Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-indisputable-facts-of-reality have not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by learning other people’s experiences and observations. The comment box below invites sharing facts, opinion, or concern. (I read, write, and listen to establish my opinion as I pursue the-objective-truth.)
Note: I often connect words in a phrase with the dash in order to represent an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth without addressing possible error or attempting to balance the expression.
The Advocate:
Our
Views: It seems The Advocate did not read
its Page 1A article yesterday on the deficit. Therein, Gov. Edwards was quoted,
“We should have addressed the overgrowth of government many years ago.”
". . . a grand bargain, giving
conservatives lower tax rates and giving liberals new revenues . . ."
Relief rather than legislative bargain is what the people of Louisiana need.
The Advocate promotes income taxation.
Most egregiously, The Advocate plays
the "no option" voice of Barack Obama: the civic people are
obstructionists. Without a civic people, there are no income-tax revenues.
BTW: Both The Advocate and Edwards
need to accept that Obama has overtly resurfaced as an Alinsky-Marxist
organizer, but a civic people are more aware of AMO than ever before. But in
2017, the uglier liberal democrats behave, the weaker their causes. And
President Trump, different as he may be, cannot serve as a scape-goat for what
a civic people independently perceive.
Our
Views Jan. 28 La Supreme Court abuse: I wrote to
my state representatives and requested an amendment to the Louisiana
Constitution or whatever it takes to relieve a civic people of this abuse.
The offenders you mentioned,
especially lawyers and judges, deny first responders the civil right to perform
to the best of their ability . . . so help them God.
It is one of the greatest tyrannies
I have witnessed. It denies DA's and investigators' civil rights, too.
By this I do not intend to condone
first-responder-vigilantism. I am objecting to the vigilantism by lawyers and
judges that puts hardened criminals back on the streets to threaten first
responders.
Today’s
Thought. Thanks for Dean-relief.
Liberal intolerance (Evans, Jan 27). To Glen Miller: I appreciate your
interest.
Few citizens regard the preamble as the key to Americanism, as I do. In fact, some people either think the preamble was never intended for them or simply oppose it. Opposition existed in 1787-8, and Patrick Henry lobbied to change the subject from "the people" to "the states."
Here’s the preamble: “We the People
of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.”
I’d be interested in your paraphrase
as well as Pascanal Petreoff’s. Mine is: We the civic people under our state
constitutions, in order to collaborate for the purposes stated in this
sentence, specify, establish, and maintain the USA. The modifier “civic”
denotes the people who agree to the contract created by the preamble. People
who do not agree, intentionally or not, by definition, oppose the agreement.
The signers of the preamble knew why
they did not modify to “We the Civic People of the United States.” I speculate
that they wanted to express a noble aim of 100% of citizens in agreement to the
purposes and aims of the USA. They made this distinction in the articles that
followed by not repeating the phrase “we the people.” They used “the people of
the several States” once and “citizens” seven times. The amended constitution
may have different statistics.
Only 2/3 of representatives for the
13 states signed the preamble and the 1787 draft constitution. I speculate that
today’s population has about the same split regarding the preamble: about 2/3
of the people tacitly practice the purposes stated therein.
I work to bring the distinction
“civic,” as committing to the preamble, to the people’s attention. I hope to
increase the fraction so as to promote public-integrity. Thereby, civic citizens
may by example approach the totality: We the People of the United States.
James Gill column. The civil rights of
first responders, such as NOPD and the DA & investigators, are being denied
by Landrieu. They are assigned responsibility for public safety with no support
from Landieu, criminal trial lawyers, and judges. Thank goodness La AG Jeff
Landry is gathering first-hand information.
“Landrieu
and the council are on a mission to expand the police department, which might
seem a logical response to the crime stats. But a city that seeks more arrests
and fewer prosecutions at the same time clearly isn't thinking straight.”
Cannizzaro: “the revolving door of the criminal
justice system will be put on overdrive and dangerous defendants will be placed
back on the streets.” Whose lives will be threatened first? NOPD.
“Perhaps, one of these days, citizens will surround
City Hall in protest.” A civic people may come out of the closet of
indifference anytime they wake up to the-indisputable-facts-of-reality rather
than politically dominant opinion.
Mark
Ballard column. “Gov. John Bel Edwards and his team
have made little effort to build consensus.” IMO Edwards mimics Barack Obama
with this tactic: Build a liberal-democrat fear-argument then accuse the other
side of obstructing progress.
Rep. Ted James seems to speak in
code. IMO, NBR constituents, like me, are hit hard by sales tax. On the other
hand, many of those constituents benefit from federal redistribution paid by
me. Regardless, I want the state to reduce spending in order to stop the extra
sales tax.
I urge both James and Foil to resist
Edwards’ desire to increase the taxes I pay, whether property tax, income tax,
sales tax or service fees. I feel threatened by taxation and inflation, and if
you kill me (the taxpayer), there goes your opportunity to feed government and
redistribution.
More importantly, better economic
times are coming, and Louisiana government largesse should have been curtailed
years ago (quoting Edwards). Resist Gov. Edwards' steady-work to instill fear:
boldly reduce Louisiana spending.
Stephanie Grace column. I like that. David Vitter fame: “his thick
skin.”
Jeff
Sadow column. Sadow
suggested climatechangereconsidered.org/
from which I quote “Whereas the reports of the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human
effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small
relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur
will produce benefits as well as costs.”
Recall that the 193 United Nations like it that the US
pays 28% of activities and 22% of operating budgets. In other words, We the
Civic People of the United States are victims not only of the liberal democrats
among “we, the people,” our pockets are being picked big time by “we, the
nations.”
Sadow
overlooks subsidence, which is a Louisiana problem totally disconnected from
global warming and sea-level. In other words, every penny spent on global
warming rather than subsidence could be a total loss. See livescience.com/4186-real-reason-louisiana-sinking.html
.
I agree with Sadow: Reject the coastal plan.
I agree with Sadow: Reject the coastal plan.
George
Will column. Will
should opine about baseball rather than Trump-attack. It will get worse as
Trump’s administration establishes new federal offices and regulations.
In this case, Will’s narrow essay on domestic
distribution methods discounts Trump’s focus on bringing manufacturing back to
the USA. Amazon distributes products. Trump’s plan is to change the mix of
products from mostly overseas sources to domestic sources without destroying
other civic nations.
Schedler
on fraud (Page 1B). Schedler
did not directly address the specific Trump issues: registration in two states
and dead voters. Also, there’s the question of fraudulent papers, known by the
voter and whoever helped with the preparation but not by the registrars of
voters.
Also, consider Donna Brazile perhaps
furnishing questions to Hillary Clinton before the debate: washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donna-brazile-fired-cnn-contributor/
. Question her about voter registration drives over her tenure as a liberal
Democrat.
If someone
interviews people, registers them to vote, escorts them to their precinct, instructs
them on how to vote, and knows the person has no idea what they are doing, that
is voter-fraud IMO.
Ex-officiers
(Page 1B). Cold as my thoughts may be, it
seems important for men to note from this case: A man may protect a woman
rather than leave. And a woman may allow the police to “tow her car and arrest
her and her male companion” rather than compromise her person.
Travel ban (Page 1A). IMO the ban was stated well and
suffered the predicable transition problems. I got caught in several events
like that myself. For example, in 1978, I had to suddenly fly home because of a
technology-trade embargo. Not to make little of the present pains.
“House
Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said . . . “[Trump] is
doing more to shut down terrorist pathways into this country than the last
administration did in eight years.”
Texas mosque fire (Page 2A). The loss is terrible. If arson, it
is awful.
Safer U.S. (Page 7A). 240,000 murders since 9/11! War
losses, 6,640. See journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/us-military-casualty-statistics-costs-war-iraq-afghanistan-post-911
.
Poll
(Page 11A). Public opinion polls should be a
thing of the past.
Lobbying
and Islamic State plan (Page 12A).
Each was a campaign promise, and Trump moved fast.
The
Opposition (Page 14A). It’s not the media; it’s the lying media.
Voter
fraud (Page 14A). Fraud comes when a party hauls
someone to the polls with instructions but no personal preferences on the
issues.
Tech companies (Page 14A). They speak for their preferences
but can manage the change.
Week 1 (Page 15A). Thanks for sharing Trump’s humor: “This
is a little weird, isn’t it,” to Obama on the way to the inauguration. We’ll
know if Obama heard that.
Other dialogues:
quora.com/Is-there-a-reasonable-limit-to-how-far-out-of-ones-%E2%80%9Cecho-chamber%E2%80%9D-one-needs-to-reach/answer/Phil-Beaver-1
Is there a reasonable limit to how far out of one's “echo chamber” one needs to reach?
I have been trying hard to break out of my comfort zone, and
listen and understand opposing views. But there are some views I find
incomprehensible. White power advocates, conspiracy theorists, various forms of
reality-denial, etc. At what point is it acceptable to close one’s ears?
Phil Beaver
Second answer: You’re
commenting on Phil Beaver’s answer but seem to be writing to someone else:
White Supremacist.
I’ll skip to your question.
“Morality” is the duality good and evil. In any action or thought, a person may
choose good or evil. However, he or she may choose a standard by which to
judge. For public-integrity, the standard must be
the-indisputable-facts-of-reality, hereafter, The Facts.
In civic morality, two parties try
to behave so that both of them conform to The Facts. For example, we know that
the earth is like a globe, so we may share that fact and conform to it.
However, while it is statistically probable that there is extraterrestrial
intelligent being, we do not know. Again, we may share The Fact of not knowing.
However, one party may choose an
opinion and try to impose that opinion on the party that prefers “I don’t know
and accept that I don’t know.” The imposing or coercive behavior—-trying to
impose an opinion on someone who does not hold that opinion—-is immoral. Say
for example that the believing party is going to send expensive signals into
space, intelligently choosing the kind and manner of signal. He or she proposes
a tax so that the other must help pay for the signals. Merely approaching the
other party to request payment is immoral.
I hope I have explained both morality and civic morality according to public-integrity.
I hope I have explained both morality and civic morality according to public-integrity.
Each human may discover the opportunity to perfect his or
her unique person before dying.
