No I have not found anything new or insipiring about our political position. Although I thought Huckabee's appearance on SNL to be hilarious.
I've heard of these things from pilots. I've read about them in books, but I had never before seen one. For those of you lucky enough to have seen one you know what I'm talking about.
I was driving home, it was getting close to midnight, when the entire western sky lit up. I thought for a second that it was a nuclear explosion, or the spy satellite being shot down. I looked up to see what it could be. Light pulsed soft and then bright again, leaving a bright trail behind. It silently pulsed north, before it broke up into four distinct pieces of bright yellow and disappeared altogether. The trail lingered for twenty seconds, maybe it hung in the sky for no reason, maybe it was simply burned on my retinas.
I nearly drove off the road. I had seen large meteors, but nothing like this. This was astronomically larger than anything I had ever before witnessed. It was far more amazing than even a total solar eclipse. I wasn't altogether certain what I had seen, I doubted the UFO theory straightaway. I was seriously thinking that I might have, out of exhaustion, hallucinated the entire event.
I got home and did my research. What I saw, was a meteorite fireball. I'm not sure how to explain them exactly. Instead why don't you go see for yourself? meteor
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
another article on language
Perhaps I go too far in saying that we are headed toward civil war. Unrest is likely. Maybe not war. It really all depends on the media spin.
I must repeat that a good bit of this blog is here to insure that I don't mentally snap. Not all my ideas are running together well, and I tend toward impressionistic language when I am venting. It does get people talking and that is what I do enjoy.
My good friend Jachin( http://jachin.rupe.name/ ) has put up a very interesting article on the use of words liberal and conservative. I must say I had similar trouble figuring, and discussing, the difference between left and right. Adjectives becoming nouns have been a source of confusion for centuries, and will continue indefinitely. It is the same problem of pronouns without an obvious proper noun. Language, policed or not, will change. Personal goals to use 'correct' language does slow the progress down but has not ever been seen to stop human invention.
Liberal and Conservative are just hijacked adjectives used as proper nouns even though the proper meaning of the movements are not clear. This is very political and disingenuous, but does not altogether disqualify them as meaningful titles. It is confusing, but nevertheless: it is our duty as sentient beings to weed out the truth in our own tangled web of lies. We can't blame language, only what we know to be progress of language.
Which of course means we can only expect, as time goes on, for the language and culture to become either clearer or more confusing. Using the correct adjectival definition is a moral choice, and a truly conservative idea.
I must repeat that a good bit of this blog is here to insure that I don't mentally snap. Not all my ideas are running together well, and I tend toward impressionistic language when I am venting. It does get people talking and that is what I do enjoy.
My good friend Jachin( http://jachin.rupe.name/ ) has put up a very interesting article on the use of words liberal and conservative. I must say I had similar trouble figuring, and discussing, the difference between left and right. Adjectives becoming nouns have been a source of confusion for centuries, and will continue indefinitely. It is the same problem of pronouns without an obvious proper noun. Language, policed or not, will change. Personal goals to use 'correct' language does slow the progress down but has not ever been seen to stop human invention.
Liberal and Conservative are just hijacked adjectives used as proper nouns even though the proper meaning of the movements are not clear. This is very political and disingenuous, but does not altogether disqualify them as meaningful titles. It is confusing, but nevertheless: it is our duty as sentient beings to weed out the truth in our own tangled web of lies. We can't blame language, only what we know to be progress of language.
Which of course means we can only expect, as time goes on, for the language and culture to become either clearer or more confusing. Using the correct adjectival definition is a moral choice, and a truly conservative idea.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
No one left
There is no one left in politics that is going to get a nomination from either party that I can vote for.
Clinton, Obama, and McCain stand for nothing that constitutes or even supports the Constitution. The only stark difference in party politics, is that McCain weakly supports the Bill of rights.
The Wisconsin Primary is coming up soon, and I will cast my vote for whom I believe the best candidate is.
It will not be Clinton. She wants to bring back a government of failure and public works as they did in the depression era. If we do become economically depressed it will only be further stomped on by empowered socialists. She has the mantra of a very annoying professor who is always right even though she agrees with a text that contradicts her. To hell with feminism if this is its great pinnacle.
It will not be Obama. As much as he is likable as a person, and has a voice that does not chafe the ears, his policies, much like Clinton's, will bankrupt the country. He is a senator that stands for a European-like socialism and has a total of ZERO accomplishments in his political career here in America. If his only accomplishment as a senator is becoming a senator he is in no way a qualified to be the leader of the free world. His speeches as inspiring as they are intended seem as if they were written by a 7th grader on why he isn't going to shoot himself because he's bullied at school. Not to mention he has the backing of well known communists.
The thing I'm beginning to fear the most may shock some of you. The changes the democratic party would institute upon the backs of the people would incite riot and revolt. The people would for the first time in many years take up the 2nd Amendment for what it was put into the Constitution for. And those same democrats lips would curl into smile, the same lips that spoke about tolerance and gun control and government restraint, and give the order for Marshal law. There is a large number of people in America who will not stand idly by and watch as socialists destroy everything that made our country unique and powerful. We may very well be on the way to civil war. And not just within the democrats camp.
If you think I believe this for no reason look at the facts: they are already threatening free speech rights with the Fairness doctrine. This is a part of Obama's political platform. Gun control is a part of democratic party; libs don't like people having guns because then they actually will be held accountable and they don't like that. Free speech can be instantly done away with the moment the police say "shut up, I have a gun and you don't."
The problem with removing any one of our rights is the moment one is gone the others are vulnerable. Freedom has been choking on the fumes of our legislators for decades. We don't need new laws to make life better. We need fewer laws. We need a candidate who will veto all new laws and government run programs. And to repeal those laws that try to govern our morality.
This situation is only going to hurt democrats the longer it goes on. If you don't vote for Obama your obviously a racist, or worse: a republican. If you don't vote for Hillary your an uneducated sexist pig, or worse: a republican. The sad thing is the republican candidate that seems to have the edge is, at best, a right wing democrat.
I will not hold my nose for a candidate. I will, vote for who has the principle of our country at heart. Ron Paul, in my humble opine, is the only candidate worth his salt. The only man who is the same man as when he began his political career. It is unfortunate that he will not win, but he has my vote. The rest of the two-faced jackals can be fed to crocodiles.
Clinton, Obama, and McCain stand for nothing that constitutes or even supports the Constitution. The only stark difference in party politics, is that McCain weakly supports the Bill of rights.
The Wisconsin Primary is coming up soon, and I will cast my vote for whom I believe the best candidate is.
It will not be Clinton. She wants to bring back a government of failure and public works as they did in the depression era. If we do become economically depressed it will only be further stomped on by empowered socialists. She has the mantra of a very annoying professor who is always right even though she agrees with a text that contradicts her. To hell with feminism if this is its great pinnacle.
It will not be Obama. As much as he is likable as a person, and has a voice that does not chafe the ears, his policies, much like Clinton's, will bankrupt the country. He is a senator that stands for a European-like socialism and has a total of ZERO accomplishments in his political career here in America. If his only accomplishment as a senator is becoming a senator he is in no way a qualified to be the leader of the free world. His speeches as inspiring as they are intended seem as if they were written by a 7th grader on why he isn't going to shoot himself because he's bullied at school. Not to mention he has the backing of well known communists.
The thing I'm beginning to fear the most may shock some of you. The changes the democratic party would institute upon the backs of the people would incite riot and revolt. The people would for the first time in many years take up the 2nd Amendment for what it was put into the Constitution for. And those same democrats lips would curl into smile, the same lips that spoke about tolerance and gun control and government restraint, and give the order for Marshal law. There is a large number of people in America who will not stand idly by and watch as socialists destroy everything that made our country unique and powerful. We may very well be on the way to civil war. And not just within the democrats camp.
If you think I believe this for no reason look at the facts: they are already threatening free speech rights with the Fairness doctrine. This is a part of Obama's political platform. Gun control is a part of democratic party; libs don't like people having guns because then they actually will be held accountable and they don't like that. Free speech can be instantly done away with the moment the police say "shut up, I have a gun and you don't."
The problem with removing any one of our rights is the moment one is gone the others are vulnerable. Freedom has been choking on the fumes of our legislators for decades. We don't need new laws to make life better. We need fewer laws. We need a candidate who will veto all new laws and government run programs. And to repeal those laws that try to govern our morality.
This situation is only going to hurt democrats the longer it goes on. If you don't vote for Obama your obviously a racist, or worse: a republican. If you don't vote for Hillary your an uneducated sexist pig, or worse: a republican. The sad thing is the republican candidate that seems to have the edge is, at best, a right wing democrat.
I will not hold my nose for a candidate. I will, vote for who has the principle of our country at heart. Ron Paul, in my humble opine, is the only candidate worth his salt. The only man who is the same man as when he began his political career. It is unfortunate that he will not win, but he has my vote. The rest of the two-faced jackals can be fed to crocodiles.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A simple clarification
During this political season I've heard the word 'moral' tossed around a few more times than it ought and without any thought to its function.
Most people think that morality is simply the difference between right and wrong. And this is true, but I've always found it to be empty of meaning.
Here is my answer: Whenever we make a statement of or about morality we are making a statement of or about an object's purpose.
Right and wrong are both fulfillments of purpose. So a moral question is really asking: What is your purpose?
The purpose of a camera is to take pictures. It has no morality as an object. Morals have to do with the use of objects. It is the responsibility of the user to use it correctly in order to achieve the desired result. Mishandled the camera will only do what it is made to do. It is the same with nature, and politics. To act morally or amorally takes action.
So for people to say, for example, that killing people is amoral. They are saying that it serves no purpose for people to kill each other. I agree. But humans don't, in general, kill each other for no reason. Killing is either associated with ideology or vice. Killing is not the purpose but merely the act. This goes with anything that is a verb. So if the word has -ing on the end of it and it's a political movement, you can almost automatically discount it as stupidity.
If action becomes law(ie. morals), there is no end to it. It goes on indefinitely. A squadron of enforcers are put into play to ticket the populous, taxes go up year by year prompting more complaining by those who bear the burden of collective theft.
A moral is a choice of purpose in our actions. Not something that can be legislated, but must be chosen from day to day by the individual.
There are great causes out there. But it is not a moral choice to enlist in their ranks. Rather it is by charity not morality that we associate ourselves with causes.
Most people think that morality is simply the difference between right and wrong. And this is true, but I've always found it to be empty of meaning.
Here is my answer: Whenever we make a statement of or about morality we are making a statement of or about an object's purpose.
Right and wrong are both fulfillments of purpose. So a moral question is really asking: What is your purpose?
The purpose of a camera is to take pictures. It has no morality as an object. Morals have to do with the use of objects. It is the responsibility of the user to use it correctly in order to achieve the desired result. Mishandled the camera will only do what it is made to do. It is the same with nature, and politics. To act morally or amorally takes action.
So for people to say, for example, that killing people is amoral. They are saying that it serves no purpose for people to kill each other. I agree. But humans don't, in general, kill each other for no reason. Killing is either associated with ideology or vice. Killing is not the purpose but merely the act. This goes with anything that is a verb. So if the word has -ing on the end of it and it's a political movement, you can almost automatically discount it as stupidity.
If action becomes law(ie. morals), there is no end to it. It goes on indefinitely. A squadron of enforcers are put into play to ticket the populous, taxes go up year by year prompting more complaining by those who bear the burden of collective theft.
A moral is a choice of purpose in our actions. Not something that can be legislated, but must be chosen from day to day by the individual.
There are great causes out there. But it is not a moral choice to enlist in their ranks. Rather it is by charity not morality that we associate ourselves with causes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)