Friday is New Year's Eve. Some Americans make New Year's resolutions for the coming year. These resolutions range from bettering a person's finances to bettering a person's health. Most of those who make these resolutions admit they do not keep their resolutions.
As I was contemplating my own possible resolutions, an idea crept into my thoughts: what if instead of choosing to improve my own self, how about working to improve my relationship with others? And then that thought expanded to wondering if we all could work to improve our relationships with others. As I was thinking about how to express the ways to improve relationships, the Ten Commandments came to mind. So I've adapted the Ten Commandments for some simple rules to improve human relations. A new style of resolution. One I hope to keep.
1. Respect other people's views of religion.
You believe what you believe; this does not mean I have to believe the same. Throughout history, many wars and battles have been fought in the name of some "God." Blood has been spilled because someone did not respect another's religious view. Even those who do not believe in God refuse to respect a religious person's view.
I've heard (and seen) many atheists who have called faith in God "stupid." Listen up atheists: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it; no one asked you for your opinion. And listen up religion advocates: no one is going to go to hell because they don't follow your religion. If that statement is true, then everyone is destined for hell.
Think about it. If Catholics say only Catholics will make it to heaven and if Protestants say only Protestants will make it heaven and if Islamists say only Islamists will get rewarded after death, then who will actually make it to heaven?? Can we please stop with the war of words?
Respect another person's view, even if different, and move on. I'm sure each of us will be judged by our interactions with fellow human beings and not by the religion we chose or was chosen for us.
2. Do not speak to others in vain.
How often do people wish they could take back something they said? In those cases, they spoke in vain to another. Try not to speak to others while mad. And when the situation is so impossible you must speak while mad, take a deep breath before actually speaking. We should chose our words carefully. Again, the respect element comes into play. Respect an other's point of view. If you do, then the task of not speaking in vain will come easily.
Also, do not speak bad about others behind their back. You might as well be speaking in vain to them. Feel free to speak to them about to their face. (This is one I MUST follow!).
3. Take a day of rest each week and share the day with your family.
How often do we allow the daily grind to get in the way of our most important support structure: our family. All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy. Such a true statement. If we don't stop and enjoy the company of the people around us, our company will not be desired.
Even if you don't have any family, share the day with friends. Relax. Unwind. Allow the stress of the week to ebb before wading back into the stream.
Your mind, your health, your sanity will all improve by taking a day off each week.
4. Honor your mother and your father.
These people brought you into the world. At the moment of your birth, at least one of them welcomed you into the world with love and affection. Return the same, no matter the cost. I am saddened whenever I hear stories of dead beat dads. The joy both the father and the child could've enjoyed has been wasted by the choice of the father. (I'm sure there are dead beat moms with the same results.) Even the dead beats deserve a tiny iota of respect. To give love where no love is deserved will make the giver a better person. How could you not respect someone who loves another when that love is not deserved? The giver of love must be a special person to do what they are doing. I would gladly surround myself with these people.
Most happy people exude love and friendship to those around them.
5. Do not commit murder.
Human live is sacred (even if you're not religious). Respect an other's right to live so that other's will respect your right to live.
6. Do not commit adultery.
This includes those not married. The respect element comes into play again. Respect your partner. Even during troubled times. An open relationship is better for the both of you. If you can't be honest with your partner, who will you be honest with?
7. Do not steal.
What is not yours is not yours. Leave it that way. How much respect do thieves show to others by taking what is not theirs? Should we show the thieves the same respect?
8. Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Lies hurt. How much respect does someone who lies deserve?
9. Do not covet other's belongings.
This leads to jealously and broken relationships. Enjoy what you have. Fate is not kind to everyone; but, if we can thumb our nose at fate by enjoying our lot in life, society will be for the better. Coveting leads to stealing...
10. Do not worship wordly goods.
Those who work hard to keep up with the Joneses most likely are violating some of the other commandments. Work to stay alive. You'll live longer than those who are working to amass "things." People and relationships are more important than the new-fangled 3D television. Refer to commandment #3.
These are my New Year's resolutions. The element of respect is the cornerstone of each of the commandments. I will strive to respect the people around me more this upcoming year. I hope you do the same.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Christmas is the Reason
Two weeks ago, I saw a news story on television relating how the ACLU sent out warnings to local school districts to say "Holidays" vice "Christmas." One of those school districts is in Tennessee. The ACLU and all of the other "holiday" people are in the wrong. It is time to set the record straight.
First, what is a holiday? Consulting the dictionary, holiday can be used as a noun or an adjective. Since the phrase advocated is "happy holidays," the use of 'holiday' is as a noun and not an adjective. Therefore, we will only parse the noun definition of 'holiday'.
From dictionary.com:
1. a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person.
2. any day of exemption from work ( distinguished from working day).
3. a time or period of exemption from any requirement, duty, assessment, etc.: New businesses may be granted a one-year tax holiday.
4. a religious feast day; holy day, esp. any of several usually commemorative holy days observed in Judaism.
5. Sometimes, holidays. Chiefly British . a period of cessation from work or one of recreation; vacation.
The variations of the individual meanings have one thing in common: a day or days off. This means a holiday is a day from which one refrains from work or other requirements. One of the key elements exists in the first definition: "a day fixed by law or custom." So boiling down the definition of holiday to its essence, three elements rise to the top: (1) a day recognized by the law or by custom (2) which is a day off (3) from regular duties or work.
Thus if a so-called 'holiday' does not meet all three elements, the day cannot be classified as a holiday.
Let's evaluate some of the "holidays."
Christmas: December 25th is a day set aside by law (federal and all 50 states) as a holiday. While the United States does not have an official national holiday, several dates are set aside as federal days off. Most states recognize those same dates and may add or subtract from the dates according to customs in the state. But, Christmas is a day set aside by law and custom as a day off from regular duties or work. Thus Christmas is a holiday.
New Year's: Just like Christmas, January 1 is a federal and state day off from work. Thus, New Year's is a holiday.
Hanukkah: Is not set aside by law, but is set aside by custom. Jews celebrate Hanukkah around the world as a celebration of the eight days one day's worth of oil lasted. Unfortunately, the days are not the same every year since the day is set by the lunar calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. Also, Hanukkah is an eight day celebration which does not include a day off from regular duties or work (except for the day one of the eight falls on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath). Thus, Hanukkah only meets the first element and not the other two. Therefore, Hanukkah is not a holiday.
Kwanzaa: Is another week long celebration. Again, this celebration is not recognized by law. It is hard to say if it is even recognized by custom. The celebration was founded in 1966. Although the official website touts the celebrations as being celebrated around the world, the number of people celebrating do not raise the celebration to one of custom. First, the celebration is totally made up. While a celebration of "African" heritage, until Kwanzaa was dreamed up, not a single country or tribe or people of Africa celebrated anything similar to Kwanzaa. Much like Hanukkah, Kwanzaa does not include any official days off from work or other requirements. Kwanzaa does not satisfy any element of a holiday; thus Kwanzaa is not a holiday.
The Winter Solstice: Do I really need to go through this one? Not recognized by law, not recognized by custom (although aspects have been included in Christmas), does not have a day off. Thus, the winter solstice is not a holiday.
This means only Christmas and New Year's can be classified as holidays. Thus to say "Happy Holidays" means "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year." Any attempt to say otherwise signifies a lack of understanding of what a holiday is.
The big reason the ACLU hates Christmas is the religious flavor of Christmas. What a farce on the short-sided and small-minded part of the ACLU! When I was growing up there were two aspects of Christmas: the religious portion and the commercial portion. Merry Christmas was more than wishing someone a good day on the day of Christ's birth. Christmas included Santa Claus and gift giving and Christmas trees and wreaths. Christmas encompasses more than just the birth of Christ.
You must realize that as Christianity spread across Europe, the religious leaders of the time made concessions to "include" the pagans. This made conversion to Christianity easier for the pagans. For example, no one can actually pinpoint the exact date of Christ's birth. (How many shepherds actually tend sheep at night in the winter?) December 25 was chosen in the 800's as the date of Christ's birth. This date occurs around the winter solstice (pagan) and during the celebration of an Egyptian (pagan) celebration. Thus Christmas was an inclusion of other belief systems in an effort to convert to Christianity.
Does that mean the same today? Of course not! With the commercialism of the Christmas season, Christmas encompasses more than just the celebration of Christ's birth. Christmas, while a religious day, is also an American and English tradition. This means saying "Merry Christmas" is not a promotion of a religious day but an acknowledging of good tidings and cheer (attributes the ACLU lacks).
Also, through the years of establishing the tradition of Christmas, Christmas has taken on a different flair than only the religious portion. Christmas has become "generic" to the country (and half the world). By becoming generic, Christmas has lost the religious overtones and become a word for the masses. I bring this up for a reason.
The ACLU is composed of lawyers. To become a lawyer, one has to attend law school. One of the courses in law school is property. One of the subjects of property is the creation of intelligent property, such as trademarks. Companies trademark their slogans (ie California Western School of Law's slogan "The Way Law School Aught to Be" is trademarked) and the symbols which set them apart from their competition. But the law recognizes that after sometime the trademark becomes generic and thus no longer a trademark. For example, Xerox is not a trademark anymore. People can say they xeroxed a document, even on a non-Xerox copier. Other terms fall into this category: aspirin, elevator, and a host of others. The point here, is once something becomes generic, it no longer is owned by one group; it is owned by the society. Lawyers, at least competent ones, should know this. Christmas has become generic. The term no longer belongs to Christians. The term belongs to all of us. Thus the ACLU lawyers are arguing with a weak basis. Obviously, the ACLU has forgotten law school.
Saying Merry Christmas does not promote Christianity. It promotes a season of putting up a pagan Christmas tree and exchanging gifts while spreading good tidings and cheer. It is a season of celebration with the culmination in a legal day off from work. Christmas is the true holiday.
Next time someone says "Happy Holidays" respond with "Merry Christmas to you too." When they try to explain what they mean, instruct them on what a true holiday is. And if you're unlucky enough to encounter an ACLU lawyer, remind them that competent lawyers know property rules and how they seem to have forgotten the essence of property law with respect to generic terms.
Christ may have been the genesis of the season. But, in reality, Christmas is the reason for the season today.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Mike
Some references not listed in the text:
Annual secular and religous celebrations near Christmas time: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_other.htm
The True Origin of Christmas: http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooc.html
The Origin of Christmas: http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/
The Real Story of Christmas: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
Kwanzaa from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa
Christmas from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
First, what is a holiday? Consulting the dictionary, holiday can be used as a noun or an adjective. Since the phrase advocated is "happy holidays," the use of 'holiday' is as a noun and not an adjective. Therefore, we will only parse the noun definition of 'holiday'.
From dictionary.com:
1. a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person.
2. any day of exemption from work ( distinguished from working day).
3. a time or period of exemption from any requirement, duty, assessment, etc.: New businesses may be granted a one-year tax holiday.
4. a religious feast day; holy day, esp. any of several usually commemorative holy days observed in Judaism.
5. Sometimes, holidays. Chiefly British . a period of cessation from work or one of recreation; vacation.
The variations of the individual meanings have one thing in common: a day or days off. This means a holiday is a day from which one refrains from work or other requirements. One of the key elements exists in the first definition: "a day fixed by law or custom." So boiling down the definition of holiday to its essence, three elements rise to the top: (1) a day recognized by the law or by custom (2) which is a day off (3) from regular duties or work.
Thus if a so-called 'holiday' does not meet all three elements, the day cannot be classified as a holiday.
Let's evaluate some of the "holidays."
Christmas: December 25th is a day set aside by law (federal and all 50 states) as a holiday. While the United States does not have an official national holiday, several dates are set aside as federal days off. Most states recognize those same dates and may add or subtract from the dates according to customs in the state. But, Christmas is a day set aside by law and custom as a day off from regular duties or work. Thus Christmas is a holiday.
New Year's: Just like Christmas, January 1 is a federal and state day off from work. Thus, New Year's is a holiday.
Hanukkah: Is not set aside by law, but is set aside by custom. Jews celebrate Hanukkah around the world as a celebration of the eight days one day's worth of oil lasted. Unfortunately, the days are not the same every year since the day is set by the lunar calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. Also, Hanukkah is an eight day celebration which does not include a day off from regular duties or work (except for the day one of the eight falls on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath). Thus, Hanukkah only meets the first element and not the other two. Therefore, Hanukkah is not a holiday.
Kwanzaa: Is another week long celebration. Again, this celebration is not recognized by law. It is hard to say if it is even recognized by custom. The celebration was founded in 1966. Although the official website touts the celebrations as being celebrated around the world, the number of people celebrating do not raise the celebration to one of custom. First, the celebration is totally made up. While a celebration of "African" heritage, until Kwanzaa was dreamed up, not a single country or tribe or people of Africa celebrated anything similar to Kwanzaa. Much like Hanukkah, Kwanzaa does not include any official days off from work or other requirements. Kwanzaa does not satisfy any element of a holiday; thus Kwanzaa is not a holiday.
The Winter Solstice: Do I really need to go through this one? Not recognized by law, not recognized by custom (although aspects have been included in Christmas), does not have a day off. Thus, the winter solstice is not a holiday.
This means only Christmas and New Year's can be classified as holidays. Thus to say "Happy Holidays" means "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year." Any attempt to say otherwise signifies a lack of understanding of what a holiday is.
The big reason the ACLU hates Christmas is the religious flavor of Christmas. What a farce on the short-sided and small-minded part of the ACLU! When I was growing up there were two aspects of Christmas: the religious portion and the commercial portion. Merry Christmas was more than wishing someone a good day on the day of Christ's birth. Christmas included Santa Claus and gift giving and Christmas trees and wreaths. Christmas encompasses more than just the birth of Christ.
You must realize that as Christianity spread across Europe, the religious leaders of the time made concessions to "include" the pagans. This made conversion to Christianity easier for the pagans. For example, no one can actually pinpoint the exact date of Christ's birth. (How many shepherds actually tend sheep at night in the winter?) December 25 was chosen in the 800's as the date of Christ's birth. This date occurs around the winter solstice (pagan) and during the celebration of an Egyptian (pagan) celebration. Thus Christmas was an inclusion of other belief systems in an effort to convert to Christianity.
Does that mean the same today? Of course not! With the commercialism of the Christmas season, Christmas encompasses more than just the celebration of Christ's birth. Christmas, while a religious day, is also an American and English tradition. This means saying "Merry Christmas" is not a promotion of a religious day but an acknowledging of good tidings and cheer (attributes the ACLU lacks).
Also, through the years of establishing the tradition of Christmas, Christmas has taken on a different flair than only the religious portion. Christmas has become "generic" to the country (and half the world). By becoming generic, Christmas has lost the religious overtones and become a word for the masses. I bring this up for a reason.
The ACLU is composed of lawyers. To become a lawyer, one has to attend law school. One of the courses in law school is property. One of the subjects of property is the creation of intelligent property, such as trademarks. Companies trademark their slogans (ie California Western School of Law's slogan "The Way Law School Aught to Be" is trademarked) and the symbols which set them apart from their competition. But the law recognizes that after sometime the trademark becomes generic and thus no longer a trademark. For example, Xerox is not a trademark anymore. People can say they xeroxed a document, even on a non-Xerox copier. Other terms fall into this category: aspirin, elevator, and a host of others. The point here, is once something becomes generic, it no longer is owned by one group; it is owned by the society. Lawyers, at least competent ones, should know this. Christmas has become generic. The term no longer belongs to Christians. The term belongs to all of us. Thus the ACLU lawyers are arguing with a weak basis. Obviously, the ACLU has forgotten law school.
Saying Merry Christmas does not promote Christianity. It promotes a season of putting up a pagan Christmas tree and exchanging gifts while spreading good tidings and cheer. It is a season of celebration with the culmination in a legal day off from work. Christmas is the true holiday.
Next time someone says "Happy Holidays" respond with "Merry Christmas to you too." When they try to explain what they mean, instruct them on what a true holiday is. And if you're unlucky enough to encounter an ACLU lawyer, remind them that competent lawyers know property rules and how they seem to have forgotten the essence of property law with respect to generic terms.
Christ may have been the genesis of the season. But, in reality, Christmas is the reason for the season today.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Mike
Some references not listed in the text:
Annual secular and religous celebrations near Christmas time: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_other.htm
The True Origin of Christmas: http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooc.html
The Origin of Christmas: http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/
The Real Story of Christmas: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
Kwanzaa from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa
Christmas from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Get Out and Vote...or Not
Tuesday, November 2, is election day. Voters across the nation will go to the polls to decide if the incumbents in Washington should be replaced. Some states will decide who will lead that state. Other states will consider ballot initiatives, like California, where the state will decide if marijuana should be legalized.
United States citizens cherish the right to vote. A key principle in the founding of our Country was the right to vote. The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is a "thumbing-of-the-nose" at the elitism of the English system. The Founding Fathers believed people were not born with a right to lead, only the populous decides if someone is worthy to lead the government. (I'm reminded of the Monty Python line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever I think about why this Country was founded: A peasant says to King Arthur, "Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!")
But are citizens required to vote? Just because you have the right does not necessarily mean you have to exercise the right. For example, when the police arrest a suspect, the suspect is advised of the right to remain silent. The suspect can forgo the right and speak; the suspect does NOT have to exercise the right. Additionally, all law abiding citizens have the right to keep arms under the Second Amendment. How many actually do so? Some may argue I'm comparing apples to oranges; however, the apple and the orange both spring from the same "thing" - a seed. The principle underlying the right to vote and other rights is the same - the right not to exercise the right.
During the Gubernatorial race for California, Meg Whitman's voting record was highlighted. Meg Whitman did not vote for 28 years. Is this really material? Is voting a required element to run for public office? I say no, as a matter of fact, some votes should not even be made.
Whenever a voting opportunity arises, three types of votes are cast. These votes are not about which party, or about yes or no, or right or wrong. The three types of votes are about the character of the vote. The three types are the informed vote, the non-vote, and the uninformed vote. The first two are worthwhile votes, the latter is inherently worthless.
The person who researches the issues and researches the candidates casts the informed vote. This is the most worthwhile of the three types of votes. The informed voter understands the issues and casts the best vote possible.
The non-voter actually casts a vote. The non-vote is a vote of neither yes or no for any issue or candidate. The non-voter either doesn't know enough, doesn't care, or is willing to allow others to decide the issue. The non-voter's voice is not heard. This means, the non-voter cannot complain about the outcome of the vote. Not exercising the right to vote means not exercising free speech about the vote. (Thus Meg Whitman, while she may think she can govern better, she should not complain about the state of California - she aided in the current state by not voting.) The non-vote is better than the last type of vote.
The uninformed voter is a disgrace to the system. The uniformed voter doesn't know the issues or the candidates. Most often, the uninformed voter casts a vote in-line with the political party to which the uninformed voter belongs. This doesn't mean every person who casts a vote which matches the political party's recommendation is an uninformed vote. Only those who rely on the political party to decide how to vote without researching is uninformed.
An uninformed vote is an abomination. The uninformed vote flies in the face of logic and what is right and wrong. The uninformed vote can influence the outcome of a political race or issue, especially when many uninformed votes are cast. Is this what the Founding Fathers wanted for the Country? I think not.
The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government. Voting others into office to make decisions for the populous is the republic form of government. When those in office do not make decisions the populous feels is correct, the populous votes that person out and a new person in. What the republic form of government is not: voting for someone because someone else says that is who you should vote for. Be your own person. Vote for the best candidate - the best candidate YOU think is best based on YOUR RESEARCH.
Tuesday is voting day. You have the right to vote, or not. Make your vote count....
Mike
United States citizens cherish the right to vote. A key principle in the founding of our Country was the right to vote. The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is a "thumbing-of-the-nose" at the elitism of the English system. The Founding Fathers believed people were not born with a right to lead, only the populous decides if someone is worthy to lead the government. (I'm reminded of the Monty Python line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever I think about why this Country was founded: A peasant says to King Arthur, "Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!")
But are citizens required to vote? Just because you have the right does not necessarily mean you have to exercise the right. For example, when the police arrest a suspect, the suspect is advised of the right to remain silent. The suspect can forgo the right and speak; the suspect does NOT have to exercise the right. Additionally, all law abiding citizens have the right to keep arms under the Second Amendment. How many actually do so? Some may argue I'm comparing apples to oranges; however, the apple and the orange both spring from the same "thing" - a seed. The principle underlying the right to vote and other rights is the same - the right not to exercise the right.
During the Gubernatorial race for California, Meg Whitman's voting record was highlighted. Meg Whitman did not vote for 28 years. Is this really material? Is voting a required element to run for public office? I say no, as a matter of fact, some votes should not even be made.
Whenever a voting opportunity arises, three types of votes are cast. These votes are not about which party, or about yes or no, or right or wrong. The three types of votes are about the character of the vote. The three types are the informed vote, the non-vote, and the uninformed vote. The first two are worthwhile votes, the latter is inherently worthless.
The person who researches the issues and researches the candidates casts the informed vote. This is the most worthwhile of the three types of votes. The informed voter understands the issues and casts the best vote possible.
The non-voter actually casts a vote. The non-vote is a vote of neither yes or no for any issue or candidate. The non-voter either doesn't know enough, doesn't care, or is willing to allow others to decide the issue. The non-voter's voice is not heard. This means, the non-voter cannot complain about the outcome of the vote. Not exercising the right to vote means not exercising free speech about the vote. (Thus Meg Whitman, while she may think she can govern better, she should not complain about the state of California - she aided in the current state by not voting.) The non-vote is better than the last type of vote.
The uninformed voter is a disgrace to the system. The uniformed voter doesn't know the issues or the candidates. Most often, the uninformed voter casts a vote in-line with the political party to which the uninformed voter belongs. This doesn't mean every person who casts a vote which matches the political party's recommendation is an uninformed vote. Only those who rely on the political party to decide how to vote without researching is uninformed.
An uninformed vote is an abomination. The uninformed vote flies in the face of logic and what is right and wrong. The uninformed vote can influence the outcome of a political race or issue, especially when many uninformed votes are cast. Is this what the Founding Fathers wanted for the Country? I think not.
The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government. Voting others into office to make decisions for the populous is the republic form of government. When those in office do not make decisions the populous feels is correct, the populous votes that person out and a new person in. What the republic form of government is not: voting for someone because someone else says that is who you should vote for. Be your own person. Vote for the best candidate - the best candidate YOU think is best based on YOUR RESEARCH.
Tuesday is voting day. You have the right to vote, or not. Make your vote count....
Mike
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Constitution Day - Read the Constitution and Follow It
Yesterday, September 17, was Constitution Day. In 1787 after four months of debate, thirty-nine delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document.
I bring this up because I feel too many US citizens do not understand the Constitution; this includes the members in the Federal Government. It is time for all US citizens to read and understand the Constitution. It is time for the Federal Government to follow the blueprint of the government. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
The election season has heated up as mid-term elections will occur in two months. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is running for re-election. In one of her campaign ads, she claims she is working to bring jobs to California. This is a typical campaign promise of those running for Federal office. Even Mrs. Boxer's (I refuse to call her Senator because she is a presumptuous and pretentious [censored]. She's the ignoramus who dressed-down a member of the military for calling her "ma'am" vice the title she worked so hard to get, "Senator." Anyone more concerned with his or her title vice performing the job deserves little to no respect.) opponent is making similar claims. Both of them, and everyone else running for office, should read the Constitution.
There is not a single word in the Constitution saying the role of a Senator (or of a Representative) is to bring jobs to the State they represent. This is a ridiculous concept. We do not elect members of Congress on the basis of who will bring jobs to our State. One, they don't have that power. Two, the Constitution does not give them that power. Three, to do so hurts the economy. The unfortunate reality is this is how these people campaign to get elected. Then while in office, they attach pork projects to bills to take money from the Federal Government to give to their State. In essence, they take money from other States to fund projects in their States so they can go back at election time and brag about what they've done for the State so they can elected again. And WE ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!
Over the years we, as a Country, have eroded the foundation the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution. For example, Senators originally were elected by the State legislatures. There was a reason behind this. The House of Representatives were the people's interests for their individual states while the Senate was the state government interests for their respective state. This is why the President is not tried for impeachment by the House. Recall my discussion on the Electoral College, the President represents the United States not the people of the United States. Thus the Senate, which represents the collective interest of the States, decides the fate of the President and not the House, which represents the collective interest of the people.
In the 1920's, we changed the Constitution so that Senators are elected by the people. This erodes the concept of our government. Every election if you vote for what you believe you will get in exchange for your vote vice voting for the person who will best represent the interests of the State or District in fulfillment of the duties defined in the Constitution, you get what you deserve - exactly what we have today. Congress is more worried about getting re-elected than doing their job. And they muddle too much in the economy.
Let's look at what the Constitution dictates. Article 1states "all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Legislative means having the power to make or enact law. Legislative does not mean the power to make jobs. Legislative does not to take from one group and give to another group. Legislative does not mean to fund pet projects to get re-elected. Legislative means to make law. Law being the substance of our society. Law being the rules by which we interact to ensure justice and fairness. Law means setting boundaries and consequences for exceeding those boundaries. Law does not mean giving people jobs or funding to the state in exchange for re-election.
Section 8 of Article 1 states the powers the Congress has. For example, "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" and "to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court." Section 8 does not address funding for individual states nor job creation. Paragraph 1 of Section 8 authorizes Congress the power to collect taxes to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US." Maybe Congress thinks pet projects and job creation are providing for the general welfare. I doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The Constitution set the framework for which our great Nation operates. Over the years, the simple building has grown such that what should be a mansion, instead, is a collection of rooms not connected to each other with stairs and hallways which have no purpose. As a Nation, we need to refocus and remember the philosophy on which the Nation was founded.
The Constitution should be read and followed.......
Mike
I bring this up because I feel too many US citizens do not understand the Constitution; this includes the members in the Federal Government. It is time for all US citizens to read and understand the Constitution. It is time for the Federal Government to follow the blueprint of the government. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
The election season has heated up as mid-term elections will occur in two months. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is running for re-election. In one of her campaign ads, she claims she is working to bring jobs to California. This is a typical campaign promise of those running for Federal office. Even Mrs. Boxer's (I refuse to call her Senator because she is a presumptuous and pretentious [censored]. She's the ignoramus who dressed-down a member of the military for calling her "ma'am" vice the title she worked so hard to get, "Senator." Anyone more concerned with his or her title vice performing the job deserves little to no respect.) opponent is making similar claims. Both of them, and everyone else running for office, should read the Constitution.
There is not a single word in the Constitution saying the role of a Senator (or of a Representative) is to bring jobs to the State they represent. This is a ridiculous concept. We do not elect members of Congress on the basis of who will bring jobs to our State. One, they don't have that power. Two, the Constitution does not give them that power. Three, to do so hurts the economy. The unfortunate reality is this is how these people campaign to get elected. Then while in office, they attach pork projects to bills to take money from the Federal Government to give to their State. In essence, they take money from other States to fund projects in their States so they can go back at election time and brag about what they've done for the State so they can elected again. And WE ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!
Over the years we, as a Country, have eroded the foundation the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution. For example, Senators originally were elected by the State legislatures. There was a reason behind this. The House of Representatives were the people's interests for their individual states while the Senate was the state government interests for their respective state. This is why the President is not tried for impeachment by the House. Recall my discussion on the Electoral College, the President represents the United States not the people of the United States. Thus the Senate, which represents the collective interest of the States, decides the fate of the President and not the House, which represents the collective interest of the people.
In the 1920's, we changed the Constitution so that Senators are elected by the people. This erodes the concept of our government. Every election if you vote for what you believe you will get in exchange for your vote vice voting for the person who will best represent the interests of the State or District in fulfillment of the duties defined in the Constitution, you get what you deserve - exactly what we have today. Congress is more worried about getting re-elected than doing their job. And they muddle too much in the economy.
Let's look at what the Constitution dictates. Article 1states "all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Legislative means having the power to make or enact law. Legislative does not mean the power to make jobs. Legislative does not to take from one group and give to another group. Legislative does not mean to fund pet projects to get re-elected. Legislative means to make law. Law being the substance of our society. Law being the rules by which we interact to ensure justice and fairness. Law means setting boundaries and consequences for exceeding those boundaries. Law does not mean giving people jobs or funding to the state in exchange for re-election.
Section 8 of Article 1 states the powers the Congress has. For example, "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" and "to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court." Section 8 does not address funding for individual states nor job creation. Paragraph 1 of Section 8 authorizes Congress the power to collect taxes to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US." Maybe Congress thinks pet projects and job creation are providing for the general welfare. I doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The Constitution set the framework for which our great Nation operates. Over the years, the simple building has grown such that what should be a mansion, instead, is a collection of rooms not connected to each other with stairs and hallways which have no purpose. As a Nation, we need to refocus and remember the philosophy on which the Nation was founded.
The Constitution should be read and followed.......
Mike
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
On Thursday, Sept 9, a Federal Circuit Judge ruled Congress' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about homosexuality in the military unconstitutional. The homosexual community immediately applauded the ruling while those in favor of the policy immediately expressed anger over a single person overriding a majority view. You can see the similarities in the cries for and against the ruling that were made for the overruling of California's Prop 8 last month.
You'll notice I described the policy as Congress' vice the military's - most people would say "the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The key fact which is ignored when labeling the policy "the miliary's" is that the policy was enacted as a law by Congress and signed into law by the President. The military is only following orders - something you expect the military to do.
The question is, is allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military a threat to good order and discipline? In this day and age, there aren't any valid arguments to support that position. Remember these were the same arguments made against allowing unsegregated troops and the same arguments made against allowing women to serve. Since women and minorities have served in the military without any direct threat against good order and discipline, how can anyone justify the same against homosexuals?
First let's address what makes for good order and discipline. Military rules and regulations do not specifically or explicitly define the phrase, "good order and discipline." The totality of the phrase is defined implicitly via individual rules and the traditions recognized by the military. The intent of good order and discipline is to foster a cohesive team. The twentieth edition of The Bluejackets' Manual states, "A well-disciplined crew or team has the right attitude, does its work efficiently, and shows high morale."
For example, fraternization between Officers and Enlisted (and between senior leadership and junior leadership within the Enlisted ranks) is specifically prohibited. Fraternization undermines leadership by fostering an environment of favoritism which will lead to mistrust of the leader. This act is prohibited because it is against "good order and discipline."
Recently, General McChrystal found out first hand something not explicitly written but considered against good order and discipline. The article in Rolling Stone which detailed comments and attitudes by the General's staff led to his resignation (or firing, if you so choose) because the comments seem to undermine the authority of the President. Freedom of Speech is limited in the Armed Forces, and for good reason. The military is at the beck and call of the President to do the President's bidding (within the limits of the law and the Constitution). It would not bode well for the US if the military expressed viewpoints which countered the President openly. Someone speaking ill of his or her leader does not promote "good order and discipline."
Lastly, let's address homosexuals in the military. I entered the military in 1985 during the height of the Cold War. In the 1980's, homosexuality was not mainstream; in other words, homosexuality was not viewed as anything close to being normal. Coming out of the closet was not in vogue per se. A person serving in the military who was homosexual was viewed as a security risk and "susceptible to blackmail." (Bearden, pg115).
Today, 30 years later, homosexuality is more accepted by the mainstream. More and more, people who are homosexual are not afraid of telling the world the true them. Reasoning they could be susceptible to blackmail and security risks is no longer valid. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, they won't be susceptible to blackmail. This reason is removed.
In the 1990's, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into being. When I enlisted in 1985, I was asked if I had ever engaged in homosexual activity (DD Form 1966, edition 1978). After "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," this question could not be asked. Of course, conversely after the 90's, a military member could not tell.
Realize, the military had an order, "if you are homosexual, do not tell the military you are homosexual." Anyone who violated the order suffered the consequences. This is the Mr. Blue situation. (In Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Blue, during a jewelry store heist, tells the patrons not to sound the alarm. Well someone sounded the alarm, so he began to shoot the customers. His reasoning, "if they had done what I told them to do, I wouldn't have had to do what I did." This is the Mr. Blue situation. When told to not to do something, don't complain when you suffer the consequences after doing what you were told not to do.) Now the consequences for violating the order was discharge. Homosexuals were given the rules. Those that followed the rules stayed in the military. Those that did not were ejected.
I will not address whether the rule violates the First and Fifth Amendments (valid arguments can be made for both sides). I will address whether the rule needs to be repealed. Realize there is movement afoot to repeal the rule anyway. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both believe it should be repealed. The House has already moved to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Senate has not voted on the issue.
There are still many people who oppose homosexuals in the military. Even if they are in the majority, their viewpoint is a discrimination which makes little sense. How can anyone look another human being in the eye and tell that person he or she is not good enough to defend the Country and to willingly put his or her life on the line for his or her fellow citizens because that person is attracted to members of the same sex? This viewpoint violates logic. It does not have a rationale basis.
Some of the arguments against homosexuals have been "homosexuality is immoral" and "I don't want a gay guy looking at me while I'm undressing." As far as immoral, which deals with right and wrong or lewd behavior, homosexuality is not immoral except as viewed by religions. I've already addressed this viewpoint of religions so I will not repeat it here. And for the person who doesn't want to be possibly ogled by a homosexual, this person is also the same one who wants to ogle members of the opposite sex (for the most part - I've seen it in action!). As I said, the viewpoint against homosexuals in the military is not rationale.
When I reported to one of my commands, the person I relieved told me one of my underlings was a homosexual. "Everyone knows it; you'll be able to tell," he further told me. When I met this young Petty Officer, I immediately could tell he was a homosexual. This Sailor, though, was one of the smartest, most professional, and articulate Sailors you could hope to serve with. Just prior to deploying, he told the command he was gay and was discharged. I lost a good man. This injustice needs to stop. (I should point out my belief that he told the command he was gay not because he was gay, but because he no longer wanted to be in the Navy and this was a way out. This is my opinion.)
The Armed Forces need professionals in the ranks. Sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, or sex of the person does not determine professionalism. The actions of the person determine professionalism. The Armed Forces should discharge those who show unfavorable actions to "good order and discipline" not those who possess certain unchangeable traits. As stated in The Bluejackets' Manual, "it is the goal...to eliminate every vestige of prejudice" (Bearden, pg 65). The Armed Forces need not prejudge homosexuals before proof.......it is time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mike
References not linked:
Bearden, B and Bill Wedertz. (1978) The Bluejackets' Manual. Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
You'll notice I described the policy as Congress' vice the military's - most people would say "the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The key fact which is ignored when labeling the policy "the miliary's" is that the policy was enacted as a law by Congress and signed into law by the President. The military is only following orders - something you expect the military to do.
The question is, is allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military a threat to good order and discipline? In this day and age, there aren't any valid arguments to support that position. Remember these were the same arguments made against allowing unsegregated troops and the same arguments made against allowing women to serve. Since women and minorities have served in the military without any direct threat against good order and discipline, how can anyone justify the same against homosexuals?
First let's address what makes for good order and discipline. Military rules and regulations do not specifically or explicitly define the phrase, "good order and discipline." The totality of the phrase is defined implicitly via individual rules and the traditions recognized by the military. The intent of good order and discipline is to foster a cohesive team. The twentieth edition of The Bluejackets' Manual states, "A well-disciplined crew or team has the right attitude, does its work efficiently, and shows high morale."
For example, fraternization between Officers and Enlisted (and between senior leadership and junior leadership within the Enlisted ranks) is specifically prohibited. Fraternization undermines leadership by fostering an environment of favoritism which will lead to mistrust of the leader. This act is prohibited because it is against "good order and discipline."
Recently, General McChrystal found out first hand something not explicitly written but considered against good order and discipline. The article in Rolling Stone which detailed comments and attitudes by the General's staff led to his resignation (or firing, if you so choose) because the comments seem to undermine the authority of the President. Freedom of Speech is limited in the Armed Forces, and for good reason. The military is at the beck and call of the President to do the President's bidding (within the limits of the law and the Constitution). It would not bode well for the US if the military expressed viewpoints which countered the President openly. Someone speaking ill of his or her leader does not promote "good order and discipline."
Lastly, let's address homosexuals in the military. I entered the military in 1985 during the height of the Cold War. In the 1980's, homosexuality was not mainstream; in other words, homosexuality was not viewed as anything close to being normal. Coming out of the closet was not in vogue per se. A person serving in the military who was homosexual was viewed as a security risk and "susceptible to blackmail." (Bearden, pg115).
Today, 30 years later, homosexuality is more accepted by the mainstream. More and more, people who are homosexual are not afraid of telling the world the true them. Reasoning they could be susceptible to blackmail and security risks is no longer valid. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, they won't be susceptible to blackmail. This reason is removed.
In the 1990's, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into being. When I enlisted in 1985, I was asked if I had ever engaged in homosexual activity (DD Form 1966, edition 1978). After "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," this question could not be asked. Of course, conversely after the 90's, a military member could not tell.
Realize, the military had an order, "if you are homosexual, do not tell the military you are homosexual." Anyone who violated the order suffered the consequences. This is the Mr. Blue situation. (In Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Blue, during a jewelry store heist, tells the patrons not to sound the alarm. Well someone sounded the alarm, so he began to shoot the customers. His reasoning, "if they had done what I told them to do, I wouldn't have had to do what I did." This is the Mr. Blue situation. When told to not to do something, don't complain when you suffer the consequences after doing what you were told not to do.) Now the consequences for violating the order was discharge. Homosexuals were given the rules. Those that followed the rules stayed in the military. Those that did not were ejected.
I will not address whether the rule violates the First and Fifth Amendments (valid arguments can be made for both sides). I will address whether the rule needs to be repealed. Realize there is movement afoot to repeal the rule anyway. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both believe it should be repealed. The House has already moved to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Senate has not voted on the issue.
There are still many people who oppose homosexuals in the military. Even if they are in the majority, their viewpoint is a discrimination which makes little sense. How can anyone look another human being in the eye and tell that person he or she is not good enough to defend the Country and to willingly put his or her life on the line for his or her fellow citizens because that person is attracted to members of the same sex? This viewpoint violates logic. It does not have a rationale basis.
Some of the arguments against homosexuals have been "homosexuality is immoral" and "I don't want a gay guy looking at me while I'm undressing." As far as immoral, which deals with right and wrong or lewd behavior, homosexuality is not immoral except as viewed by religions. I've already addressed this viewpoint of religions so I will not repeat it here. And for the person who doesn't want to be possibly ogled by a homosexual, this person is also the same one who wants to ogle members of the opposite sex (for the most part - I've seen it in action!). As I said, the viewpoint against homosexuals in the military is not rationale.
When I reported to one of my commands, the person I relieved told me one of my underlings was a homosexual. "Everyone knows it; you'll be able to tell," he further told me. When I met this young Petty Officer, I immediately could tell he was a homosexual. This Sailor, though, was one of the smartest, most professional, and articulate Sailors you could hope to serve with. Just prior to deploying, he told the command he was gay and was discharged. I lost a good man. This injustice needs to stop. (I should point out my belief that he told the command he was gay not because he was gay, but because he no longer wanted to be in the Navy and this was a way out. This is my opinion.)
The Armed Forces need professionals in the ranks. Sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, or sex of the person does not determine professionalism. The actions of the person determine professionalism. The Armed Forces should discharge those who show unfavorable actions to "good order and discipline" not those who possess certain unchangeable traits. As stated in The Bluejackets' Manual, "it is the goal...to eliminate every vestige of prejudice" (Bearden, pg 65). The Armed Forces need not prejudge homosexuals before proof.......it is time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mike
References not linked:
Bearden, B and Bill Wedertz. (1978) The Bluejackets' Manual. Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Restoring Honor
Today Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Of course, the loons who do not like Mr. Beck railed against his rally, especially the choice of date. Fifty-seven years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr, gave his famous "I have a dream" speech. You can make your own determination about the choice of date. I will use these loons' message to make my own.
Even if you disagree with Glenn Beck's political views or his choice of venue and date, you should at least agree with his message today. At least I hope you do. "Restoring Honor" is a message many people need to hear and to understand. Too often nowadays, people are not treating others with any honor. We need to restore honor to our society and to our Country.
The last year we have seen a myriad of issues thrust into the national spotlight. The illegal immigration debate, the proposed Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, and healthcare are some of issues which have divided the nation. Some of the words utilized by people on both sides of the issues call into question the honor of the people who have spoken those words.
One of the principles our Country was founded on was principle that the people should be allowed to speak freely about their government. The concept of free speech is included four times in the First Amendment. First, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Second, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Third, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Lastly, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Four different statements which affirm the right of the people to speak their mind about the government. This fact should resonate loudly how important the principle was to the Founding Fathers. Yet, everyday, someone tries to stifle the speech of someone else. And the manner of doing so is very nefarious.
This past week I saw some pictures from demonstrations over the proposed Muslim Community Center in Manhattan. Some of the signs called those who oppose the building are "racists." The demonstrations over illegal immigration included the same signs. Rep. Grayson (how anyone could vote for this guy is beyond me) said the Republicans who opposed President Obama's takeover of healthcare wanted those who are sick to "die quickly."
This rhetoric of labeling opponents as "haters" or "racists" or whatever other despicable term can be chosen needs to stop. Healthy debate over topics, even decisive ones, is needed. The airing of opposition based on facts and viable opinions is needed. Defaming the opponent is not needed.
It should be viewed as dishonorable to label your opponents for disagreeing with you, especially when the labels of "hater" and "racist" are utilized. These labels do not add to the debate. As far as I'm concerned, the labels are a covert method of abridging free speech. I think it is reasonable to expect, the reasonable person might not speak up if the person is afraid of being labeled something despicable. This is no different than the fear of speaking up because there is a law against it.
Bringing emotion into the debate has only one purpose - to incite violence. Loathe the person who decides to label an opponent so that violence happens in the hopes the person's viewpoint wins. The labeling of opponents with spiteful words needs to end!
We need to view honor in the same light as trust and integrity. When someone loses trust or violates his or her integrity, that person does not get those attributes restored for a long time, if at all. The Japanese used to commit suicide over losing honor. I don't think we need to go to those extremes, but it would behoove us to have a similar view - losing honor is not desirable. If someone violates honor, that person should not be treated like someone who possesses honor. We should shun them and treat them different.
America needs to restore Her Honor. We need to respect the viewpoint of each other and not rely on name calling to make our point. Glenn Beck is right. Take the honorable route.....
Mike
Even if you disagree with Glenn Beck's political views or his choice of venue and date, you should at least agree with his message today. At least I hope you do. "Restoring Honor" is a message many people need to hear and to understand. Too often nowadays, people are not treating others with any honor. We need to restore honor to our society and to our Country.
The last year we have seen a myriad of issues thrust into the national spotlight. The illegal immigration debate, the proposed Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, and healthcare are some of issues which have divided the nation. Some of the words utilized by people on both sides of the issues call into question the honor of the people who have spoken those words.
One of the principles our Country was founded on was principle that the people should be allowed to speak freely about their government. The concept of free speech is included four times in the First Amendment. First, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Second, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Third, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Lastly, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Four different statements which affirm the right of the people to speak their mind about the government. This fact should resonate loudly how important the principle was to the Founding Fathers. Yet, everyday, someone tries to stifle the speech of someone else. And the manner of doing so is very nefarious.
This past week I saw some pictures from demonstrations over the proposed Muslim Community Center in Manhattan. Some of the signs called those who oppose the building are "racists." The demonstrations over illegal immigration included the same signs. Rep. Grayson (how anyone could vote for this guy is beyond me) said the Republicans who opposed President Obama's takeover of healthcare wanted those who are sick to "die quickly."
This rhetoric of labeling opponents as "haters" or "racists" or whatever other despicable term can be chosen needs to stop. Healthy debate over topics, even decisive ones, is needed. The airing of opposition based on facts and viable opinions is needed. Defaming the opponent is not needed.
It should be viewed as dishonorable to label your opponents for disagreeing with you, especially when the labels of "hater" and "racist" are utilized. These labels do not add to the debate. As far as I'm concerned, the labels are a covert method of abridging free speech. I think it is reasonable to expect, the reasonable person might not speak up if the person is afraid of being labeled something despicable. This is no different than the fear of speaking up because there is a law against it.
Bringing emotion into the debate has only one purpose - to incite violence. Loathe the person who decides to label an opponent so that violence happens in the hopes the person's viewpoint wins. The labeling of opponents with spiteful words needs to end!
We need to view honor in the same light as trust and integrity. When someone loses trust or violates his or her integrity, that person does not get those attributes restored for a long time, if at all. The Japanese used to commit suicide over losing honor. I don't think we need to go to those extremes, but it would behoove us to have a similar view - losing honor is not desirable. If someone violates honor, that person should not be treated like someone who possesses honor. We should shun them and treat them different.
America needs to restore Her Honor. We need to respect the viewpoint of each other and not rely on name calling to make our point. Glenn Beck is right. Take the honorable route.....
Mike
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Wizard, the President, and the Mosque
Last Friday, 8/13, President Obama spoke at a Ramadan dinner. During his speech he did what most politicians love to do: state the obvious. On Saturday, he had to clarify what he meant when he spoke the obvious. Of course, since Friday, the talking-heads have been having a field day with the topic. The constant barrage about this subject can be nauseating. Now I am going to wade into the muck.
For some time there has been debate on the proposed cultural center and mosque to be built in lower Manhattan. The news media (including FOX) likes to spin the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque." This three word phrase, at least to me, seems to imply that a mosque is to be built in the very location where the Twin Towers and other buildings once stood prior to their destruction in a cowardly terrorist attack 9 years ago. Of course, the fact is that the mosque is to be built on property two blocks away from the location known as "ground zero." Using Google Maps, one can see that when one walks some steps from the building, one can look down the street and view the hole which is ground zero. The mosque is not planned to be built at Ground Zero; therefore, the news media should not refer to the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
Another misnomer is that the building is not a mosque per se. The building will contain a mosque. However, most of the building will consist of a cultural center which will encompass most of the building. So in reality, the building should be considered a Muslim Cultural Center. When I was young, I attended church in a converted grocery store. I don't think people not associated with the church called the shopping center, "the Church." Therefore, we should not call the cultural center a mosque.
The President on Friday expressed the fact that the people who desire to build the cultural center have every right under the Constitution to do so. This is a fact. No one, not even those against the project, has ever suggested otherwise. Of course, the talking heads began ranting that because the President did not object to the center's location, his comment was support for
"a mosque at ground zero."
The ranting resulted in a clarification which only further muddled the issue. The President said that he was only commenting on the right not the "wisdom" to build the mosque. Here the President weighed in on an issue with a statement of fact not in question without actually taking a stance. Some could argue this is wise because he is allowing the issue to be handled at the local level where it should be handled. Others could argue that his statement without his opinion is not wise because he only fuels the political fire without offering any support.
I like what Charles Krauthammer on FOX said yesterday. He called the actions of the President "cowardly." Just like the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, the President runs from confrontation. Of course, the President does not have any trouble stoking the fire while he does so.
First, the President, in front of Muslims, says they have a right to build a mosque on private property. But he does not address the apparent "wisdom" of the decision. Second, a day later and hundreds of miles from the Muslims he spoke with on Friday, while speaking to someone who just might not support the plan, he asserts the "right" without commenting on the "wisdom." Cowardly on both fronts.
Muslims have every right to build their cultural center with a mosque wherever they choose, INCLUDING ON THE VERY CENTER OF "GROUND ZERO." Our Constitutional principles state as such. However, to build the cultural center anywhere near "ground zero" is not a very wise decision.
One can argue all day long that Islam does not play a part in the opposition. That would be a fallacy. Let's face the facts: the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims who believed in Islam. The terrorists who attacked the US on that day did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions. This belief comes directly from their religion. Thus Islam played a major role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11.
Now the viewpoints of the terrorists are not shared by all Islamic followers - one hopes the the views aren't shared by most either. The fact remains though that Islam played a role and the Muslims who desire to build the cultural center should take that into account. If they want to be blind to this fact, then they, themselves, are not very wise. It would the same as saying the Catholic and Protestant faiths did not play a factor in the conflict surrounding Northern Ireland's political state. The Catholics desired independence, the Protestants did not. However, the underlying reason was that the Protestants desired to remain with Protestant England vice self-rule or merging with Catholic Ireland. Politics drove the issue, religion underlined the issue. Same with the Twin Towers. The politics of US-Israel drove the attacks. Islam underlined the attacks. An acknowledgement upon the part of the supporters would go a long way to healing the wounds of the families involved in the attacks of 9/11.
Yesterday, I told my girlfriend that it would behoove the opponents of the cultural center to provide a counter-proposal. It is not enough for the opponents to stand on the sidelines and whine and moan about the atrocities of the decision to build the cultural center so close to "ground zero." The opponents need to show they are willing to support the right to build the mosque by helping the proponents choose another site. I was taught as a young Sailor not to go whining to the Chief about a problem unless I had some solutions. The opponents would do well for their side to provide alternative locations, with incentives, to the proponents so that the cultural center is built elsewhere. I applaud Governor Patterson for opening such a door.
Of course, the question is now begged, "how far away is enough?" The answer is simple. Such that anyone in the building or leaving the building cannot see "Ground Zero" from a window or other vantage point from or within one block of the building. I think that would satisfy the opponents.
The President waded into the muck of this situation. He did so in a cowardly manner again showing his total lack of leadership skills. The advice he gets from behind the curtain is not doing well for his performance for the masses. The President needs to learn that a leader does not need to take the middle of the road. Why he is so afraid to say whether the decision for the cultural center is wise or not is beyond me. It is also beyond me how he could say one thing to one group and then allude something else to another. When someone, especially a leader, does this, they begin to lose the confidence of the people they lead and the people around them. (I speak from experience.)
The Cowardly Lion was awarded a medal for bravery in the movie. I think the President needs to drink the potion (book version). He might do a better job at addressing the issues and talking frankly with those around him; instead of doing what he so accustomed to doing: being a pitch man. Oh my, the President is the Wizard.....
Mike
On another note, I recommend everyone look up Ramadan and learn about this holy month for Islam and Muslims who practice Islam. Understanding other's belief systems can go a long way to bridging any gap....
For some time there has been debate on the proposed cultural center and mosque to be built in lower Manhattan. The news media (including FOX) likes to spin the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque." This three word phrase, at least to me, seems to imply that a mosque is to be built in the very location where the Twin Towers and other buildings once stood prior to their destruction in a cowardly terrorist attack 9 years ago. Of course, the fact is that the mosque is to be built on property two blocks away from the location known as "ground zero." Using Google Maps, one can see that when one walks some steps from the building, one can look down the street and view the hole which is ground zero. The mosque is not planned to be built at Ground Zero; therefore, the news media should not refer to the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
Another misnomer is that the building is not a mosque per se. The building will contain a mosque. However, most of the building will consist of a cultural center which will encompass most of the building. So in reality, the building should be considered a Muslim Cultural Center. When I was young, I attended church in a converted grocery store. I don't think people not associated with the church called the shopping center, "the Church." Therefore, we should not call the cultural center a mosque.
The President on Friday expressed the fact that the people who desire to build the cultural center have every right under the Constitution to do so. This is a fact. No one, not even those against the project, has ever suggested otherwise. Of course, the talking heads began ranting that because the President did not object to the center's location, his comment was support for
"a mosque at ground zero."
The ranting resulted in a clarification which only further muddled the issue. The President said that he was only commenting on the right not the "wisdom" to build the mosque. Here the President weighed in on an issue with a statement of fact not in question without actually taking a stance. Some could argue this is wise because he is allowing the issue to be handled at the local level where it should be handled. Others could argue that his statement without his opinion is not wise because he only fuels the political fire without offering any support.
I like what Charles Krauthammer on FOX said yesterday. He called the actions of the President "cowardly." Just like the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, the President runs from confrontation. Of course, the President does not have any trouble stoking the fire while he does so.
First, the President, in front of Muslims, says they have a right to build a mosque on private property. But he does not address the apparent "wisdom" of the decision. Second, a day later and hundreds of miles from the Muslims he spoke with on Friday, while speaking to someone who just might not support the plan, he asserts the "right" without commenting on the "wisdom." Cowardly on both fronts.
Muslims have every right to build their cultural center with a mosque wherever they choose, INCLUDING ON THE VERY CENTER OF "GROUND ZERO." Our Constitutional principles state as such. However, to build the cultural center anywhere near "ground zero" is not a very wise decision.
One can argue all day long that Islam does not play a part in the opposition. That would be a fallacy. Let's face the facts: the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims who believed in Islam. The terrorists who attacked the US on that day did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions. This belief comes directly from their religion. Thus Islam played a major role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11.
Now the viewpoints of the terrorists are not shared by all Islamic followers - one hopes the the views aren't shared by most either. The fact remains though that Islam played a role and the Muslims who desire to build the cultural center should take that into account. If they want to be blind to this fact, then they, themselves, are not very wise. It would the same as saying the Catholic and Protestant faiths did not play a factor in the conflict surrounding Northern Ireland's political state. The Catholics desired independence, the Protestants did not. However, the underlying reason was that the Protestants desired to remain with Protestant England vice self-rule or merging with Catholic Ireland. Politics drove the issue, religion underlined the issue. Same with the Twin Towers. The politics of US-Israel drove the attacks. Islam underlined the attacks. An acknowledgement upon the part of the supporters would go a long way to healing the wounds of the families involved in the attacks of 9/11.
Yesterday, I told my girlfriend that it would behoove the opponents of the cultural center to provide a counter-proposal. It is not enough for the opponents to stand on the sidelines and whine and moan about the atrocities of the decision to build the cultural center so close to "ground zero." The opponents need to show they are willing to support the right to build the mosque by helping the proponents choose another site. I was taught as a young Sailor not to go whining to the Chief about a problem unless I had some solutions. The opponents would do well for their side to provide alternative locations, with incentives, to the proponents so that the cultural center is built elsewhere. I applaud Governor Patterson for opening such a door.
Of course, the question is now begged, "how far away is enough?" The answer is simple. Such that anyone in the building or leaving the building cannot see "Ground Zero" from a window or other vantage point from or within one block of the building. I think that would satisfy the opponents.
The President waded into the muck of this situation. He did so in a cowardly manner again showing his total lack of leadership skills. The advice he gets from behind the curtain is not doing well for his performance for the masses. The President needs to learn that a leader does not need to take the middle of the road. Why he is so afraid to say whether the decision for the cultural center is wise or not is beyond me. It is also beyond me how he could say one thing to one group and then allude something else to another. When someone, especially a leader, does this, they begin to lose the confidence of the people they lead and the people around them. (I speak from experience.)
The Cowardly Lion was awarded a medal for bravery in the movie. I think the President needs to drink the potion (book version). He might do a better job at addressing the issues and talking frankly with those around him; instead of doing what he so accustomed to doing: being a pitch man. Oh my, the President is the Wizard.....
Mike
On another note, I recommend everyone look up Ramadan and learn about this holy month for Islam and Muslims who practice Islam. Understanding other's belief systems can go a long way to bridging any gap....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)