Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Hypocritical Republican claims to Jefferson Attitudes on Government

-------Original Message-------
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM,
Dr. Lisa Earle wrote:

He has been my Hero forever-must forward...



-------Original Message-------
From: Donna Reuscher
Date: 11/23/2010 12:52:44 PM
Subject: About Thomas Jefferson

History 101.....
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
At 5, began studying under his cousins tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginias legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of
Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the
Declaration of Independence along with John Adams

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."


When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson


No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson


To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

I wish we could get this out to everyone!!!
I'm doing my part.




===============================================
>> My Reply <<
===============================================
-------Original Message-------
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM,
Dave Ruden wrote:

As you know, Jefferson is also one of my personal intellectual heroes. And yet like any hero, there is character and attitude to be admired and character and attitude to be rejected. Jefferson had his share of "bad" stuff. (e.g. he owned slaves, it is possible he was unfaithful to his wife with one or more of them, he believed in and acted towards the evisceration of the native Indian populations from lands rightfully declared theirs by treaty with the United States, etc). No grand perfect person was he, and hero worshipers should remember this (of all their heroes :).

With respect to the list of comments subsequent to the chronological enumeration... Surely most can agree that they don't ALL make sense today. For example:
>> To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
By this comment, there should be no taxation what so ever - there is NEVER unanimous agreement on ANY spending target. What is one person's *essential*, is another's *abhorrence*.
Secondly, let's realize that the world was still post-classical at that point, and therefore the education of those very few who were, by wealth or other stroke of fortune, able to afford it, was replete with the study of the combination of classical (Roman, Greek, Persian, etc) antiquity and Enlightenment (science, contemporary philosophy, humanism and religious freedoms, etc). I tend to agree that it is unfortunate that more of this post-classical, enlightenment ("Renaissance-man") type of education is absent from our education system today. If it were still present, we would likely not have the same degree of "herd-mentality" so easily moved by fear-mongering rather than reason. (i.e. the world would become progressively more liberal :).


And finally...
Wouldn't it be nice if the right-wing and/or Republican side of the spectrum actually *acted* upon some of these philosophical points, rather than claiming possession of them and yet hypocritically violating them !?

>> The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
As in take away from the large middle and low income classes, to fatten the wallets of the wealthiest elite of the population, who gather their wealth due to the labors of those whom the wealthy would be just as happy to pay less and less to.


>> It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
This is clearly a hypocrisy of the Republican party. Under Democratic oversight, the government deficit was finally eliminated in the 90's, after being run up hugely by Republican control the decade prior. Then after another decade of Republican control following, the deficit is once again enormous! They Talk the Talk, but simply will not Walk the Walk. Don't believe them. They might mean it, but they won't do it.
Furthermore, "paying its own debts" also refers to raising taxes to pay for all the *stuff* government wants. Republicans won't cut programs that affect their local constituents, and insist on huge tax cuts to the wealthiest elitist segment of society. Hypocrisy.


>> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
And removing Corporate influence and control from the PEOPLE's government is the best path to achieving this.


>> I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Here, Jefferson has already envisioned the Corporate take-over of our government.
But the Republicans will not allow themselves to see the take-over, nor will they allow themselves to see that Jefferson is criticizing their own actions at allowing Corporate influence over the PEOPLE's government.




... Yes, the words are all grand, and the sentiment sounds so logical. And dog-gone-it, we should all be Republicans because this is what they stand for! But.... No. No it isn't. Not really. Not when you witness their actual action in Congress and the White House.

So frankly, it seems to me, that this is all an argument for becoming a Democrat. They've got their issues, but they generally believe in taxing(i.e. paying now) for services rendered, believe in social diversity and inclusiveness, and believe in government by the PEOPLE, not by the Corporations (although I wish they believed in this more with action than we've been seeing).

So tell your right-wing friends to "Come on and Join us! The water is fine!"
:)
Love you,
---Dave.

Advice from Mom :)

If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.

Friday, November 12, 2010

From My Friend, Sally

"We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give."

From My Friend, Sally

"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome."

From My Friend, Sally

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. If you are going through hell, keep going."

From My Friend, Sally

"Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon."

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Election-Day Peace

My good friend, Ed, is an 'opposition' sparring partner for me. We hold generally opposing political/social views, and frequently argue the points (albeit in friendship) - often degrading to funny ad-hominem attacks on politicians or each other. Sometimes I wish it would not degrade this way so quickly, so we could actually exchange opinions in a more serious setting.

So it was when I emailed a generic good-luck message this afternoon for the 2010 MidTerm election. Happily he did the same...


-------------------------------------------
On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Dave wrote:
> Hey Dude,
> Good luck to 'the people" on this day of exercising our right and responsibility to vote!
> A purely non-partisan well-wish.
> ---Dave.


-------------------------------------------
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Ed wrote:
Thank you. Same to ya!

Monday, November 1, 2010

Horowitz and the Moslem Student

--------------------------
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Dr. Lisa wrote:

Scary...he is amazing in his quick answer on a very touchy subject - what an ugly world we live in...How would YOU have answered?

========
The video clip was of a speech given by a David Horowitz (some neo-conservitive right-wing nut-job). He was making opposition comment on a rally planned by a campus group, Moslem Student Association, called "Israeli Apartheid Week" (Horowitz labelled the planned event "Hitler Youth Week". I think I generally agree with his opinion on the matter but admittedly don't know much about it.
At any rate, video was of a female Moslem student who during the Q&A period tried to peg Horowitz on some of his other writings and opinions.
Horowitz then turned the tables on the girl by asking her if she supported Hamas and Hezbollah's murderous/genocidal attitudes regarding Jews. The girl did not respond very intelligently.
========



--------------------------
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Dave wrote:

Ok, after 5pm, I got a chance to play it :).

So no I don't think it's so much a matter of working hard to be fair (although I can see it looking that way). I see it more as a matter of retaining reason, and most particularly, not becoming so wound up in the energy of the argument that I become like that which I argue against, albeit simply on the other side. Thus, when one person says "all Jews suck and should die", followed by the opposing opinion saying "no! *you* suck and *you* should die!", I don't see how any external observers would be able to see any difference between these two. The desire is to win, not to inflict similar injury.

Horowitz in this confrontation did exactly what I think should have been done. He didn't get all upset and start hurling hateful emotional response. Instead he addressed the issue with calm counter debate. I think some of his logic is incorrect and reflects the binary rigidity of a "rigth-wing"(neo-conservative) mentality - to not oppose hamas does not mean one supports hamas. There is a third path - apathy, ignorance, and/or undecided/uncommitted. Horowitz is smart. He knows his logic is erroneous, but it doesn't matter because it lends toward his point, and it "defeats" the lesser capable adversary in this case.

This woman's greatest mistake in this exchange was thinking she was "up to" the challenge of an immensely seasoned orator, and therefore willing to take him on directly when he turned the tables and, ignoring her question, he questioned her instead. She should have immediately refused to answer his question and simply insisted that hers was the matter to be addressed at present. It may not have gotten her anywhere towards her answer, but it would have prevented her from being so pathetically check-mated by Horowitz's polemics, and looking like an Islamist extremist fool..

I don't know if you notice in my reply above that I have no great love for Horowitz. But I also think the woman here was indeed an ignorant racist who correctly reinforces our disdain for the Islamist movement. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between our present day understanding of religion, society, and politics, and that held by Islamists (not Islamic/moslem people, but those on the extreme 'Islamist' pole). We see the essential need for dividing religion and government. Even if our religious philosophies bleed into our political views (which is unavoidable), we understand that this division is of absolutely importance. Islamists do not see a separation of 'church and state'. They don't understand a government without religion tightly-coupled to it - that's just nonsensical to them.

I can understand, given their understanding of Islam as society's guide, that they would naturally see absurd anarchy in the idea of government without god. Not all Moslems are of this same opinion, although Islamic historical culture tends generally in this direction - which is part of the difficulty of this new East-West conflict.

Islamists suck.
Islamic people do not.

Frankly, I don't know if this woman was an Islamist or not. This was not made clear by this interchange. It is clear, however, that she is racist, and so far to the one-side of her position that she can't be readily reasoned with without a tremendous amount of effort to find her humanity in there somewhere, and to get her to see the humanity in the 'other side'.

Kudo's to Horowitz in this case.
---D.



--------------------------
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Dr. Lisa wrote:

Thank you for your brilliant reasoning on the subject! Absolutely great analysis of the video- I am glad you took the time to look at it!

I did love the way the (to me also unknown )Horowitz handled the situation -very clever public speaker, I must say...The woman ( basically a wide eyed, immature student), was a pompous ass, a truly ignorant jerk in my eyes! You with your fabulous erudition, however, said it so much better and so much more politely and civilized,so forgive me for my coarse language...

---M.