Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘social issues’

Be Media Savvy

Posted in American Politics 101, tagged , , , , , on February 18, 2018| Leave a Comment »

Thinking Lesson Three

Peace On Earth

The social atmosphere in the western world is not peaceable. This is entirely due to a subgroup 1 from the Caucasian tribe of germanic tribal descent, in other words, white people.

I am talking about the broadcast media. If the media of the western world is being run by a different ethnic group I would like to hear about it.
Subgroup 1, the criminal, thieving, histrionic and history(HH) element is filling their pockets by targeting their own tribe because this sells stories more than anything else. The broadcast media is making money, lots and lots of it, off this behavior. At OUR expense.

Most of us are sick to death of their histrionics. Real news is important to every thinking adult and this subgroup 1 among us has turned the reporting of facts and information into a scandal mongering hen party that is an everlasting insult to our tribe, our individual selves, and our world. And people have been tolerating this mostly because they have no idea how to stop it. So—-here’s how we stop it.

Shut the TV off when the “news” comes on. Unsubscribe to “news” feeds on the internet. Cancel your subscriptions to the major “news” papers. Local papers are OK. (You know, the weeklies lots of the smaller towns still publish by a local owner.) In other words, shut down their market/shut their mouths.

You all may have forgotten that the Federal Government has an emergency broadcast system that will let us know if anything major is going on that we need to know about. They perform regular tests to insure that this system is in good working order. So we are covered for any real emergency. This is true for the whole western world. We also command the best, most effective militaries on the planet and believe me my fellow Americans/Pagans/Western Worlders, they are all on the job and we have them to thank for our daily safety. Not the “news” media. So Everybody, shut these scandal mongers off.

It will amaze you how much peace on earth there really is. It will also amaze you that you are capable of being your own “reporter.” Take time to talk to your neighbors, friends and family. Look around at your own community yourself to see what is going on. You are adults and you have a functioning brain of your own to use. Start depending on that instead of an electronic talking head that belongs to someone else. This should be the first step to reclaiming our own political clout.
We can no longer tolerate this malicious subgroup 1 giving themselves airs about their own importance to the rest of us. Not only are they not necessary, they are very much in the way.
Make a genuine beginning to Peace On Earth. It is up to us all.
Think about it.

A. Farwell

Thinking Assignment #3

If the entire broadcast media were to be destroyed overnight, what ill effects would overtake our society?

Shared from The Elderpathway on Simplesite

Read Full Post »

Homosexuality—Causes and Cures

Posted in Human Sexuality 101, tagged , , , , , , , on September 22, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Since this type of thing seems to be growing and spreading in our society, we should all take a few minutes to analyze just why this may be so. How do we combat something like this? What is the root cause?

Well, the root cause is lack of natural affection during childhood and adolescence. It really is this simple, people. Combine this with the excessive sexual pressures we subject our adolescents to in the public school system by not adequately supervising them at such a crucial stage in their personal development and you have a great and efficient recipe for social disaster.

All of this traces back to the lack of nurturing.(http://wp.me/p1BaiG-5m) Nowadays, it is the accepted procedure for mothers to deliver in the hospitals and send their newborns almost directly into daycare because Mom has to get back to her real job. There is absolutely no attempt made at nurturing, no personal family bonds are being created. This is very, very bad.

As I have said before, emotional fulfillment is the most important aspect of sentient life and the basis for it is found in our birth families. If they fail to nurture us sufficiently in this respect, we are set up for failure in the rest of our life relationships. Recognizing this early lack can be a great help in processing the way we react to others in our adult lives and in clarifying our relationship choices. Let us consider a few basic facts of emotional life for humans.

1. The expression of natural affection from parent to child(not vice versa) is the blueprint upon which all of us map the course of our life relationships. This is how we learn to show caring and affection and consideration for others, regardless of gender. It is the only relationship we know that does not have an element of sexuality in it. It is not supposed to and if it does, in the form of molestation, it is the worst horror our society knows.

2. We all bond more closely with members of our own sex. This is a perfectly natural thing. Men and women process information in different ways and we are all more socially comfortable with people who think the way we do. We have more in common with members of our own gender on a day-to-day basis, therefore we seek them first when looking for a stable and fulfilling social environment.

3. The lack of natural, affectionate nurturing in childhood leaves us vulnerable (extremely) as we mature into our respective versions of adult sexuality. Physical intimacy becomes a substitute for this first and most important relationship in our lives and since the substitution has no real validity, the sexual relationship fails the minute the “new” wears off.

Sex is a wonderful and important thing to most of us. In an adult relationship, we allow ourselves to be vulnerable, trusting that the other person will not betray us, or desert us, or fail to consider our personal needs along with or sometimes even ahead of their own. Because you see, that is what our parents were supposed to do for us and mostly, did not. And that is what most of us are now seeking in an adult, sexual relationship. So. Is this expectation valid?

My opinion? Yes, the expectation is valid. The sense of protection and care we receive from our parents is the pattern on which we base the relationships of our adult life—all of them. This is the way it is supposed to be. There is no sexual orientation to this pattern, also the way it is supposed to be. The sexuality comes later, in adolescence and adulthood. Again, the way it is supposed to. We have raised up several generations of children who have no sense of their sexual orientation because they are all stuck in this childhood mode since it was never supplied to them when it was most needed. When they enter adolescence they combine the two, which is neither surprising or acceptable, either one.

The problem comes from our inherited emotional poverty. After the new wears off of a relationship we have two emotionally deprived people who sit there and wait for the other guy to step up and be the grown up. This is so very seldom the case. And after x number of failed relationships, many people begin to look at other options for that sense of emotional fulfillment that has been lacking in their lives heretofore. For this, they fall back on the premise I listed above as emotional fact of life #2. We all bond more closely with members of our own gender. This particular process is especially seen in women. I have noticed that many women turn “gay” in their thirties and forties after failed marriages and several children.

3. The lack of emotional fulfillment in childhood increases the sense of sexual need in the adolescent. This is especially true for young men. Their entrance into puberty is exclusively sexual, rampant, and since it is not being covered in our society by any type of adult amelioration, particularly emotionally shredding for them.

During adolescence we are looking about us and finding our place in this world, both as citizens and as sexual adults. Given the total lack of nurturing and natural affection we are starting our children out in life with, it is not surprising to me that so many of them are combining their emergent adolescent sexuality with their more important need for social integration and acceptance and supposing themselves to be “naturally gay” or “born that way” simply because American society totally ignores their basic emotional needs from birth. We are sacrificing our young on the altar of the Great God of Education and ignoring their most human needs.

After these poor, parentless people have turned to a sexual relationship with a member of their own gender in an attempt to supply the normal social intercourse that has been lacking in their lives, they continue their quest for acceptance, which has not been met by their same-sex relationship, by insisting that all the world condone what they have done by public legislation. And the American Christian conservative public is protesting in great horror at the unnatural relationships which their own ignorance and neglect have fostered. I don’t know about ya’ll but I call this a homemade mess. Now let’s look at the physical aspects of this question.

1. What feels good physically, feels good no matter who is doing it. This fact has added its two cents to the emotional mess of same-sex relationships. There is nothing wrong with sex. That is a fact. So what can be wrong with having sex with anyone, regardless of their gender? Can you answer this one? The several generations of young American men and women who have been deprived of their natural affection compass by our current cultural process are particularly vulnerable here. Most of us emerge into adulthood with both social and sexual needs and since the first is not met in any way, the second has become the slide rule used to determine social value. Not a good idea.

2. Lack of sexual satisfaction is common to both genders in their physical relationships. This is also a fact. Many men have been seduced into homosexual relationships simply because their basic physical needs are not being met by women. What does it say about us as a society that our sons feel they have to go to other men? And what about our daughters? Having to rely on men who have been both emotionally and sexually brutalized during their most sensitive years does not provide them with a reliable adult partner, physically or any other way.

This is because we do not give either gender of our children any advice or training about what should be happening in their bedrooms. Americans tend to be very puritanical about the subject generally. For the life of me, I can’t understand why. The subject certainly requires a sense of modesty, but this guilt ridden, hush-hush, leave your kids to get on as best they can mentality is beyond belief for intelligent beings. Sex is a normal function of life and should be treated as such and yet Americans still purvey this bad, guilty attitude to their children. We need to start imbuing them with the more correct notion that sex in itself is not bad, using other people to wipe your behind sexually, that is bad.

While sexual urges are common to both genders, the motivations for those urges are not the same, at all. For men the urges are predominantly physical, for women they tend to be emotional while in both cases there are elements of both factors. This does not make an easy mix to deal with.

From all the available evidence, neither gender seems to be satisfied with the current arrangement so they have taken to same-sex relationships in an attempt to complete their own needs. This is not working either. Domestic violence and bad emotional breakups are more common in same-sex relationships than they are in heterosexual ones, per couple. The LGBT is not publicizing this fact however. I am writing this in case any of you are thinking that a same-sex lover is going to be your ticket to emotional nirvana. NOT!

I am now going to write a very dirty word. It is a word you do not ever hear anymore, it being so very bad. Tenderness. This word is worse than libido, penis, lust, or even, low be it spoken, desire. It is not a word we allow ourselves to think anymore, let alone speak. Tenderness is supposed to be an integral part of our human emotional experience and it is no longer. It has been replaced by words like “hot.” Someone attractive to the opposite(or same) sex is spoken of as being “hot.” If someone expresses an interest in you, you are being “hit on.” This is intrinsically violent in implication. Our adult sexual needs have been reduced to this on the public level, heat and violence.

Without the natural affection and nurturing of childhood, tenderness has departed from every aspect of our adult lives, not just the sexual aspect. No one has cared for the tenderness of children, there is no allowance made for it in our public educational system. We go into daycare, almost from the moment of birth, into pre-K programs, then into twelve years of grammar and high school. We spend most of our child lives trying to cope with strangers. Is it any wonder that so many are turning to same-sex relationships in an attempt to feel that social bonding that is normal? The method is not going to work, but the motivation is understandable. Sex and affection are not the same thing. How are we going to re-instill this basic fact into such lost children as we have raised?

Alieff Farwell

Read Full Post »

The Error of Equality

Posted in American Politics 101, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on August 8, 2013| Leave a Comment »

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America opens with these much quoted words…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.–

At the time Thomas Jefferson penned these words, this world was a much different place and the accepted criteria for the term ‘man’ was also different. Mr. Jefferson, you see, was writing for and about his peer group, Caucasian men of business who by their own talents, business acumen, and management skills, had created a certain amount of wealth and standing in their respective communities here in the New World. So when he wrote the words ‘all men are created equal’ he did not literally mean ‘all’ at all. The footmen who served at his and his peers tables and the coachmen and gardeners who serviced their estates were not under consideration here. Succeeding generations seem to have missed this very salient point. This constitutes the Error of Equality.

The people in these men’s communities appointed these business leaders to hammer out the political semantics by which they could all prosper according to their individual lights. All the fifty-six signers of the document were such men. There were no second footman, coachmen, or apothecaries assistants asked to sign this document. It was not written to express the opinions of the servant class in the colonies, and while the above mentioned were certainly male, they were not considered men in the public sense of the word. Servants, along with women and slaves, were considered dependents, and it was understood by all that they would be considered and provided for by the men who employed them or stood as father, husband, or owner.

The men of the British Isles were accustomed to have a say in public affairs through the process of voting and this custom was imported to the colonies. What American’s today do not remember or have never been taught is that not all men could vote, not even back then. Voting was a privilege earned through sound business practice, it was never considered a “Right” granted automatically upon coming of age to just any old body. A man had to be a property owner at a certain pre-determined monetary value in order to be allowed to vote in his community. This was true on both sides of the Atlantic. Since the colonies were populated at their beginnings by men and women who came to this country expressly to create their own properties it was generally and universally accepted that all voters in the colonies were experienced business people and at the beginning of this country, this held true. As the colonies prospered and filled with immigrants from Europe and the British Isles, this standard came under assault simply from the press of an increased population of immigrant workers with their immigrant worker mentality. When Women’s Suffrage came into play, a butt-load of feminine emotionalism was added to the immigrant worker mentality so that the sensible business standard upon which America got it’s start was totally overwhelmed by the touchy egotism of women and under servants, and now every political decision made in America today is based on lower class egotism and feminist emotionalism rather than good sound business practice. Is anyone out there still wondering where the national deficit came from?

This is a true and accurate account of our financial history, simply put, for the edification of the average reader. It is capable of almost infinite refinement for the more advanced but I will leave that to those who can lay legitimate claim to such advancement.

In a word, it has not been a good or a productive idea to give the management of this country over to women, children, and day laborers via some grandiose idea of voter equality rights. I remember during the Vietnam police action the antiwar “activists” made a big stink about drafting boys to fight at the age of eighteen but not allowing them to vote until they were twenty one. Anyone else remember that? Oh My God! That was soooo unfair! I do not remember anyone bothering to answer these dilettantes at the time but I do remember thinking—it doesn’t take any brains to kill someone, it does take some multilevel thinking to guide a family, city, state, or nation on a stable, prosperous path. A quality you will not find prominent in eighteen year olds of either gender. Using the antiwar activist standard of public fitness, we might have saved a certain state millions in legal costs and incarceration fees and simply elected Ted Bundy as President. He killed lots of people.

Alieff Farwell

contact-form][contact-field label="Name" type="name" required="1"/][contact-field label="Email" type="email" required="1"/][contact-field label="Website" type="url"/][contact-field label="Comment" type="textarea" required="1"/][/contact-form]

Read Full Post »

The Social History of The Women’s Suffrage Movement

Posted in Women's Suffrage--Historical Background, tagged , , , , , , , , on February 16, 2013| Leave a Comment »

I have had a lot to say about petticoat government lately. I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the methods, aims, leadership, and so-called “accomplishments” of both the Women’s Suffrage Movement and it’s granddaughter, Women’s Liberation. I think that for clarity’s sake, I need to develop this theme just a little more.

Back in the day, before the suffrage movement was just getting under way, there was a genuine need for reform on several levels. The women in most upper class western societies  had no effective legal redress against abusive fathers or husbands. If they left them, the man in question could just hunt them down and bring them back. That was the law, very like that which governed runaway slaves. Women had no real property rights in many instances and as they were barred from pursuing a lucrative profession their only option was to try and get a job as a chambermaid, governess, or some other minimum wage job where they would be exposed to the predations of any male in their sphere. This really amounted to no choice at all and then it only worked if they were not pursued by the law. Middle and upper class females were raised to be dependent on their men and if these men happened to be drunken a-holes, well, the poor things were basically stuck. A well bred lady didn’t make a public scene about family troubles.

Notice that I specified upper class here. The females who were born into less affluent families did not have the same problems. The accepted standard of behavior was far different in the working class. If dad or hubby got drunk and tried to be abusive, young Nell or Daisy was as apt to brain him with the fry pan as not and let the chips fall where they would, and dad and hubby knew that. The working class families lived their lives in the kitchen where fry pans were close at hand. The ladies of the upper class lived in the drawing room and had no such domestic weaponry at their disposal. I suppose they could have brained their domestic brute with a Dresden china shepardess but somehow that would not have been the same.

It was also understood by the men of the working class that women sometimes needed to defend themselves at home and a man that brought such retribution down on himself was perceived as getting his just desserts, by the other men. In the working class, there were no servants to hide behind, no public perceptions of lady like behavior that hindered the women from doing what they needed to do if self defense became a survival issue in the home.  Everyone understood that domestic relationships were sometimes violent and ugly and this class of people were prepared to acknowledge and deal with it. This was by no means the case in the upper classes. And here you come to the real crux of the matter. The unwritten but highly effective codes of behavior that really govern our society, laws and legislation not withstanding.

Again we are back in the day. Upper class men were expected to conduct themselves as gentlemen in public. They were expected to be honest and competent in their business, to refrain from public drunkenness at social events and to pay their gambling debts, if any. This last was as big item. Social gambling was a very popular pastime in the upper reaches of society. Games of whist and other card games were a regular feature at balls, gatherings, and gentlemen’s clubs. This was socially acceptable. Men were expected not to gamble more than they could afford to lose. If a ‘gentleman’ lost more than he could afford he was black listed by his club(s) and ostracized from society. This was as low as a ‘gentleman’ could fall and once there, he was not allowed back. This was a very severe thing back then and the thought of it was a deterrent to many.

There were also places called ‘gaming hells’ that were run by professional gamblers where any ‘gentleman’ was free to gamble away the family estates and fortunes upon which his dependents counted for their support as well. No social pressures were brought to bear in such cases. The rest of ‘Society’ thought it a great shame of course, and gossiped freely about the recreants but– a ‘gentleman’ had a god given right to mind his own business and if he did not do so very well, that was just too bad. It was not an unusual story back then for ladies of means, raised to be ornaments to society, to find themselves on the street with small children to support and no means whatever of doing that. I will again point out here that this situation was inherently upper class. Women from working class families had saleable job skills, they were expected to have them, they did use them, so if a domestic problem arose, they were not nearly as bad off as their upper class sisters.

I have created this post here to point out two things:

#1.) Social pressure from a peer group is very effective in moderating excessive or selfish behaviors and the men of that day were well aware of it’s finer points and practiced in it’s applications so they had absolutely no excuse for not applying the same methods to those ‘gentlemen’ among them who were well known to be compulsive gamblers or abusive drunks at home. Those men did not do this.

#2.) Women’s Suffrage and it’s granddaughter, Women’s Liberation were not conceived for the empowerment of all women. They were generated by a miniscule group of nobly born ladies to correct the misbehavior of an equally miniscule group of nobly born “Gentlemen.” There were no “Universal Wrongs” against women at issue.

These social issues, domestic violence, drunkenness, and gambling, were three of the major motivations behind the Suffrage movement and it was a black shame to the upper class men of the western world that some of their women were forced to resort to such measures as public protests in order to defend themselves—from their own.

Our present governmental problems have arisen from this social background, this tiny percentage of upper class male misbehaviors and the lack of effective deterrents to it that were available to the rest of the upper class males and— were not used.

I hope I have kept this simple enough for my friends and followers. Since this issue is still causing such public outcry’s today. I will develop this theme by degrees, in a few more of my posts.

In conclusion, I will emphasize my sympathy for the issues of domestic violence and financial dependency that gave birth to the Suffrage Movement. I will also explain why I have no sympathy with the methods that were adopted to combat them. It should be obvious by now that they are not only ineffective but they are causing even more trouble, and these issues are too important to the survival of our society as a whole to be left in legislative and social limbo.

A. Farwell

Read Full Post »

Dream On

Posted in Single Steps, tagged , , , , , , , , on June 26, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Let’s discuss dreams a little more. The American Dream is, generally, a good thing but it needs a bit of tweaking to fit into todays’ phraseology. So let’s expand it a bit so that it will resonate with the rest of today’s global village residents.

In the first place, we as Americans need to acknowledge a most prominent fact. I will bold this for greater emphasis. WE DID NOT INVENT THE DESIRE FOR A BETTER LIFE! “The American Dream” is an exclusive phrase which blots out the entire rest of civilization and it needs to be expanded. Everyone else on planet Earth has been dealing with issues of injustice and/or political oppression for several millenia at least and America has an obligation to recognize these efforts. The North American continent was resettled a very short time ago in relation to the history of the rest of the world. We ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ have now had more than two centuries to readjust our thinking processes and it is time to show it in our communications with the rest of the world. Doesn’t matter if you are Democrat or Republican, Independent or Green party.   We must make a point of acknowledging the history of others in our political pronouncements.

I am old enough to remember the protests and signs of the sixties in Europe that said “Yankees Go Home” and the resentment this generated in the american public. “We saved their butts in WWII and this is how they thank us'” was the prevailing attitude at that time. I remember thinking—“I really don’t blame them.”

America’s political verbiage after WWII showed not even the slightest recognition of any other country on this earth. We perceived ourselves as the saviour of the entire free world and had no hesitation in proclaiming it. Now I have had my issues with this country but I have never hated her. On the other hand neither have I swallowed her political infantilism whole and without chewing. We need to address this particular issue because the repercussions of this post-war self-centered arrogance remains a stumbling block in our foreign policy. America, for better or worse, is now a world leader and if we are to fulfill this position with any degree of competency We Must Change Our Political Syntax To Recognize The Historical Efforts Of Other Countries. If the British, French, Italians, Czech, Polish, Phillipino, Norwegian, and even German people had not made a concerted resistance effort the outcome of WWII would have been much different, America or no America. After all, we have been militarily immune from attack not because of our superior righteousness but because of the two or three thousand miles of ocean that guards both of our continental coastlines. It was only the advent of modern missile technology that made us seriously fear any sort of enemy attack and we, ourselves, invented and implemented that technology. The only nation on earth who has ever used nuclear weapons in an armed conflict is America. And according to the media we are the one people on earth who screech the loudest about WMD‘s. This gives the impression that America is a nation of certifiable cretins. It would behoove America to yell less about WMD’s since we are the ones that came up with the workable version and are the only ones who have ever used one on a perceived enemy. If we are to maintain credibility with our traditional allies and establish healthy relations with new ones we must publicly acknowledge these factors. Or at least stop soiling our political pants about them. The rest of the civilized world remembers very well who dropped the bombs on Japan. The bathroom humor of passing a loud fart and looking at the guy next to you and saying “Well!!!!” in a loud affronted voice is not going to deceive anyone here.

In conclusion, “The American Dream” is going to have to be revised to “The Planet Earth Dream”. And if we survive the next few decades this may even have to expand itself into  “The Interplanetary Dream”. That’s the wonderful thing about dreaming, it has practically no limits. And it frequently happens that the dreams of today turn out to be the realities of tomorrow. So go ahead and dream a little. I guess we can all stand it.

Next post—we will continue to explore the dream world.

Read Full Post »

Great Expectations!

Posted in Single Steps, tagged , , , , on June 21, 2011| Leave a Comment »

So.  Let’s talk about “The American Dream”. Ours is a land where all men are created equal, a land with a government of, by, and for the people. A land of opportunity where everyone will have the freedom to dissent in their opinions openly and without fear of reprisal. The only land where just anyone at all can become PRESIDENT!  Just think of it!  No matter who they are (or even where they were born?) the electorate of America can put them in charge. How’s that for freedom for the huddled masses, eh?

Of course this also means that just anyone at all will automatically have the specialized knowledge of such highly complex issues as international finance, foreign policy, military intelligence, corporate and civil law, ecology, medicine, agriculture, national and local banking etc., etc. to make informed decisions. Whew! Not only that but they will have an entire four years to cure every perceived ill not only in this country but in the rest of the world as well. We certainly are the ‘land of opportunity!’

And of course all the rest of our elected law makers are voted into office using the same strict criteria for fitness for public office that we apply to all our presidents, that is–just anyone at all can do this.

The basic tenets of the American Dream I have in bold letters above were actually taught to me in grade and high school. Taught me by teachers, if you can believe it, people who went to college for at least four years. And they were so proud to do it. And what is more, it is continuing to be so taught to this very day. Even as a very young American I had enough native good sense to be amazed at the obtuseness of my teachers on these particular subjects and I was by no means alone. Every last bit of the anti-establishment mentality that came into its flower power heyday in the sixties was seeded by the type of injudicious  rantings you see above.

When you tell a group of growing youngsters that just any old body can be a senator, or a congressman, or best of all–The President!,  this will not be perceived by them as a great freedom of opportunity. Children have no such life experience as to make this association. What they will think is — ‘can’t be much of a job if just any one can do it.’  I know this was the impression my classmates and I were given. We had some lively discussions when the teacher wasn’t around. And I still see this reaction in a good portion of students today. As I said in my first blog, I don’t think young people are stupid.  They do not suffer this type of thing gladly. It brands the most important of our public offices with a minimum wage job mentality and all american school children are taught to despise minimum wage jobs and the substandard shmucks who perform them.  ‘Anyone can grow up to be president’ is equal to ‘do you want to flip burgers the rest of your life?’ This is the attitude we convey to our young people by not choosing our words more carefully. The American Dream is being slowly poisoned by uninspired semantics.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric about the declining quality of education these past few years. And just as much about resuscitating the American family and its’ values in order to keep the American Dream alive and healthy. Education and the American Dream are solidly linked together in our minds. Most of this rhetoric has come from the conservative right in our political system. These are the same people who for several generations now have regurgitated the kind of kant that produced much of our malaise in the first place. So now it is time not for dreams, but for a reality check. Our current crop of young people are providing us with one by dropping out of our schools because dreaming is an adult pass time. Growing children are not interested in dreams, they want to know what is real and useful in the world around them.  It is our job as a society to teach them these things. They will form their own dreams when they’re ready to do so. The American Dream is being systematically poisoned by succeeding generations of conservative but self-centered adults.

It is not true that just anyCaptainAmericaone can be president. Or a senator. Or a representative. We need to stop selling this fallacy to our future voting population— it makes them bilious when they grow up. Being elected a leader by your peers is a great honor and only certain personality types will be able to lead well and with grace. It also requires more than just an average type of education and better than average brains. Not just anyone can do this. We need to start teaching this in our school systems. It will provide some backbone to the American Dream if our children are taught to recognize and honor real leadership qualities. It will be a valid litmus test for our “values” as a whole if they as individuals have enough self-respect and self-confidence to do so.

By indoctrinating our young people with political hyperbole, by devaluing the many in preference to the publicly chosen few, and by focusing all accolades on these few we have not created a population of stable, intelligent citizens. We have by our own lack of perception destroyed the self-esteem of the average children who will constitute the bulk of our working population. Until we moderate the ranting of imbeciles in pursuit of the Great Expectations of the American Dream, until we begin to give ample respect to the average citizen in our scholastic rhetoric, we will never do such simple things as balance our national budget or wipe out the deficit. It is vital that we stop giving our children the idea that life not lived on the mountain tops of personal wealth or public acclaim is not worth while. That a moderate income is something to be despised. That simple everyday things are to be continually passed over in the expectation that something more exalted lays in the future.

It is more than high time that we stop abusing our children with totally unrealistic Great Expectations that the greatest majority of them will never, never  realize. They will still be good people, good Americans, and good parents if they never do get to be president. Or a movie star, or a neurosurgeon, or a rock star. Or have a six figure or over yearly income. If we don’t start reversing this ideological rubbish that came out of the slums  of Old Europe in our public schools where it is taught, we will not survive for another two generations.

We have a great deal more ground to cover on the subject of
dreams so the next post will be entitled—–

Dream On.

Donate by credit card
Donate with PayPal

Read Full Post »

How Shall We Define “Wrong”?

Posted in Single Steps, tagged , , , , , on June 14, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Wrong is such a large word. Such an all-encompassing word. A word we become acquainted with very early in our lives. Sitting happily in our high chairs at breakfast we probably, in the adventurous way of all babies, had the happier idea of not just eating our dry Fruit Loops but attempting to see if one of the little things would fit up our nose. It seemed about the right size. Of course the attempt brought an instant and emphatic NO! from mama. Our little baby hand was snatched and the offending Loop removed and lots of words issued out of mama none of which we understood. We did, however, understand the emotion conveyed by the tone of voice(loud/stern), the facial expression(scowl), and the action of having our baby will controverted by the act of a larger and stronger authority figure(mama).

In last weeks’ installment I posed the question—“how shall we define Wrong?”  Of course, I have been mulling this over for the past seven days in an attempt to whittle it down to an ingestible size for public consumption. Quite a task as you all may appreciate. One of the reasons this posting is late. The trouble is not so much that everyone has their own opinion of what defines ‘wrong’ as it is the conflicting applications of the term.

For instance–freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America. Everyone agrees that this is a ‘right’ thing for us to have included in our rules of government. The right of honest and open dissent. OK so far? Let’s apply this to one of the major bones of contention today. Homosexuality. Never mind whether you personally are for or against this practice, that is not what we are discussing now. My point is this, a person has the constitutional right to disagree with it and to say that they do without being accused of hate crimes or “discrimination”.   In a few words, the homosexual lobbyists are calling freedom of speech ‘discrimination’ and making out that this is a ‘wrong’ thing. They uphold the principle of free speech only they want it censored to suit their egos. Especially, any prospective employer is to be penalized for not agreeing, both verbally and on paper.

When did we pass an amendment to the Constitution saying that employers were no longer Americans with the same freedoms guaranteed to the rest of us? There is definitely a conflict of application here. Freedom of Speech is defined as–freedom of speech and not as–speech that only agrees with me.

This same political maneuver is being used by a host of other so-called ‘minority’ groups. They yell “DISCRIMINATION” at anyone who doesn’t instantly agree with them on any subject whatsoever as if discrimination were a dirty word. In fact, it is not. It is the first public function of any intelligent adult to discriminate between what is actually, functionally good and what is only good if you don’t look too close. But the real issue here is this–any one of these groups which are nowadays  referred to as special interest, base their expectations and arguments on the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution but in practise expect these same freedoms to be denied to all opposing opinions. Any one who disagrees with them is ‘wrong.’

So. How shall we define “WRONG” ? In two ways. The baby way, which  I illustrated in the opening paragraph above. It is a sad but true thing that many Americans are social/political/intellectual babies and will remain so. Their sense of ‘wrong’ will always be based on a purely emotional reaction to a scowl, a stern voice saying NO!, and a dim but persistent resentment of the authority figure(usually Republican government) that controverts their baby will by taking away their Fruit Loop.

Then there is the adult definition of wrong which is based on a reasoned analysis of any given issue.  For the adult, a thing is wrong because

a.) the logical premise is either false or fatally flawed(ObamaCare, censored Freedom of Speech)

b.) the certain outcome is physical illness and/or discomfort(just try snorting a Fruit Loop),  it is fiscally irresponsible (bouncing checks, ObamaCare), and it will cause harm to yourself or others(drug addiction, drunk driving).

I am sorry to disturb the many babies out there with a bit of adult truth but in the real, adult world you will occasionally be scowled at. You will hear stern voices and sometimes they will use the n- word. This is not “wrong.” It is not required of society to never make you feel like a baby if you insist on reasoning like one. Society is not going to hell in a handcart as so many people say. It functions just the way it should. The problem seems to be the generations we are raising to think that “no” is a hate word and not a reasoned response to stupid or even dangerous ideas; generations imbued with totally unrealistic expectations of the society in which they will have to live.

Which brings me to the subject of my next post.

Great Expectations!

Read Full Post »

Did We Go Wrong?(or were we pushed?)

Posted in Single Steps, tagged , , , , , on June 5, 2011| Leave a Comment »

First, let’s get acquainted just a bit, so you will have some idea what to expect from this blog.

#1.) This is a forum for thinking adults, in which category I include anyone fifteen years or older. Yes, baby boomers, the young people of our world really do use their brains, perhaps more than the popular media will ever discover. Which leads me to point—-

#2.)It won’t have a mess of ‘teen screen’ graphics, videos, photos, slide shows, animations, in fact, none of the cheap visuals so popular with so many of all ages. These things stimulate the most superficial brain functions, not the core processor, if you will.  Which leads me to point—-

#3.) My experiment.  Which is this blog itself.

It is my personal belief that people generally, are not stupid. Especially young people. OK.  I’ll wait while you all have a good laugh here, but keep reading, and remember—you’re a people too. Done laughing now? So answer this–our history goes back more thousands of years than present academia will acknowledge. Some scholars are admitting that “modern” man has been around for at least thirty thousand years, probably much longer. Stupidity does not encourage that kind of survival. Especially on such a world as ours with its’ predators, diseases, poisonous life forms(plant, animal, insect, democrat), and natural disasters. Yet here we all are, alive and yelling. And no, I won’t apologize for the democrat crack. Who’s yelling the loudest about the sky falling these days, Chicken Little?

Now, there are many different factors that influence the ebb and flow of the interpersonal relationships collectively known as ‘society’, intimated in the above paragraph. See them?  We will be covering a few of them in the course of this blog.

So. The question of this installment. Did we go wrong? Well, let’s see.

1.) We’re still here.

2.)Most people, regardless of their culture or place of residence on planet earth, expect to arise in the morning. Literally. They expect to work, play, eat, and go peacefully to bed at night. More people will be doing this than not. Everywhere. For the majority of us, there is no immediate death threat of any kind hanging above our heads and we will go on in an everyday sort of way. Don’t believe me? Try this.

3.) Take one full hour out of your week. Shut off the TV, the cell phone, the pc, the land line, all the electronics. For one hour. If at all possible, spend this hour in the country. Or the park. Anywhere there is more green growth than black asphalt. Find a comfortable spot and sit quietly. You may take a friend if you wish but don’t talk. About anything. Just sit, watch and listen. For one hour.

We share this world with thousands of other creatures and if they are not panicking, you most probably don’t need to either. Animals live simpler lives than do humans with all their artificial standards and imaginary fears.  If there is a bad storm coming at sea the birds head inland and the fish head for deeper water. In floods or wild fires critters move toward safer ground. They know a real threat when they see one. Do you?

And just how is the above relevant to the question? Let’s apply this to the “HEALTHCARE CRISIS”. Probably perceived as one of the major threats to our society today. There is no such thing. Hill and Billy of Arkansas created this media monster to get into the White House. The term was invented during that particular presidential campaign. The Clinton’s were not doing so well until Hilary stage-managed the pitiful story of the one woman who ‘fell through the cracks’ of the medical establishment, which was very sad–really. I remember it quite well. So we are to never mind the hundreds of thousands or even millions of us who did not?

I want ya’ll to take a few moments to analyze any real threats you see and compare them to the media generated hysterics we are now living with.  Does this make any difference in your personal perception of  what is wrong with our society? Well,  did we “go wrong” or has our present social atmosphere been created by talking heads in order to garner a larger share of the news ratings?  It just seems to me that we really haven’t “gone wrong”—-we are just being told so relentlessly that we have, that no one is even questioning the process anymore.

And that, dear readers, leads me to the subject of the next post.

How shall we define “wrong?”

Read Full Post »

Hello world!

Posted in Hello World!, Introductory, tagged , , , on May 31, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Many of us have asked ourselves where we went wrong with our world. But—-did we? Ask yourselves that instead.

This will be a journey for the real thinkers out there, of whatever race, age, gender, or religious persuasion. The Chinese, who have a cultural tradition going back several millennia, have a saying—-the longest journey begins with but a single step. I know I am not alone in thinking we have gone seriously off the rails here in the land of the free and getting back on track will have to be done slowly, a single step at a time.

First topic—- Did we go wrong?(or were we pushed?)

P.S.

Feel free to comment on these articles, pro or con.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: