If you've posted in forums you might remember writing some decent responses. I usually spend a lot of time polishing my discussion forum responses depending on the subject or who I am talking to. Often I want to remember what I said about something, but finding the original post can be difficult. So it makes sense to capture the better responses for later review. Welcome to Clint's Reposts.Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Your Next Life
Someone trying to make it to the US of A said:
"Soldiers in the border? That won't stop me. I'll swim the river and jump the wall.
I'm going to arrive in the United States"
Most who live in this country don't have a clue of what forces motivate a person to make a statement like that. For the bulk of US natives it's: "like my icemaker is broken and whaz up with all these foreigners trying to git into MY country?"
Their cerebral cortex produces spoon fed cable TV regurgitation of "how it ought to be". Their daily experience reinforces the notion, since voices chime out everywhere in angst about the invaders. Cosmic currents that direct the movement of people on the planet mystify them.
Place these same good 'ole' natives in the same conditions that cause people to strive for something better in the USA and--whoa--guess what--they, too join the water flowing under the protected bridge. Surprise, surprise. But, but...it just ain't right say they. Those border crossers are messing us up!
In their next life, the newly placed must swim the river and jump the wall. Finally their soul understands, at last.
-C
"Soldiers in the border? That won't stop me. I'll swim the river and jump the wall.
I'm going to arrive in the United States"
Most who live in this country don't have a clue of what forces motivate a person to make a statement like that. For the bulk of US natives it's: "like my icemaker is broken and whaz up with all these foreigners trying to git into MY country?"
Their cerebral cortex produces spoon fed cable TV regurgitation of "how it ought to be". Their daily experience reinforces the notion, since voices chime out everywhere in angst about the invaders. Cosmic currents that direct the movement of people on the planet mystify them.
Place these same good 'ole' natives in the same conditions that cause people to strive for something better in the USA and--whoa--guess what--they, too join the water flowing under the protected bridge. Surprise, surprise. But, but...it just ain't right say they. Those border crossers are messing us up!
In their next life, the newly placed must swim the river and jump the wall. Finally their soul understands, at last.
-C
Thursday, April 06, 2006
What would Jesus do?
In the Politics forum a response to: http://www.network54.com/Forum/79106/message/1144358144/Obviously
Ben's instincts are right IMHO.
Many in this country use the term "illegal immigrant" because in their heart they have bought into the idea that the flow of people from poorer regions to our region--and a border is an arbitrary geographical line backed by military force--spells woe and misfortune, or, as Shana expresses in a loftier way, our woe will stem from a lack of: "love for and an allegiance to this country".
The love of nation can stir the heart in all of us, for being human, we long to belong to a magnificent tribe. Humans are designed that way. What exactly is the fear of the tribe here in the U.S.? That an influx of non-tribe individuals will overwhelm our already overtaxed socialist system? What exactly is our ulterior motive? Why do we strive for all residing in the tribal lands to have a common language, a chant a pledge of tribal allegiance?
As for knowing our written constitution, how many natives actually know it, live it? Not many do is the impression I get reading reports of the sad failure of most natives to recite the concepts of our founders, much less live them. Sadly, our tribal leaders no longer protect the rights granted by the language of our founders. Instead, they allow special interests to usurp these rights in the name of the "common good", a shifty unreliable concept at best.
Many, if not most, non-tribe individuals travel to our lands simply to improve their lot in life--to get a better job, to pursue happiness, to provide a better existence for their loved ones. Arriving here, our guests are greeted not only with work, but with our magnificent welfare state. The welfare state--a magnificent bureaucratic degeneration of the best of human impulse; the impulse of most humans to help our fellow man in need.
Because our human impulse of charity is entrapped within the maze of government welfare "programs", we become free to dispense with individual charity and instead can safely feel "threatened" that our government programs are under attack by the "aliens"; that maybe the program we fund so generously (not that we have a choice) won't be there for ME or other tribesman if things go too far! Perhaps it is that lack of choice--that we must fund the program, the program that we funded that is helping, gasp, non-tribesman that really insults us.
Do you really think that 2nd generation kids from the original non-English speaking invaders won't know English after growing up here? Do you think they won't know the pledge? The constitution? And why, oh tribal sister, do you think that "Los Angeles County has the highest number of foreign-language ballots – six – that are required by the Justice Department in the nation." This is your Justice Department, your tribal leaders. Save your angst for them. Direct your ill will toward them. Vote the rascals out and restore a single language. Too late I fear. Abandonment of founding principals led you here--led the tribe here.
Most aliens who work here would have gladly returned home but, having tasted the honey of taxpayer funded welfare (granted by you and your representative) will only send for the others. They will each have love for and allegiance to this country for the bounty it offers, and most of them will work hard and in so doing increase that bounty. And, sadly what you, and not just you miss, is that in the long run, you and your offspring will be better for it. In fact you've already been reaping the benefits for a long time now.
Clint
Ben's instincts are right IMHO.
Many in this country use the term "illegal immigrant" because in their heart they have bought into the idea that the flow of people from poorer regions to our region--and a border is an arbitrary geographical line backed by military force--spells woe and misfortune, or, as Shana expresses in a loftier way, our woe will stem from a lack of: "love for and an allegiance to this country".
The love of nation can stir the heart in all of us, for being human, we long to belong to a magnificent tribe. Humans are designed that way. What exactly is the fear of the tribe here in the U.S.? That an influx of non-tribe individuals will overwhelm our already overtaxed socialist system? What exactly is our ulterior motive? Why do we strive for all residing in the tribal lands to have a common language, a chant a pledge of tribal allegiance?
As for knowing our written constitution, how many natives actually know it, live it? Not many do is the impression I get reading reports of the sad failure of most natives to recite the concepts of our founders, much less live them. Sadly, our tribal leaders no longer protect the rights granted by the language of our founders. Instead, they allow special interests to usurp these rights in the name of the "common good", a shifty unreliable concept at best.
Many, if not most, non-tribe individuals travel to our lands simply to improve their lot in life--to get a better job, to pursue happiness, to provide a better existence for their loved ones. Arriving here, our guests are greeted not only with work, but with our magnificent welfare state. The welfare state--a magnificent bureaucratic degeneration of the best of human impulse; the impulse of most humans to help our fellow man in need.
Because our human impulse of charity is entrapped within the maze of government welfare "programs", we become free to dispense with individual charity and instead can safely feel "threatened" that our government programs are under attack by the "aliens"; that maybe the program we fund so generously (not that we have a choice) won't be there for ME or other tribesman if things go too far! Perhaps it is that lack of choice--that we must fund the program, the program that we funded that is helping, gasp, non-tribesman that really insults us.
Do you really think that 2nd generation kids from the original non-English speaking invaders won't know English after growing up here? Do you think they won't know the pledge? The constitution? And why, oh tribal sister, do you think that "Los Angeles County has the highest number of foreign-language ballots – six – that are required by the Justice Department in the nation." This is your Justice Department, your tribal leaders. Save your angst for them. Direct your ill will toward them. Vote the rascals out and restore a single language. Too late I fear. Abandonment of founding principals led you here--led the tribe here.
Most aliens who work here would have gladly returned home but, having tasted the honey of taxpayer funded welfare (granted by you and your representative) will only send for the others. They will each have love for and allegiance to this country for the bounty it offers, and most of them will work hard and in so doing increase that bounty. And, sadly what you, and not just you miss, is that in the long run, you and your offspring will be better for it. In fact you've already been reaping the benefits for a long time now.
Clint
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Oil is humanitarian
Ben wrote in http://www.network54.com/Forum/79106/message/1142967280/Man%2C+we+have+Straw+men+all+over+this+board.....:
"According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they 'die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.'"
That is, they die to lack of food, lack of basic necessities, and die of preventable diseases. If we were to move just 1% of what we spend on our defense budget, just imagine the good works we could do for these children.
Again, humanitarianism is only an issue, or so it seems, when abundant oil is under the soil.
Not to be cold about it, but it was oil that gave rise to the population of now dying children in the first place.
Fossil fuels made possible the rapid growth of population as transportation cost were reduced and human productivity increased greatly.
From: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/pop_socio/pop_socio.html
As you can see from the charts on this webpage human population has increased exponentially in the recent past. Oil was, and is, in a sense extremely humanitarian in that it lifted scores of countries out of absolute poverty and short life spans so that many more children could survive overall. Unfortunately the huge increase in birthrates left much larger populations of children exposed to the usual world problems: lack of sanitation, unstable governments, etc.
One could argue that by obsessively going after oil we are doing more for child good works than 1% of redirected defense spending could even come close to matching, not that redirecting that money would be a bad thing. I applaud your humanitaran instincts but throwing money at the poverty problem only delays the inevitable unless world attitudes and behaviors change. Until we stop fighting each other learn to work together, there will always be children dying of poverty. I'm not holding my breath on the working together concept. Nature (at least the nature we see on planet earth) is red in tooth and claw, meaning that no one is really at fault here. The universe has its own purpose and it appears 30,000 children dying each day due to poverty is part of it, as is a 100% defense budget.
--C
"According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they 'die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.'"
That is, they die to lack of food, lack of basic necessities, and die of preventable diseases. If we were to move just 1% of what we spend on our defense budget, just imagine the good works we could do for these children.
Again, humanitarianism is only an issue, or so it seems, when abundant oil is under the soil.
Not to be cold about it, but it was oil that gave rise to the population of now dying children in the first place.
Fossil fuels made possible the rapid growth of population as transportation cost were reduced and human productivity increased greatly.
From: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/pop_socio/pop_socio.html
As you can see from the charts on this webpage human population has increased exponentially in the recent past. Oil was, and is, in a sense extremely humanitarian in that it lifted scores of countries out of absolute poverty and short life spans so that many more children could survive overall. Unfortunately the huge increase in birthrates left much larger populations of children exposed to the usual world problems: lack of sanitation, unstable governments, etc.
One could argue that by obsessively going after oil we are doing more for child good works than 1% of redirected defense spending could even come close to matching, not that redirecting that money would be a bad thing. I applaud your humanitaran instincts but throwing money at the poverty problem only delays the inevitable unless world attitudes and behaviors change. Until we stop fighting each other learn to work together, there will always be children dying of poverty. I'm not holding my breath on the working together concept. Nature (at least the nature we see on planet earth) is red in tooth and claw, meaning that no one is really at fault here. The universe has its own purpose and it appears 30,000 children dying each day due to poverty is part of it, as is a 100% defense budget.
--C
Monday, March 13, 2006
We all have opinions. Tom Fox's got him killed.
nerdolita wrote (http://www.network54.com/Forum/79106/message/1142249525/I+think):
everyone who 'reads' a situation gets an opinion of it that is colored by the beliefs they already have...
"For even while the largest media outlets were refusing to show those bland Danish cartoons -- and doing so out of a pretended “respect for Islam” -- they were dredging up additional sordid photos from the Abu Ghraib outrage in 2004, and running those prominently."
These two issues are COMPLETELY different in my view...
Not printing the cartoons is respecting your fellow mans religion...
Showing pictures from Abu Ghraib is about human rights...
I STRONGLY support making human rights issues public.
Sure, I'll bite.
Supporting human rights issues is a straw man position. Who could possibly not support human rights, eh? But supporting human rights as a moral position does nothing to address the situation of either Abu Ghraib or the cartoons. That's because there is deception, half-truths, and agendas loose on the land engineered by those with personal reasons to stir the pot--both middle eastern and western agendas.
I think you'd need to read back at least a couple years of David W's articles to grasp how deeply he understands the Islamic/Muslim/Arabic/Middle East situation. And how, as a public writer himself, he is in a position to comment on the utter collapse of western news organization's ability to provide factual news regarding either Abu Ghraib or the cartoons.
I hope you will do enough research about the cartoon issue to realize that additional cartoons were "added" to the mix by those with much to gain by fanning the anti-western flame. The additional cartoons weren't added by western cartoonists (see http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=568):
From several sources, we now know that word of the cartoons was then carried systematically through the Muslim world -- to principal mosques, madrasahs, and government offices starting in Egypt. This was done by delegations sent by Ahmed Abu-Laban, the Saudi-supported Imam of Copenhagen. And in addition to the dozen cartoons that had actually appeared in that obscure provincial newspaper -- most fairly innocent, and one actually satirizing opposition to Islam -- the delegations' "media kits" included as many as 30 graphics that had never appeared, and by their nature would never appear, in a Western mainstream newspaper. For instance, a photo of a man dressed as a pig, over the caption, “This is the real Mohammad.”
The fake pictures not only outnumbered the real ones, they were much nastier. Many were in the style of anti-Semitic cartoons that appear frequently in Arab papers, but turned around to target Muslims instead of Jews. And the covering letter, which I have read in translation, was full of outrageous lies about events in Denmark, and misrepresentations of what had been said by Danish journalists and politicians.
And while the Abu Ghraib situation is not one of the U.S.'s prouder moments, if you are interested in human rights issues nerdolita then hopefully you are even more incensed, and you are speaking out even more strongly and often, about abuses to citizens of both Afghanistan and Iraq (especially women) by fellow citizens, for they make the abuses in Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park.
And then of course there is Tom Fox.
Perhaps you need to ask yourself if you are not exactly in the position now that David Warren spoke of:
Ask yourself, when reading or watching, if the consistent message is not: “Fear Islam, but do not dare to criticize it.”
Would you dare criticize Islam, or would you feel you are disrespecting your fellow man's religion?
C
everyone who 'reads' a situation gets an opinion of it that is colored by the beliefs they already have...
"For even while the largest media outlets were refusing to show those bland Danish cartoons -- and doing so out of a pretended “respect for Islam” -- they were dredging up additional sordid photos from the Abu Ghraib outrage in 2004, and running those prominently."
These two issues are COMPLETELY different in my view...
Not printing the cartoons is respecting your fellow mans religion...
Showing pictures from Abu Ghraib is about human rights...
I STRONGLY support making human rights issues public.
Sure, I'll bite.
Supporting human rights issues is a straw man position. Who could possibly not support human rights, eh? But supporting human rights as a moral position does nothing to address the situation of either Abu Ghraib or the cartoons. That's because there is deception, half-truths, and agendas loose on the land engineered by those with personal reasons to stir the pot--both middle eastern and western agendas.
I think you'd need to read back at least a couple years of David W's articles to grasp how deeply he understands the Islamic/Muslim/Arabic/Middle East situation. And how, as a public writer himself, he is in a position to comment on the utter collapse of western news organization's ability to provide factual news regarding either Abu Ghraib or the cartoons.
I hope you will do enough research about the cartoon issue to realize that additional cartoons were "added" to the mix by those with much to gain by fanning the anti-western flame. The additional cartoons weren't added by western cartoonists (see http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=568):
From several sources, we now know that word of the cartoons was then carried systematically through the Muslim world -- to principal mosques, madrasahs, and government offices starting in Egypt. This was done by delegations sent by Ahmed Abu-Laban, the Saudi-supported Imam of Copenhagen. And in addition to the dozen cartoons that had actually appeared in that obscure provincial newspaper -- most fairly innocent, and one actually satirizing opposition to Islam -- the delegations' "media kits" included as many as 30 graphics that had never appeared, and by their nature would never appear, in a Western mainstream newspaper. For instance, a photo of a man dressed as a pig, over the caption, “This is the real Mohammad.”
The fake pictures not only outnumbered the real ones, they were much nastier. Many were in the style of anti-Semitic cartoons that appear frequently in Arab papers, but turned around to target Muslims instead of Jews. And the covering letter, which I have read in translation, was full of outrageous lies about events in Denmark, and misrepresentations of what had been said by Danish journalists and politicians.
And while the Abu Ghraib situation is not one of the U.S.'s prouder moments, if you are interested in human rights issues nerdolita then hopefully you are even more incensed, and you are speaking out even more strongly and often, about abuses to citizens of both Afghanistan and Iraq (especially women) by fellow citizens, for they make the abuses in Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park.
And then of course there is Tom Fox.
Perhaps you need to ask yourself if you are not exactly in the position now that David Warren spoke of:
Ask yourself, when reading or watching, if the consistent message is not: “Fear Islam, but do not dare to criticize it.”
Would you dare criticize Islam, or would you feel you are disrespecting your fellow man's religion?
C
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Don't Make Things Harder Then They Have To Be
Response to Who is the One True God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Original post in italics.) Answers in non-italics.
It was written in Jer 31:31-34 that God would make a New Covenant or Testament with the "House of Israel" that symbolizes GOD'S CHOSEN.
One wonders about the pride in that statement. I always thought that pride was something to avoid in most religious circles. But in any case "GOD's CHOSEN" simply refers to those, and they are few, who have penetrated the misdirection inherent in the mystery surrounding the perception of being. The truth does not go out of its way to hide itself; most of us go out of our way to hide from the truth.
This is the NEW TESTAMENT that we all claim to benefit from it with our salvation. In that covenant, God promised that His chosen people,"will all know Him from the least to the greatest of them."
Who is greatest? What definition, and from what source defines "greatest"?
We are now in the NEW TESTAMENT therefore we can claim this promise of KNOWING the One True God. How do your reconcile the following?
1 Cor. 8:4 "...that there is NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE."
That of course is true if by GOD you are willing to recognize GOD in all things.
1 Cor. 8:6 "But to us there is but ONE GOD THE FATHER of whom are all things..."
Like I just said in the previous statement.
1 Joh 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, and eternal Life."
This is fairly easy to apprehend for those with eyes and ears. It means that your personal recognition of eternal life is bound to your understanding that you are part of the everything. The everything for the christian devote equates to "the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost" in words. Eternal life means there is no non-life possible, because no life would mean nothingness--endless void--which concept cannot exist without its opposite. Therefore there must be eternal life, i.e., endless non-void. (It's a hard concept to put in words.)
Do we now accept and appreciate that to recognize JESUS it needs the "revelation of the Father, and should never come from flesh and blood?"
That would be true since "the Father" and "JESUS" is a concept rooted in a personal faith of the realization of a larger purposeful cosmos, whose point of origin is far removed from puny flesh and blood experiences, or even scientific analysis.
Please read: Matthew 16:15-17 how Simon Peter recognized JESUS, saying, "Thou art the CHRIST, the son of the living God."
It's always nice to recognize those people who seem to have a great "connection" to the spiritual, and Simon no doubt was excited by that. It's not a particularily unique position to be the son of the living God, since the living God is inherent in all that exists. Without getting too carried away about the explanation, Jesus was the figurehead of the cult of spiritual understanding of the place beyond dogma.
But everybody is professing this!
And as it was promised, it is written in Heb. 8:11 "And they shall not teach everyone his neighbor, and everyone his neighbor, Know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them."
It's a slam dunk that "all shall know me". It's like asserting to those walking toward a rainstorm that they will get wet if they continue to walk. All shall know me means that everyone eventually "gets" the spirtual part of life.
Something to think about.
Right you are!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Original post in italics.) Answers in non-italics.
It was written in Jer 31:31-34 that God would make a New Covenant or Testament with the "House of Israel" that symbolizes GOD'S CHOSEN.
One wonders about the pride in that statement. I always thought that pride was something to avoid in most religious circles. But in any case "GOD's CHOSEN" simply refers to those, and they are few, who have penetrated the misdirection inherent in the mystery surrounding the perception of being. The truth does not go out of its way to hide itself; most of us go out of our way to hide from the truth.
This is the NEW TESTAMENT that we all claim to benefit from it with our salvation. In that covenant, God promised that His chosen people,"will all know Him from the least to the greatest of them."
Who is greatest? What definition, and from what source defines "greatest"?
We are now in the NEW TESTAMENT therefore we can claim this promise of KNOWING the One True God. How do your reconcile the following?
1 Cor. 8:4 "...that there is NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE."
That of course is true if by GOD you are willing to recognize GOD in all things.
1 Cor. 8:6 "But to us there is but ONE GOD THE FATHER of whom are all things..."
Like I just said in the previous statement.
1 Joh 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, and eternal Life."
This is fairly easy to apprehend for those with eyes and ears. It means that your personal recognition of eternal life is bound to your understanding that you are part of the everything. The everything for the christian devote equates to "the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost" in words. Eternal life means there is no non-life possible, because no life would mean nothingness--endless void--which concept cannot exist without its opposite. Therefore there must be eternal life, i.e., endless non-void. (It's a hard concept to put in words.)
Do we now accept and appreciate that to recognize JESUS it needs the "revelation of the Father, and should never come from flesh and blood?"
That would be true since "the Father" and "JESUS" is a concept rooted in a personal faith of the realization of a larger purposeful cosmos, whose point of origin is far removed from puny flesh and blood experiences, or even scientific analysis.
Please read: Matthew 16:15-17 how Simon Peter recognized JESUS, saying, "Thou art the CHRIST, the son of the living God."
It's always nice to recognize those people who seem to have a great "connection" to the spiritual, and Simon no doubt was excited by that. It's not a particularily unique position to be the son of the living God, since the living God is inherent in all that exists. Without getting too carried away about the explanation, Jesus was the figurehead of the cult of spiritual understanding of the place beyond dogma.
But everybody is professing this!
And as it was promised, it is written in Heb. 8:11 "And they shall not teach everyone his neighbor, and everyone his neighbor, Know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them."
It's a slam dunk that "all shall know me". It's like asserting to those walking toward a rainstorm that they will get wet if they continue to walk. All shall know me means that everyone eventually "gets" the spirtual part of life.
Something to think about.
Right you are!
