Archive for the ‘Freethinking’ Category
Hey, Troy! I just had occasion to reread the 5-year-old post here, entitled: “Fairies, Witches, Fords, and Chevys .” In the amusing comment section, you mentioned you had just finished writing an interesting book, which was only awaiting final editing before publication. I never received the promised copy of it. Whatever happened to it? ◄Dave►
Although one of my favorite sites is The Objective Standard, I rarely share links to the excellent content there, because much of it is behind a pay wall. While I have been a subscriber for years, I can’t expect others to be. However, today’s article, “9/11 and America’s Failure to End the Jihad,” is openly available to all, and worth considering:
The anniversary of 9/11 is here, and another year has passed without America naming, much less eliminating, the cause of the attack.
The cause of the attack on 9/11 and, more broadly, of the jihad against the West is the fact that Islamic regimes—most notably those in Iran and Saudi Arabia—take Islam seriously and thus seek to convert or kill everyone who doesn’t. Toward that end, these regimes materially and spiritually support jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State, who, in turn, attack and murder Americans and others who refuse to submit.
That, in a nutshell, is why al-Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001. And it is why jihadists and their supporters are constantly planning or sponsoring more attacks. Everyone paying attention knows this. But the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the cause and thus refuses to eliminate the source of the problem: the Islamic regimes that sponsor jihad.
Like he said, we all know this; but it is not considered Politically Correct to say so out loud. A very good question is why? Read the rest of this entry »
After reading a recent Jetpack blog post, I decided to try turning on the “Related Posts” feature. Now, at the bottom of every post, one finds three purportedly related previous posts, which is supposed to entice the casual reader to spend more time on the site getting to know us, and hopefully return for more.
In testing it, I wasn’t always in agreement with the algorithm making the choices; but at least the first one offered was usually pretty relevant. It can be entertaining, and often somewhat satisfying, to read old blog posts one has forgotten ever making. This will likely be a good way for me to stumble across them. One I just read from early 2012, I thought particularly insightful: ” Robin Hood vs. Good Samaritan,” which included: Read the rest of this entry »
Is this just a spoof of Beck, or is this fool serious? I just don’t get it. This is not my image of Alex Jones:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Can there actually be two conspiracy-minded, talk show host, religious nuts, who like to cry on camera? Please, God, deliver us from your evil preachers! Sheesh… ◄Dave►
As I have mentioned before, I was appalled by the ridiculous statement by Jerry Falwell explaining 9/11 to Pat Robertson. He stated that obviously God had removed his divine protection from our country, because of our increasing tolerance of homosexuals and the gay lifestyle. I was so disgusted that I swore I would never listen to another thing he ever said. From then on, every time I saw his pudgy face on TV, I immediately either turned it off or changed the channel, and kept my vow for the rest of his miserable life.
As long-time readers know, I was once was an avid Glenn Beck fan and supporter. I was an ‘Insider’ member of his radio program long before he ever got the gig on Fox News. I loved his TV program, which I must admit had a major impact on my thinking regarding Islam and Middle East politics. I bought and read all of his books. I was an early adopter of his ‘Blaze’ news site. I even subscribed to his new internet TV program, for the first couple of years after he left Fox.
I was as tolerant as I could be, of the increasing religious nature of his endeavors, until such insufferably became the primary focus of his existence. Now I only bother to visit the Blaze when following a link to a news item there, which has nothing to do with Beck himself. Several months ago, I even unsubscribed to his free newsletter, which I had received daily for many years.
Earlier today Ted Cruz sent out a blitz of fundraising emails on the heels of his Iowa victory. Here’s an example (screen grabbed), and pay attention to the two bullet points Cruz puts at the bottom of email:
<Snipped> Damning graphic evidence of baldfaced lies, with supporting links. Go see for yourself…
In addition to the drivel I post here, my aging mind rambles in many other directions – none of them in the least productive, but, at least it helps keep the old gray matter a bit more pliable.
For instance, I was just thinking about another great paradox (doesn’t most of human life seem to be exactly that?). In this instance, it occurred to me that (IMHO) the greatest tool for the enhancement of individual liberty occurred in the latter half of my own life. I refer, of course, to the Internet. Yet, this great tool for enhancement of liberty, via unfettered communication, occurred at the same time that so many people have been dumbed down to the point where they really have nothing worth saying (or hearing). Your typical combined miracle and tragedy. So, the Internet is used, primarily, for useless drivel. Just think of it. At no other time in human history would it be likely that a small group of people, like the participants in this blog – people who will probably never know each other as physical human beings, nevertheless can come together to discuss whatever amuses us.
Then I think – what if the Internet had been invented in the late 18th century? Imagine Tom Paine distributing his pamphlets to the world, not just to a handful of revolutionaries? Imagine that Jefferson could have participated, real time, in the drafting of our Constitution even though he was on another continent and on another mission at the time. Myriad similar examples abound.
Today I propose to you that all belief systems share a common fallacy when, instead, they should share a common truth.
Let us imagine that I am greatly troubled (as I sometimes have been in the past) about the origin of this universe. So, seeking a quiet place to ponder, I find myself in a place reserved for the practice of Judeo-Christian worship. As I sit there pondering, a priest/minister/rabbi of that particular sect approaches and asks me the nature of my obvious pondering. I explain and receive the apparently definite answer that this universe, and all it contains was created by a being they call God. Have I received the ultimate answer to the mystery of this universe? No. Only I now ponder about the origin of God.
Later, I find myself in the presence of a renown scientist. One who has truly delved deeply into the physics of this universe. I repeat my yearning to know the origin of this universe. The scientist treats me to a lengthy description, most of which is quite beyond my ability to comprehend, about how all the material that existed started to collapse upon itself due to an ever strengthening gravitational force. Finally, all that matter is condensed down to almost nothing – to a state where, rather than condense further, all it can do is explode in the greatest explosion this universe has ever seen. Then, as the detritus from that explosion started to cool, it started processes that ultimately produced this universe. Do I now know the ultimate answer to the mystery of this universe? No. Now I am even more confused because I have no idea where that matter came from to begin with much less how gravity came to be.
Many people earnestly believe that our universe (multiverse?) and all within it were the result of a conscious act by an intelligent being. I propose to describe, in this article, a possible method whereby that might really have happened, devoid of any and all acts by that dynamic duo Hocus and Pocus.
I begin with a fact that is self-evidently true… if there was/is a creator, that creator pre-existed that which it created – in this case, the present universe which we inhabit. That being true, it must be equally true that the creator of this universe is not OF this universe, therefore any attempt to “know” anything about said creator is doomed to failure. This is because all our ability to “know” or to “describe” anything is based on the known laws of this universe, leaving us helpless to “know” or “describe” anything outside this universe where whatever laws may exist are unknown to us.
Having established that basis, let us try to agree that there are two primary methods by which this universe might have been created. The first, which I will label the “Zap! – Zam! – Viola! method which, of course would depend on magic (the “creator” having magically “created” everything in this universe via supernatural methodology). Since it is impossible to have a rational discussion on any subject that necessarily includes superstition, the supernatural or mysticism, I reject this method.
Liberty or the State
Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.
It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.
What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.
For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”
For some time, I have been amazed that, in spite of all the revelations of dishonest behavior, around 40% of Americans seem to believe that Hillary Clinton is honest.
Then I remembered that around 80% of them believe there is a god.
Maybe not so amazing after all.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
The tempest of the day/week seems to be the Planned Parenthood situation.
Before getting into that, a bit of a disclaimer – as I have written elsewhere in this forum, I am a bit conflicted on the abortion issue. For starters, I do not think it is a simple thing. That is to say, there is no way a blanket rule can effectively address all the possible wrinkles in any given abortion decision. For this reason, I consider the decision to be one that belongs to the individuals directly involved, hopefully with professional input to help them come to the best decision circumstances will allow.
That said, there are several aspects of the abortion issue that I am flatly against. First, I do not think abortion should be used as a sort of after-the-fact birth control method for the convenience of the irresponsible. There are simply too many effective ways to prevent pregnancy, many of them freely available to any and all who want or need them. Second, I object to the killing of any fetus that is developed to the point where it might well be able to exist outside the womb. Third, I think that the so-called “partial birth abortion” is simply a socially acceptable term for what is actually infanticide.
Now, the Planned Parenthood (PP) fiasco… Is there any thinking person in this country that does not understand that PP is primarily a collection of abortion clinics? And further, do any of us fail to understand that their operations have been considered legal by both the states and the federal government? Sorry, no mystery there and no news either.
This leaves us with only 3 valid points of contention in this matter:
First, should taxpayer funds be used to help support the operation of PP, and,
Second, should the byproducts of the abortion process be used to harvest potentially usable cellular material, and,
Third, should PP be allowed to sell said cellular material to help fund their operation?
IMHO, the first point is the simplest to consider. A large number of the women who want and/or need abortions are from the lowest income brackets in our nation. Callous though this may sound, it is much more cost effective for the taxpayer to fund such abortions than it is to fund the many expenses associated with unwanted babies born into poverty. Given the crime that almost always results as these unwanted, uneducated, un-cared-for babies mature, it is also, again IMHO, more moral in that it very likely results in less pain and harm to fewer people – over the long run.
The second point – the harvesting of potentially usable material from the aborted fetal remains – is, to me, the most interesting of the issues we are confronted with. Given that the fetus has already been rendered dead by the process, it seems to me that primary thing to which many might object to on moral grounds has already been done (the extinguishing of life). I fail to see how wasting material that potentially has great potential to help the living makes any moral sense. However could burning or even burying the remains add any moral value for anyone? It seems obvious, to me, that finding some potential value in an otherwise unfortunate situation is more moral than rendering the entire transaction a total waste.
The third point – the selling of the material in question – strikes me as an odd thing over which to find a point of contention at all, especially for those who wish to withhold taxpayer funds from PP. If the material can be sold, why not do so, thereby reducing the funding needed from taxpayers? After all, huge industries are based on the sale of dead animal parts for human consumption. Doesn’t the sale of dead animal parts for scientific/medical purposes seem more moral than wholesale slaughter simply for our dining enjoyment?
Of course, my answers to these questions are based on what I hope is a rational thought process whereas the tempest in this matter seems to be nothing more or less than conclusions reached through an emotional process devoid of rational thought. Sadly, this seems to be the way almost all of the issues of the day are addressed. But, what else might we expect from a population that has been intentionally “dumbed down”?
I still remember a conversation held some years ago where a quite sincere lady sitting across a dinner table from me tried to explain how it was an absolute sin to kill innocent creatures. This between bites of medium-rare cow flesh.
Just for the change, why not try thinking about these things instead of feeling about them? Otherwise, you subject yourselves to emotional herding.
Troy L Robinson