A Primer on Political Hypocrisy

Today, I finally hit my limit.  I can no longer put up with the bloated
amount of political correctness and hypocrisy enveloping America in
its putrid fog.


Donald Trump (a man I'm not sure I can trust or vote for) was recorded
a decade ago saying some pretty oafish and boorish things.  He was a
married man at the time (but not a politician), and he said that...

     1.  He put the make on a married woman, but was rebuffed.  Good
          for her.
 
     2.  He can get away with things with a lot of women because
          he is rich and famous.  Probably works with rich and famous
          women and their boy-toys as well.  Not a nice thing for the rich
          and famous to do, but it doesn't speak well for the people who
          let them get away with it, either.  The world was always such.
 
     3.  He tended to admire the physical attributes of the opposite sex,
          without knowing anything further about them.  I guess women
          never talk about, check out, or are attracted to, the looks of the
          men around them.  Good thing too, because I know a lot of fat,
          ugly, guys who score as well as George Clooney does.

The Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate was shocked and said he
would never even use such words in front of his wife and daughters.
I guess he didn't notice that Trump didn't say it in front of his
wife and daughter.  He said it in a private (he thought) conversation
with Billy Bush...but the political hack who leaked it wasn't really
thinking about Donald's wife and daughter's feelings either, was he/she?

Several Republican leaders felt that Trump should be disqualified for
the Presidency.  A man who treats women that way should never be a
leader for our country.  I guess they forgot about JFK and Bill Clinton.
They did OK.  And one guy who didn't have any sex scandals turned
out to be a crook.

I know it's good to be politically correct...but the problem is, if you
disqualify everyone who makes oafish, boorish statements, you're going
to disqualify us all.  Speech is still supposed to be free in this country.


If you went back into my working life, my college and military days, I
said many things I would not want repeated in public.  Some of those
things I still believe, some were said in jest, some were because I was
angry at the time, and some were just stupid.  I'm just a guy.

And all of us, men and women, say and do things that we may later
regret.  But saying bad things is allowed in a free country.  Doing bad
things, not so much.

I can't believe that the kind of things that Donald Trump said are not
being said daily in the halls of power in Washington, on Wall Street,
in Hollywood, and in everyday America.  It's not nice talk, but it's real
talk...and sometimes, in world and domestic politics, being real is more
important than being nice.

Sometimes, it's good for a leader to stop being afraid of hurting feelings
and just go ahead and get things done.

So, to Congressman Ryan and Senator McCain and Governor Bush, I would
like to give you some cleaned up advice.  If you don't know what the
missing letters are, ask Donald Trump.  He'll be happy to help you out.

First off, stop being so p___y-whipped.  Grow a pair of b___s.  It's time
to m_n-up and support your candidate.  Or should I say person-up?  Does
m_n up hurt your feelings?

The real world is not a neatly protected safe zone on a cloistered college
campus...and the presidential campaign takes place and has consequences
in the real world.

I don't like that Donald Trump has said and done politically incorrect things.
But that is just one issue in this campaign, that has many other, more
substantial issues between the two candidates.  The country needs us
to grow up and face ALL the issues in a pragmatic and clear-eyed way.      























      

How President Obama Could End Washington Gridlock

We all know Republicans have many problems with our society.  Fatherless
homes, unwed mothers (trapped in the Welfare System), unsupervised
children running the streets in gangs, abortions being performed in
astounding numbers...these are all serious problems Republicans want to
see solved.

Unfortunately, the Republican solutions seem to be (1) minimize the
number of legal abortions allowed to as few as possible, and (2) teach
personal responsibility and self-control (preferably, through the parents
or the Church, but, as a last resort, through Public Education), to control
the problem.

Really?  Self-control to solve the problem?  Come on, this is America.
We all know that will never work.

Congress?  Can Congress solve the problem?  They can't agree on anything,
except to use the tax system to extort campaign funds out of the private
sector.

This is a problem that only "Progressive Man" (or "Woman") can solve.
Come on, President Obama, step up with the Executive Orders while you
are still in office.  If you don't, Hillary surely will when she comes in.

The root of the problem is raging hormones in young men and women in
their teens and twenties, unmarried, under employed, not ready to settle
down and raise their children in a responsible manner, but they still like
their sex.

Democrats have tried Public Education, condoms, and birth control
pills...still hasn't solved the problem.  Progressives have tried
liberalizing abortions...still hasn't solved the problem.

Plus, the choice of having an abortion or birthing a baby falls unfairly on
young women.  Progressives know it wasn't the young women's idea
to have sex.  It was those young men coming around, waving their guns
and charging into their "War on Women".

President Obama, it's time to solve the problem, once and for all.
Obamacare was named for you.  Use it, and issue an order to tie the
tubes of every American male by the age of twelve.  I know this sounds
a little drastic, but surgeons could be trained to tie the tubes off with a bow
knot that could easily be untied around the age of thirty.

Think of it!  Ninety per cent of abortions, eliminated.  That would make
Republicans happy.  No more unwed mothers trapped in the Welfare System.
Think of the money the government would save.  The Republicans would
be ecstatic!  No need to fund Planned Parenthood!  No need for Sandra
Fluke birth control pill packets to be passed out to needy women!

And, most important to Progressives and Woman's Rights activists, men
would have to prove their worthiness to the government to untie their
tubes.  If you wanted to breed and to marry, you'd better have a stable job,
a clean record, and an ability to show you've "evolved" to the satisfaction
of the Women's Lobby.  Then, getting a marriage license would really mean
something.

So, President Obama, you can be a hero to both the Democrats and the
Republicans, if you take action before Hillary gets in there and takes all
the credit for this.  This can be another "legacy moment"...the Obama-knot
being right up there with Obamacare and the Iran deal.

I know, there will be a few Conservatives and Libertarians out there who
will grumble and gripe about "Constitutional Rights", blah, blah, blah, on and
on.  Don't worry, they don't count for many votes.  Keep your eye on the
important things, and see that your legacy gets locked down now. 

How the System Works

The uneasy feeling that many Americans have, that their country has
changed, but they can't put their finger on how or why...and the outrage that
many have with how Washington politicians do business, is based on the
common sense intuition that they're getting hosed.  It's a free country, but
it's been getting less and less free for many years.

That America was the only country in the world founded on the  unique
concept that there were freedoms and rights that belonged either to individuals,
or to the states that those individuals resided in, and did NOT belong to the
federal government, was what made it exceptional.

But gradually, bit by bit over many years, the federal government has
crept into control of many areas that were never intended to be
regulated by Washington.

Education was supposed to be controlled by the individual states and/or
by local communities.

Welfare was supposed to be a state program.  It was never supposed to
funded by, or mandated from, Washington.  How did that happen?

Healthcare was never supposed to be mandated and funded from our
nation's capital, but it gradually became a federal program imposed on
states by Obamacare.

Granted, all these programs were created with the best of intentions.  They
were designed to deal with real problems that people had, and they
helped many people, by forcefully taking money from many more people.

But they were not problems that the federal government was supposed to
solve...they were supposed to be handled at the state level, and one of
the unintended (or maybe intended) consequences of federalizing these
problems is that power came to be consolidated in Washington.

How did Washington consolidate that power?  By using the power to tax
the American people to accumulate enough money to influence (bribe?)
the states and local communities to follow their suggestions (orders?).

It's ironic that the feds tax the citizens of the states in order to raise the
money that the feds give back to the states...and that money gives the 
feds control of the programs and the ability to regulate them. That's how
power ends up in Washington, even if that power was, Constitutionally,
never supposed to reside there.

And the really sad part of this is that many (if not all) of the states ceded
this power to the feds voluntarily.  Local politicians knew there were
limits to the amount of taxes their local citizens would stand to pay for
these programs, and, if they pushed too hard for higher taxes, they
could be on the street after the next election.

It was easier to take the money, and the orders, from the Feds.  Now,
Washington has the power, and the responsibility for dealing with a
national debt that continues to rise and rise.

How do I know that this is a power issue between the feds and the states?
Because no Washington politician (NONE, not even ONE) EVER talks
about returning the responsibility for raising the money that funds these
programs to the states or local communities.

In the Halls of Congress, no Democrat or Republican, no Liberal or
Conservative, ever suggests that the federal government should lower
the federal tax rate and eliminate funding these programs to pass the
control and responsibility back to the states, where it originally belonged.
The feds still want to collect those taxes, and keep that control.

The most radical comment you'll get out of Congress is an occasional
Conservative who calls for returning the money to the states in a "block
grant" so that the states can "spend it as they see fit"...as if the states
won't figure out where the money is coming from and continue to worry about
what Washington feels is "the fit way to spend the money".

There's an old saying in business about the "golden rule".  "He who has the gold,
sets the rules."  That applies equally well to the federal government's power to tax,
regulate, and control.

It's time to revisit the original principles our federal government was founded upon,
and begin to roll back the leviathan to a more limited, fiscally responsible, and
sustainable form.        

 

  






 

  

The Eleventh Commandment

One can make a case for the existence of a higher form of higher
intelligence or life, but it's another thing altogether for a mere human
to attempt to explain the purpose of the creation.

By definition, a monkey cannot explain Beethoven, and a human cannot
understand or comprehend a "God", whatever name He (or She) is given.

The purpose of "The Poor Man's Philosophy" (especially the first fifteen
posts, from "The Beginning" to "The End of the Beginning")  has never
been to explain or understand the nature of the higher being.

The purpose of the philosophy has always been to look at the universe
that was created around us, and search it for clues and laws to help us
better understand the universe around us, and to better understand the
nature of Man.

And the purpose of that search is to help us live more peacefully together,
to allow each of us to more fully reach our own potential, and to give each
of us the satisfaction of a fulfilling life lived well.

All the talk about "the arational mind" or "universal morality" or
"the implicit if" in the earlier posts are about another way of looking
at the human condition and the world around us.

Similarly, for centuries, Religions have provided comfort, purpose,
meaning, and morality in the lives of millions.  At the same time,
Religions have also sparked conflict, wars, and suffering as millions
also sought to impose their version of "God's Will" on others.

"Poor Man's Philosophy" has always felt that each individual has the
right to choose the religion (or not) that inspires them, but does not
have the right for force others to agree with that choice.

The Jewish and Christian religions have "The Ten Commandants" as
a bastion of their morality.  It's a great moral guide.  And I'm a Christian.
But I wish we had an eleventh commandment..."Thou shalt not force
thy Religion on others".

How different the world would be if all Religions had those eight words
as one of their guiding principles.  How much death, suffering, and
misery would have been eliminated in generations past?  How much
would be eliminated this year?

Is it too much to ask of a Religion?  Is it too much to ask of you?  Is
it too late to ask the question, or should we start asking it now?

  


  

Does God Exist? Does Science Know?

Someone once said something to the effect of "if you set a monkey in
front of a piano for a long enough time, it would eventually be able to
randomly plink the keys to come up with the "Moonlight Sonata"."

Statistically, that may be true...just as, statistically, you might be able to
jump out of a flying airplane and survive, but no one in their right mind
would attempt it without a parachute.

And, inductive reasoning would lead you to deduce that it was impossible
for a monkey (or team of monkeys) to invent the piano...or to come up
with written music to memorialize the sonata for others to reproduce and play.

It is logical to deduce that it would take a "higher" form of "being" or
"intelligence" or "life" to bring such complicated and analytical creations
to fruition.  Lo and behold, humans evolved, and the impossible became
possible.

But, if that monkey were listening to the "Moonlight Sonata" come over a
speaker, and had just a glimmering of intelligence to recognize that it was
impossible for him to create such a beautiful sound, wouldn't it be logical
for him to attribute it to "God", or "Allah", or some other being with a
capacity for creation far beyond his own?  And wouldn't he be right?

Enter our scientists today.  For generations we have been studying the
nature of the world and universe around us.  For generations, we have been
breaking the world down beyond atoms into smaller and smaller
particles, yet they all can be explained as existing logically under the
rules of mathematics, gravity, mass, etc.

For generations, we've been recognizing that the universe is much larger
and expansive than we ever imagined, yet this can be explained logically
under rational scientific rules.  We can mathematically plot travel to other
worlds and back. 

But, for all of our scientific breakthroughs, what we have really found is
that there is rhyme and reason to the universe, and that we can expand
our knowledge by studying and using the laws of nature.

We're still at the stage of the monkey listening to the "Moonlight Sonata"
and wondering how, or why, or from where, did it come.  We have enough
intelligence to study how such a complicated, amazing, logical creation as
the universe operates, but not enough intelligence to comprehend how, and
why, it came into existence before we were here to create it.

Just as Man is the higher form of life than a monkey, isn't it logical to
attribute a higher form of Being than Man to have created the universe before
Man existed?

Perhaps it takes inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning to reach
this conclusion.  But, until our scientists can (1) show us how to create something
from nothing, and (2) can show us not just that all the random things and places
in the universe follow logical laws of nature, but why and how those laws
came into existence, what other logical explanation is there?

Actually, as more and more of our scientists find that the universe follows rational
and logical laws, the more it would lead a logical person to believe that such a
system had to have been designed.  It would be next to impossible to happen
in a haphazard manner.

Just as a monkey cannot comprehend what a human can do, a man cannot
comprehend what a higher form of life (or being) can do.  Eventually, we
may evolve to a higher level of understanding, but, at present, the best we
can do is induce that there must be that higher level.

As hard as that may be for a proud, "I'm the center of the universe", human
to admit, it makes sense that there is a higher power.

We cannot know what that higher level is, but it's logical that
there is such a level.  Whether we call that level God, Allah, Nature, the
Spirit of Life, or some other name doesn't matter.  

We can argue about what that higher level expects or asks from us
(maybe something, maybe nothing), but to achieve happiness and
understanding in life, one must first start from an understanding of one's
place in the big scheme of things.