Truthfulness, Justice, Freedom, Respect…

Category: Politics


Seems like (with current events being what they are) it may be time to address the issue of perspective…
or having differing points of view.

First of all let’s be clear…
no two people can ever have the same point of view…
it is simply impossible…
because they are two different people…
who stand and live in different spaces…
having (literally) different (eyeball or visual) views…
as well as different life experiences with which to form their views.

(I highlight as vital that) different points of view are not only inevitable, but quite useful, if not necessary… and at times it may be that the bigger the distance between the points of view, the better.

Think of a person (P1) standing not too far off from a tree (T)…
now add a person (p2) hiding behind the tree…
and add a person (P3) standing a fair space apart from both…
like this:
P1 <-----> P3

Now consider…
P1 cannot see p2… but P3 can…
Useful, huh? Yes!
Especially if p2 (behind the tree) poses a danger to P1 (which is why p2’s hiding behind the tree)…
in which scenario differing views become very useful.

Cool huh? Different perspectives or points of view are good!

Now, lest anyone accuse me of being only one-sided in my view(s)…
or wearing rose colored glasses all the time…

In the scenario above, it may be that p2 & P3 are allied…
with intent to do P1 harm…
Bummer (with a capital B).

In which case…
it could be a really good idea for P1 to find others who hold a different point of view (from p2 or P3)… wouldn’t it?

Just sayin…

Keep on Lovin’


On Election 2016

I’m fairly certain that most of you have some good opinion on which of the candidates (if any) for President of the USA should be awarded that post so I won’t get into it. But I *would* like to address a couple of issues that I believe are important but which I have not as yet seen/heard discussed.

First… since the election of John Kennedy back in 1960, I have encountered, read and heard of, people voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Not only does that expression speak for itself, but I think it also denotes a certain lack of honesty and integrity. How can any best candidate win an office if people are uninformed or, in a sense, lying with their vote. After all, if I really wish candidate C to win but I vote for candidate B, for whatever reason (example: because C “will never win and I don’t want A to win”), am I being honest or helping my chosen candidate to win? BTW… not voting, or writing in ‘none of the above’ (or “This Mouse”) is a vote… your vote… legitimate and important (and I wish it were properly acknowledged/counted). So for this election I encourage you to consider voting (or not) intelligently and honestly… for, not against.

Second… let us remember that no matter who wins or what shape you think this country is in, it (this country) is still predicated upon the *inviolate* principal that all men and women are created sovereign, equal, and free. This is what makes (or should make) the United States of America a great place to be. But this greatness (admittedly under fire) can only continue or be righted (depending upon your point of view) if we *all* stand up, accept, defend, and live within the constructs of “sovereign, equal, and free”… without animosity and with real respect. If we agree on “America, land of the free” we must choose to be (and really *be*) and allow others to be free… being civil, acting always with respect for each other’s rights. [for more see — Unity in Purpose – 10/21/12]

So vote your heart and mind, honestly… civilly… and then, with grace, accept the result… always continuing to act for the good of each other and this truly great (but, IMHO, a tad under the weather) country. But tolerate not dishonesty, injustice, or evil… for although a proper, individual kind of morality (one that truly makes a nation great) can never be forced, it may at times need to be enforced… yet, requiring it by an encompassing example is the key.


The Election Highway

“Charles! Welcome back boy! Here’s your old chair, have a seat. Drink? Oh Johnson, get Charles his usual brandy in a snifter will you? And I’ll have another too, if you would. So Charles, here, have a cigar… glad to be home?”

“Good to be back George, thank you. Nothing like the old club, my favourite chair, a brandy, and a good cigar. Best thing for a man… quite civilized and all that. Especially after the way the rest of the world is behaving.”

“So you’ve been out and about, poking around the world, eh?”

“Poking around the world is a good way to put it I suppose. But the answer is yes, I did some poking around. Nothing too serious understand.”

“What was it like? How are the elections going?”

“Oh, the Elections in Zambia should be coming up on schedule.”

“Zambia! Old boy! I mean the Presidential in America. How is that one going?”

“I’d say it’s shaping up to be one of the more interesting ones.”

“How do you mean?”

“Well if you’ll recall, with Barack we decided fairly early on and thus could try something a bit different. I might add that the experiment to market an unknown like him to the public turned out well. We learned what works and what doesn’t. But frankly that all seemed a tad boring. You know, more like an average sales & marketing pitch. Like selling Fruitio Dumpos or something.”

“Yes, but this election is different is it not?”

“Yes, with this one we’ve opened up the field so to speak. Just to see what will happen. You know, when Donald decided to run, we did not discourage him as it was a splendid opportunity for us.”

“How is that?”

“Donald’s statements and attitude have triggered much discussion in areas we found difficult to explore. He’s helped us to better understand the middle & lower class Americans’ attitude. Oh, we could always guess, but now we have a much more visible measure, if you will, of how our policies are being perceived and accepted; just how deeply our promptings have penetrated the mass psyche.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, you might say the political situation in America, and actually their economic one as well, could be compared to a bus on a highway or a train on a track. The drivers an be changed, but since the track has no proverbial exits, the train will inevitably arrive at the destination the track leads to.”


“Well yes, barring accidents or ‘acts of God’ or some other unlikely or unforeseen event.”

“Unforeseen event?”

“Yes, you see, it seems that a not entirely unexpected phenomenon is taking place in America. Much of the world in fact. The passengers on the train, the Americans, are becoming agitated. As if they’ve not been permitted to get off and stretch their legs in too long a time. Similar, in a way, to what happened on those cruise ships that broke down and floated about in the ocean. The passengers eventually became quite angry. I almost wonder if we should slow down a bit. You know, pause at a station to give them a break.”

“Well, perhaps. But what about the candidates?”

“Oh we’re not worried about them at all. Although I haven’t spoken with any as yet, aside from dropping Hillary a hint.”

“A hint?”

“Yes. Back in 2008, when we told her Barack was going to get it, she started looking as if she’d given up… down in the mouth and all. I mentioned that this time perhaps she might tone down the ‘got it in the bag’ vibe so to speak, even if it may be true.”

“Yes, I noticed that too. And what about Donald? What if he happens to get elected?”

“We don’t see that as a problem. We’ll just tell him to do as he pleases, as long as what we require gets done. Simple really.”

“And if he should refuse?”

“We don’t see that as a problem either… once again, simple. If need be, we implement the Kennedy option.”

“Ah yes, the old boy network does have its iron fist, doesn’t it? And what about Bernie?”

“As with all the other candidates, I don’t believe we need to worry about Bernie. Again, for us, he’s become a fair measure of where the fringe liberals & socialists stand… just how many and how adamant they are. If by some remote chance he does get elected, we’ll just do the same with him as with Donald. It really is quite that simple.”

“But what if, for example, he should get the vote and then manages to convince Congress to pass legislation for free college educations to all?”

“In truth, if that should happen, it’s so unimportant to us that we wouldn’t even be aware of it if not for the news. You see, the Government would have to pay for the tuition and the money comes from taxes. So the people pay either way… still a win for us, as we get a margin on the profits either way.”

“Exactly, but what of our colleagues in America? Won’t they stand to lose a great deal of money in paying those taxes?”

“Now George, do you really believe the American Congress will pass increased taxes, on such a scale, without leaving loopholes for themselves?”

“Fair enough… So what with all the marketing she’ll be getting, if Hillary does get elected, what then?”

“Hillary? Why she certainly knows the game by now and who the major players are – but not about us of course. She’s what the Americans call a ‘real team player’, which is why our main efforts lie with getting her into the office.”

“Well, it seems as though our boys have thought of all the possibilities haven’t they?”

“Like I’ve said before, the Americans will accept anything we give them unless we try to shove too much down their throats too fast… or unless the TVs go out… or they run out of toilet paper. Neither scenario is very likely today and if something like that should come about – you know, some idiot throws a tantrum and folds up the game board – we do have other options. Such as, if needed, our ‘alternate’ or ‘extreme events’ locations to which we can retire for a time. Yes, I’d say we’ve pretty much ‘covered our tushes’ so to speak. Quite well, in my opinion.”

“Righto! Well done. Care for another brandy?”


Fish Farms

The other day I was reading about the food that comes from the sea. It seems that because of overfishing, we’ve been making increasing use of fish farms. One item that caught my eye was that, apparently, sometime in 2015 fish farm “harvests” may match or even outpace “wild” ocean harvests.

Uh, OK… so let me get this straight…

First of all, we (mankind) have polluted and (over)fished the oceans to the point that they can no longer supply all of our (perceived) “need”… in some cases 90% of certain fish species are gone. All used up.

The name Cabot used for Newfoundland in 1497 was Baccalaos, that being the one bestowed on it by Portuguese who had led the way. The word means, simply, land of cod. And Peter Martyr (from about 1516) tells us that “in the sea adjacent [to Newfoundland, Cabot] found so great a quantity… of great fish… called baccalaos… that at times they even stayed the passage of his ships.”  — Sea of Slaughter by Farley Mowat

Now, we, mankind think we can “farm” fish. We think we can raise them in ‘kennels’ in the ocean using our man-devised methods… to overcome a problem (decrease of natural ocean fish) that we created in the first place by using our profit-oriented methods. And even now (already) it is becoming increasingly apparent that this “new & improved” way is barely succeeding (if indeed it is at all). Witness the attendant difficulties of those endeavors… such as water pollution and short supplies of fish food to name just two. Farmed fish need to eat and because they are ‘contained’ they must be fed (as opposed to feeding on their own)… and, since fish stocks are depleted, we’ll be needing to grow food (as in plants) to be processed and fed to the fish… not to mention the necessary supporting structures such as steel & nets, fuel, energy, maintenance…

So where in this equation does anyone see something, anything, that would indicate our way is better than nature’s way… the way it’s been for thousands of years? Or even that our way might work?

If I understand rightly, rather than correcting our mistakes and helping nature restore the balance, we’re going to use the same thinking that destroyed our original and well-functioning option (that required no real work on man’s part other than harvesting) to create and maintain a second unworkable factory-like (labor and resource intensive) option?

I mean, who the heck is thinking this stuff up? With all the “history”, “knowledge”, & “data” available, this is not just an accident. Exactly who or what sort of consciousness is behind all this? And how is it that so many agree and approve?

Always Do with Love…

Dear NSA…

I was wondering if you could help me with a problem. It’s a lost file.

I was working on a freelance article about the propriety of data collection based on three basic premises…

data collection…
1) can be (or is being) done clandestinely — until and even after discovered…
2) can be (or is being) done but only on an “opt-out” basis — isn’t this too similar to #1?…
3) only with explicit and fully informed approval — strictly “opt-in”…

With these applying to everyone (no exceptions), which would you choose?

The same should apply to any/all junk mail, phone calls, advertising, databases, services, etc… only if I request it…

Oh, sorry, here’s what I’m writing to you about:

You see, this  article I was working on (for weeks) — filename: DNSA.doc — got corrupted somehow and I don’t have a backup… tough spot, I know… 😦

but I figured, with everything I’ve been reading, maybe you guys had a copy out there someplace? If you do, could you *please* copy it someplace for me? Better yet, if you have the time, can you just download it to my computer & put it on my desktop? You have access to that too, yes?


You guys are all right! 🙂

…uh, maybe while you’re there you could also take me off any/all of your lists too?… You know… I’d like to unsubscribe & delete my account… thank you, but no thank you…


On Gun Control

[I suppose once in a while it would behoove me to sprinkle some thoughts more directly on some of the day-to-day issues that so many of us seem to struggle with. Though the spiritual or philosophical side of life (to me) is important, there remains a need to address the basics. For what good does it do to discuss God when a child is hungry? — Come to think of it, what good does it do to discuss anything whilst any children go hungry? Anyway…]

When discussing gun control, it seems to me that many people complicate the issue(s)…

When thinking about gun control, three or four items come to mind that (seems to me) most folks either ignore, misunderstand, or misrepresent.

1) In my opinion, the prime cause for the need to consider gun control (gun violence) is actually not a cause but an effect… an effect caused by a culture that worships violence… thus, a culture which, significantly, cannot survive without rampant, violent destruction. We live (consciously or subconsciously) by destroying (directly or by proxy) everything around us… the land, the air, the water, the plants, the animals, the people… everything. Until this changes, we will always have increasingly violent episodes committed by individuals and groups, with or without guns. In this context, the energy spent on “gun control” is almost a silly waste. The problem is not guns. The problem is this astonishingly violent culture we live in… which glorifies death and destruction… which indoctrinates others (from birth) into violence.

2) Often, (seems to me) when people discuss gun control, they fail to realize that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out… gone. Once one person has a gun, all are in danger of it being used. There can be no real gun control unless *all* guns are eliminated. Otherwise, all gun control actually means is leaving guns in the hands of criminals and the paid protectors & enforcers… which, for the average citizen, is not a fair or equitable arrangement. Why? Because on the one hand we would have the disarmed citizen while on the other hand we’d have the bullies… because even the paid protectors & enforcers, in the end must do what they are told to do by those who pay them… and today we can easily see where that is going.

3) In order to address the inequity described in #2 above, the Constitution – put together by people who had just gone through a great deal of hardship & suffering to stop the bullies – specifically states in the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Because of the emotional impact of gun control and its attendant confusion, I think it necessary to go over the definitions of certain terms in this Amendment… (ordinary definitions as from: http://dictionary.reference.com/)

militia — “a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.”

the right — “that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantee, moral principle”

to keep (what?) — “to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own”


bear (what?) — “to carry; bring”

arms — “weapons, especially firearms.” (note that this also implies swords, knives, crossbows, tasers, etc.)

infringe — “encroach on somebody’s rights or property”

Seems plain to me… like it or not, (assuming that you are truly living under the Constitution) the only way to legislate any type of legitimate gun control (including permits & checks) is via constitutional amendment… I would also suggest that we are supposed to protect our own, not depend upon other than family, friends, and neighbors.

4) One final point to consider… which (in my opinion) essentially overrides all of the above… ultimately (regardless of any laws or permits) gun control *only* exists in the hand of the one holding the gun… or God… regardless of your “reality”… so if you want to truly (and reliably) control guns (or gun violence), you’ll have to melt down all the guns.

Having said all that, here is my thought…

Perhaps, rather than waste time and energy on gun control, we would all be better served by removing violence from our culture… and instead, always nurture a healthy respect for Life in all its forms…

you know… Love.


On the Election

I was not going to get into the presidential election thing, but can’t leave it alone – so here goes…

There are those who believe in the election and candidates – thinking they’re  the most important thing since the sun burst into flame. OK… All I can say about that is: if the baby is asleep, best let it stay asleep for now.

Then there are those who aren’t really happy with the candidates but feel they must choose – because voting is a duty – and so they choose between the “lesser of two evils”. Why on earth would anyone choose between two evils? Besides, since neither candidate has shown any real interest in this country or its people (their interests lie in their own ego, profits, and satisfying those who pull the puppet strings) I would think that voting for either of these guys (“the evils”) is actually voting against the people of this country.

Then there are those who just don’t care or they know that it’s not going to make much difference. But… what if all those people who don’t like either candidate (rather than not voting) went to the polls and wrote in “We the People”? Now I’m not so naive as to think that “We People” would get elected, but I do think that somebody (maybe even lots of somebodies) would sit up and notice that a good number of people are waking up. Yes, they would still put in one of the two ‘official’ candidates (this time), but they would know…

But I’m still not voting and here’s why:

We’ve been here about 200 years and I think everyone will agree that we’ve pretty much messed things up. So how about we admit we’re wrong (be honest for once), give up this voting thing, dump the government, give the land back to the Native American Indians, say “Sorry” (mean it),  and then follow their lead as to how we rebuild? They lived here for thousands of years and AFAIK never had a problem with homelessness, polluted water to drink, GMO foods, etc… so I think we could safely figure they might possibly know the way out of this mess. At least, I don’t think they could do worse than we have.

What if they gave an election and nobody came?

…just a thought

%d bloggers like this: