stop expressing writer’s propriety.
“The
modern will is a certain kind of power, a power conceived as cut off from
reality’s reality and authority, whole unto itself, a power of
self-determination that knows only its own force and outside forces.”
As with so many of your sentences, there is much to say. First,
I often write “actual reality” as a synonym for the-objective-truth, which can
only be discovered; see Albert Einstein’s essay at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/
and I like your “reality’s reality”.
Social democracy invents its own demands, and without resisting
forces, produces chaos. The activists, Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO), would
abort the American republicanism that is authorized and maintained under the
subject of the preamble to the constitution for the USA: We the People of the
United States. But the agreement that is offered to individuals by the preamble
is not at all metaphysical. The goals are, in essence: integrity,
justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and preservation for the
children.
“. . . one can read Schindler’s book and never encounter the
Thirty Years War . . .” One can read the scholarship about the American civil
war and never encounter 1) the CSA’s claim that war is necessary because “. . .
public opinion at the North has invested a great
political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief,” and 2)
Abraham Lincoln’s direct yet sly response, “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.”
See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
and http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
. It is disturbing that Lincoln was so political he had not the courage to
explicitly pit the North’s god against the South’s god as the prevailing power
of civic citizens. Civic Americans accepted that slavery is wrong despite the
Church’s claims in their Holy Bible,
e.g., Ephesians 6:5. In other words, civic citizens fought for human justice
against religious beliefs.
The American Civil War illustrates the observation that every
human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Many don’t. The validity of Frederick
Douglass’s 1852 speech https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945
could have helped Robert E. Lee save his future instead of tout his ministers’
metaphysics in 1856 https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27
. Integrity requires each: the work to understand the-objective-truth, which in
the absence of discovery is, “I don’t know”; the fidelity to learn how to
benefit from the-objective-truth; advantageous behavior; public expression of
the-objective-truth and listening so as to collaborate with the other party;
and remaining open-minded to discovery that demands change or reform.
“The good was severed from the will or human freedom, and
freedom both replaced the good and was held to be the good in liberal societies
tutored by the modern philosophers.” And, “They had observed that “the Good,”
instead of perfecting and uniting, had become a battle-cry. What to do?”
Burke, Aristotle, and Plato were only commenting on ancient
propriety. The entire body scholarly commentary focuses on whether or not moral
living is based on reason or religion; physics or metaphysics; discovery or
imagination; the-objective-truth or human constructs. These dualities obfuscate
integrity as the basis for moral living. I am reminded of David Hume, who might
say: put the body of reason vs religion scholarship on a pile and burn it.
Also, Marshall McLuhan might assert that a conference on reason v faith
would obfuscate integrity.
“. . . ‘esoteric writing’ . . . was dictated by complex motives,
a rhetoric appropriate to one’s audience, a concealment necessary for heterodox
thoughts and thinkers, a puzzle for potential like-minded thinkers.”
I think propriety is a hoax:
Every human may use his or her IPEA to develop integrity, and those how
don’t may ask themselves if they are fruitlessly pursuing power over those who
do. Either way, civic citizens are aware of dissidents. The futility of war,
such as the American Civil War, is only a mirror of self-defeating conflict for
dominant opinion instead of collaboration for the-objective-truth.
To Thomas G. West:
I am compelled to ask:
What if “integrity” was unencumbered by “reason,” “Christianity,” and
“nature and nature’s god”?
Integrity is: doing the work to understand actual reality,
learning how to benefit from the discovery, behaving for the benefits, publicly
sharing the understanding and listening for either affirmation or improvement,
and remaining open to discovery that demands reform. A culture of integrity is
not free to reason or believe infidelity to actual reality. Yet integrity does
not require forgoing personal hopes regarding the un-discovered or
possibilities that are consistent with actual reality---which I also call
"the-objective-truth," using the hyphens to avoid distractions like
“objective truth.”
How might new use of old phrases and words empower collaboration
on your three-point set? Here’s my suggestion:
1. Locke’s narrow
claim of human equality was erroneous. All human beings have the individual
power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop
integrity. Physics and its branches, especially biology, psychology, and
fidelity, effect variations both in newborn IPEA and in community influence.
All infants have unique potentials and some infants are born into ignorance,
dissidence, crime, evil, abuse, and worse. For example, the infant born into a
system of sexual abuse may react negatively and develop IPEA to defeat the
system or may be attracted to the lifestyle of the perpetrators and join them.
Humans are equal, in that the opportunity to use IPEA for integrity exists, but
unequal in whether or not he or she will choose infidelity. Consequently human
outcomes are unequal and may improve only in a culture of integrity and
fidelity rather than reason and faith.
2. Physics, the
object of study rather than the study practice, is, according to Einstein,
mass, energy, and space-time, from which the-objective-truth may be discovered.
When the-objective-truth is un-discovered, imagination may attempt to fill the
gap, but speculation is no substitute for actual reality: The posture, “We
don’t know,” cannot be changed to certainty based on imagination. The human
being, unlike other species has IPEA, and it requires about three decades for a
person to acquire the understanding and intentions to live a complete human
life---to be working to perfect his or her unique person. Most existing
cultures inculcate reason and faith as competitive influences, obfuscating the
potential for each person to use IPEA to develop integrity. Commentary on
actually ancient thinkers has, for 2500 years, used the reason v faith debate
to obfuscate integrity. Why?
3. Einstein may
have been wrong when he said in 1941 that civic citizens do not lie to each
other so as to reduce pain and loss (see Einstein’s essay at
https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/); but I doubt Einstein was wrong.
Humankind’s integrity ineluctably marches forward and for scholars to press
Locke (d. 1704) vs Aristotle (d. 322 BC), ignoring Einstein (d. 1955), seems
un-civic respecting the 2018 newborn. A culture advances on the integrity its
individual newborns develop.
As a chemical engineer (retired 2001), I learned to ask myself,
“Is this work assuring the safety and security of the stakeholders, especially
the public?” If my answer was “No,” I considered how to make it so, and if
necessary, discussed a change of direction with my boss. The vessels I designed
will not blow up, and some, before me, could have. Sometimes, bosses were
changed, but I served the company for 35 years, always developing my integrity.
I think a culture of integrity requires each person to ask, “Is
what I am doing helping the public?” If “No,” personal reform is in order; the
culture cannot advance without individuals who advance. The cry for a culture
of integrity rather than reason or faith has long since been expressed by
America’s children, currently about 4 million live births per year; currently
75 million under age 18. They are born into an erroneous culture of reason vs
faith rather than integrity, and the majority will suffer. Even some financial
elites psychologically suffer.
https://www.quora.com/Would-it-be-morally-ethically-wrong-if-you-stole-50-dollars-from-someone-today-but-give-them-100-dollars-tomorrow
Stealing is
morally wrong, no matter what additional harm occurred before restitution.
Further, the victim might not accept 100% recompense.
My opinion comes
from contemplation, during the past two decades, of Agathon’s speech in Plato’s
“Symposium.” I call Agathon’s posture “appreciation” for the-objective-truth.
His principle is that an appreciative person neither initiates nor tolerates
harm to or from any person or god. I doubt anyone would agree my interpretation
was Agathon’s intent, especially the incorporation of the Hippocratic oath.
In the USA, the
citizens are divided on Agathon’s principle. Citizens who are willing to
trust-in and commit-to civic human justice according to the-objective-truth
collaborate to constrain dissidents while encouraging those who do harm to
reform during their lifetimes.
In my eighth
decade, I am developing integrity to the-objective-truth. “Nor tolerates harm”
motivated me to respond to your question. I hope my response helps.
I write to learn,
so please comment.
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/05/30/the-case-against-education-bryan-caplan/#comments
To Michael T Kennedy:
I appreciate your comment and its creativity and want to
collaborate for a more promising, achievable future.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co was decided in 1971. I considered your
comment within the timeline of its decade, highlighted mostly from https://www.shmoop.com/civil-rights-black-power/timeline.html. I contend
that black leaders, following Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO), have hurt We
the People of the United States by distracting citizens from the appreciation
for the preamble and the constitutional provisions that followed Frederick
Douglass expressed in his 1852 speech; https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945
. The
brief timeline is:
1963 march on
Washington
1964 civil
rights act against racial discrimination, then President Johnson’s war on
poverty
1965 voter
rights act; the Moynihan report, “The Negro Family.”
1966 SNCC and CORE fully embraced the slogan of
"black power" to describe . . . trends towards militancy and
self-reliance; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Activist_organizations.
New foundations; Black Panthers,
National Organization for Women.
1967 riots,
Newark and Detroit, MLK, Jr. against poverty
1968 MLK, Jr.
assassinated, major cities riots, poor people’s march
1969 James H.
Cone publishes, “Black Theology & Black Power.” Democratic Select
Committee” founded
1971 school
busing, Congressional Black Caucus founded
1972 National
Black Political Convention. Saul Alinsky, violently against black poverty,
published “Rules for Radicals.”
The confluence
of black power, black liberation theology, black caucuses, and radical
organizations started a five-decades path toward black-white division in the
USA that produced African-American Christianity (AAC) rather than civic
citizens’ Christian church or American Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. One, perhaps
minority, AAC belief I receive, for example, from Jeremiah Wright, is that
God’s chosen people have black skin and the only way a white individual may
save his or her soul is to help black Americans reign supreme. Whatever it
means to believers, the Canterbury Church got an introduction at the recent royal
wedding. Beforehand, I had no idea African-American Christianity might extend
to Europe. I have no idea where Judeo-Christianity stands with AAC.
Relief from the fruitless movements to establish supremacy of a
religious group in this country, whether Christian or not, is available in the
civic contract that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.
It is a legal statement; for example, the statement changed the form of
government from loosely cooperative, free and independent states to limited
federalism managed by willing people in their states.
I propose a constitutional amendment that states that only
adults who demonstrate that they trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s goals
may vote in national elections.
Further, I propose to make it clear that the agreement's goal is
human justice, which is based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant
opinion, especially majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words,
amendment of the constitution must be based on integrity regarding
the-objective-truth rather than either reason or religion.
https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-most-disturbing-part-about-American-society/answer/Phil-Beaver-1/comment/63867611?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=2620477788
The pertinent part of the quote is, “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” The statement is in conflict with both 1) the agreement
that is offered in the preamble to the constitution, which is neutral to
religion and 2) statutory justice, which can only be discovered in
the-objective-truth rather than opinion, especially Supreme Court opinion,
which is reversible.
We the People of the United States
did not and do not authorize Congress to create a law concerning the duty and
opportunity for a human being to think. Since Congress has no power to limit a
citizen’s thought, it has no prerogative to consider the person’s thought.
Congress can only challenge consequences of thought.
Consider your interpretation of the
statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of thought,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s non sense. In the first
place, Congress cannot determine a citizen’s thought, no matter how craftily
Congress positions its inquiry. Congress can only observe the consequences of a
person’s thought.
Consider Congress’s cunning in the
religion clauses. It does not define “religion.” That leaves it to the Court’s
opinion as to whether or not the person with standing to present a case defined
“religion” consistent with religion. The citizens says, “I object on my
religious beliefs.” The Court asks, “What is ‘religion’?” Then, the court
deliberates the definition and its fit with statutory law.
Consider an institutional issue. The
Catholic confessional protects the priest from the requirement to report a
crime. In question is the case of an adolescent girl reporting that an adult
was sexually abusing her. Since the report came in during confession, the
priest claimed he could not report to the police. In this case, Church canon
must reform so that it conforms to the rule of law. However, the Court is
perplexed.
The religion clauses in the First
Amendment protect religion. It would be sufficient to delete the clauses
altogether. However, one of the duties of the constitution is to maintain the
record of discovery of human justice. Therefore I suggest amending the clauses
to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of integrity, or
prohibiting the free development of integrity,” or better.
I hope this helps us collaborate and
look forward to your response.
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.
