“Let us pray that strength and courage abundant be given to all who work for a world of reason and understanding, that the good that lies in every man’s heart may day by day be magnified, that men will come to see more clearly not that which divides them, but that which unites them, that each hour may bring us closer to a final victory, not of nation over nation, but of man over his own evils and weaknesses, that the true spirit of this Christmas season — it’s joy, its beauty, its hope, and above all its abiding faith — may live among us, that the blessings of peace be ours — the peace to build and grow, to live in harmony and sympathy with others, and to plan for the future with confidence.”
Something my grandma had hand transcribed 60 years ago - she had kept this as a prayer ever since...
Respect is taken, when respect is given...
Namaste and Slainte
~BG~
Showing posts with label utilitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label utilitarianism. Show all posts
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Virtue of Politics
Politics are constantly changing, but the themes are universal. It frequently borrows from what came before. Continuity and change become partners in a living tradition. Don’t we then change along with the times? Or is that the times change with the want of something new?
Didn’t the needs of the people stand to different principles in say third millennia Egypt, as opposed to 20th century United States? The obvious answer would be yes. The real answer is no. Why?
Principles don’t change – the manner in which they are conducted, does.
When Confucius set about the ethical groundwork for modern politics, he had one view in mind – lead by virtue of being human. What does that mean?
When politics come down to one-upping with what one perceives is the hole in the opposing campaign, virtue is lost. The number of votes at the behest of perceived weakness is weakness of human virtue. We cease being human, and start controlling instead of helping. We help no one with attacks on character and intelligence.
Is it socialist, moderate, centrist views that want betterment as a whole so that there is no more violence, or less of; equality in being able to afford to take care of health, living, and energy matters? It seems it would be easier to weed out the weeds, and grow into better people. Why is that so wrong? Because there’s no controlling share of money involved?
I find it humorous that the big political platform now is doing away with earmark spending, when the simple fact is that earmarks make up one percent of the national debt – a debt that has doubled under the Bush administration (conservative platforms) since Clinton left office. The Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and the war budgets make up twenty percent of the national debt (Concord Coalition). Which means the remaining budget has fallen into disarray on the part of those that concentrated their money into one project, neglecting the true needs of the people – and I DON’T have the need to kill, thank you very much. And let’s not forget that the Republicans now are plastering the public about how liberal the Democrats are with spending – spending, that is, on everything except war tirades.
Spending $40billion dollars a week on sustaining a killing venture isn’t liberal spending? That price tag is neglecting, I might add, national infrastructure, effectively brokering our economy overseas while the middle and lower classes (the working classes) suffer for it. Yet, the Republicans cry fowl in my home state (CO) that $1billion dollars of our state surplus was spent on education – the highest amount EVER ALOTTED in state history. Let’s not forget that Republicans now want less government control, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights are government documents on regulating a free-state of people – regulated BY THE PEOPLE that vote in politicians that amend those documents to fit the bill of whomever is in office.
Had the Democrats been more conservative, the staving off of the pine beetle infestation could have been stopped years ago by casting a fire in certain areas of the Canadian Rocky Mountain range. This would have created a buffer between how the beetles would have progressed. The tree-huggers cried fowl that the trees and wildlife should not have been destroyed, but now have destroyed the mountains where my family is buried – subsequently mountain floura and fauna will cease in 50 years. Allan Carroll of the Canadian Forest Service has stated that less than one percent of the fires needed to have burned a beetle blockade, burns today, right now, in fires that the forest industry has (spent enormous amounts of money on) tried to prevent. The Clean Air Act, co-written by (D-Virginia) Nick Rahall stalled in the senate – by four opposed Democrats – Rahall one of them.
These are just a couple of examples, but politics in government should not be filled with such inconsistencies. We place our human livelihood in people that have been sworn to protect it. When it fails, it is our job as citizens within the government to uphold our tacit-consent on political birthright, (given again by the Constitution), to voice concern and do something about it. Voting is not it. According to Thomas Paine, revolution is.
I spoke earlier of moral indignation against one another. This is resulting in disharmony in social well-being. When that happens, change in something other than government needs to take place. We need to look at everything that has a controlling effect on how we go about our daily lives with what makes the majority of the people unhappy, instead of how a small percentage wants to control everything, with everyone in it.
Taking matters out of context also fits with wanting more and helping less. So, let’s all wipe the lipstick off the pigs and get back to respecting morals, ethics, and civility. You can’t sugar coat a turd and call it donut, any more than you can piss down my back and tell me that it’s raining. It’s a metaphor, people – wake up! Let's start acting human again!
Respect is taken, when respect is given ...
Namaste and Slainte
~BG~
Didn’t the needs of the people stand to different principles in say third millennia Egypt, as opposed to 20th century United States? The obvious answer would be yes. The real answer is no. Why?
Principles don’t change – the manner in which they are conducted, does.
When Confucius set about the ethical groundwork for modern politics, he had one view in mind – lead by virtue of being human. What does that mean?
When politics come down to one-upping with what one perceives is the hole in the opposing campaign, virtue is lost. The number of votes at the behest of perceived weakness is weakness of human virtue. We cease being human, and start controlling instead of helping. We help no one with attacks on character and intelligence.
Is it socialist, moderate, centrist views that want betterment as a whole so that there is no more violence, or less of; equality in being able to afford to take care of health, living, and energy matters? It seems it would be easier to weed out the weeds, and grow into better people. Why is that so wrong? Because there’s no controlling share of money involved?
I find it humorous that the big political platform now is doing away with earmark spending, when the simple fact is that earmarks make up one percent of the national debt – a debt that has doubled under the Bush administration (conservative platforms) since Clinton left office. The Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and the war budgets make up twenty percent of the national debt (Concord Coalition). Which means the remaining budget has fallen into disarray on the part of those that concentrated their money into one project, neglecting the true needs of the people – and I DON’T have the need to kill, thank you very much. And let’s not forget that the Republicans now are plastering the public about how liberal the Democrats are with spending – spending, that is, on everything except war tirades.
Spending $40billion dollars a week on sustaining a killing venture isn’t liberal spending? That price tag is neglecting, I might add, national infrastructure, effectively brokering our economy overseas while the middle and lower classes (the working classes) suffer for it. Yet, the Republicans cry fowl in my home state (CO) that $1billion dollars of our state surplus was spent on education – the highest amount EVER ALOTTED in state history. Let’s not forget that Republicans now want less government control, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights are government documents on regulating a free-state of people – regulated BY THE PEOPLE that vote in politicians that amend those documents to fit the bill of whomever is in office.
Had the Democrats been more conservative, the staving off of the pine beetle infestation could have been stopped years ago by casting a fire in certain areas of the Canadian Rocky Mountain range. This would have created a buffer between how the beetles would have progressed. The tree-huggers cried fowl that the trees and wildlife should not have been destroyed, but now have destroyed the mountains where my family is buried – subsequently mountain floura and fauna will cease in 50 years. Allan Carroll of the Canadian Forest Service has stated that less than one percent of the fires needed to have burned a beetle blockade, burns today, right now, in fires that the forest industry has (spent enormous amounts of money on) tried to prevent. The Clean Air Act, co-written by (D-Virginia) Nick Rahall stalled in the senate – by four opposed Democrats – Rahall one of them.
These are just a couple of examples, but politics in government should not be filled with such inconsistencies. We place our human livelihood in people that have been sworn to protect it. When it fails, it is our job as citizens within the government to uphold our tacit-consent on political birthright, (given again by the Constitution), to voice concern and do something about it. Voting is not it. According to Thomas Paine, revolution is.
I spoke earlier of moral indignation against one another. This is resulting in disharmony in social well-being. When that happens, change in something other than government needs to take place. We need to look at everything that has a controlling effect on how we go about our daily lives with what makes the majority of the people unhappy, instead of how a small percentage wants to control everything, with everyone in it.
Taking matters out of context also fits with wanting more and helping less. So, let’s all wipe the lipstick off the pigs and get back to respecting morals, ethics, and civility. You can’t sugar coat a turd and call it donut, any more than you can piss down my back and tell me that it’s raining. It’s a metaphor, people – wake up! Let's start acting human again!
Respect is taken, when respect is given ...
Namaste and Slainte
~BG~
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment.
If you believe in the 2nd Amendment as a right for the commonwealth, rather than the sole of the military, you've never been on the receiving end of a gun - if you had, your views would change from the wanton need to kill if a gun was handy via means of "protection", to savoring life when it is about to be shot out from underneath. The Constitution was written under the pretense of war, at a time where wartime measures required guns to fight a gun-toting invading force. In my faith and beliefs, killing is not necessary EVER.
What benefit is there to give everyone a gun? If no one had a gun, what reason would there be for protection? It is ONLY through escalation that guns are needed. If weaponry didn't exist, what would fuel the fervent warrior? The fact that there is EASY access to harmful machines, only fuels those bent on harm. Take away the access, and there will be a decrease in harmful situations penned on an outside source, being guns. There will always be something else to take its place, but shouldn’t there also be a choice of whether or not to take up such a violent act?
If one is given a gun, there is no choice - only one action. If one were to say "I have a gun, but choose not to use it - except only in defence..."; defence of what? Shooting or be shot? The choice becomes kill or be killed? There is death on someone's hands no matter how you view it. Why would anyone choose death, over life? There is always another underlying factor involved, for the use of a weapon. Root out the evil beneath the folds of weaponry, and one will find solace in knowing that there even lies a choice without guns and subsequent killing.
I’ve been mugged because someone wanted my coat. And because I chose to use my mind as a means to fend off the attacker, I was shot because of it. I regret nothing - I have no blood on my hands.
I’ve seen someone shoot themselves, with alcohol and other drugs involved. Had there not been a gun around, he’d still be with us today. Maybe he would have died from a drug overdose, but at least his brains wouldn’t be on the wall of his basement. His nickname was “Brooklyn”.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest minds ever to grace American soil, was pro-gun. He is quoted in his Commonplace Book as saying the following:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Except Jefferson only copied it from an Italian man named Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, who is considered one of the founding pioneers in the field of criminology, and a philosphical/politician contempory of Jefferson, and author of a treatise of one of the basis of our Constitution, “On Crimes and Punishments”. There is one great difference between the two men: Jefferson used the quote as an end to the means, meaning he was for everyone having a gun so that everyone would be equal in the face of danger. Bonesana actually meant it as a means to and end, as he was fervently opposed to torture and an advocate of criminal reform.
I, much like Bonesana, tend to side with humanism on this subject in that there is now more than ever a sense of urgency at unjust suffering. Utilitarianism works to a point, then the argument begins on which state of moral happiness is best for the greater good – I tend to side with the happiness that is not blowing someone’s brains out, simply because one has access to a gun and is happy about using it at any given point, for any given reason.
I can only say that you will value life to the fullest, knowing that it can be taken in an instant. Diseases can leave a person withering years after diagnosed. Even though I've had my share of medical unfortunates, I cannot speak of that. However, I can speak of being on the receiving end of cowardice ...
Respect is taken, when respect is given ...
Namaste and Slainte
~BG~
If you believe in the 2nd Amendment as a right for the commonwealth, rather than the sole of the military, you've never been on the receiving end of a gun - if you had, your views would change from the wanton need to kill if a gun was handy via means of "protection", to savoring life when it is about to be shot out from underneath. The Constitution was written under the pretense of war, at a time where wartime measures required guns to fight a gun-toting invading force. In my faith and beliefs, killing is not necessary EVER.
What benefit is there to give everyone a gun? If no one had a gun, what reason would there be for protection? It is ONLY through escalation that guns are needed. If weaponry didn't exist, what would fuel the fervent warrior? The fact that there is EASY access to harmful machines, only fuels those bent on harm. Take away the access, and there will be a decrease in harmful situations penned on an outside source, being guns. There will always be something else to take its place, but shouldn’t there also be a choice of whether or not to take up such a violent act?
If one is given a gun, there is no choice - only one action. If one were to say "I have a gun, but choose not to use it - except only in defence..."; defence of what? Shooting or be shot? The choice becomes kill or be killed? There is death on someone's hands no matter how you view it. Why would anyone choose death, over life? There is always another underlying factor involved, for the use of a weapon. Root out the evil beneath the folds of weaponry, and one will find solace in knowing that there even lies a choice without guns and subsequent killing.
I’ve been mugged because someone wanted my coat. And because I chose to use my mind as a means to fend off the attacker, I was shot because of it. I regret nothing - I have no blood on my hands.
I’ve seen someone shoot themselves, with alcohol and other drugs involved. Had there not been a gun around, he’d still be with us today. Maybe he would have died from a drug overdose, but at least his brains wouldn’t be on the wall of his basement. His nickname was “Brooklyn”.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest minds ever to grace American soil, was pro-gun. He is quoted in his Commonplace Book as saying the following:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Except Jefferson only copied it from an Italian man named Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, who is considered one of the founding pioneers in the field of criminology, and a philosphical/politician contempory of Jefferson, and author of a treatise of one of the basis of our Constitution, “On Crimes and Punishments”. There is one great difference between the two men: Jefferson used the quote as an end to the means, meaning he was for everyone having a gun so that everyone would be equal in the face of danger. Bonesana actually meant it as a means to and end, as he was fervently opposed to torture and an advocate of criminal reform.
I, much like Bonesana, tend to side with humanism on this subject in that there is now more than ever a sense of urgency at unjust suffering. Utilitarianism works to a point, then the argument begins on which state of moral happiness is best for the greater good – I tend to side with the happiness that is not blowing someone’s brains out, simply because one has access to a gun and is happy about using it at any given point, for any given reason.
I can only say that you will value life to the fullest, knowing that it can be taken in an instant. Diseases can leave a person withering years after diagnosed. Even though I've had my share of medical unfortunates, I cannot speak of that. However, I can speak of being on the receiving end of cowardice ...
Respect is taken, when respect is given ...
Namaste and Slainte
~BG~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)