This LTE was sent to the Victoria Times Colonist shortly after 9/11happened, something to hold in mind when asked by President Obama to make 9/11 the day of public service.
Sirs:
On September 11th 2001, some 3500 of our fellow citizens started their day the same way we did, harboring no grudge toward others and simply wanting to put in a productive day. They were denied that desire by nineteen people with a death wish and a determination to take as many innocent people with them as possible. It is to late to help the victims but they will not have died in vain if we learn from the massacre that took their lives.
There are three things we need to keep in mind about the perpetrators of these murders.
Firstly they both hated and feared capitalism - freedom, for those more comfortable with politically correct words. For too many years, we in the free world, in an attempt to avoid confrontation, have not pointed out that capitalism and freedom are irrevocably linked. To quote Kenneth Minogue ‘capitalism is what people do if you leave them alone.’ That is the reason why wealth follows capitalism, because it so closely matches human nature. When free of restrictions, each of us gives our support to the things we value the most and inevitably we support those people who give us things that enhance our freedom. Freedom gave us capitalism and capitalism continues to give us back ever more freedom. Cars, washers, airplanes, velcro, telephones, ball point pens, computers, zippers and endless other items, these are all things that free more of our one constant in life, time, to pursue in the most rewarding manner we can think of.
The murderers who brought down the World Trade Center towers pick their targets well. While the greatest symbol of freedom is the Statue of Liberty, the most visible symbol of capitalism was the Trade Center towers. These murderers problem with capitalism was two fold: they hated capitalism for the phenomenal goods and services it makes available, and they feared capitalism for what it does to the people of their own countries.
They try to hold their own people in the iron grip of an unforgiving and unmodifiable medieval religion that can’t compete with capitalism. They desire an impoverished quality of life for all. Bin Laden, who has enough money to live where and how he wants, chooses instead a prayer blanket, an AK-47 and a cave in a desolate gravel pit.
Secondly, they were so poor, they had to steal the tools they used for killing from the very people they are trying to destroy, from us. Without access to our technology, they would never have achieved any notoriety at all. They might have killed a few people with their bare hands but without access to capitalist technology, they would never be a problem. But instead of denying them access to harm us, we’ve now begun to dismantle our freedoms in a futile effort to defend ourselves.
Thirdly, they were very determined. They held their distorted values so dear, they had no difficulty dying for them. As Victor Hugo stated years ago ‘there is nothing as strong as an idea who’s time has come. Their ideas gave them the strength to destroy the WTC.
And that brings up the main question for us, do we believe as passionately that we have the right to defend our way of life from people who are determined to destroy that way of life? How strongly do we hold our ideals? Only by being outrage at what was done to us and becoming determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve our way of life will we win. Even with our somewhat crippled semi-capitalistic system we can easy produce far more than these barbarians could even think of destroying.
But we also need to remind our governments that a return to pre September 11th standards is not an option. Black Tuesday happened because our government’s main focus has become the redistribution of our wealth and, rather than protecting individuals from aggression, the focus has become tax and spend. That is one of the reasons why we keep hearing our leaders urge us to ‘get back to normal’ because they see no tax revenue coming in while they can’t stop what is going out.
Our inept political leaders consider that by installing more and more bureaucrats to monitor our every action and transaction, they can make society safe. They fail to remember, in North America some 400 million of us did largely live in peace before 9/11. More policing of the law abiding members of our world won't help.
Over-reacting and turning our society into a police state will not stop terrorism but the additional restrictions may well destroy our economy. It is physically impossible be everywhere and stop every destructive act but if we had simply kept nineteen people from having access to the cockpit’s of four airliners, 6000 people would be alive today.
We are concentrating too much effort on a result without addressing the cause. We know each terrorist was trained to believe in the moral correctness of his cause, a cause that justifies death for us even if it costs his own life. We also know his trainers value their own lives more for they send their disciples out to do the killing.
Self-preservation dictates that we focus our anger on those leaders and tell them to change or they will die.
Respect for life must be reciprocal. Someone with no respect for your life is your enemy and inevitably it becomes you or him. We have no choice but to be brutal to those who choose to be brutal to us. Until they change or are eliminated, we can never be truly safe.
Garret Seinen
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
desolving empires
I found this on Bill Ayers’ site....
The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free.
Lyrics by Randy Newman, from “A Few Words in Defence of This country”. Seems obvious that both Mr Ayers and Newman see an America with a far smaller global influence, and just around the corner. I’d also say they aren’t sorry to see the empire label coming to an end. So why?
I caused me to think about what is happening in the US of A today. I’m sure most people regard the USA to be an empire, and depending on one’s morality, it’s either evil, or great. But before we talk about morality let’s define empire and talk about what others see.
The degree of influence a nation has on other nations is what makes a nation an empire. And the USA has indeed been a huge influence on the entire world, but is this empire the same as previous empires? Historically, the empires of the past have had their roots in the sharpest sword or the biggest canon but the US empire is a rather unique entity.
The free world’s common folk work to swill coke and cram down big Macs. Those who have them, need to protect their jeans from thieves, and the mindless electric guitar noise excites the youth around the world. Is this the empire that is crumbling, that many see as evil?
The American empire is unique in that it was not build with a club but rather it’s been held from spreading by a club. Whenever a group of people have been left free it’s the American model they build as their personal society. From Canada to France, to the now defunct USSR to China, the Muslim middle east and on around the world, Political and intellectual leaders demand restrictions to stop their own citizens from emulating the ‘good ol’ US of A.
This empires messy in the middle. The painful body piercing, the disfiguring facial tattoos , the shocking hairdos and outrages dress codes are all part of the messiness, as are the obnoxious language. The ipods and twittering and facebooking and bloggers are all part of this empire’s culture. As are highways and cars and airplanes and highrises. It’s still far from complete if we throw in space travel, atomic weapons and cell phones and oh so much more.
An empire like none before with something about it for anyone to hate, just as there are a multitude of thing to love. Truly a mixed bag that satisfies no one, yet attracts so very many.
From its inception some 240 years ago, the forceful individuals living in those 13 signing colonies, determined to fight unfair taxation and take their chances with forming a unique nation based on the ‘that all men are created equal’ thought, could hardly have predicted the social upheaval they would cause.
...more to come...
The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free.
Lyrics by Randy Newman, from “A Few Words in Defence of This country”. Seems obvious that both Mr Ayers and Newman see an America with a far smaller global influence, and just around the corner. I’d also say they aren’t sorry to see the empire label coming to an end. So why?
I caused me to think about what is happening in the US of A today. I’m sure most people regard the USA to be an empire, and depending on one’s morality, it’s either evil, or great. But before we talk about morality let’s define empire and talk about what others see.
The degree of influence a nation has on other nations is what makes a nation an empire. And the USA has indeed been a huge influence on the entire world, but is this empire the same as previous empires? Historically, the empires of the past have had their roots in the sharpest sword or the biggest canon but the US empire is a rather unique entity.
The free world’s common folk work to swill coke and cram down big Macs. Those who have them, need to protect their jeans from thieves, and the mindless electric guitar noise excites the youth around the world. Is this the empire that is crumbling, that many see as evil?
The American empire is unique in that it was not build with a club but rather it’s been held from spreading by a club. Whenever a group of people have been left free it’s the American model they build as their personal society. From Canada to France, to the now defunct USSR to China, the Muslim middle east and on around the world, Political and intellectual leaders demand restrictions to stop their own citizens from emulating the ‘good ol’ US of A.
This empires messy in the middle. The painful body piercing, the disfiguring facial tattoos , the shocking hairdos and outrages dress codes are all part of the messiness, as are the obnoxious language. The ipods and twittering and facebooking and bloggers are all part of this empire’s culture. As are highways and cars and airplanes and highrises. It’s still far from complete if we throw in space travel, atomic weapons and cell phones and oh so much more.
An empire like none before with something about it for anyone to hate, just as there are a multitude of thing to love. Truly a mixed bag that satisfies no one, yet attracts so very many.
From its inception some 240 years ago, the forceful individuals living in those 13 signing colonies, determined to fight unfair taxation and take their chances with forming a unique nation based on the ‘that all men are created equal’ thought, could hardly have predicted the social upheaval they would cause.
...more to come...
Monday, July 6, 2009
When ideas have consequences
Individual rights -when ideas matter.
The origin - It all starts when the idea that we are created or born without sin, obligation, duty etc. become widespread in a culture. the view that equality is the rule, that none can be held to be more than any other, that a covenant of debt can not be placed on the life of any person.
The justification - By way of reason it is easily understood that slavery is the result of holding a belief that people can be slotted into different categories of worth, hence, to achieve freedom for ourselves we need to reject the notion
The consequences - an individual, holding the forgoing as basic truisms in their mind, will come to realize that with no guiding deity, no prebirth obligation, they are, like all persons everywhere, their own masters. As such, their actions are their own and cloak of responsibility for neither the good nor the bad can be draped over the shoulders of another. And while the mirror of responsibility can be a cruel reminder of mistakes if we hold the wrong attitude, accepting that life is a learning experience showers us with euphoric endorphins for the things we do right.
..more to come..
The origin - It all starts when the idea that we are created or born without sin, obligation, duty etc. become widespread in a culture. the view that equality is the rule, that none can be held to be more than any other, that a covenant of debt can not be placed on the life of any person.
The justification - By way of reason it is easily understood that slavery is the result of holding a belief that people can be slotted into different categories of worth, hence, to achieve freedom for ourselves we need to reject the notion
The consequences - an individual, holding the forgoing as basic truisms in their mind, will come to realize that with no guiding deity, no prebirth obligation, they are, like all persons everywhere, their own masters. As such, their actions are their own and cloak of responsibility for neither the good nor the bad can be draped over the shoulders of another. And while the mirror of responsibility can be a cruel reminder of mistakes if we hold the wrong attitude, accepting that life is a learning experience showers us with euphoric endorphins for the things we do right.
..more to come..
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
On pragmatism
I’d never considered pragmatism to be anything much more than a non ideological outlook on life but after reading a post stressing how debilitating an effect it can have on the thought process, I can see that I’m mistaken and need to rethink the meaning clearly in my own mind. Doug Reich gave a great analysis here, http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/say-cheese.html .
I have difficulty accepting that a human mind can consistently hold a pragmatic outlook, deciding that reality is what everyone believes it to be. I can however, easily see that an inconsistent pragmatic approach with deviations allowing both reasoning and perceptual powers to smooth over the areas involving life and death rational decisions.
Because so much of the world we live in consists of applying manmade rules to human actions, the pragmatist is often able to function well and even to be financially successful. There are individuals who thrive in regulatory environments, where all the rules are laid out and memorization brings success. But the success would unfold only for the strongest minds as the economy of understanding complex things by way of cohesive ideas is not available to the consistent pragmatist and, only those people with exceptional memory skills could cope.
The economy of thinking made possible by using a rational, conceptual based system to integrate ideas into understandable pieces allows even the people with lesser intellectual capacity to fully understand complex thoughts.
But the pragmatist evaluation and its application to the sciences provides an explanation to a phenomena that has long troubled me. I often wondered at the absurdity of some of the flaky so-called scientific studies or reports, claiming proof for an idea that logic or induction proves without any statistical analysis. Something like an evening news report documenting that most obese people eat more than the people with no weight problems, or some similar fact totally reasonable with out any study.
I believe the researchers hold the view that a fact can only be discerned from observation, that for the experiment to be objective the researchers must be completely unbiased to the point of ignoring reason, until the results are tabulated and then, only statistical analysis constitutes proof.
Does the true pragmatist fully rejects induction as a means to knowledge?
I have always considered pragmatism to be a beneficial trait for a person in business and a despicable vote-gathering tool in a politician. I’m beginning to see the personal destruction that the inability to understand the world or the actions of people around oneself would bring to any questioning individual. We all require an understandable future to feel comfortable about the future.
Without the ability to do inductive thinking, all issues boil down to my poll verses your poll. To the pragmatist, numbers count, status of supporter count, even the sophistication of the presentation makes a difference. Only the facts, if not presented glamorously are ignored.
Is there any thinking going on or is every thing decided by the opinion of an other, an outsider because the individual has lost ability to discriminate? Does the pragmatist inevitably derive any sense of self-worth from the opinions of others? Is the modern belief that we need rules for everything the normal outcome of pragmatic thought? Is it responsible for the elitist idea, that the common guy lacks the ability to look after their own life and needs help?
I think it is the basis of the belief that only what has taken place before can be properly evaluated, the financial community's statement, " we're in new ground here. We've never tried this before so we don't know if the printing of this much money will work". And the pirate situation, where we fear the sailors may get hurt if the are given guns, or we don't know who to punish to stop the piracy.
More to come.
I have difficulty accepting that a human mind can consistently hold a pragmatic outlook, deciding that reality is what everyone believes it to be. I can however, easily see that an inconsistent pragmatic approach with deviations allowing both reasoning and perceptual powers to smooth over the areas involving life and death rational decisions.
Because so much of the world we live in consists of applying manmade rules to human actions, the pragmatist is often able to function well and even to be financially successful. There are individuals who thrive in regulatory environments, where all the rules are laid out and memorization brings success. But the success would unfold only for the strongest minds as the economy of understanding complex things by way of cohesive ideas is not available to the consistent pragmatist and, only those people with exceptional memory skills could cope.
The economy of thinking made possible by using a rational, conceptual based system to integrate ideas into understandable pieces allows even the people with lesser intellectual capacity to fully understand complex thoughts.
But the pragmatist evaluation and its application to the sciences provides an explanation to a phenomena that has long troubled me. I often wondered at the absurdity of some of the flaky so-called scientific studies or reports, claiming proof for an idea that logic or induction proves without any statistical analysis. Something like an evening news report documenting that most obese people eat more than the people with no weight problems, or some similar fact totally reasonable with out any study.
I believe the researchers hold the view that a fact can only be discerned from observation, that for the experiment to be objective the researchers must be completely unbiased to the point of ignoring reason, until the results are tabulated and then, only statistical analysis constitutes proof.
Does the true pragmatist fully rejects induction as a means to knowledge?
I have always considered pragmatism to be a beneficial trait for a person in business and a despicable vote-gathering tool in a politician. I’m beginning to see the personal destruction that the inability to understand the world or the actions of people around oneself would bring to any questioning individual. We all require an understandable future to feel comfortable about the future.
Without the ability to do inductive thinking, all issues boil down to my poll verses your poll. To the pragmatist, numbers count, status of supporter count, even the sophistication of the presentation makes a difference. Only the facts, if not presented glamorously are ignored.
Is there any thinking going on or is every thing decided by the opinion of an other, an outsider because the individual has lost ability to discriminate? Does the pragmatist inevitably derive any sense of self-worth from the opinions of others? Is the modern belief that we need rules for everything the normal outcome of pragmatic thought? Is it responsible for the elitist idea, that the common guy lacks the ability to look after their own life and needs help?
I think it is the basis of the belief that only what has taken place before can be properly evaluated, the financial community's statement, " we're in new ground here. We've never tried this before so we don't know if the printing of this much money will work". And the pirate situation, where we fear the sailors may get hurt if the are given guns, or we don't know who to punish to stop the piracy.
More to come.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Earth day letter
On Saturday at 8:00 pm we will once again, be asked to participate in Earth Hour. We will be asked to turn out our lights and reduce our use of energy. The goal is to have everyone shrink their ‘carbon footprint’ for an hour. The reason we are urge to do this; because the ‘green’ lobbyists tell us CO2 is causing global warming and destroying the earth.
Alternatively, we are also being urged by the Competitive Enterprise Institute to celebrate Human Achievement Hour by leaving the lights on. They are saying, by doing nothing and living as we normally do, we are paying homage to the human mind, the basis of all the inventions and discoveries that make our lives better.
The “CO2-is-deadly-and-killing-the-earth” crowd are having a tough time right now. The last ten years have seen the earth cooling rather than warming as correctly predicted by Willie Soon Phd., who made the case that the sun is responsible for the earth’s temperature. He claims that sunspots drive the temperature and presently we are in a very low solar activity cycle.
Two weeks ago the Heartland Institute assembled some 73 climate scientists and held a conference to discuss the non-issue of global warming. These scientists agreed that capping CO2 is both costly for us and have no net benefit for the earth.
Space prohibits me from fully explaining how irrational and wrong the ‘goofy green’ movement has become, how truly anti-life their policies are.
For those people who want to go along with earth hour, I urge you to see if you can stick it out for a month rather than that one easy hour. A month without power will give a person a clear perspective on what life would be like if they had to live with less energy, the agenda the ‘greens’ are pushing.
Consider that by turning off the lights you will be renouncing human achievement, rejecting the mind and all the innovation we depend on for life. You will be rejecting the gifts from the minds of greatest inventive geniuses to have lived on this earth, such as Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, and Nicola Tesla, inventor of the power grid. You will instead, be claiming that it is better for all mankind to return to the stone age.
On Saturday night I’ll have the lights on to celebrate Human Achievement Hour. I’ll be pouring a glass and proposing toast, “to technology and the geniuses who share the products of their minds with us.” Join me if you like.
Alternatively, we are also being urged by the Competitive Enterprise Institute to celebrate Human Achievement Hour by leaving the lights on. They are saying, by doing nothing and living as we normally do, we are paying homage to the human mind, the basis of all the inventions and discoveries that make our lives better.
The “CO2-is-deadly-and-killing-the-earth” crowd are having a tough time right now. The last ten years have seen the earth cooling rather than warming as correctly predicted by Willie Soon Phd., who made the case that the sun is responsible for the earth’s temperature. He claims that sunspots drive the temperature and presently we are in a very low solar activity cycle.
Two weeks ago the Heartland Institute assembled some 73 climate scientists and held a conference to discuss the non-issue of global warming. These scientists agreed that capping CO2 is both costly for us and have no net benefit for the earth.
Space prohibits me from fully explaining how irrational and wrong the ‘goofy green’ movement has become, how truly anti-life their policies are.
For those people who want to go along with earth hour, I urge you to see if you can stick it out for a month rather than that one easy hour. A month without power will give a person a clear perspective on what life would be like if they had to live with less energy, the agenda the ‘greens’ are pushing.
Consider that by turning off the lights you will be renouncing human achievement, rejecting the mind and all the innovation we depend on for life. You will be rejecting the gifts from the minds of greatest inventive geniuses to have lived on this earth, such as Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, and Nicola Tesla, inventor of the power grid. You will instead, be claiming that it is better for all mankind to return to the stone age.
On Saturday night I’ll have the lights on to celebrate Human Achievement Hour. I’ll be pouring a glass and proposing toast, “to technology and the geniuses who share the products of their minds with us.” Join me if you like.
Monday, March 16, 2009
GOVERNMENTIUM
A major research institution has discovered the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element, for now, has been named, "Governmentium."
Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an "atomic mess" of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected and it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. The minutest amount of Governmentium can cause one reaction to take four to six weeks to complete when it would normally take less than one second.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but every four years undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to speculate that Governmentium formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you encounter it. I don't know for sure, but I think we're there!
Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an "atomic mess" of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected and it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. The minutest amount of Governmentium can cause one reaction to take four to six weeks to complete when it would normally take less than one second.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but every four years undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to speculate that Governmentium formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you encounter it. I don't know for sure, but I think we're there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)