Thoughts Aloud

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

As a frequent contributor to this forum, I find an active dialogue on a subject of my own submission to be the best reward for the effort of composition. In a word, I love lots of comments!

However, the really popular articles, that is, those that generate a lot of comments, soon get such an extended comment hierarchy that it becomes nearly impossible to follow.

Therefore, might I suggest a possibility? OK, thanks – I will.

Whenever we find an article is generating multiple threads of comments, these comment threads are inevitably about some sub-topic within the original article. Naturally, the more provocative articles have many sub-topics.

Ergo, my suggestion: When we find ourselves creating multiple comment threads within a given article, let us start a whole new article, based on the sub-topic in question. Hopefully, this would make the comment hierarchies much easier to navigate.

Of course, it would be the responsibility of the original author of the article to originate the new sub-topic articles/threads.

Please let me know what you think. If there is general agreement, I will begin to act accordingly.

Troy L Robinson

As I have done a number of times in this forum, I wish to repeat my call for a Constitutional Convention – before the “use by” date on our current Constitution expires.

As I write this, we are only two (2) States away from the “call” becoming mandatory – subject to some dispute over how long an individual State’s “call” stays in effect.

Every time I speak up for such a convention, I get alarmed responses exclaiming this would open the door for the progressives to make their political perversions legal and official through the act of embedding progressive nonsense into the re-written Constitution.

My first response to this is, yes it could happen.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume the worst – that a convention is held, that the progressives have their way with the re-written Constitution and that they somehow convince the legislatures of 34 States to ratify the thing. What would this mean?

For one thing, it would show clearly that the legislatures of a majority the the States (and, presumably, the citizens of those States) actually favor the progressive agenda. Under our system, this is their right, whether you and I agree or not.

I propose that such an outcome might actually work in our favor because it would clearly lay the groundwork for those States still loyal to the original Constitution to secede and form an alternate Republic, faithful to the ideas of our Founders. Such would allow a grand experiment to begin – a side-by-side comparison of the success of a progressive government versus a libertarian government, under otherwise similar conditions.

What? Did I hear you say our original government, that one established by the Founders, was not libertarian? I respond that you either do not know what the word libertarian means -or- you know far too little about the government of the Founders.
Read the rest of this entry »

There are many things one hears/sees via the media that can damage one’s thought processes. However there are two that I hear over and over that have an especially damaging effect on my mind – and both of them I have blogged about in the past (and promise to continue to blog on until they or I go away):

The first is totally trivial. It is the constant use of the phrase “The Proof Is In The Pudding”. The “proof” of what is in what pudding? The very phrase is so incoherent that I would much rather listen to long finger nails dragging across a chalkboard than to hear it even one more time. Of course, the traditional phrase was “The Proof Of The Pudding Is In The Eating” which, surprise, actually conveys a complete, meaningful thought or idea. I have long given up on the idea that ordinary Americans might understand way-out things like: their own national history, elementary geography, basic economics (hell, I would settle for basic arithmetic), constitutional government, etc. But, is it too much to ask that we get one of the simplest phrases in our lexicon correct? To quote my hero John Stossel, give me a break!

The second is anything but trivial but it is of dire import to our continued existence as a Constitutional Republic. That is the widespread misunderstanding of Enumerated Powers spelled out in our Constitution versus the several “Clauses” (the “Commerce Clause”, the “General Welfare Clause”, etc.), and, no Virginia, there is no “Santa Claus” in our Constitution although you could never prove that based on the actions of our Federal Government.

I make no claim to be an expert on our Constitution (although, I have studied it, and the words of our Founders, albeit informally, for decades). However, even as rank an amateur as myself can easily understand that the “Clauses” are statements of intent (“mission statements” if you prefer) while the “Enumerated Powers” are those specific powers delegated by the States to the Federal Government for achieving those statements of intent (or “missions”).

Read the rest of this entry »

All hail the Great and Nobel Dave, for he has, whether by intent or not, suggested a possible solution to the growing chasm in our society. This “suggestion” has been spread over several threads and has revealed itself in bits and pieces but it is no less valuable for that.

Among other things, friend Dave has noted that an increasing number of the sheeple are quite willing to be governed without their direct consent, so long as their governors guarantee them basic subsistence along with a few entertainments.

An idea that is not at all new. About two thousand years ago, Julius Caesar opined that most of the people are easily governed if given only some bread and a circus.

Like many others who consider themselves part of the maker segment of our society (albeit in emeritus status at this point in life), I have always held that being a taker was inherently bad and should not be allowed, only to pound my head against the wall because I had no clue how to convert takers into makers.

After thinking about a number of things friend Dave has written, a light came on. Why not find a way for it to be OK for them to remain takers? After all, did I not just post a rant positing that our productivity rates have risen to the level where we may not even need to have all those takers suddenly start producing things?

So, the solution that is starting to emerge from the fog that passes for rational thought on my part looks something like this:

Read the rest of this entry »

I will not rehash the details of the two recent court rulings in question. Surely the media and the blogosphere have given you far more information than you need. My intent is simply to offer an opinion based on a point of view different from most of the analysis and opinion we have been subject to.

Most of that analysis and opinion has centered around the constitutionality of the two sets of laws – in both cases, are they consistent with the words and obvious intent of our Constitution and with the division of powers between the State and Federal governments?

Very powerful arguments can be made for either view, especially if one parses the sets of laws down to their most minute details.

I wish to opine that such details are not really important. That whether or not Arizona or Obamacare are totally in keeping with our Constitution is less important that a greater principle that is being violated in both cases.

The very essence of our Founding Documents and the system of government they spawned derives from a simple but vital notion: THAT WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!

Regarding both court cases, a very clear and constant majority of those affected by these cases DO NOT give their consent and they have made this as clear as can possibly be made.

And, as should be clear to all without my saying it, a government that governs AGAINST the will of its people has become a tyranny. Period, no other explanation possible!

Read the rest of this entry »

Once again, I find myself trying to address a situation I have spoken to in past articles. This time is is the problem inherent in trying to have a discussion / argument / exchange on a subject when we have not first agreed to the meaning of the term(s) central to the discussion.

For instance, as I write this, there is an exchange going forth in another thread concerning education. And, it spews forth lacking any attempt to agree on the simple meaning of the word education (and, there are many other examples I might have chosen). We merely assume that our own meaning of a word or term is generally accepted when often it is anything but.

Sticking with the word education for this discussion, let me start by asking what the word means, offering my own definition in the process – a definition that is by no means established as the correct one simply because it comes from me:

Does education mean preparing someone for a task, job or profession? No. To me this is training.

Does education mean pounding certain notions and attitudes into a still-plastic young brain, probably by rote? No. To me this is indoctrination.

Does education mean teaching a person the basic skills of reading, writing, arithmetic and the elementary sciences? Yes but only partly. I would call this basic education.

Does education mean teaching a person the fundamentals of critical reasoning so that they are prepared to live as free individuals? Yes – beyond doubt.

Read the rest of this entry »

As we all know, the Executive and Legislative branches of our government have been failing us for years, primarily because of their refusal to boldly acknowledge the problems we face and to take the bold actions needed to get us back on track.

Now, with the Arizona and Obamacare equivocations (where there should have been bold decisions), the Judiciary has proven beyond doubt that it too is a failure.

Pandering, equivocating, hiding behind hollow promises and insane predictions that the mess will somehow sort itself out as if by magic, and, worst of all, piling new government programs and regulations on top of old ones as if somehow the cause can become the cure if only the portions are increased enough.

This week the Supreme Court has joined the other two branches of government in suggesting that hard choices can be made with no hard effort to follow. Continuing the insane notion that somehow government can continue to insulate us from any and all of the realities and consequences of life without utterly destroying us in the process.

Can any of us now continue to deny that our government is a decayed, rotten structure? True, it may still sit on a solid foundation (the Founding Documents), but everything above that foundation is near collapse.

This leaves we-the-people (at least that portion of us who still care) with a very serious decision, one that must be made lest the structure of government collapse into a pile of rubble, leaving the tyrants to rule us at their whim.

Read the rest of this entry »

With this article I return to a topic I have spoken to in the past – the extent to which all Americans have common interests and the extent to which they do not. I was prompted to write this after watching the campaign video below. Please watch and listen…

First, a question… was this not the most blatantly racist thing you have seen lately?

Beside that point, however, is my topic. In my adult life, I have lived in several different states where I have witnessed court-approved (sometimes court-ordered) cases of gerrymandering congressional districts to virtually ensure the election of a black or an Hispanic. No doubt the same thing goes on elsewhere to virtually ensure the election of Jews, Muslims, gays, or whatever. The point is that such actions, and the reasoning behind them (if the word “reason” can be stretched that far without breaking) is that people can only be well represented in the halls of the national legislature by others who are part of the same special interest group. That somehow, the governmental policies that are best for one group are harmful to another.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today, I presume to offer four new extensions to the mumbo-jumbo soup of jargon that was once the English Language.

My first offering is a word that will mean “to make a statement that is too silly to be believed, especially when uttered by someone in a position of authority”. The proposed word is biden as in “come on, you’re just trying to biden me”.

My second offering is a word that will mean “to make a statement so utterly stupid that the listener cannot believe was uttered by a supposedly intelligent human”. The proposed word is pelosi as in “now that is a pelosi if I ever heard one”.

My third offering is a word that will mean “to make a statement that means the exact opposite of what the words spoken normally mean”. The proposed word is obama as in “you are telling me that up is actually down? I think you are trying to pull an obama on me”.

My fourth offering is a word that will mean “a totally uninformed moron who casts a vote in an important election”. The proposed word is voteron as in “those voterons have been obamaed into voting another crook into office”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Regarding the “Stump Speech” below.

While I agree with much of what candidate Dave has to say in his stump speech, I have nevertheless decided to enter the race on the Libertarian ticket. Of course, I have no idea what district or even what state this virtual congressional seat is in, nevertheless, my hat is now in the ring (and just as well because I NEVER liked wearing hats).

MY QUALIFICATIONS

Apart from good intentions and strongly held principles, I have none. Still, this leaves me much more qualified than most candidates.

MY POSITIONS

Unlike Candidate Dave, I will make you no promise to always cast your vote in accordance with your wishes. I take this position for several reasons:

→ First, rarely will the people of this district communicate to their representative a clear majority position on any issue,

→ Second, your representatives are rarely given the time to give you all the details of an issue, pro and con, and get back your opinions,

→ Third, you-the-people are sometimes mistaken. Not out of malice but out of simple ignorance of the issues.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sub-title: How can we have such a brilliant future while having no future at all?

Herein lurks a philosophical dilemma that should vex anyone who tries to apply rational analysis to our collective future.

On the one hand, we have the almost magical explosion of things scientific and technological. For instance, the technology of miniature electronics is advancing at such speed that one can hardly purchase, unpack, and deploy the very latest gadget before it is rendered obsolete.

Medical science and technology are curing diseases, mending broken body parts and extending human life to the point where it seems we may soon be able to live forever (a condition which, if ever realized, would be the beginning of the end of humankind – a topic I may blog on at another time).

Sci-tech advances in food production promise the ability to feed an endless swarm of our own kind.

And so on, and so on. Looked at from a purely sci-tech viewpoint, the future seems so bright we need to wear shades (or whatever that song actually said).

Read the rest of this entry »

It has long since become obvious that the so-called “unemployment rate” announced by our government is not the least bit accurate. First, it does not count all of the unemployed and second, each cycle the government issues a false report that is, inevitably, followed by a worse (but still false) update.

Yet, the content of this lie can have a major impact on national elections. Why do we put up with this?

I contend that there is actually no truly accurate way to measure unemployment because we are not sure exactly what the word means. Does it apply only to people who don’t have a job but want to have one? What about people who don’t have a job and would not take one were it offered? What about me? I am retired so does that make me unemployed?

Read the rest of this entry »

What we all knew from the beginning seems official now that Dr. Paul has ceased to seek convention delegates. Establishment candidate Mitt Romney has clinched the GOP presidential nomination. Now begins the really hard part. Trying to convince all of you that there is some actual difference between Romney and Obama other than the amount of melanin produced by their skin cells. For my part, I can’t see much difference at all. And, as for the melanin, as we all know, that is no more than skin deep and, thanks to human genome research, we also know that there is absolutely NO genetic difference between the two presumptive candidates. So, it would seem that the only obvious difference is actually no difference at all.

Yet, we will be asked again to believe the patent falsehood that something meaningful (like spending, the size of government or the amount of regulation) will actually be different depending on which of them you elect. (I say YOU because I would not vote for either of them if offered a large sum of money to do so. I am a committed Libertarian and will support Governor Johnson out of principle, irrespective of any realistic chance he has to win the election.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Lately I have contributed very little to this space, mostly because there is really nothing new to report. However, a recent incident in California is worth the effort because of the graphic view it offers all of us into our own inevitable future.

For months, I have repeated the warning that the various phoney “wars” (on drugs, on terror, on illegal immigration, on firearms, etc.) are actually moving us toward becoming a police state. This, along with the move toward a Marxist dictatorship, which has greatly accelerated under the Obama administration, will have very predictable consequences. Predictable because history is replete with similar examples and they all end the same way.

The incident in question is only one of many such that are occurring with increasing frequency – far more than most of us realize because so few of them are so clearly documented.

Read the rest of this entry »

For some time now I have been pondering the idea of making my own list of the 10 worst presidents in the “modern era” which, for me, starts in the late 1800’s with the advent of the progressive movement.

Let me tell you, this is no easy task as the last 100+ years have seen some of the worst presidents one can imagine. Or, looked at another way, perhaps the growth of power of the federal government and the concentration of power in the executive branch merely magnifies the effect of a bad president? I suspect a combination of both. While our federal government has grown by leaps and bounds, the people’s toleration for corruption has grown apace. I suppose corruption is like most any evil… one grows increasingly hardened to it much like hands that work hard grow callouses to help protect them from further harm. Except that, growing virtual callouses on our sense of ethics does nothing to protect us from further harm. Indeed, it has just the opposite effect.

Read the rest of this entry »

As our country continues its transition from liberty toward tyranny, we are going to have to face questions that have, traditionally, been alien to Americans. These questions will concern the extent of our loyalties, the demands for our obedience, and the extent to which we will honor these demands.

Like all Americans who have served in our military, upon induction I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And, I have always understood that this oath has no expiration date. By implication, this oath also requires me to support and defend the government of the United States of America. For years, I have accepted this implication. However, given the current direction of our government, I now amend my commitment to support, defend and obey the U.S. Government to be binding only to the extent that that same government acts is strict accordance with the Constitution, as written.

Stated differently, I have never sworn any oath nor do I acknowledge any loyalty to any arbitrary rule or to any “government”, legitimate or otherwise. Two basic principles are essential to the successful operation of a constitutional republic – as America was intended to be:
Read the rest of this entry »

Today, I repeat a question I have asked several times in past articles… what will it take to get the American people upset enough to demand action?

To this, I add a second question… why is our Congress, especially the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, so reluctant to investigate or challenge any of the clear violations of the constitution on the part of the Obama Administration?

Let us consider just two of the recent events that should have caused uproars:

Item 1

An article on WashingtonTimes.com (http://times247.com/articles/kuhner-obama-authorizes-himself-to-declare-martial-law) titled OBAMA AUTHORIZES HIMSELF TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW. Quoting directly from the article:

“On March 16, the White House released an executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction — all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama. The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis…”
Read the rest of this entry »

Before getting to the point of this article, please allow me to set up a bit of background:

First, Moral Hazard is a term I have borrowed from economics and whose definition I have modified slightly to mean “an unfortunate, unintended side effect of a well-meant action”.

Second, I need to pontificate about a truly dangerous trend in modern American life. That is that all of the games that currently seem to dominate our national attitude are based on the “win/lose” paradigm.

The games in question include politics, religion, sports and war.

What, you may well ask, is wrong with the “win/lose” paradigm? When it is used only in fun, there is nothing basically wrong with it. However, when we allow it to dominate our attitudes, it becomes ruinously divisive. And, as I write this, we are a nation more divided than at any time since our so-called “Civil War” (as if any war can be considered “civil”).
Read the rest of this entry »

Our Declaration of Independence reaffirms our universal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, there is more to it than that because these rights imply even more fundamental rights if they are to be real. Primary among these implied rights is the right to decide for ourselves how we will conduct our lives, assuming we do not harm others in the process.

At first thought, this seems simple enough. But, as we think more deeply, we must realize that, given the fact of human imperfection, the right to decide for ourselves must include the right to make poor or incorrect decisions. Stated differently, we have the right to be wrong.

This leads us into yet another line of thought, this concerning the proper role of government in our personal and private lives. I think we all agree that one proper role of government is to protect its citizens. But, does this include protecting them from themselves or is it limited to protecting them from malicious and intentional harm by others?

I contend that, if we truly do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, supported by a fundamental right to decide for ourselves how we will conduct our lives, then government cannot possibly have any role in protecting us from ourselves – that is, from the effects of our own poor or incorrect decisions. Further, when government does attempt to protect us from ourselves, it can only do so by taking away fundamental rights and limiting personal liberty.
Read the rest of this entry »

In the ongoing exchange about the contraception/abortion mandate in Obamacare, most all of the participants seem to be totally “wrapped around the axle” over whether this means the end of separation of church and state, whether females have some natural right to contraception and abortion and, indeed, over whether reproduction is a form of “disease”. I suppose all these are all good items for discussion, although I will not inject my own opinions at this time. Instead, I wish to highlight an aspect of this issue that seems to be going unnoticed by all concerned…

All of the discussions (negotiations) on the government side of the issue seem to revolve around the decisions of a single person – Obama. We hear about what he is willing to do, what he is not willing to do, etc.

Are we not talking here about a healthcare law that was passed by the legislature? Where in our Constitution does it say that the executive may override the acts of the legislature at whim and without their consent (other than by veto before they become law)?
Read the rest of this entry »